ABRIDGMENT 


DEBATES  OF  CONGRESS, 


FROM   1789    TO    1856. 


FROM  GALES  AND  SEATON'S  ANNALS  OF  CONGRESS;  FROM  THEIR 

REGISTER  OF  DEBATES ;  AND  FROM  THE  OFFICIAL 

REPORTED  DEBATES,  BY  JOHN  C.  RIVES. 


BY 

THE  AUTHOR  OF  THE  THIRTY  YEARS'  VIEW. 


VOL.   VI. 


NEW  YORK: 

D.  APPLETON  &  COMPANY,  346  &  348  BROADWAY. 

COLUMBUS,  0.: 

FOLLETT    &    FOSTER. 
1858. 


ENTERED  according  to  Act  of  Congress,  in  the  year  1856,  by 

D.  APPLETON  AND  COMPANY, 
in  the  Clerk's  Office  of  the  District  Court  for  the  Southern  District  of  New  York. 


77  s" 

v.  4 


FIFTEENTH  CONGRESS-FIRST  SESSION. 


BEGUN    AT    THE    CITY    OF    WASHINGTON,  DECEMBER    1,   1817. 


PRESIDENT  OF  THE  UNITED  STATES,— JAMES  MONROE. 


PROCEEDINGS  IN  THE  SENATE.* 


MONDAY,  December  1,  1817. 
The  first  session  of  the  Fifteenth  Congress, 
conformably  to  the  Constitution  of  the  United 
States,  commenced  this  day  at  the  city  of  Wash- 
ington ;  and  the  Senate  assembled  in  their 
Chamber. 


DAVID  L.  MORRILL  and  CLEMENT  STOBER, 
from  the  State  of  New  Hampshire. 

JAMES  BURRILL,  jr.,  from  Rhode  Island  and 
Providence  Plantations. 

ISAAC  TICUENOR  and  JAMES  FISK,  from  Ver- 
mont. 

DAVID  DAGGETT,  from  Connecticut. 

RUFCS  KING  and  NATHAN  SANFORD,  from 
New  York. 

JAMES  J.  WILSON  and  MAHLON  DIOKERSON, 
from  New  Jersey. 

ABNER  LACOCK  and  JONATHAN  ROBERTS,  from 
Pennsylvania. 

JAMES  BARBOTTE  and  JOHN  W.  EPPES,  from 
Virginia. 

NATHANIEL  MACON,  from  North  Carolina. 

JOHN  GAILLARD  and  WILLIAM  SMITH,  from 
South  Carolina. 

CHAKLES  TAIT,  from  Georgia. 

JOHN  J.  CRITTENDEN,  from  Kentucky. 

JOHN  WILLIAMS,  from  Tennessee. 

BENJAMIN  RUGGLES,  from  Ohio. 

JAMES  NOBLE  and  WALLER  TAYLOR,  from  In- 
diana. 

*  LIST  OF  MEMBERS  OF  THE  SENATE. 

New  Hampshire.— David  L.  Morrill,  Clement  Storer. 
Mowachwette.— Harrison  G.  Otis,  Ell  P.  Ashman. 
Rhode,  Ixland.— James  Burrill,  William  Hunter. 
Connecticut.— David  Daggett,  Samuel  W.  Dana. 
Vermont.— Isaac  Tichenor,  James  Fisk. 
New  York.— Kufus  Kin?,  Nathan  Sanford. 
New  Jersey.— James  J.  Wilson,  Mahlon  Dickcrson. 
Pennsylvania,.— Abner  Lacock,  Jonathan  Roberta. 
Delaware.— Outerbridge  Horsey,  Nicholas  Vandyke. 


JOHN  GAILLARD,  President  pro  tempore,  re- 
sumed the  Chair. 

CLEMENT  STOKER,  appointed  a  Senator  by  the 
Legislature  of  the  State  of  New  Hampshire,  to 
supply  the  vacancy  occasioned  by  the  resigna- 
tion of  Jeremiah  Mason ;  JAMES  FISK,  appointed 
a  Senator  by  the  Legislature  of  the  State  of 
Vermont,  to  supply  the  vacancy  occasioned  by 
the  resignation  of  Dudley  Chace;  JOHN  J. 
CRITTENDEN,  appointed  a  Senator  by  the  Legis- 
lature of  the  State  of  Kentucky,  for  the  term 
of  six  years,  commencing  on  the  fourth  day  of 
March  last ;  JOHN  WILLIAMS,  appointed  a  Sen- 
ator by  the  Legislature  of  the  State  of  Tennes- 
see, for  the  term  of  six  years,  commencing  on 
the  fourth  day  of  March  last,  respectively,  pro- 
duced their  credentials,  which  were  read ;  and 
the  oath  prescribed  by  law  was  administered  to 
them,  and  they  took  their  seats  in  the  Senate. 

JOHN  W.  EPPES,  appointed  a  Senator  by  the 
Legislature  of  the  State  of  Virginia,  for  the 
term  of  six  years,  commencing  on  the  fourth 
day  of  March  last,  stated  that  he  had  received 
his  credentials,  but  had  neglected  bringing  them 
with  him,  expecting  that  the  Executive  of  Vir- 
ginia would  forward  a  duplicate  thereof  to  the 
Senate,  and  which  he  still  supposed  would 
speedily  be  done:  whereupon,  the  oath  pre- 
scribed by  law  was  administered  to  him,  and 
he  took  his  seat  in  the  Senate. 

On  motion  by  Mr.  MACON,  the  Secretary  was 
ordered  to  acquaint  the  House  of  Representa- 


Maryland.— Robert  H.  Goldsborough,  Robert  Goodloe 
Harper. 

Virginia. — James  Barbour,  John  W.  Eppes. 
North  Carolina.— Nathaniel  Macon,  Montfort  Stokes. 
.South  ( 'iirotina.-John  Gaillard,  William  Smith. 
Georgia.— Charles  Tait,  George  M.  Tronp. 
Kentucky.— John  J.  Crittendeu,  I.-luin  Talbot. 
Tennessee.  —John  Williams,  George  W.  Campbell. 
Ohio.— Benjamin  Ruggles,  Jeremiah  Morrow. 
Louisiana.— Elegins  Fromentln,  Heury  Johnson. 
Indiana.  -James  Noble.  Walter  Taylor. 


ABRIDGMENT  OF  THE 


SENATE.] 


•   ;  .' Prestjent's  Annual  Message. 


[DECEMBER,  1817 


tives  that  a  quorurn  of  the  Seriate  is  assembled, 
and  ready  to  £ix>fccipd:t<>- business.;  |  /.'•  . .' 

On  motion  by  Mr. "  B  ARBOUR,'  a  committee 
•was  appointed  to  inquire  whether  any,  and  if 
any,  what  legislative  measures  may  be  neces- 
sary, for  admitting  the  State  of  Mississippi  into 
the  Union;  and  Messrs.  BARBOUR,  KING,  and 
WILLIAMS,  of  Tennessee,  were  appointed  the 
committee. 

A  message  from  the  House  of  Kepresentatives 
informed  the  Senate  that  a  quorum  of  the 
House  of  Representatives  is  assembled,  and 
have  elected  HENRY  CLAY,  one  of  the  Repre- 
sentatives for  the  State  of  Kentucky,  their 
Speaker,  and  THOMAS  DOUGHERTY  their  Clerk, 
and  are  ready  to  proceed  to  business. 

The  Senate  then  adjourned. 

TUESDAY,  December  2. 

HARRISON  GRAY  OTIS,  from  the  State  of  Mas- 
sachusetts, arrived  on  the  1st  instant,  and  at- 
tended this  day. 

Mr.  TICHENOR  reported,  from  the  joint  com- 
mittee, that  they  had  waited  on  the  President 
of  the  United  States,  and  that  the  President 
of  the  United  States  informed  the  committee 
that  he  would  make  a  communication  to  the 
two  Houses  this  day,  at  twelve  o'clock. 

President's  Annual  Message. 

The  following  Message  was  then  received 
from  the  PRESIDENT  OF  THE  UNITED  STATES  : 
Fellow-citizens  of  the  Senate 

and  of  the  House  of  Representatives  : 

At  no  period  of  our  political  existence  had  we  so 
much  cause  to  felicitate  ourselves  at  the  prosperous 
and  happy  condition  of  our  country.  The  abundant 
fruits  of  the  earth  have  filled  it  with  plenty.  An  ex- 
tensive and  profitable  commerce  has  greatly  aug- 
mented our  revenue.  The  public  credit  has  attained 
an  extraordinary  elevation.  Our  preparations  for 
defence,  in  case  of  future  wars,  from  which,  by  the 
experience  of  all  nations,  we  ought  not  to  expect  to 
be  exempted,  are  advancing,  under  a  well-digested 
system,  with  all  the  despatch  which  so  important  a 
work  will  admit  Our  free  Government,  founded  on 
the  interest  and  affections  of  the  people,  has  gained, 
and  is  daily  gaining,  strength.  Local  jealousies  are 
rapidly  yielding  to  more  generous,  enlarged,  and  en- 
lightened views  of  national  policy.  For  advantages 
so  numerous  and  highly  important,  it  is  our  duty  to 
unite  in  grateful  acknowledgments  to  that  Omnipo- 
tent Being  from  whom  they  are  derived,  and  in  un- 
ceasing prayer  that  He  will  endow  us  with  virtue 
and  strength  to  maintain  and  hand  them  down,  in 
their  utmost  purity,  to  our  latest  posterity. 

I  have  the  satisfaction  to  inform  you,  that  an  ar- 
rangement which  had  been  commenced  by  my  pre- 
decessor, with  the  British  Government,  for  the  re- 
duction of  the  naval  force,  by  Great  Britain  and  the 
United  States,  on  the  Lakes,  has  been  concluded ;  by 
which  it  is  provided,  that  neither  party  shall  keep  in 
service  on  Lake  Champlain  more  than  one  vessel ;  on 
Lake  Ontario,  more  than  one ;  and  on  Lake  Erie  and 
the  upper  lakes,  more  than  two ;  to  be  armed,  each, 
with  one  cannon  only ;  und  that  all  the  other  armed 


vessels,  of  both  parties,  of  which  an  exact  list  is  in 
terchanged,  shall  be  dismantled.  It  is  also  agreed, 
that  the  force  retained  shall  be  restricted  in  its  duty 
to  the  internal  purposes  of  each  party ;  and  that  the 
arrangement  shall  remain  in  force  until  six  months 
shall  have  expired,  after  notice  given  by  one  of  the 
parties  to  the  other  of  its  desire  that  it  should  ter- 
minate. By  this  arrangement  useless  expense  on 
both  sides,  and  what  is  of  still  greater  importance, 
the  danger  of  collision  between  armed  vessels  in 
those  inland  waters,  which  was  great,  is  prevented. 
I  have  the  satisfaction  also  to  state,  that  the  Com- 
missioners, under  the  fourth  article  of  the  Treaty  of 
Ghent,  to  whom  it  was  referred  to  decide  to  which 
party  the  several  islands  in  the  Bay  of  Passamaquod- 
dy  belonged,  under  the  treaty  of  one  thousand  seven 
hundred  and  eighty-three,  have  agreed  in  a  report, 
by  which  all  the  islands  in  the  possession  of  each 
party  before  the  late  war  have  been  decreed  to  it 
The  Commissioners,  acting  under  the  other  articles 
of  the  Treaty  of  Ghent,  for  the  settlement  of  bounda- 
ries, have  also  been  engaged  in  the  discharge  of 
their  respective  duties,  but  have  not  yet  completed 
them.  The  difference  which  arose  between  the  two 
Governments  under  that  treaty,  respecting  the  right 
of  the  United  States  to  take  and  cure  fish  on  the 
coast  of  the  British  provinces,  north  of  our  limits, 
which  had  been  secured  by  the  treaty  of  one  thou- 
sand seven  hundred  and  eighty-three,  is  still  in  nego- 
tiation. The  proposition  made  by  this  Government 
to  extend  to  the  colonies  of  Great  Britain  the  princi- 
ples of  the  convention  of  London,  by  which  the  com- 
merce between  the  ports  of  the  United  States  and 
British  ports  in  Europe  had  been  placed  on  a  footing 
of  equality,  has  been  declined  by  the  British  Govern- 
ment. This  subject  having  been  thus  amicably  dis- 
cussed between  the  two  Governments,  and  it  appear- 
ing that  the  British  Government  is  unwilling  to 
depart  from  its  present  regulations,  it  remains  for 
Congress  to  decide  whether  they  will  make  any  other 
regulations,  in  consequence  thereof,  for  the  protection 
and  improvement  of  our  navigation. 

The  negotiation  with  Spain,  for  spoliations  on  our 
commerce,  and  the  settlement  of  boundaries,  re- 
mains, essentially,  in  the  state  it  held,  by  the  com- 
munications that  were  made  to  Congress  by  my  pre- 
decessor. It  has  been  evidently  the  policy  of  the 
Spanish  Government  to  keep  the  negotiation  sus- 
pended, and  in  this  the  United  States  have  acqui- 
esced, from  an  amicable  disposition  towards  Spain, 
and  in  the  expectation  that  her  Government  would, 
from  a  sense  of  justice,  finally  accede  to  such  an  ar- 
rangement as  would  be  equal  between  the  parties. 
A  disposition  has  been  lately  shown  by  the  Spanish 
Government  to  move  in  the  negotiation,  which  has 
been  met  by  this  Government,  and  should  the  con- 
ciliatory and  friendly  policy  which  has  invariably 
guided  our  councils  be  reciprocated,  a  just  and  satis- 
factory arrangement  may  be  expected.  It  is  proper, 
however,  to  remark,  that  no  proposition  has  yet 
been  made  from  which  such  a  result  can  be  pre- 


It  was  anticipated  at  an  early  stage,  that  the  con- 
test between  Spain  and  the  colonies  would  become 
highly  interesting  to  the  United  States.  _  It  was 
natural  that  our  citizens  should  sympathize  in  events 
which  affected  their  neighbors.  It  seemed  probable, 
also,  that  the  prosecution  of  the  conflict  along  our 
coast,  and  in  contiguous  countries,  would  occasionally 
interrupt  our  commerce,  and  otherwise  affect  the 


DEBATES  OF  CONGRESS. 


5 


DECEMBER,  1817.] 


President's  Annual  Message. 


[SENATE. 


persons  and  property  of  our  citizens.  These  antici- 
pations have  been  realized.  Such  injuries  have  been 
received  from  persons  acting  under  the  authority  of 
both  the  parties,  and  for  which  redress  has,  in  most 
instances,  been  withheld.  Through  every  stage  of 
the  conflict,  the  United  States  have  maintained  an 
impartial  neutrality,  giving  aid  to  neither  of  the  par- 
ties in  men,  money,  ships,  or  munitions  of  war. 
They  have  regarded  the  contest,  not  in  the  light  of 
an  ordinary  insurrection  or  rebellion,  but  as  a  civil 
war  between  parties  nearly  equal,  having,  as  to  neu- 
tral powers,  equal  rights.  Our  ports  have  been 
open  to  both,  and  every  article,  the  fruit  of  our  soil, 
or  of  the  industry  of  our  citizens,  which  either  was 
permitted  to  take,  has  been  equally  free  to  the 
other.  Should  the  colonies  establish  their  independ- 
ence, it  is  proper  now  to  state,  that  this  Govern- 
ment neither  seeks  nor  would  accept  from  them  any 
advantage,  in  commerce  or  otherwise,  which  will  not 
be  equally  open  to  all  other  nations.  The  colonies 
will,  in  that  event,  become  independent  States,  free 
from  any  obligation  to  or  connection  with  us,  which 
it  may  not  then  be  their  interest  to  form  on  the  ba- 
sis of  a  fair  reciprocity. 

In  the  summer  of  the  present  year,  an  expedition 
was  set  on  foot  against  East  Florida,  by  persons 
claiming  to  act  under  the  authority  of  some  of  the 
colonies,  who  took  possession  of  Amelia  Island,  at 
the  mouth  of  the  St.  Mary's  River,  near  the  boundary 
of  the  State  of  Georgia.  As  this  province  lies  east- 
ward of  the  Mississippi,  and  is  bounded  by  the  United 
States  and  the  ocean  on  every  side,  and  has  been  a 
subject  of  negotiation  with  the  Government  of  Spain, 
as  an  indemnity  for  losses  by  spoliation,  or  in  ex- 
change for  territory  of  equal  value,  westward  of  the 
Mississippi,  a  fact  well  known  to  the  world,  it  excited 
surprise  that  any  countenance  should  be  given  to  this 
measure  by  any  of  the  colonies.  As  it  would  be 
difficult  to  reconcile  it  with  the  friendly  relations  ex- 
isting between  the  United  States  and  the  colonies,  a 
doubt  was  entertained  whether  it  had  been  authorized 
by  them  or  any  of  them.  This  doubt  has  gained 
strength  by  the  circumstances  which  have  unfolded 
themselves  in  the  prosecution  of  the  enterprise,  which 
have  marked  it  as  a  mere  private,  unauthorized  ad- 
venture. Projected  and  commenced  with  an  incomT 
petent  force,  reliance  seems  to  have  been  placed  on 
what  might  be  drawn,  in  defiance  of  our  laws,  from 
within  our  limits ;  and  of  late,  as  their  resources 
have  failed,  it  has  assumed  a  more  marked  character 
of  unfriendliness  to  us;  the  island  being  made  a 
channel  for  the  illicit  introduction  of  slaves  from 
Africa  into  the  United  States,  an  asylum  for  fugitive 
slaves  from  the  neighboring  States,  and  a  port  for 
smuggling  of  every  kind. 

A  similar  establishment  was  made,  at  an  earlier 
period,  by  persons  of  the  same  description,  in  the 
Gulf  of  Mexico,  at  a  place  called  Galveston,  within 
the  limits  of  the  United  States,  as  we  contend,  under 
the  cession  of  Louisiana.  The  enterprise  has  been 
marked,  in  a  more  signal  manner,  by  all  the  objec- 
tionable circumstances  which  characterized  the 
other,  and  more  particularly  by  the  equipment  of 
privateers  which  have  annoyed  our  commerce,  and 
by  smuggling.  These  establishments,  if  ever  sanc- 
tioned by  any  authority  whatever,  which  is  not  be- 
lieved, have  abused  their  trust,  and  forfeited  all 
claim  to  consideration.  A  just  regard  for  the  rights 
and  interests  of  the  United  States  required  that  thev 
should  be  suppressed,  and  orders  have  been  accord- 


ingly issued  to  that  effect  The  imperious  considera- 
tions which  produced  this  measura  will  be  explained 
to  the  parties  whom  it  may,  in  any  degree,  concern. 

To  obtain  correct  information  on  every  subject  in 
which  the  United  States  are  interested;  to  inspire 
just  sentiments  in  all  persons  in  authority  on  either 
side,  of  our  friendly  disposition,  so  far  as  it  may  com- 
port with  an  impartial  neutrality;  and  to  secure 
proper  respect  to  our  commerce  hi  every  port,  and 
from  every  flag,  it  has  been  thought  proper  to  send  a 
ship  of  war,  with  three  distinguished  citizens,  along 
the  southern  coast,  with  instructions  to  touch  at  such 
ports  as  they  may  find  most  expedient  for  these  pur- 
poses. With  the  existing  authorities,  with  those  hi 
the  possession  of,  and  exercising  the  sovereignty, 
must  the  communication  be  held  ;  from  them  alone 
can  redress  for  past  injuries,  committed  by  persona 
acting  under  them,  be  obtained  ;  by  them  alone  can 
the  commission  of  the  like,  hi  future,  be  prevented. 

Our  relations  with  the  other  powers  of  Europe 
have  experienced  no  essential  change  since  the  last 
session.  In  our  intercourse  with  each,  due  attention 
continues  to  be  paid  to  the  protection  of  our  com- 
merce, and  to  every  other  object  in  which  the  United 
States  are  interested.  A  strong  hope  is  entertained, 
that  by  adhering  to  the  maxims  of  a  just,  a  candid, 
and  friendly  policy,  we  may  long  preserve  amicable 
relations  with  all  the  powers  of  Europe,  on  conditions 
advantageous  and  honorable  to  our  country. 

With  the  Barbary  States,  and  the  Indian  tribes, 
our  pacific  relations  have  been  preserved. 

In  calling  your  attention  to  the  internal  concerns 
of  our  country,  the  view  which  they  exhibit  is  pecu- 
liarly gratifying.  The  payments  which  have  been 
made  into  the  Treasury  show  the  very  productive 
state  of  the  public  revenue.  After  satisfying  the  ap- 
propriations made  by  law  for  the  support  of  the  Civil 
Government,  and  of  the  Military  and  Naval  Estab- 


nd  extinguishing 
more  than  eighteen  millions  of  the  principal,  within 
the  present  year,  it  is  estimated  that  a  balance  of 
more  than  six  millions  of  dollars  will  remain  in  the 
Treasury  on  the  first  day  of  January,  applicable  to 
the  current  service  of  the  ensuing  year.  The  pay- 
ments into  the  Treasury  during  the  year  one  thou- 
sand eight  hundred  and  eighteen,  on  account  of  im- 
posts and  tonnage,  resulting  principally  from  duties 
which  have  accrued  in  the  present  year,  may  be 
fairly  estimated  at  twenty  millions  of  dollars ;  the  in- 
ternal revenues,  at  two  millions  five  hundred  thou- 
sand ;  the  pubh'c  lands,  at  one  million  five  hundred 
thousand ;  bank  dividends  and  incidental  receipts, 
at  five  hundred  thousand;  making  in  the  whole 
twenty-four  millions  five  hundred  thousand  dollars. 

The  annual  permanent  expenditure  for  the  support 
of  the  Civil  Government,  and  of  the  Army  and  Navy, 
as  now  established  by  law,  amounts  to  eleven  mil- 
lions eight  hundred  thousand  dollars;  and  for  the 
Sinking  Fund,  to  ten  millions  ;  making  in  the  whole 
twenty-one  millions  eight  hundred  thousand  dollars ; 
leaving  an  annual  excess  of  revenue  beyond  the  ex- 
pendjiture  of  two  millions  seven  hundred  thousand 
dollars,  exclusive  of  the  balance  estimated  to  be  in 
the  Treasury  on  the  first  day  of  January,  one  thou- 
sand eight  hundred  and  eighteen. 

In  the  present  state  of  the  Treasury,  the  whole  of 
the  Louisiana  debt  may  be  redeemed  in  the  year  one 
thousand  eight  hundred  and  nineteen ;  after  which, 


ABRIDGMENT  OF  THE 


SENATE.] 


President's  Annual  Message. 


[DECEMBER,  1817. 


if  the  public  debt  continues  as  it  now  is,  above  par, 
there  will  be  annually  about  five  millions  of  the 
Sinking  Fund  unexpended,  until  the  year  one  thou- 
sand eight  hundred  and  twenty-five,  when  the  loan 
of  one  thousand  eight  hundred  and  twelve,  and  the 
stock  created  by  funding  Treasury  notes,  will  be 
redeemable. 

It  is  also  estimated  that  the  Mississippi  stock  will 
be  discharged  during  the  year  one  thousand  eight 
hundred  and  nineteen,  from  the  proceeds  of  the  pub- 
lic lands  assigned  to  that  object,  after  which  the  re- 
ceipts from  those  lands  will  annually  add  to  the  pub- 
lic revenue  the  sum  of  one  million  and  a  half,  making 
the  permanent  annual  revenue  amount  to  twenty- six 
millions  of  dollars  ;  and  leaving  an  annual  excess  of 
revenue,  after  the  year  one  thousand  eight  hundred 
and  nineteen,  beyond  the  permanent  authorized  ex- 
penditure, of  more  than  four  millions  of  dollars. 

By  the  last  returns  to  the  Department  of  War,  the 
militia  force  of  the  several  $tates  may  be  estimated 
at  eight  hundred  thousand  men,  infantry,  artillery, 
and  cavalry.  Great  part  of  this  force  is  armed,  and 
measures  are  taken  to  arm  the  whole.  An  improve- 
ment in  the  organization  and  discipline  of  the  militia 
is  one  of  the  great  objects  which  claims  the  unremit- 
ted  attention  of  Congress. 

The  regular  force  amounts  nearly  to  the  number 
required  by  law,  and  is  stationed  along  the  Atlantic 
and  inland  frontiers. 

Of  the  naval  force  it  has  heen  necessary  to  main- 
tain strong  squadrons  in  the  Mediterranean  and  in 
the  Gulf  of  Mexico. 

When  we  consider  the  vast  extent  of  territory 
within  the  United  States;  the  great  amount  and 
value  of  its  productions ;  the  connection  of  its  parts, 
and  other  circumstances,  on  which  their  prosperity 
and  happiness  depend,  we  cannot  fail  to  entertain  a 
high  sense  of  the  advantage  to  he  derived  from  the 
facility  which  may  be  afforded  in  the  intercourse  be- 
tween them,  hy  means  of  good  roads  and  canals. 
Never  did  a  country  of  such  vast  extent  offer  equal 
inducements  to  improvements  of  this  kind,  nor  ever 
were  consequences  of  such  magnitude  involved  in 
them.  As  this  subject  was  acted  on  by  Congress  at 
the  last  session,  and  there  may  be  a  disposition  to 
revive  it  at  the  present,  I  have  brought  it  into  view 
for  the  purpose  of  communicating  my  sentiments  on 
a  very  important  circumstance  connected  with  it, 
with  that  freedom  and  candor  which  a  regard  for  the 
public  interest  and  a  proper  respect  for  Congress  re- 
quire. A  difference  of  opinion  has  existed  from  the 
first  formation  of  our  constitution  to  the  present 
time,  among  our  most  enlightened  and  virtuous  citi- 
zens, respecting  the  right  of  Congress  to  establish 
such  a  system  of  improvement.  Taking  into  view 
the  trust  with  which  I  am  now  honored,  it  would  be 
improper,  after  what  has  passed,  that  this  discussion 
should  be  revived,  with  an  uncertainty  of  my  opinion 
respecting  the  right.  Disregarding  early  impres- 
sions, I  have  bestowed  on  the  subject  all  the  deliber- 
ation which  its  great  importance  and  a  just  sense  of 
my  duty  required,  and  the  result  is,  a  settled  convic- 
tion in  my  mind,  that  Congress  do  not  possess  the 
right.  It  is  not  contained  in  any  of  the  specified 
powers  granted  to  Congress;  nor  can  I  consider  it 
incidental  to,  or  a  necessary  mean,  viewed  on  the 
most  liberal  scale,  for  carrying  into  effect  any  of  the 
powers  which  are  specifically  granted.  In  commu- 
nicating this  result,  I  cannot  resist  the  obligation 
which  I  feel,  to  suggest  to  Congress  the  propriety  of 


recommending  to  the  States  the  adoption  of  an 
amendment  to  the  constitution,  which  shall  give  to 
Congress  the  right  in  question.  In  cases  of  doubtful 
construction,  especially  of  such  vital  interest,  it  com- 
ports with  thn  nature  and  origin  of  our  institutions, 
and  will  contribute  much  to  preserve  them,  to  apply 
to  our  constituents  for  a  specific  grant  of  the  power. 
We  may  confidently  rely,  that  if  it  appears  to  their 
satisfaction  that  the  power  is  necessary,  it  will 
always  be  granted.  In  this  case  I  am  happy  to  ob- 
serve that  experience  has  afforded  the  most  ample 
proof  of  its  utility,  and  that  the  benign  spirit  of  con- 
ciliation and  harmony,  which  now  manifests  itself 
throughout  our^  Union,  promises  to  such  a  recom- 
mendation the  most  prompt  and  favorable  result.  I 
think  proper  to  suggest,  also,  in  case  this  measure  is 
adopted,  that  it  be  recommended  to  the  States  to  in- 
clude, in  the  amendment  sought,  a  right  in  Congress 
to  institute,  likewise,  seminaries  of  learning  for  the 
all-important  purpose  of  diffusing  knowledge  among 
our  fellow-citizens  throughout  the  United  States. 

Our  manufactories  will  require  the  continued  at- 
tention of  Congress.  The  capital  employed  in  them 
is  considerable,  and  the  knowledge  acquired  in  the 
machinery  and  fabric  of  all  the  most  useful  manufac- 
tures is  of  great  value.  Their  preservation,  which 
depends  on  due  encouragement,  is  connected  with  the 
high  interests  of  the  nation. 

Although  the  progress  of  the  public  buildings  has 
been  as  favorable  as  circumstances  have  permitted, 
it  is  to  be  regretted  that  the  Capitol  is  not  yet  in  a 
state  to  receive  you.  There  is  good  cause  to  pre- 
sume that  the  tvfro  wings,  the  only  parts  as  yet  com- 
menced, will  be  prepared  for  that  purpose  at  the  next 
session.  The  time  seems  now  to  have  arrived  when 
this  subject  may  be  deemed  worthy  the  attention  of 
Congress,  on  a  scale  adequate  to  national  purposes. 
The  completion  of  the  middle  building  will  be  neces- 
sary to  the  convenient  accommodation  of  Congress, 
of  the  committees,  and  various  offices  belonging  to  it. 
It  is  evident  that  the  other  public  buildings  are  alto- 
gether insufficient  for  the  accommodation  of  the  sev- 
eral Executive  Departments,  some  of  whom  are  much 
crowded,  and  even  subjected  to  the  necessity  of  ob- 
taining it  in  private  buildings,  at  some  distance  from 
the  head  of  the  department,  and  with  inconvenience 
to  the  management  of  the  public  business.  Most 
nations  have  taken  an  interest  and  a  pride  in  the  im- 
provement and  ornament  of  their  Metropolis,  and 
none  were  more  conspicuous  in  that  respect  than  the 
ancient  Republics.  The  policy  which  dictated  the 
establishment  of  a  permanent  residence  for  the  Na- 
tional Government,  and  the  spirit  in  which  it  was 
commenced  and  has  been  prosecuted,  show  that  such 
improvement  was  thought  worthy  the  attention  of 
this  nation.  Its  central  position,  between  the  north- 
ern and  southern  extremes  of  our  Union,  and  its  ap- 
proach to  the  West,  at  the  head  of  a  great  navigable 
river,  which  interlocks  with  the  Western  waters, 
proves  the  wisdom  of  the  councils  which  established 
it.  Nothing  appears  to  be  more  reasonable  and 
proper,  than  that  convenient  accommodation  should 
be  provided,  on  a  well- digested  plan,  for  the  heads  of 
the  several  departments,  and  of  the  Attorney-Gen- 
eral ;  and  it  is  believed  that  the  public  ground  in  the 
city  applied  to  those  objects  will  be  found  amply  suf- 
ficient I  submit  this  subject  to  the  consideration  ot 
Congress,  that  such  further  provision  may  be  made 
in  it  as  to  them  may  seem  proper. 

In  contemplating  the  happy  situation  of  the  United 


DEBATES  OF  CONGRESS. 


DECKMBEU,  1817.] 


Specific  and  ad  valorem  Duties, 


[SENATE. 


States,  our  attention  is  drawn,  with  peculiar  interest, 
to  the  surviving  officers  and  soldiers  of  our  Revolu- 
tionary Army,  who  so  eminently  contributed,  by 
their  services,  to  lay  its  foundation.  Most  of  those 
very  meritorious  citizens  have  paid  the  debt  of  nature 
and  gone  to  repose.  It  is  believed  that  among  the 
survivors  there  are  some  not  provided  for  by  existing 
jaws,  who  are  reduced  to  indigence,  and  even  to  real 
distress.  These  men  have  a  claim  on  the  gratitude 
of  their  country,  and  it  will  do  honor  to  their  country 
to  provide  for  them.  The  lapse  of  a  few  years  more, 
and  the  opportunity  will  be  forever  lost ;  indeed,  so 
long  already  has  been  the  interval,  that  the  number 
to  be  benefited  by  any  provision  which  may  be  made 
will  not  be  great. 

It  appearing  in  a  satisfactory  manner  that  the 
revenue  arising  from  imposts  and  tonnage,  and  from 
the  sale  of  the  public  lands,  will  be  fully  adequate  to 
the  support  of  the  Civil  Government,  of  the  present 
Military  and  Naval  Establishment,  including  the  an- 
nual augmentation  of  the  latter  to  the  extent  pro- 
vided for,  to  the  payment  of  the  interest  of  the  pub- 
lic debt,  and  to  the  extinguishment  of  it  at  the  times 
authorized,  without  the  aid  of  the  internal  taxes,  I 
consider  it  my  duty  to  recommend  to  Congress  their 
repeal.  To  impose  taxes,  when  the  public  exigen- 
cies require  them,  is  an  obligation  of  the  most  sacred 
character,  especially  with  a  free  people.  The  faithful 
fulfilment  of  it  is  among  the  highest  proofs  of  their 
virtue  and  capacity  for  self-government.  To  dis- 
pense with  taxes,  when  it  may  be  done  with  perfect 
safety,  is  equally  the  duty  of  their  representatives. 
In  this  instance  we  have  the  satisfaction  to  know 
that  they  were  imposed  when  the  demand  was  impe- 
rious, and  have  been  sustained  with  exemplary  fidel- 
ity. I  have  to  add,  that,  however  gratifying  it  may 
he  to  me,  regarding  the  prosperous  and  happy  condi- 
tion of  our  country,  to  recommend  the  repeal  of 
these  taxes  at  this  time,  I  shall  nevertheless  be  at- 
tentive to  events,  and,  should  any  future  emergency 
occur,  he  not  less  prompt  to  suggest  such  measures 
and  burdens  as  may  then  be  requisite  and  proper. 
JAMES  MONROE. 

The  Message  was  read,  and  two  thousand  co- 
pies thereof  ordered  to  be  printed  for  the  use 
of  the  Senate. 

The  Senate  then  adjourned. 


WEDNESDAY,  December  3. 
ROBERT  II.  GOLDSBOROUGH,  from  the  State  of 
Maryland,  arrived  on  the  2d  instant,  and  at- 
tended this  day. 

THURSDAY,  December  4. 
GEORGE  "W.  CAMPBELL,  from  the  State  of 
Tennessee,  arrived  the  3d,  and  attended  this 
day. 


FRIDAY,  December  5. 

OUTERBRIDGE  HORSEY,  from  the  State  of 
Delaware;  arrived  the  4th,  and  attended  this 
day. 

MONDAY,  December  8. 
MONTFOKT  STOKES,  from  the  State  of  North 
Carolina,  arrived  on  the  5th  instant,  and  at- 
tended this  day. 


The  PRESIDENT  communicated  the  credentials 
of  JOHN  W.  EPPES,  appointed  a  Senator  by  the 
Legislature  of  the  State  of  Virginia,  for  the 
term  of  six  years,  commencing  on  the  4th  day 
of  March  last ;  which  were  read,  and  laid  on 
file. 


TUESDAY,  December  9. 
The  Senate  proceeded  to  the  appointment  of 
a  Chaplain  on  their  part,  and  on  the  ballots  hav- 
ing been  counted,  it  appeared  that  the  Rever- 
end  WILLIAM  HAW  LEY  had  a  majority,  and  was 
elected. 


WEDNESDAY,  December  10. 

ELI  P.  ASHMUN,  from  the  State  of  Massachu- 
setts, and  GEORGE  M.  TROUP,  from  the  State  of 
Georgia,  severally  arrived  on  the  9th,  and  at- 
tended this  day. 

A  message  from  the  House  of  Representatives 
informed  the  Senate  that  they  have  appointed 
the  Reverend  BURGESS  ALLISON,  Chaplain  on 
their  part. 


THURSDAY,  December  11. 

JEREMIAH  MORROW,  from  the  State  of  Ohio, 
arrived  on  the  1  Oth  instant,  and  attended  this  day. 

WALTER  LEAKE  and  THOMAS  H.  WILLIAMS, 
respectively,  appointed  Senators  by  the  Legis- 
lature of  the  State  of  Mississippi,  produced  their 
credentials,  were  qualified,  and  took  their  seats 
in  the  Senate. 

TUESDAY,  December  16. 

ISHAM  TALBOT,  from  the  State  of  Kentucky, 
arrived  on  the  15th  instant,  and  attended  this 
day. 

Specific  and  ad  valorem  Duties — Frauds  in  the 
Valuation  and  Appraisement. 

The  Senate  resumed  the  consideration  of  the 
motion  of  Mr.  SANFORD,  of  the  8th  instant,  di- 
recting the  Committee  on  Finance  to  make  in- 
quiry relative  to  the  collection  of  ad  valorem, 
duties  on  importations. 

Mr.  SANFOBD  rose  and  addressed  the  Chair 
as  follows : 

Mr.  President:  According  to  the  laws  now 
in  force,  the  duties  on  merchandise  imported 
are  of  two  classes :  those  which  are  usually  de- 
nominated specific ;  and  those  which  are  im- 
posed on  the  value.  The  specific  duty  is  charg- 
ed upon  the  article,  according  to  some  denomi- 
nation, or  quantity ;  and  is  determined  by  the 
number,  weight,  or  measure  of  the  article;  as 
cigars,  by  the  thousand,  teas  and  sugars,  by  the 
pound ;  wines  and  spirits,  by  the  gallon,  or  salt, 
by  the  bushel.  The  duty  on  the  value  is  a  cer- 
tain proportion  of  the  value ;  as  ten  or  twenty 
per  centum.  The  ad  valorem  duties  are  calcu- 
lated, not  upon  any  value  which  the  merchan- 
dise may  bear,  but  upon  its  actual  cost  in  the 
foreign  country  from  which  it  came,  with  an 
addition  of  twenty  per  centum  to  the  cost,  if 
I  imported  from  places  beyond  the  Cape  of  Good 


8 


ABRIDGMENT  OF  THE 


SENATE.] 


Specific  and  ad  valorem  Duties. 


[DECEMBER,  1817. 


Hope,  and  ten  per  centum  if  imported  from  any 
other  place. 

The  foreign  cost  of  merchandise  is,  therefore, 
the  hasis  of  the  ad  valorem  duties ;  and  that 
cost  must  be  ascertained,  in  order  to  ascertain 
the  duties.  This  principle  having  been  adopted, 
the  provisions  of  the  existing  system  for  the 
collection  of  these  duties  were  devised,  in  order 
to  carry  it  into  effect. 

Where  the  duty  is  specific,  the  quantity  of 
goods  is  ascertained  by  a  public  officer,  by  act- 
ual enumeration ;  weighing,  gauging,  or  meas- 
uring, before  the  goods  are  delivered  to  the 
owner  or  consignee.  Where  the  duty  is  on  the 
value,  the  foreign  cost  is  determined,  for  the 
purpose  of  charging  the  duty  upon  it  in  ordi- 
nary cases,  by  the  owner  of  the  goods,  or  by 
his  consignee,  or  agent  representing  him.  This 
is  done  by  an  entry  of  the  goods  at  the  custom- 
house, by  the  owner,  consignee,  or  agent,  who 
at  the  same  time  produces  the  invoice  and  bill 
of  lading  attending  the  importation.  The  entry 
and  the  invoice  state  the  prices  or  cost  of 
the  goods,  and  the  person  making  the  entry 
swears  that  they  are  true.  When  this  has  been 
done,  the  goods  are,  in  ordinary  cases,  without 
any  farther  investigation,  concerning  their  value 
or  cost,  delivered  to  the  owner  or  his  agent; 
and  the  foreign  cost,  thus  obtained,  is  the  basis 
upon  which  the  duties  are  computed. 

From  the  slightest  view  it  is  apparent  that 
this  method  of  determining  the  cost  of  goods 
subject  to  duty  on  the  value,  is  exceedingly 
liable  to  evasion,  by  untrue  statements  of  the 
foreign  cost  upon  which  the  duty  is  charged. 
The  cost  is  determined,  in  most  cases,  merely 
by  the  person  who  is  to  pay  the  duty.  The 
party  required  to  pay  the  duty  ;  the  party 
whose  profit  or  loss  must  always  depend  wholly, 
or  in  part,  upon  the  amount  of  duty  charged  and 
paid  on  the  goods ;  the  party  interested  to  re- 
duce the  duty  as  much  as  possible,  is  allowed 
to  make  his  own  statement  of  the  cost :  and 
this  cost,  so  stated,  is,  in  most  cases,  the  sum 
upon  which  the  duties  are  calculated  and  paid. 
Of  all  temptations  to  undervalue  merchandise,  it 
does  not  seem  possible  to.  devise  one  more  di- 
rect and  dangerous  than  to  give  to  the  party 
who  is  to  state  the  value  all  the  benefit  of  an 
undervaluation. 

The  provision  that,  when  the  collector  shall 
suspect  that  the  merchandise  is  not  invoiced  at 
the  price  usual  at  the  place  of  exportation,  he 
may  require  an  appraisement,  would  also  seem 
to  promise  a  security  against  the  fraud  in  ques- 
tion. This  provision,  though  useful  in  practice, 
to  some  extent,  is  also  believed  to  fall  very  far 
short  of  an  adequate  remedy.  It  is  sufficient  to 
prevent  .or  correct  the  fraud  of  false  invoices 
and  entries,  for  many  reasons. 

Upon  the  whole  of  this  part  of  the  subject,  it 
is  conceived,  that  the  power  of  the  collector  to 
require  an  appraisement,  though  it  may  operate, 
in  some  degree,  to  prevent  great  and  flagrant 
undervaluations,  is  a  very  partial  and  ineffectual 
restraint  upon  the  smaller  undervaluations  of 


five,  ten,  fifteen,  twenty,  twenty-five,  thirty, 
forty,  and  fifty  per  centum  less  than  the  just 
value,  or  cost,  of  the  goods.  And  there  is  no 
doubt  that  the  frauds  of  this  kind,  from  which 
the  revenue  suffers  most,  are  false  valuations 
of  the  latter  class ;  in  which  the  cost  expressed 
in  the  invoice  is  less  than  the  real  cost  by  ten, 
fifteen,  twenty,  twenty-five,  thirty,  or  forty  per 
centum.  It  is  in  these  cases  that  an  actual  ap- 
praisement seldom  takes  place.  When,  in  these 
cases,  an  appraisement  does  take  place,  little  or 
nothing  is  gained  by  it ;  and  sometimes  the 
value  is  reduced  by  the  appraisement  below 
the  cost  stated  in  the  invoice. 

The  general  result  of  these  facts  and  views  is 
as  follows: 

1.  An  invoice  of  the  foreign  cost  is  no  secu- 
rity to  the  revenue. 

2.  The  foreign  cost  is  determined  by  the  oath 
of  the  person  who  makes  the  entry,  in  all  cases, 
excepting  those  in  which  there  is  an  appraisement. 

).  Where  there  is  an  appraisement,  that  pro- 
ceeding is  subject  to  abuses,  greatly  injurious  to 
the  revenue ;  which  have  been  stated. 

A  very  great  part,  perhaps  about  one-half,  of 
all  the  articles  subjected  to  duty  on  the  value, 
which  we  import,  are  manufactures  of  wool 
and  cotton.  In  these  articles,  in  which  the 
efforts  of  art  and  industry  make  great  and  very 
various  additions  to  the  value  of  the  raw  mate- 
rial, the  fraud  of  false  statements  of  the  for- 
eign cost  is  facilitated  by  the  difference  of 
fabrics  and  the  variety  of  values.  This  fraud  is 
accordingly  practised  in  these  articles  to  a  great 
extent. 

It  is  more  particularly  since  the  termination 
of  the  late  war  with  Great  Britain,  that  the 
practice  of  sending  goods  to  the  United  States 
to  be  sold  here,  on  account  of  the  foreign  owner, 
bas  been  carried  to  a  very  great  extent.  The 
consignment  is  made  to  a  person  here,  who,  by 
whatever  name  he  may  be  called,  is,  in  truth 
and  effect,  a  mere  agent  of  the  owner  of  the 
goods.  A  suitable  person  for  this  agency  is 
sent  or  selected,  Avho  makes  the  entry,  pays  the 
duties,  and  disposes  of  the  goods  for  the  benefit 
of  his  principal.  This  is  the  history  of  many 
^reat  importations  which  have  been  made  with- 
in the  last  three  years,  and  which  have  indeed 
paid  duties  to  the  Treasury,  but  have  paid  much 
less  than  they  should  have  done.  Immense 
quantities  of  goods,  subject  to  ad  valorem  duties, 
are  sent  to  this  country  by  foreigners,  to  be 
entered  at  the  custom-house  and  pay  duties,  for 
account  of  foreigners,  and  finally  to  be  sold 
tiere,  in  the  first  instance,  on  account  of  for- 
eigners. The  course  of  proceeding  is  well  un- 
derstood. The  consignee  or  agent  is  not  sup- 
posed to  commit  his  conscience  or  his  char- 
icter  in  producing  the  invoice  and  making  the 
entry.  The  principal  has  only  to  take  care  not 
to  grasp  too  much.  If  he  will  content  himself 
with  any  deduction  from  the  true  value  of 
the  goods  which  is  not  palpably  excessive,  his 
invoice,  in  all  probability,  passes  without  ob- 
iection.  If  an  appraisement  is  required,  the 


DEBATES  OF  CONGRESS. 


DECEMBER,  1817.] 


Specific  and  ad  valorem  Duties. 


[SENA! 


value  stated  in  the  invoice  is  little,  or  not  at  all, 
increased.  In  either  case  the  foreign  owner, 
who  is  beyond  the  reach  of  our  laws,  and  who 
has  no  other  object  but  obtain  the  most  money 
for  his  goods,  attains  his  object,  and  makes  a 
very  important  saving  in  the  duties.  "Where 
the"  ad  valorem  duties  are  considerable,  as  ours 
now  are,  varying  from  seven  and  a  half  to 
thirty  per  centum  upon  the  foreign  cost ;  where, 
upon  the  greatest  part  of  the  articles,  the  duties 
are  twenty  and  twenty-five  per  centum ;  and 
•where  a  considerable  part  of  these  duties  may 
be  saved  by  a  course  of  proceeding  well  under- 
stood, and  free  from  legal  perils ;  a  course  of 
proceeding  which  is  not  only  practised,  but, 
under  the  present  system,  is  easily  practicable, 
it  is  not  wonderful  that  the  course  should  be 
pursued  which  will  secure  the  advantage. 

It  is  impossible  to  ascertain  with  exactness 
the  extent  to  which  the  revenue  suffers  by  false 
invoices  and  appraisements  of  goods  subject  to 
ad  valorem  duties.  The  records  of  the  Treasury 
and  of  the  custom-houses  would  show  the  dif- 
ference between  the  invoices  and  the  appraise- 
ments required  by  the  collectors,  where  there 
are  invoices,  and  appraisements  have  been  re- 
fluired;  but  they  would  show  nothing  more, 
this  difference  would  indicate  a  very  incon- 
siferable  part  of  the  loss  of  the  revenue.  The 
difference  between  the  real  value  or  b&nafide 
foreign  cost,  and  the  sum  upon  which  the 
duties,  are  actually  charged  and  received,  is  the 
great  and  important  difference  from  which  the 
loss  to  f,he  revenue  results.  Of  this  difference 
nothing  appears  at  the  Treasury  or  at  the  cus- 
tom-houses. If  it  extended  to  the  subduction 
of  one-hatf,  or  any  other  proportion  of  the  ad 
valorem  duties,  still  every  thing  would  be  fair 
upon  paper.  The  records  of  the  Treasury  would 
show  the  entries  and  appraisements  upon  which 
the  duties  had  been  paid  ;  but  they  would  show 
nothing  else  to  establish  the  real  and  lonafide 
value  or  cost  upon  which  the  duties  should  have 
been  paid. 

But,  without  including  any  part  of  that  por- 
tion of  the  ad  valorem  duties  which  is  lost  by 
frauds,  it  may  justly  be  assumed,  that  the  net 
amount  of  ad  valorem  duties  is  now  higher,  in 
proportion  to  the  net  amount  of  specific  duties, 
than  the  gross  amount  of  ad  valorem  duties  is 
to  the  gross  amount  of  specific  duties,  accord- 
ing to  former  experience,  in  this  respect. 
Making  some  little  allowance,  on  this  account, 
in  favor  of  the  net  ad  valorem  duties,  and  pro- 
ceeding upon  the  facts  and  principles  already 
stated,  we  are  led  to  the  conclusion  that,  of  the 
total  net  revenue  now  received  from  merchan- 
dise, about  two-thirds  arise  from  the  ad.  valorem 
duties,  and  about  one-third  arises  from  the 
specific  duties. 

Though  it  is  not  possible  to  ascertain,  with 
exactness,  the  extent  of  the  loss  to  the  revenue 
in  the  ad  valorem  duties,  arising  from  appraise- 
ments and  false  invoices,  yet  some  probable  es- 
timate of  the  amount  may  be  made.  I  have 
endeavored  to  form  such  an,  estimate.  The 


amount  of  the  loss  I  have  heard  estimated  by 
very  intelligent  men,  at  one-sixth,  and  at  one- 
fifteenth  part  of  the  total  amount  of  ad  valorem 
duties  which  should  have  been  received ;  and 
at  all  rates,  between  a  sixth  and  a  fifteenth  part. 
Taking  all  the  information  which  I  have  been 
able  to  obtain,  and  the  estimates  and  opinions 
of  well-informed  men,  in  whose  knowledge  and 
judgment  I  have  great  confidence,  as  the  basis 
of  my  own  opinion,  I  cannot  estimate  the  loss 
to  the  revenue,  arising  from  these  causes,  at 
less  than  ten  per  centum.  By  this  I  mean  that, 
taking  all  the  valuations  upon  which  all  the  ad 
valorem  duties  are  computed,  as  well  those 
which  are  fair  and  just,  as  those  which  are 
fraudulent,  and  below  the  true  value  in  vari- 
ous degrees,  including  also  all  the  appraise- 
ments, and  speaking  of  the  years  1815,  1816, 
and  1817,  the  aggregate  amount  of  ah1  the 
entries  and  appraisements,  has  been  less  than  it 
should  have  been,  by  at  least  a  tenth  part  of 
the  true  cost  or  value.  Thus,  if  the  total 
amount  of  merchandise  subject  to  ad  valorem 
duties  imported  in  a  given  period,  is  of  the  true 
value  or  cost  of  ten  millions,  the  numerous 
undervaluations  which  take  place  in  particular 
instances,  reduce  the  total  amount  of  the  whole 
to  nine  millions ;  and  thus  a  tenth  part  of  the 
duties  which  should  be  paid  is  lost.  I  cer- 
tainly do  not  profess  to  be  accurate  in  a  case 
where  accuracy  is  unattainable.  I  can  only 
say,  that  I  have  sought  information  from  every 
source  accessible  to  me ;  I  have  stated  the  facts 
as  they  appear  to  be  from  all  the  information 
which  I  have  been  able  to  collect :  and  I  am 
obliged  to  conclude,  that  at  least  a  tenth  part 
of  the  ad  valorem  duties  is  lost  by  these  frauds. 

Estimating,  then,  that  the  loss  in  the  ad  valo- 
rem duties,  arising  from  false  statements  of  the 
foreign  cost  and  appraisement,  amounts  to  ten 
per  centum,  and  taking  the  ad  valorem  duties 
for  the  years  1815, 1816,  and  1817,  at  fifty-two 
millions,  it  follows  that  the  loss  to  the  revenue 
from  these  causes,  during  these  three  years,  has 
exceeded  five  millions  of  dollars.  The  result 
will  of  course  vary,  according  to  the  principles 
assumed. 

It  is  true  that  the  present  mode  of  determin- 
ing the  value  of  goods  subject  to  duty  ad  valo- 
rem, has  prevailed  from  the  commencement  of 
the  present  Government  to  this  time.  When 
the  present  system  of  collection  was  first  estab- 
lished, the  ad  valorem  duties  were  low,  and  the 
temptation  to  fraud  was  comparatively  small. 
Many  successive  alterations  were  made  in  the 
rates  of  duty,  by  which,  in  most  cases,  the  du- 
ties were  advanced ;  but  still,  our  duties,  before 
the  late  war  with  Great  Britain,  were  moderate, 
compared  either  with  those  which  have  since 
been  imposed,  or  with  the  duties  of  other  coun- 
tries. It  is  probable,  that  for  many  years  after 
the  commencement  of  the  duties  and  the  system 
of  collection,  in  1789,  the  fraud  of  false  invoices 
was  not  often  practised  ;  but  it  is  believed  that 
this  species  of  fraud  had,  before  the  late  war, 
gradually  gained  much  ground,  as  the  duties 


10 


ABRIDGMENT  OF  THE 


Specific  and  ad  valorem  Duties. 


[DECEMBER,  1817. 


were  gradually  increased,  and  the  methods  of 
accomplishing  the  object,  with  impunity,  be- 
came better  understood. 

By  the  act  of  the  first  of  July,  1812,  the  du- 
ties then  existing  were  doubled,  and  double 
duties  were  to  continue  for  one  year  after  the 
termination  of  the  war.  These  duties  were 
continued  by  a  subsequent  act,  until  the  30th 
of  June,  1816,  when  they  ceased,  and  the  pres- 
ent duties  took  their  place. 

During  all  these  periods,  and  notwithstand- 
ing the  augmentations  in  the  rates,  the  system 
for  the  collection  of  the  duties  has  remained, 
in  substance,  the  same. 

Consulting  experience,  the  sure  test  of  the 
past,  and  the  safe  monitor  for  the  future,  we 
learn,  that,  in  proportion  as  the  duties  are  in- 
creased, the  collection  is  endangered;  and  in 
proportion  as  the  duties  are  increased  the  Gov- 
ernment must  diminish  its  reliance  upon  the 
oaths  of  parties  interested,  as  securities  against 
fraud.  It  is  therefore,  perhaps,  not  surprising, 
that  the  present  system  should  have  been  found 
tolerably  successful,  in  the  collection  of  the  low 
and  earlier  rates  of  duty ;  and  that  the  same  sys- 
tem should  now  be,  in  some  respects,  no  longer 
adequate  to  the  collection  of  duties  so  consider- 
able as  those  which  now  are,  and  for  some  time 
have  been,  in  force. 

But  without  attempting  to  discuss,  or  even  to 
state,  the  various  projects  of  reformation,  which 
might  be  suggested,  I  shall  briefly  submit  a  few 
ideas  upon  this  subject. 

If  the  evasions  and  abuses  which  now  occur 
result,  as  is  believed,  from  the  present  system  of 
collection,  the  remedy  must  be  found  in  some 
alteration  of  the  system  itself. 

A  considerable  part,  perhaps  one-fourth  or  one- 
fifth  in  amount  of  the  articles  now  imported,  and 
now  subject  to  ad  valorem  duties,  may,  with 
entire  convenience,  be  subjected  to  specific  du- 
ties, [Mr.  SANFORD  here  went  into  a  statement 
of  the  articles  to  which  he  alluded,  specifying 
those  which  he  conceived  might  be  very  con- 
veniently charged  with  a  duty  upon  the  number, 
weight,  or  measure,  instead  of  the  value] 

The  advantages  of  specific  duties  over  those 
imposed  on  the  value,  in  point  of  security  to  the 
revenue,  and  in  their  fair  and  equal  operation, 
are  well  known.  The  plan  of  specific  duties  is 
free  from  those  inequalities  and  uncertainties 
which  must  always,  in  some  degree,  attend 
valuations.  Such  is  the  excellence  of  this  mode 
of  charging  duties,  that  though  our  present 
specific  duties,  like  those  ad  valorem,  are  high, 
compared  with  the  earlier  rates,  and  though  the 
specific  duties  are  in  general  much  higher  than 
those  ad  valorem  in  reference  to  the  intrinsic 
values  of  the  different  subjects  on  which  they 
are  respectively  imposed,  yet  it  is  believed  that 
the  specific  duties  are  collected  with  greater 
punctuality  and  certainty,  and  without  any  con- 
siderable loss  to  the  revenue.  This  fact  like- 
wise shows  that  the  present  system  of  collecting 
the  specific  duties  is  excellent,  since  it  is  found 
to  be  so  by  experience ;  and  it  also  affords  a 


very  satisfactory  proof  that  the  losses  now  sus- 
tained by  the  revenue  in  the  ad  valorem  duties, 
do  not  result  from  any  want  of  vigilance  or 
fidelity  on  the  part  of  the  officers  of  the  customs 
who  collect  both  the  ad  valorem  and  the  specific 
duties. 

I  am  aware  that  the  bulk  and  weight  of  many 
of  the  articles  subject  to  specific  duty  afford  a 
very  important  security  to  the  revenue.  But  i:' 
these  articles  were  subject  to  ad  valorem  instead 
of  specific  rates,  it  cannot  be  doubted,  that  the 
same  evasions  and  frauds  would  take  place  in 
respe'ct  to  them  which  now  occur  in  all  the 
articles  now  placed  in  an  ad  valorem  class. 

Still  the  articles,  which  will  probably  remain 
charged  with  duty  on  the  value,  will  be  very  nu- 
merous, and  of  great  amount  in  the  aggregate  of 
our  imports :  and  a  proper  system  for  the  col- 
lection of  duties  imposed  on  the  value  will  al- 
ways be  necessary. 

The  provisions  of  forfeiture  and  appraisement, 
when  applied  to  the  real  value  of  the  goods, 
after  they  reach  our  own  shores,  would  probably 
operate  with  an  efficacy  which  is  scarcely  felt, 
when  the  question  in  controversy  is  the  foreign 
cost  of  the  goods. 

Or,  instead  of  the  provisions  of  forfeiture  an! 
appraisement,  the  British  system  may  be  adopt-  . 
ed.  According  to  that  system,  the  importer 
enters  his  goods  at  any  value  which  he  chooses 
to  affix  to  them.  If  the  officers  of  the  customs 
think,  upon  examination,  that  the  goods  rre  un- 
dervalued by  the  importer,  they  take  thi  goods 
on  account  of  the  Government,  and  forthwith 
pay  to  the  importer,  from  the  money  in  their 
hands  arising  from  the  customs,  tte  sum  at 
which  he  has  valued  them,  with  an  addition  of 
ten  per  centum  to  his  valuation,  and  the  duties 
paid  on  the  importation.  The  goods  are  then 
publicly  sold  on  account  of  the  Government.  If 
the  goods  produce  more  than  the  sum  paid  to 
the  importer  by  the  officers  of  the  customs,  a 
moiety  of  the  excess  is  given  to  those  officers  as 
a  reward  for  their  vigilance  and  fidelity.  Thus, 
the  interest  of  the  importer,  and  the  interest  of 
the  officers  of  the  customs,  are  constantly  array- 
ed against  each  other.  It  is  the  interest  of  the 
importer  to  enter  his  merchandise  at  a  just 
value  ;  for  he  is  constantly  exposed  to  the  haz- 
ard of  receiving  for  it  no  more  than  the  amount 
of  his  own  valuation,  with  the  specified  addi- 
tions. Thus,  the  steady  and  active  principle  of 
personal  interest,  is  constantly  in  exercise  on 
both  sides,  and  is  at  once  the  inducement  to  the 
importer  to  enter  his  merchandise  at  its  fair 
value,  and  the  inducement  to  the  public  officers 
to  wrest  it  from  the  importer  when  it  is  under- 
valued by  him.  Perhaps  no  scheme  of  human 
policy  has  yet  been  devised  for  the  purpose  of 
securing  fair  valuations  as  the  basis  of  duties, 
which  tends  so  necessarily  to  that  object  in 
practice,  as  this  plan  which  is  now  established 
and  pursued  in  Great  Britain.  This  system  is 
found  in  the  statutes  of  the  27  George  III., 
chapter  13,  section  17 ;  and  the  54  George  III., 
chapter  121,  section  1.  It  may  also  be  seen  in 


DEBATES  OP  CONGKESS. 


11 


JANUARY,  1818.] 


African  Slave  Trade. 


[SENATE. 


Pope's  custom  and  excise  laws,  pages  223,  224, 
and  225. 

When  Mr.  SANFORD  concluded,  the  resolution 
was  agreed  to. 


FRIDAY,  December  19. 
NICHOLAS  VANDYKE,  from  the  State  of  Dela- 
ware, arrived  the  18th  instant,  and  attended  this 


MONDAY,  December  22. 
Mr.  MORROW,  from  the  Committee  on  Public 
Lands,  to  whom  the  subject  was  referred,  re- 
ported a  bill  to  extend  the  time  for  locating  Vir- 
ginia military  land  warrants,  and  returning  sur- 
veys thereon  to  the  General  Land  Office,  and  for 
designing  the  western  boundary  line  of  the  Vir- 
ginia military  tract  ;  and  the  bill  was  read,  and 
passed  to  the  second  reading. 

TUESDAY,  December  23. 
Salt  Duty  and  Fishing  Bounties  and  Allowances. 

Mr.  SMITH  submitted  the  following  motion  for 
consideration  : 

Resolved,  That  the  Secretary  of  the  Treasury  be  di- 
rected to  lay  before  the  Senate  a  statement  of  the 
amount  of  duties  on  imported  salt,  during  the  years 
1815,  1816,  and  1817,  as  far  as  the  returns  to  the 
Treasury  will  permit.  Also,  a  statement,  for  the  same 
years,  of  the  amount  of  the  allowances  and  drawbacks 
paid  to  vessels  employed  in  the  fisheries,  and  on  pick- 
led fish  exported. 

MONDAY,  December  29. 
Ghent  Treaty  —  Restoration  of  Deported  Slaves. 

The  following  Message  was  received  from  the 
PRESIDENT  OF  THE  UNITED  STATES: 
To  the  Senate  of  the  United  States  : 

In  compliance  with  a  resolution  of  the  Senate  of  the 
16th  of  this  month,  requesting  information  touching 
the  execution  of  so  much  of  the  first  article  of  the 
Treaty  of  Ghent,  as  relates  to  the  restitution  of  slaves, 
which  has  not  heretofore  been  communicated,  I  now 
transmit  a  report  of  the  Secretary  of  State  on  that 
subject.  JAMES  MONROE. 

DEPARTMENT  OF  STATE, 

December  24,  1817. 

The  Secretary  of  State,  to  whom  has  been  referred 
the  resolution  of  the  Senate  of  the  16th  instant,  re- 
questing information  touching  the  execution  of  so 
much  of  the  first  article  of  the  Treaty  of  Ghent  as  re- 
lates to  the  restitution  of  slaves,  which  has  not  here- 
tofore been  communicated,  has  the  honor  to  report  to 
the  President,  that  no  answer  has  been  received  from 
the  British  Government  to  the  proposal  made  by  order 
of  the  late  President,  on  the  17th  of  September,  1816, 
that  the  question  upon  the  different  construction 
given  by  the  respective  Governments  to  that  article, 
should  be  referred  to  the  decision  of  some  friendly 
sovereign  ;  that  the  late  Minister  of  the  United  States 
in  England,  before  his  departure  from  London,  renewed 
the  request  for  an  answer,  and  that  the  present  Min- 
ister at  the  same  Court  has  been  instructed  to  invite 
again  the  attention  of  the  British  Government  to  the 
subject.  All  which  is  respectfully  submitted. 

JO  UN  Q.  ADAMS. 


TUESDAY  December  30. 

The  PRESIDENT  communicated  a  report  of  the 
Secretary  of  the  Treasury,  showing  the  amount 
of  duty  which  accrued  on  salt  imported  during 
the  years  1815  and  1816,  and  from  the  1st  Janu- 
ary to  the  30th  June,  1817,  together  with  the 
amount  paid  for  bounty  on  pickled  fish  exported, 
and  for  allowance  to  vessels  employed  in  the 
fisheries  during  the  same  period,  made  in  obe- 
dience to  a  resolution  of  the  Senate  of  the  24th 
instant ;  and  the  report  was  read.  Whereupon, 
Mr.  SMITH  submitted  the  following  motion  for 
consideration : 

Resolved,  That  "  a  statement  from  the  Treasury 
Department,  showing  the  amount  of  duty  which  ac- 
crued on  salt  imported  during  the  years  1815  and 
1816,  and  from  the  1st  of  January  to  the  30th  of 
June,  1817,  together  with  the  amount  paid  for  bounty 
on  pickled  fish  exported,  and  for  allowances  to  vessels 
employed  in  the  fisheries  during  the  same  period,"  be 
referred  to  the  Committee  on  Finance,  with  instruc- 
tions to  inquire  into  the  expediency  of  repealing  the 
law  laying  that  duty.  • 


FRIDAY,  January  2, 1818. 
African  Slave  Trade. 

The  Senate  resumed  the  consideration  of  the 
motion  of  the  31st  ultimo,  for  instructing  the 
committee  to  whom  was  referred  the  petition  of 
the  committee  of  the  yearly  meeting  of  the  Soci- 
ety of  Friends,  at  Baltimore,  on  the  subject  of 
the  African  slave  trade  ;  and  the  resolution  be- 
ing read — 

Mr.  TROUP  rose  to  object  to  the  last  clause  of 
the  resolution,  which  contemplated  a  concert 
with  foreign  nations.  He  thought  this  a  most 
extraordinary  proposition,  and  asserted  that,  ac- 
cording to  his  apprehension,  no  measure  could 
be  adopted  more  replete  with  danger  to  the 
welfare,  to  the  very  existence  of  this  country, 
than  a  formal  coalition,  for  any  purposes,  with 
any  foreign  nation  whatever.  It  was  a  policy, 
a  resort  to  which  ought  always  to  be  resisted, 
and  he  hoped  would  be  resisted  with  a  firmness 
not  to  be  overcome.  The  object  of  the  first  part 
of  the  proposition,  for  making  our  laws  against 
the  slave  trade  more  perfect  and  more  effectual, 
Mr.  T.  approved,  and  was  willing  to  co-operate 
in  it.  He  was  ready  to  go  as  far  as  any  one,  in 
enforcing,  within  our  own  jurisdiction,  the  aboli- 
tion of  the  African  slave  trade.  Within  our 
land  line,  or  water  line,  even  on  the  high  seas, 
ho  was  willing  to  enforce  our  own  laws  on  the 
subject ;  but  to  direct  the  President  to  enter  into 
any  compactor  concert  for  this  subject  with  any 
foreign  nation  or  individuals,  was  a  step  he 
would  never  consent  to.  lie  could  not  separate 
from  foreign  alliances  the  idea  of  foreign  politics 
and  foreign  wars  ;  and  the  proposed  measure  he 
should  view  as  the  commencement  of  a  system  of 
foreign  connections  tending  to  foreign  alliances, 
to  which  Mr.  T.  expressed  great  repugnance. 
Unless,  therefore,  the  propositions  embraced  by 
the  resolution  were  separated,  he  should  be  ob- 
liged to  vote  against  it. 


12 


ABRIDGMENT  OF  THE 


SENATE.] 


African  Slave  Trade. 


[JANUARY,  1818. 


Mr.  BUREILL  was  pleased,  he  said,  to  find  that 
Mr.  TROUP  had  no  objection  to  the  main  object 
the  resolution  had  in  view,  of  putting  an  entire 
stop  to  the  African  slave  trade — on  this  point, 
he  believed,  there  was  no  diversity  of  opinion 
throughout  the  country.  Mr.  B.  regretted,  how- 
ever, that  such  a  view  had  been  taken  qf  the 
concert  with  other  nations  proposed  to  effect  the 
object ;  because  it  was  only  by  such  concert  and 
co-operation  that  the  slave  trade  could  be  abol- 
ished. Mr.  B.  entirely  agreed  to  the  impolicy 
of  foreign  alliances ;  and  if  the  general  objection 
to  them  applied  to  the  proposition  he  had  sub- 
mitted, he  admitted  it  would  be  a  sound  and 
substantial  one ;  but  he  could  not  view  the  pro- 
posed concert  in  this  light,  nor  could  he  con- 
ceive that  any  such  disastrous  consequences 
would  follow  it  as  had  been  anticipated  by  the 
gentleman  from  Georgia ;  that  apprehension,  he 
thought,  was  altogether  groundless.  Nor  was 
the  principle  of  the  proposed  concert,  Mr.  B. 
said,  a  novelty  in  this  country.  By  referring  to 
the  Treaty  of  Ghent,  it  would  be  found  that  our 
Ministers  had  either  made  or  received  overtures 
on  this  very  subject,  and  a  provision  was  in  con- 
sequence inserted  in  the  Treaty.  The  concert 
had  been  considered  as  indispensable  to  bring 
about  the  entire  abolition  of  the  slave  trade  ; 
and,  Mr.  B.  said,  it  had  been  found  impossible 
to  put  an  entire  stop  to  it  without  a  co-opera- 
tion among  the  nations  prohibiting  it ;  for,  no 
matter  how  many  nations  prohibit  the  trade,  if 
one  or  two  are  allowed  to  carry  it  on,  the  evil 
will  still  exist. 

Mr.  KING,  in  the  outset  of  his  remarks,  ad- 
verted to  the  delicacy  of  this  question;  and 
said  that  if,  in  approaching  it,  he  could  discover 
any  danger  of  the  present  proposition's  leading 
to  that  kind  of  connection  which  was  appre- 
hended by  Mr.  TROUP,  no  one  would  more 
earnestly  deprecate  it  than  himself.  But,  he 
said,  it  was  the  boast  of  this  nation  that  it  had 
the  reputation  of  having  been  the  first  to  begin 
the  abolition  of  the  African  slave  trade;  the 
constitutional  provision  having  reference  to  this 
subject,  certainly  looked  forward  to  a  time 
when  this  country  would  be  ready  to  use  its 
best  endeavors  to  put  down  this  iniquitous 
traffic ;  and,  he  might  add,  there  was  no  pro- 
vision in  the  constitution  which  had  been  look- 
ed to  with  more  general  approbation  than  that 
one.  The  example  of  this  country  had  excited 
the  emulation  of  other  nations,  and  all  of  them 
having  any  connection  with  this  trade,  except 
two,  had  come  into  the  measures  for  its  aboli- 
tion. Those  two  had  taken  time  for  further 
consideration,  and  so  long  as  their  decision  was 
suspended,  the  regulations  of  other  nations 
would  be  inefficient ;  an  entire  abolition  of  the 
traffic  in  slaves  would  never  be  effected  until  all 
united  to  suppress  it.  It  seems  to  me,  said  Mr. 
K.,  that  we  are  bound  by  our  own  principles, 
and  the  promise  we  have  held  out,  to  go  a  little 
further  if  we  can,  to  give  effect  to  what  we  have 
undertaken.  It  was  not  important,  he  thought, 
in  doing  so,  whether  the  necessary  measures 


commenced  with  us,  or  were  entered  into  at  the 
invitation  of  others.  So  long,  however,  he  said, 
as  Spain  or  Portugal  permitted  this  trade,  and 
so  long  as  any  of  our  own  people,  to  their  dis- 
grace, continue  to  pursue  it  under  those  flags, 
it  was  necessary  to  the  honor  and  the  interest 
of  this  country  to  concur  in  any  proper  meas- 
ures for  its  suppression.  He  could  not  perceive, 
he  said,  how  such  a  measure  as  this  motion  look- 
ed to,  could  lead  to  any  such  entangling  con- 
nection as  had  been  apprehended.  What  was 
proposed  was  an  honest  and  moral  concert  to 
put  an  end  to  a  traffic  which  is  an  abomination 
on  the  earth.  He  had  no  idea  of  its  authorizing 
the  slightest  interference  with  the  internal 
affairs  of  other  nations,  or  of  allowing  them  to 
interfere  in  ours ;  it  could,  in  his  opinion,  only 
redound  still  more  to  the  honor  of  our  country. 
An  arrangement  of  the  nature  suggested,  he 
thought,  might  be  entered  into  without  any 
great  inconvenience,  and  without  any  encour- 
agement to  that  kind  of  connection  of  interests 
which  had  been  very  justly  deprecated ;  and  it 
was,  he  said,  if  practicable,  a  measure  which 
was  demanded  by  a  regard  for  the  morals  of  the 
country,  which  our  religion  itself  called  for. 
Nor  did  he  think,  Mr.  K.  said,  that  it  was  a 
sound  objection,  though  there  was  some  forco 
in  it,  that  the  proposition  originated  in  this 
branch  of  the  Government,  and  not  with  the 
Executive.  Any  branch  of  the  Government,  he 
thought,  might  express  an  opinion  on  any  na- 
tional question  ;  the  construction  of  legislative 
powers  was  not  so  strict  as  to  forbid  it ;  in  proof 
of  which,  he  adverted  to  the  practice  in  Eng- 
land, whence,  Mr.  K.  said,  we  took  many  of  our 
political  ideas,  where  the  Parliament  often  ex- 
pressed its  opinion  on  subjects  of  public  in- 
terest. 

Mr.  CAMPBELL,  without  being  prepared  for  a 
discussion  of  the  subject,  said  he  could  not  at 
present  see  the  propriety  of  adopting  a  resolu- 
tion from  which  no  good  could  result ;  for  we, 
as  legislators,  said  he,  cannot  enter  into  any  con- 
tract with  foreign  nations.  The  Executive 
only,  he  said,  was  the  proper  branch  of  the  Gov- 
ernment to  form  such  an  arrangement,  and  if  it 
had  been  necessary,  he  presumed  the  Executive 
would  have  done  so ;  but  it  would  be  useless, 
and  therefore  improper,  for  the  Senate  to  act 
on  this  subject,  because  they  could  not  act  with 
effect.  It  had  been  remarked,  however,  that 
the  expression  of  an  opinion  by  the  Senate, 
might  be  useful,  and  that  this  course  was  a  com- 
mon practice  with  the  British  Parliament.  It 
was  common,  he  knew,  for  Parliament  to  ad- 
dress humble  petitions  to  the  King  that  he 
would  cause  certain  measures  to  be  executed ; 
but  between  that  practice  and  ours  there  was 
no  analogy.  Wheu  this  Congress  acted,  Mr.  C. 
said,  they  acted  effectually,  and  did  not  and 
ought  not  ever  to  undertake  what  they  have 
not  power  to  carry  into  effect.  There  was, 
perhaps,  but  a  single  instance  of  a  departure 
from  this  practice  in  the  Senate,  when,  on  one 
occasion,  they  recommended  to  the  Executive 


DEBATES  OF  CONGRESS. 


13 


JANUARY,  1818.] 


African  Slave  Trade. 


[SENATE. 


to  send  a  Minister  to  a  foreign  Government. 
The  measure  he  always  disapproved,  and  he 
was,  on  principle,  averse  to  originating  any  prop- 
osition in  the  Senate,  which  their  constitutional 
powers  did  not  enable  them  to  consummate. 
Besides  this,  Mr.  C.  declared  his  unwillingness 
to  enter  into  any  compact  whatever  with  any 
foreign  power  to  regulate  our  own  conduct,  or 
to  carry  our  laws  into  effect.  Two  nations  had 
thought  proper  still  to  permit  the  trade  alluded 
to.  What  compact,  said  Mr.  0.,  are  we  to  form 
with  others,  to  induce  these  nations  to  forbid  it  ? 
Are  we  to  require  Spain  and  Portugal  to  give 
up  this  trade?  Are  we  to  unite  with  France 
and  England  to  urge  them  to  give  if  up  ?  And,  j 
should  they  yet  refuse,  are  we  to  attempt  to  j 
force  them  by  arms  to  do  so?  Are  we,  he  I 
asked,  prepared  to  risk  a  war  for  this  object  ? 
He  confessed  he  could  not  see  to  what  other  re- 
sult the  proposition  tended. 

Mr.  KING  rose  to  enter  his  dissent  to  the  con- 
struction given  by  Mr.  TROUP,  to  the  article 
of  the  Treaty  of  Ghent  which  had  been  quoted. 
Surely,  he  said,  it  would  be  much  more  offensive 
to  admit  that  we  would  enter  into  a  stipulation 
•with  a  foreign  Government  to  carry  our  own 
statutes  into  execution  within  our  own  territory, 
where  our  power  is  complete,  than  that  we 
should  engage  in  a  concert  to  suppress  a  par- 
ticular trade  on  the  high  seas.  He  would  enter 
into  no  such  stipulation  with  any  power  on 
earth,  even  if  it  had  been  deemed  necessary ; 
but  in  this  case  it  was  not.  He  thought  the 
true  intention  of  the  article  was,  that  the  par- 
ties would  use  their  joint  endeavors  to  put  an 
end  to  the  traffic.  [Mr.  K.  then  proceeded  to 
remark  on  the  circumstances  of  the  case,  which 
he  presumed  Mr.  CAMPBELL  had  referred  to,  to 
which  the  Senate  had  volunteered  its  opinion 
on  a  certain  subject  to  the  Executive ;  but  it 
afterwards  appeared,  on  explanation,  that  Mr. 
K.  and  Mr.  C.  had  not  referred  to  the  same  case. 
Lest,  however,  injustice  should  be  done  to  Mr. 
K.'s  views  of  that  subject,  they  are  omitted.] 

Mr.  CAMPBELL,  in  conclusion,  observed,  re- 
specting the  stipulation  of  the  Treaty  of  Ghent, 
that  he  did  not  think  the  provision  was  intended 
to  oblige  either  party  to  carry  its  own  statutes 
into  execution.  He  presumed  it  was  introduced 
merely  because  the  subject  was  at  that  time 
fresh  in  Great  Britain,  and  that  country  felt 
anxious  to  have  it  introduced  into  the  treaty, 
to  give  to  that  instrument  some  popularity. 
There  was  nothing  additional  to  be  done  in  pur- 
suance of  the  provision,  and  he  viewed  it  simply 
as  an  expression  of  the  pre-existing  disposition 
of  the  parties  to  put  down  the  trade  entirely. 

A  motion  having  been  made  by  Mr.  CAMPBELL 
to  postpone  the  resolution  for  further  considera- 
tion, it  was  postponed  to  Monday  without  ob- 
jection. 

The  Senate  adjourned  to  Monday  morning. 


MONDAY,  January  5. 
WILLIAM  HUNTER,  from  the  State  of  Rhode 


Island  and  Providence  Plantations,  arrived  the 
2d  instant,  and  attended  this  day. 

WEDNESDAY,  January  7. 
ROBERT  H.  GOLDSBOROUGH,  from  the  State  of 
Maryland,  arrived  the  6th  instant,  and  resumed 
his  seat  in  the  Senate  this  day. 

Increase  of  the  Navy. 

Mr.  TAIT  submitted  the  following  motion  for 
consideration : 

Resolved,  That  the  President  of  the  United  States 
be  requested  to  cause  to  be  laid  before  the  Senate  the 
proceedings  which  may  have  been  had  under  the  act, 
entitled  "  An  act  for  the  gradual  increase  of  the  Navy 
of  the  United  States  ;"  specifying  the  number  of  ships 
put  on  the  stocks,  and  of  what  class,  and  the  quan- 
tity and  kind  of  materials  procured  for  ship-building. 
And  also,  the  sums  of  money  which  may  have  been 
paid  out  of  the  fund  created  by  said  act,  and  for  what 
objects  ;  and  likewise  the  contracts  which  may  have 
been  entered  into,  in  execution  of  the  act  aforesaid, 
on  which  moneys  may  not  yet  have  been  advanced. 

FBIDAY,  January  9. 

ELEGIES  FROMENTIN,  from  the  State  of  Louis- 
iania,  arrived  the  8th  instant,  and  attended  this 
day. 

MONDAY,  January  12. 
The  African  Slave  Trade. 

The  following  resolution,  offered  some  days 
ago  by  Mr.  BURRILL,  was  taken  up : 

"  Resolved,  That  the  committee,  to  whom  was  re- 
ferred the  petition  of  the  committee  of  the  yearly 
meeting  of  the  Society  of  Friends  at  Baltimore,  be 
instructed  to  inquire  into  the  expediency  of  so  amend- 
ing the  laws  of  the  United  States  on  the  subject  of 
the  African  slave  trade,  as  more  effectually  to  prevent 
said  trade  from  being  carried  on  by  citizens  of  the 
United  States,  under  foreign  flags  ;  and  also  into  the 
expediency  of  the  United  States  taking  measures,  in 
concert  with  other  nations,  for  the  entire  abolition  of 
said  trade." 

Mr.  BURRILL  said,  that,  at  the  time  he  had 
the  honor  of  moving  the  resolution,  he  had  not 
anticipated  any  objection  to  it ;  but,  from  the 
debate  on  the  subject  on  a  former  day,  it  ap- 
peared that  some  honorable  gentlemen  thought 
it  unnecessary  to  make  the  inquiry  at  all,  and 
that  any  concert  with  foreign  nations,  to  attain 
the  end  proposed,  was  highly  improper  and 
dangerous.  The  question  before  the  Senate  was 
not  upon  the  adoption  of  any  specified  or  pre- 
scribed line  of  conduct,  for  the  purpose  of  put- 
ting the  finishing  hand  to  the  great  work  of  the 
abolition  of  the  slave  trade;  it  was  merely 
whether  it  should  be  referred  to  a  committee 
to  inquire  into  the  expediency  of  taking  meas- 
ures, in  concert  with  other  nations,  for  this 
great  and  benevolent  purpose.  The  committee 
may  inquire,  and  be  of  opinion  that  it  is  inex- 
pedient to  adopt  any  measures  whatever,  or 
at  loast  that  it  is  not  proper  to  take  measures 
in  concert  with  other  Governments.  If  the 


14 


ABRIDGMENT  OF  THE 


SENATE.] 


African  Slave  Trade. 


[JANUARY,  1818. 


Senate  should  refuse  an  inquiry  into  the  pro- 
priety of  this  course,  they  might  be  subjected 
to  the  imputation  of  disregarding  the  implied 
obligations  of  the  Treaty  of  Ghent,  by  the  tenth 
article  of  which  it  is  recited,  that  both  the  par- 
ties are  desirous  of  continuing  their  efforts  to 
promote  the  entire  abolition  of  the  slave  trade, 
and  agree  that  both  shall  use  their  best  endeav- 
ors to  accomplish  so  desirable  an  object.  If 
the  Senate  should  refuse  the  inquiry,  it  might 
give  rise  to  unjust  surmises  and  suspicions  as  to 
the  sincerity  of  the  Government  in  passing  laws 
for  this  purpose,  and  in  entering  into  the  stipu- 
lations of  the  Treaty  of  Ghent.  The  United 
States  cannot  justly  be  charged  with  having 
acted  in  bad  faith,  either  in  making  or  perform- 
ing treaties;  and,  as  the  United  States  have 
the  honor  of  having  led  the  way  in  the  glorious 
cause  of  abolishing  the  slave  trade,  there  can  be 
no  doubt  that,  in  making  this  stipulation  at 
Ghent,  our  Envoys  acted  with  sincerity,  and 
he  hoped  were  entitled  to  the  merit  of  having 
proposed  the  article.  This  article,  as  well  as 
the  rest  of  that  treaty,  met  universal  approba- 
tion. Ought  we,  then,  to  refuse  to  refer  it  to  a 
committee,  to  inquire  whether  further  measures 
are  not  necessary,  or  at  least  expedient?  If 
any  honorable  gentleman  had  moved  to  go  into 
a  Committee  of  the  "Whole  on  this  question, 
would  it  have  been  refused  ?  What  danger  or 
inconvenience,  then,  could  arise  from  referring 
the  subject  for  investigation  ?  This  committee, 
if  convinced  that  further  measures  are  neces- 
sary, would  report  those  measures  to  the  House ; 
and,  should  they  recommend  a  concert  with 
foreign  nations  for  this  purpose,  the  subject  then, 
having  some  length  and  breadth,  and  dimen- 
sions, could  be  examined  and  considered.  But 
this  could  not  so  well  be  done  now,  because 
there  was  no  specific  proposition  before  the 
House.  There  was  no  such  danger  to  be  ap- 
prehended as  some1  gentlemen  imagined,  from 
the  generality  of  the  terms  of  the  proposition 
now  under  debate.  This  is  the  common  and 
ordinary  course  in  commencing  the  considera- 
tion of  any  subject  in  the  Senate,  and  the  Senate 
should  be  cautious  not  to  give  ground  for  the 
disgraceful  suspicion  that  they  are  not  sincere 
and  hearty  in  this  cause  of  suffering  humanity. 
Every  gentleman  in  this  House  wishes  for  the 
entire  abolition  of  this  abominable  traffic,  and 
this  is  the  general  voice  of  the  country.  The 
gentlemen  here  representing  the  slaveholding 
States,  are  as  decided  as  any  others  on  this 
point,  and  one  of  those  States  (Virginia)  was 
entitled,  he  believed,  to  the  honor  of  having 
been  the  first  State  to  prohibit  it.  It  was  bet- 
ter, as  the  subject  had  some  connection  with 
others  which  were  of  a  peculiarly  delicate  na- 
ture, to  refer  it  to  a  deliberate  inquiry  in  a  small 
committee,  than  to  make  it  a  topic  of  debate 
under  some  general  proposition,  in  which  way 
considerations  which  did  not  fairly  belong  to 
the  subject  would  insensibly  mingle  with  it. 

Mr.  BARBOUR  said,  that,  while  he  was  decid- 
edly in  favor  of  the  main  object  of  the  resolu- 


tion, that  of  revising  the  laws,  and  remedying 
every  defect  for  the  prevention  of  the  wicked 
trade  in  question,  there  was  a  part  of  the  reso- 
lution of  which  he  did  not  approve,  and,  if  re- 
tained, he  should  vote  against  it.  And  hence, 
lest  his  views  might  be  misunderstood,  he  felt 
himself  compelled  to  intrude  on  the  attention 
of  the  Senate,  while  he  briefly  disclosed  his 
reasons.  Before  he  did  this,  however,  he  would 
make  a  few  general  remarks.  He  felt  himself 
obliged  to  the  gentleman  from  Rhode  Island, 
for  doing  justice  to  Virginia,  in  admitting  she 
had  been  the  first  to  protest  against  this  trade. 
But  it  was  no  more  than  an  act  of  justice ;  for 
such  certainly  was  the  fact.  Her  zeal  in  this 
good  cause  has  undergone  no  diminution.  The 
United  States  followed  her  example;  America 
stands  in  the  relation  to  the  rest  of  the  world, 
that  Virginia  does  to  America.  She  took  the 
lead  in  the  humane  effort  to  exterminate  this 
horrible  traffic.  He  rejoiced  to  see  that  the 
great  nations  of  Europe  had  adopted  her  pre- 
cepts, and  were  imitating  her  enlightened  and 
philanthropic  example.  Spain  and  Portugal 
constitute  the  only  exception ;  the  former,  it  is 
said,  with  what  truth  he  knew  not,  has  received 
a  pecuniary  compensation  to  abandon  the  traf- 
fic. Should  this  be  true,  as  he  cordially  hoped 
it  might  be,  Portugal  will  then  stand  alone. 
It  is  reasonably  to  be  anticipated,  that  she  will 
not  be  able  to  resist  the  incumbent  load  of  the 
civilized  world ;  when  their  remonstrances  are 
enforced  by  the  united  influence  of  justice,  hu- 
manity, and  philanthropy.  Africa,  then  freed 
frorn  those  disastrous  effects  which  this  trade 
has  produced,  may,  under  the  benign  influence 
of  peace,  reason,  and  religion,  indulge  a  hope, 
that  in  the  fulness  of  time  she  may  participate 
in  the  blessings  of  civilization,  with  all  its  be- 
neficent effects.  Nor  was  he  averse  to  adopting 
measures  in  concert  with  any  nation,  which  he 
believed  would  be  calculated  to  hasten  the  de- 
struction of  this  trade.  For  his  part,  he  feared 
nothing  from  an  alliance  with  any  nation,  whose 
only  object  was  humanity.  No  man  could  more 
highly  appreciate,  than  he  did,  the  soundness  of 
the  political  maxim,  inculcated  by  the  Father  of 
his  Country,  in  his  legacy  to  the  American 
people — that  of  avoiding  entangling  alliances 
with  other  nations ;  yet,  with  all  his  reverence 
for  this  wise  precept  and  his  determination  to 
pursue  its  suggestions,  he  felt  no  apprehension 
from  the  concert  proposed.  A  concert  like  the 
one  proposed  is  in  its  character  novel ;  its  ob- 
ject is  humanity ;  while  alliances  denounced  by 
the  above  wise  maxim,  have  for  their  object 
dominion  and  power,  to  be  acquired  by  the 
misery  of  mankind ;  to  extricate  a  nation  from 
which,  is  not  unfrequently  attended  with  a  vio- 
lation of  honor ;  or,  if  executed,  it  is  frequently 
with  the  sacrifice  of  peace,  and  sometimes  with 
ruin.  But  what  can  we  fear  ?  Before  any  such 
concert  can  be  taken,  the  terms  on  which  we 
unite  must  receive  our  sanction ;  a  guarantee 
sufficient  to  quiet  the  apprehensions  of  the  most 
cautious.  In  so  far,  then,  as  the  principal  pro- 


DEBATES  OF  CONGRESS. 


15 


JANCAKT,  1818.] 


African  Slave  Trade. 


[SKXATE. 


ject  of  the  resolution  is  concerned,  or 
means  of  effecting  it,  he  would  go  with  the 
mover ;  but  the  part  to  which  he  objected,  was 
that  proposing  that  Congress  should  unite  with 
other  nations  to  produce  the  object ;  this  he 
considered  to  be  improper.  Congress  can  act 
only  in  its  legislative  capacity ;  and,  by  conse- 
quence, can  enter  into  no  concert  with  other 
nations.  That  has  been  assigned  to  another 
branch  of  the  Government.  It  is  through  the 
Executive  alone  that  intercourse  and  arrange- 
ments with  other  nations  can  be  effected.  Leave 
it  therefore  where  the  constitution  has  placed 
it,  without  discussing  the  question  how  far  this 
body  has  a  right  to  advise,  in  its  Executive 
character,  the  Chief  Magistrate  upon  the  pro- 
priety of  entering  into  new  arrangements  with 
foreign  nations ;  a  question  on  which  there  is  a 
difference  of  opinion.  He  would  content  him- 
self by  remarking,  that  he  believed  such  an 
authority  had  never  yet  been  exercised ;  but, 
be  the  power  as  it  may,  it  will  be  readily  con- 
ceded that  this  is  not  one  of  the  cases  which 
would  justify  it ;  or,  if  it  were,  this  is  neither 
the  time  nor  the  manner  in  which  it  should  be 
performed.  It  has  been  urged,  indeed,  that,  by 
the  Treaty  of  Ghent,  America  and  Britain, 
having  agreed  to  use  their  best  endeavors  to  put 
an  end  to  this  traffic,  that  this  course,  as  now 
recommended,  may  find  a  shelter  from  criticism 
in  that  article ;  as  it  is  merely  in  fulfilment  of 
the  obligation  thereby  contracted.  Mr.  B.  con- 
ceived that  the  article  in  question  had  no  other 
object,  than  to  furnish  to  the  civilized  world  an 
unequivocal  testimonial  of  the  sentiments  of  the 
contracting  powers  in  regard  to  this  trade. 
Both  nations  having,  therefore,  made  use  of 
what  they  esteemed  the  best  method  to  sup- 
press it,  and  entertaining,  reciprocally,  the  most 
entire  confidence  that  they  were  sincere  in  their 
wishes  to  effect  it,  either  would  repel  with  scorn 
an  insinuation  that  an  article  of  this  kind  was 
necessary  to  secure,  in  future,  their  zealous  per- 
severance in  a  course  which  had  been  previously 
adopted,  of  their  own  mere  will,  and  which 
rested  upon  a  much  surer  foundation  than  com- 
pact, namely,  upon  their  sense  of  its  justice, 
humanity,  and  propriety. 

Mr.  TKOUP  said  he  had  no  intention,  when  he 
objected  the  other  day  to  a  part  of  the  resolu- 
tion, to  involve  the  Senate  in  a  debate  upon  it ; 
and  he  very  plainly  perceived  that,  at  this  stage 
of  it,  it  would  be  considered  premature  to  dis- 
cuss at  large  the  merits  of  the  question.  But 
he  would  submit  to  the  Senate  if  it  were  com- 
petent to  them,  in  union  with  the  President,  to 
pledge  the  arras  and  resources  of  the  country, 
in  a  concert  with  foreign  powers,  for  any  object 
whatsoever.  He  denied  that  it  could  be  done 
in  the  spirit  of  the  constitution.  It  would  be 
a  pledge  of  that  which  we  had  not.  The  arms 
and  resources  of  the  country  were  confided 
elsewhere ;  they  were  deposited,  not  with  the 
two,  but  the  three  branches  of  the  Legislature  ; 
and,  in  fact,  were  not  even  to  be  found  there. 
The  people  were  essentially  the  depository  of 


Yet 

it  was  proposed  to  pledge,  by  an  act  of  the  Ex- 
ecutive power  only,  the  arms  and  resources  of 
a  nation  in  concert  with  foreign  powers,  for  the 
abolition  of  the  slave  trade.  Gentlemen  seemed 
to  entertain  very  different  significations  of  the 
term  concert ;  for  his  part,  Mr.  T.  said,  he  knew 
of  but  one  signification,  which,  in  its  application 
to  the  present  subject,  could  legitimately  attach 
to  it ;  a  signification  sustained  equally  by  the 
law  of  nations,  the  law  of  diplomacy,  as  far  as 
he  knew  such  a  law,  and  the  universally  re- 
ceived acceptation  of  the  term — concert  with 
foreign  nations — Sir,  what  is  it  but  a  term  foi 
common  councils  and  common  efforts?  The 
gentlemen  propose  to  themselves  a  great  object 
— no  less  than  the  universal  abolition  of  the 
slave  trade  ;  other  nations,  they  acknowledge, 
hold  out  against  them.  Will  they  be  content, 
then,  with  a  concert  of  common  councils  ?  As- 
suredly they  will  not.  Between  nations  com- 
mon councils  mean  nothing,  unless  sustained  by 
common  efforts ;  and  common  efforts  between 
nations  mean  nothing  less  than  war,  if  war  be 
necessary  for  the  object.  "War  must  be  neces- 
sary, so  long  as  other  nations  assert  the  right 
and  hold  to  the  practice  of  the  slave  trade.  It 
is  true  that  you  may  begin  with  negotiation, 
but  it  is  certain  that,  if  negotiation  fail,  you 
must  resort  to  war.  What  would  avail  a  treaty 
stipulation  which  would  pledge  the  United 
States  to  exert,  in  concert  with  Great  Britain, 
their  advice  and  persuasion  to  induce  Spain  and 
Portugal  to  abolish  the  slave  trade  ?  Spain  and 
Portugal  would  care  nothing  about  your  advice 
and  persuasion,  especially  when  you  told  them 
that  you  intended  nothing  more.  Rhetoric  and 
eloquence  are  not  the  instruments  of  nations  for 
the  execution  of  grand  projects.  He  was  well 
persuaded  that  the  gentleman  from  Rhode  Island 
meant  to  deal  in  something  more  substantial ; 
idle  and  insignificant  verbiage  could  not  suit  his 
purpose,  for,  if  it  did,  he  already  found  it  in  a 
treaty.  This  word  concert,  therefore,  Mr.  Pres- 
ident, means  something — it  means  connection, 
combination,  alliance,  for  a  given  object;  it 
means  entangling  alliance.  You  are  admonished 
against  entangling  alliances ;  for  what  reason  ? 
Because  our  Government  is  one  of  its  own  kind, 
insulated,  the  only  Republic  in  the  world,  be- 
tween which  and  other  Governments  there  is  no 
common  principle,  no  common  feeling,  no  com- 
mon sympathy ;  they  may  combine  for  their 
own  interests ;  they  may  enter  into  concert  for 
your  destruction ;  they  will  not  be  so  ready  to 
combine  with  you  either  to  promote  your  in- 
terests, or  interests  common  to  you  and  them. 
You  propose  a  concert  with  crowned  heads  I 
They  never  concert  with  themselves,  but  broils, 
and  quarrels,  and  wars,  follow  in  the  train. 
History  is  full  of  them  ;  and,  if  entangling  con- 
nections, sir,  between  monarchs,  who  wield  the 
sword  and  the  purse,  who  make  peace  and  war 
at  their  will,  be  fruitful  of  these  mischiefs,  wha* 
may  we  not  expect  when  you  enter  the  lists  with 
out  the  means  of  doing  what  you  engage  to  do  f 


16 


ABRIDGMENT  OF  THE 


SENATE.] 


African  Slave  Trade. 


[JANUARY,  1818. 


Mr.  MOKRILL  said,  that  with  peculiar  emo- 
tious,  he  asked  the  attention  of  the  Senate  to  a 
few  remarks  on  this  subject.  It  was  with  ex- 
treme diffidence  he  rose  to  address  the  Senate 
on  this  occasion.  I  am  not  insensible,  said  he,  of 
the  extent  of  the  field  on  which  I  enter,  nor  of 
my  inability  to  explore  it.  A  subject,  sir,  co- 
extensive with  the  world,  in  which  this  exten- 
sive Republic  have  an  interest,  and  on  which, 
by  their  delegated  Representatives,  they  may 
express  an  opinion — whether  they  will  "use 
their  best  endeavors  "  to  effect  a  complete  abo- 
lition of  the  slave  trade.  Sir,  upon  this  it 
seems  there  can  be  but  one  opinion. 

Coming  from  New  England,  where  slavery  is 
unknown,  my  prejudices  may  be  strong,  my 
views  enthusiastic ;  but,  sir,  allow  me  to  be 
honest,  believe  me  sincere,  permit  me  to  be 
plain.  In  New  England  we  believe  "  all  men 
are  born  equally  free  and  independent" — thus 
commences  our  "Bill  of  Rights."  Whatever 
their  color,  powers  of  mind,  property,  or  rank 
in  society,  they  are  freemen — citizens,  not 
slaves.  They  have  a  claim  to  that  freedom  in 
this  asylum  of  liberty.  These  sentiments,  sir, 
commenced  with  my  existence ;  advanced  with 
my  youth ;  were  strengthened  with  my  man- 
hood ;  and  are  confirmed  with  my  age.  They 
are  not  only  mine,  but  universally  the  senti- 
ments of  those  whose  confidence  and  affection 
have  exalted  me  to  this  honorable  station. 
Shall  I  not  speak  their  sentiments  on  this  occa- 
sion ?  Shall  I  not  desire  the  termination  of  sla- 
very ?  It  is  a  duty,  sir,  I  owe  to  myself,  my 
country,  and  my  God.  That  respectable  section 
of  the  nation  which  I  have  the  honor  to  repre- 
sent, has  a  right  to  demand  it  at  my  hand. 

When  I  examine  this  resolution,  sir,  I  am  un- 
able to  discover  why  any  objection  should  be 
made.  In  passing  it,  we  do  not  say  we  believe 
it  is  expedient  to  amend  "  the  laws  of  the  Unit- 
ed States  on  the  subject  of  the  African  slave 
trade;"  nor  that  we  will  enter  into  any  "con- 
cert with  other  nations  for  its  entire  abolition." 
But,  sir,  we  say,  we  are  willing  to  instruct  a 
respectable  committee  to  examine  those  objects, 
in  all  their  parts  and  bearings,  as  to  the  expe- 
diency of  the  objects  suggested,  and  report  to 
the  Senate,  which  report  will  then  be  under  the 
perfect  control  of  this  body.  The  Senate  may 
then  approve  or  disapprove,  as  its  wisdom  may 
dictate.  Where  then  is  the  difficulty?  For 
myself,  sir,  I  am  in  favor  of  the  resolution. 
Permit  me  to  assign  a  few  reasons.  It  is  found- 
ed, in  part,  on  an  article  of  the  Treaty  of  Ghent. 
The  words  are  as  follows :  "  Whereas,  the  traf- 
fic in  slaves  is  inconsistent  with  the  principles 
of  humanity  and  justice ;  and  whereas,  both 
His  Majesty  and  the  United  States  are  desirous 
of  continuing  their  efforts  to  promote  its  entire 
abolition,  it  is  hereby  agreed,  that  both  the  con- 
tracting parties  shall  use  their  best  endeavors 
to  accomplish  so  desirable  an  object."  In  this, 
sir,  there  is  nothing  very  specific,  as  to  the 
manner  in  which  their  desires  shall  be  mani- 
fested. But  the  contracting  parties  view  "  the 


traffic  in  slaves  inconsistent  with  the  principles 
of  humanity  and  justice,"  and,  therefore,  agree 
to  use  "their  best  endeavors,"  to  effect  its  abo- 
lition. How  this  is  to  be  accomplished,  is  an- 
other point.  They  may  have  different  views, 
and,  consequently,  each  may  pursue  a  different 
course.  Therefore,  sir,  I  am  perfectly  willing 
to  submit  the  subject  to  the  investigation  of  the 
committee,  that  they  may  report  thereon. 

The  abolition  of  slavery  was  contemplated  by 
the  framers  of  our  constitution.  Sec.  9 — "  The 
migration  or  importation  of  such  persons  as  any 
of  the  States  now  existing  shall  think  proper  to 
admit,  shall  not  be  prohibited  by  the  Congress 
prior  to  the  year  1808."  Here,  sir,  we  see 
those  venerable  sages  prospectively  viewed  the 
period  in  which  we  live,  when  Congress  should 
manifest  a  disposition  to  abolish  the  slave  trade. 
Wise  provision !  a  duty  negatively  expressed. 
A  provision,  sir,  which  has  given  rise  to  a  dis- 
position that  pervades  the  United  States,  to 
pursue  and  accomplish  the  benevolent  object. 
Nay,  sir,  it  is  not  confined  to  the  United  States ; 
it  extends  to  almost  every  civilized  nation  on 
the  globe.  A  spirit  of  philanthropy  glows  in. 
the  human  breast.  Spain  and  Portugal  are  the 
only  nations  now  averse  to  the  object.  The 
views  of  Spain,  in  all  probability,  will  soon  ac- 
cord with  those  of  other  nations.  Then  Portu- 
gal will  be  the  solitary  kingdom  whose  voice 
and  arm  are  not  raised  against  this  inhuman 
traffic.  Let  us  proclaim,  sir,  that  these  sable 
mortals  have  a  claim  upon  our  philanthropy  and 
our  benevolence. 

I  am  in  favor  of  the  resolution,  sir,  because 
its  object  comports  with  the  dictates  of  reason 
and  humanity.  Though  black,  they  are  human 
beings,  in  human  shape.  That  is  not  their 
crime,  but  their  misfortune.  We  then  ought  to 
commiserate,  not  enslave  them.  Let  exertions 
be  made  to  raise  them  from  their  present  state 
of  degradation ;  assist  in  the  mighty  work. 
Every  human  affection  recoils  at  their  bondage. 
May  every  benevolent  heart  beat  high  for  their 
freedom,  and  every  human  arm  be  extended  for 
their  emancipation.  It  is  a  cause,  sir,  in  which 
the  world  is  engaged.  As  it  was  commenced 
by  the  United  States,  let  them  continue  their 
efforts ;  let  Congress  say,  with  all  civilized  na- 
tions, they  will  joyfully  bear  a  part  to  accom- 
plish an  object  so  desirable,  so  humane. 

But,  sir,  I  am  in  favor  of  the  resolution  in  a 
political  point  of  view.  Carry  the  great  design 
into  effect,  and  you  place  those  forlorn  objects 
within  the  reach  of  political  and  moral  instruc- 
tion. The  basis  on  which  every  good  Govern- 
ment most  firmly  stands,  is  knowledge  and  vir- 
tue. Diffuse  and  extend  these  sacred  principles, 
and  you  enlarge  the  basis  on  which  your  Gov- 
ernment is  built ;  and,  in  the  same  proportion, 
you  carry  the  principles  of  liberty  and  the  rights 
of  man  to  those  who  grope  in  darkness,  and  aid 
in  the  emancipation  of  those  who  are  bound  in 
the  chains  of  despotism.  Virtue  and  knowledge, 
sir,  are  the  firm  foundation  on  which  this 
mighty  Republic  is  erected ;  on  which  it  rises. 


DEBATES  OF  CONGRESS. 


17 


JANUARY,  1818.] 


African  Slave  Trade. 


[SENATE. 


and  on  which  it  will  continue  to  rise,  so  long  as 
those  divine  principles  are  nourished,  univer 
sally  diffused,  and  practised.  This  is  what  as- 
tonishes foreigners  when  they  tread  American 
ground.  All  classes  of  society  can  read  and 
write,  can  name  and  give  the  characters  of  our 
rulers,  the  principles  of  our  constitution,  the 
genius  of  our  Government,  and  the  nature  of 
our  laws.  This  was  the  reason,  sir,  France 
could  not  maintain  a  Republican  Government. 
Knowledge  and  Virtue  were  not  sufficiently 
diffused  through  the  nation.  It  was  not  on  ac- 
count of  the  extent  of  her  territory,  nor  the 
number  of  her  citizens.  Monarchy  and  general 
ignorance  go  hand  in  hand.  Despotism  and 
slavery  are  always  companions.  This,  sir,  ac- 
counts for  the  protracted  struggle  in  South 
America.  They  have  physical  strength  and 
the  means,  but  not  knowledge  and  skill,  to  con- 
centrate their  exertions  to  the  best  advantage. 
Did  they  possess  the  general  information  en- 
joyed in  the  United  States,  their  independence 
would  be  as  certain  as  the  rising  snn. 

Mr.  President,  I  am  in  favor  of  the  resolu- 
tion in  a  moral  point  of  view.  We,  sir,  are  a 
Christian  nation.  The  Bible  is  our  moral  guide. 
Are  not  its  principles  sacred,  its  precepts  salu- 
tary, and  its  commands  obligatory  ?  Have  not 
the  frowns  of  indignant  Heaven,  and  the 
threatenings  of  Jehovah,  rested  on  nations  and 
cities  for  their  ingratitude  to  their  fellow  mor- 
tals ?  Babylon — Babylon  the  great  has  fallen ! 
What  has  brought  her  down?  The  scene  is 
viewed  in  prospect.  "  The  merchants  of  the 
earth  shall  weep  and  mourn  over  her."  In 
what  did  her  commerce  consist  ?  "  In  gold,  and 
silver,  and  precious  stones,  and  pearls,  and  cha- 
riots, and  slaves,  and  the  souls  of  men.1"  Ah, 
Mr.  President,  this  was  the  climax  of  their 
abominations!  They  had  a  traffic  in  slaves 
and  the  souls  of  men.  This  brought  down  the 
judgments  of  Heaven.  That  they  may  be 
averted  from  the  world,  let  the  inhuman  traffic 
be  abolished  to  the  end  of  the  earth. 

Mr.  KING  observed  that  the  motion  was  to  in- 
struct a  committee  to  inquire  whether  further 
measures  can  be  devised,  in  concert  with  other 
powers,  to  put  an  end  to  the  traffic  in  slaves  on 
the  coast  of  Africa.  The  debate,  said  Mr.  K, 
has  taken  a  wider  range  than  from  the  definite 
object  of  the  motion  could  have  been  anticipat- 
ed. The  advantages  or  disadvantages  of  alli- 
ances offensive  and  defensive,  and  the  policy  or 
impolicy  of  such  treaties,  as,  with  the  view  of  ac- 
quiring some  complicated  though  important  po- 
litical advantage,  pledge  the  wealth  and  strength 
of  the  United  States,  are  questions  of  most 
weighty  importance ;  the  discussion  of  which, 
however,  is  not  requisite  in  debating  the  motion 
before  the  Senate.  The  concert  which  is  allud- 
ed to  in  the  motion,  is  not  the  union  of  arms, 
but  of  opinion,  of  example,  and  of  influence,  for 
the  purpose  of  prevailing  on  Spain  and  Portu- 
gal to  accede  to  the  compact  already  formed 
among  the  nations,  to  put  an  end  to  the  African 
slave  trade.  Equally  uncalled  for  on  this  occa- 
VOL.  VL— 2 


sion,  and  more  to  be  regretted,  is  a  discussion 
of  the  justice  and  policy  of  permitting  the  exist- 
ence of  slavery.  This  topic  is  one,  said  Mr.  K, 
that,  from  obvious  considerations,  has  at  all 
tunes  been  alluded  to,  even  in  the  Senate,  with 
great  reserve ;  and,  at  this  time,  is  without  ap- 
plication to  the  motion  under  consideration, 
since  not  only  no  Senator  approves  of  the  traf- 
fic, the  abolition  of  which  is  desired,  but  the 
whole  Senate  condemn  it,  and  the  United  States 
were  the  first  among  the  nations  who  restrained 
their  people  from  engaging  in  it 

By  the  Treaty  of  Ghent,  the  United  States 
stipulated  with  Great  Britain  to  use  their  best 
endeavors  to  effect  the  complete  abolition  of 
the  traffic  in  slaves  on  the  coast  of  Africa.  If 
a  committee  be  appointed,  they  will  inquire 
what  has  been  done  in  pursuance  of  this  engage- 
ment ;  they  will  moreover  consider  what  re- 
mains to  be  done,  and  whether  any  measures  of 
concert  with  other  powers,  or  otherwise,  may 
be  calculated  to  promote  the  laudable  object  of 
this  stipulation.  The  United  States  have  Min- 
isters not  only  in  England,  Spain,  and  the  Bra- 
zils, but  likewise  in  Russia,  France,  the  Nether- 
lands, and  Sweden.  These  Ministers  may  be 
reminded  of  the  very  great  interest  which  the 
United  States  take  in  the  universal  abolition  of 
the  African  slave  trade ;  they  may  be  instructed, 
if  they  are  not  so  already,  to  avail  themselves, 
on  every  occasion,  to  promote  this  object ;  and 
the  concurring  representations  and  influence  of 
many  may  accomplish  what  their  separate  en- 
deavors have  hitherto  failed  to  effect.  A  long 
depending  negotiation  with  Spam  still  exists. 
If  we  could  prevail  on  Spain  to  add  to  the  trea- 
ty settling  our  just  claims,  an  article  whereby 
she  should  engage  herself  to  abolish  the  African 
slave  trade,  and  to  co-operate  with  us  in  en- 
deavoring to  prevail  on  Portugal  also  to  abolish 
the  same,  such  an  article  would  enhance  the 

alue  of  the  treaty  in  the  opinion  of  the  Amer- 
ican people,  and  would  not  fail  to  obtain  the 
applause  of  foreign  nations.  The  object  of  the 
motion  being  of  such  great  importance,  the  Sen- 
ate should  neglect  no  opportunity  of  manifesting 
their  solicitude  for  its  accomplishment;  and  the 
inquiry  which  is  proposed  may  fortunately  dis- 
cover that  there  are  means  still  in  our  power, 
which  have  not  yet  been  employed  in  this  mer- 
itorious service. 

But  it  is  objected,  that  this  business  belongs 
exclusively  to  the  President ;  and,  admitting  its 
importance,  and  the  expediency  of  further  exer- 
tions, that  the  Senate  have  nothing  to  do  or  say 
respecting  the  same.  This  objection  appears  to 
be  of  most  serious  import,  as  it  goes  to  restrain 
and  limit  what  is  deemed  to  be  the  constitution- 
al power  of  the  Senate.  There  is  some  embar- 
rassment in  the  examination  of  this  objection, 
and  it  cannot  be  fully  and  satisfactorily  done, 
without  adverting  to  the  proceedings  of  the  Sen- 
ate, in  its  executive  capacity  ;  proceedings  which 
take  place  with  closed  doors,  and  the  journal 
whereof  is  not  published.  The  observations  on 
this  head  will,  therefore,  be  of  a  general  nature, 


ABRIDGMENT  OF  THE 


SENATE.] 


African  Slave  Trade. 


[JANUARY,  1818. 


Without  adverting  to  the  several  branches  of 
the  executive  power,  for  the  purpose  of  distin- 
guishing the  cases  in  which  it  is  exclusively 
vested  in  the  President,  from  those  in  which  it 
is  vested  in  him  jointly  with  the  Senate,  it  will 
suffice  on  this  occasion  to  observe  that,  in  re- 


clusive binding  power,  except  that  of  receiving 
the  Ambassadors  and  other  foreign  Ministers, 
which,  as  it  involves  the  decision  of  the  compe- 
tence of  the  power  which  sends  them,  may  be 
an  act  of  this  character;  to  the  validity  of  all 
other  definitive  proceedings  in  the  management 
of  the  foreign  affairs,  the  constitutional  advice 
and  consent  of  the  Senate  are  indispensable. 

In  these  concerns  the  Senate  are  the  constitu- 
tional and  the  only  responsible  counsellors  of 
the  President.  And  in  this  capacity  the  Senate 
may,  and  ought  to,  look  into  and  watch  over 
every  branch  of  the  foreign  affairs  of  the  nation ; 
they  may,  therefore,  at  any  time  call  for  full  and 
exact  information  respecting  the  foreign  affairs, 
and  express  their  opinion  and  advice  to  the 
President  respecting  the  same,  when,  and  under 
whatever  other  circumstances,  they  may  think 
such  advice  expedient. 

There  is  a  peculiar  jealousy  manifested  in  the 
constitution  concerning  the  power  which  shall 
manage  the  foreign  affairs,  and  make  treaties 
with  foreign  nations.  Hence  the  provision 
which  requires  the  consent  of  two-thirds  of  the 
Senators  to  confirm  any  compact  with  a  foreign 
nation  that  shall  bind  the  United  States ;  thus 
putting  it  in  the  power  of  a  minority  of  the  Sen- 
ators, or  States,  to  control  the  President  and  a 
majority  of  the  Senate :  a  check  on  the  Execu- 
tive power  to  be  found  in  no  other  case. 

To  make  a  treaty  includes  all  the  proceedings 
by  which  it  is  made ;  and  the  advice  and  con- 
sent of  the  Senate  being  necessary  in  the  making 
of  treaties,  must  necessarily  be  so,  touching  the 
measures  employed  in  making  the  same.  The 
constitution  does  not  say  that  treaties  shall  be 
concluded,  but  that  they  shall  be  made,  by  and 
with  the  advice  and  consent  of  the  Senate :  none 
therefore  can  be  made  without,  such  advice  and 
consent ;  and  the  objections  against  the  agency 
of  the  Senate  in  making  treaties,  or  in  advising 
the  President  to  make  the  same,  cannot  be  sus- 
tained but  by  giving  to  the  constitution  an  in- 
terpretation different  from  its  obvious  and  most 
salutary  meaning. 

To  support  the  objection,  this  gloss  must  be 
given  to  the  constitution,  "that  the  President 
shall  make  treaties,  and  by  and  with  the  advice 
and  consent  of  the  Senate  ratify  the  same." 
That  this  is,  or  could  have  been  intended  to  be 
the  interpretation  of  the  constitution,  one  ob- 
servation will  disprove.  If  the  President  alone 
has  power  to  make  a  treaty,  and  the  same  be 
made  pursuant  to  the  powers  and  instructions 
given  to  his  Minister,  its  ratification  follows  as  a 
matter  of  course,  and  to  refuse  the  same  would 
be  a  violation  of  good  faith ;  to  call  in  the  Sen- 
ate to  deliberate,  to  advise,  and  to  consent  to  an 
act  which  it  would  be  binding  on  them  to  ap- 


prove and  ratify,  will,  it  is  presumed,  be  deem- 
ed too  trivial  to  satisfy  the  extraordinary  pro- 
vision of  the  constitution  that  has  been  cited. 
On  the  whole,  there  appearing  to  be  no  suffi- 
cient impediment  in  the  way  of  the  proposed 
inquiry,  either  as  respects  its  expediency  or  the 
authority  of  the  Senate  to  institute  the  same,  I 
am  in  hopes  that  the  motion  to  refer  the  subject 
to  a  committee  will  prevail. 

Mr.  LACOOK  said  the  resolution  before  the  Sen- 
ate contained  two  separate  and  distinct  proposi- 
tions ;  the  first  was  the  amendment  of  the  laws 
that  prohibited  the  introduction  of  slaves  into  the 
United  States :  on  this  subject  there  existed  no 
difference  of  opinion — all  agreed  an  end  should 
be  put  to  this  abominable  traffic.  If  the  present 
statutory  provisions  were  not  so  formed  as  to  ef- 
fect this  object,  they  certainly  required  amend- 
ment ;  and  no  objection  could  be  made  to  the  in- 
Siiry,  as  this  was  a  legitimate  object  of  legislation, 
ut,  said  Mr.  L.,  the  other  branch  of  the  inquiry 
is  of  a  very  different  character;  it  proposes  to 
inquire  into  the  best  manner  of  executing  an  ar- 
ticle of  the  treaty  of  Ghent.  The  stipulations 
of  this  article  are,  that  the  contracting  parties, 
the  United  States  and  Great  Britain,  should  use 
their  endeavors  to  put  an  end  to  the  slave  trade. 
But  could  this  agreement  be  carried  into  effect 
by  law  ?  Did  it  furnish  a  subject  of  legislation  ? 
Laws  were  made  to  operate  on  the  people  of 
the  United  States,  and  within  their  jurisdiction, 
not  to  effect  an  arrangement  with  foreign  Gov- 
ernments. This  could  only  be  done  by  treaty ; 
and  surely,  said  Mr.  L.,  the  initiatory  steps  in 
making  treaties  should  be  left  with  the  Execu- 
tive. But  it  has  been  urged  by  gentlemen  in  fa- 
vor of  this  proposition,  that  the  Senate  can  act  on 
this  subject  by  virtue  of  the  constitutional  power 
of  this  body  to  interpose  their  advice  and  consent 
in  making  treaties.  This  argument  cannot  avail 
them ;  for,  if  we  claim  the  power,  and  exercise 
it,  as  a  part  of  our  executive  duties,  why  is  this 
discussion,  on  the  subject  of  a  treaty,  had  with 
open  doors  ?  Has  this  ever  been  the  practice  of 
the  Government  ?  The  Ministers  of  those  Gov- 
ernments who  admit  and  carry  on  the  slave 
trade,  are  accredited  by  our  Government — are 
on  the  spot,  for  aught  I  know,  in  the  lobby  or 
gallery,  while  we  are  discussing  the  propriety 
of  putting  a  stop  to  their  traffic  in  slaves.  That 
this  branch  of  the  subject  is  improper  for  pub- 
lic discussion,  is  admitted  by  the  gentleman 
from  New  York,  (Mr.  KING,)  who  has  told  you 
he  felt  embarrassed  by  this  public  discussion ; 
that  he  is  restrained  by  his  situation  from  mak- 
ing observations  that  he  otherwise  would  feel 
authorized  to  make.  This  concession  on  his 
part  should  convince  every  one  that  the  pro- 
ceedings are  irregular.  While  we  are  thus 
openly  debating  the  subject,  for  aught  we  know, 
the  President  is  negotiating  with  other  powers 
to  effectuate  the  object  we  have  in  view.  He 
is  bound,  by  the  constitution,  to  see  the  laws 
faithfully  executed.  The  Treaty  of  Ghent  ^  has 
become  the  supreme  law  of  the  land,  and  it  is 
unfair  to  presume  that  the  President  has  neg. 


DEBATES   OF  CONGRESS. 


19 


JAXCABY,  1818.] 


Amelia  Island. 


lected  his  duty.  In  short,  said  Mr.  L.,  if  we 
are  anxious  to  have  this  subject  pressed  on  the 
Executive,  let  us  close  our  doors,  as  in  other 
cases,  and  make  a  call  on  him  for  information ; 
we  shall  then  he  put  in  possession  of  the  facts 
officially ;  we  shall  know  what  steps,  if  any, 
have  been  taken,  in  concert  with  Great  Brit- 
ain, to  put  an  end  to  the  traffic  we  all  abhor. 

The  question  was  then  taken  on  the  motion 
to  strike  out  the  latter  clause  of  the  resolution, 
and  decided,  yeas  16,  nays  17,  as  follows: 

YEAS. — Messrs.  Barbonr,  Campbell,  Eppes  ,Fro- 
mentin,  Gaillard,  Lacock,  Macon,  Sanford,  Smith, 
Stokes,  Storer,  Tait,  Talbot,  Taylor,  Troup,  and  Wil- 
son. 

NATS.— Messrs.  Ashmtm,  Burrill,  Crittenden,  Dag- 
gett,  Dickerson,  Fisk,  Goldsborougti,  Horsey,  Hunter, 
King,  Leake,  Merrill,  Morrow,  Noble,  Ruggles,  Tich- 
enor,  and  Van  Dyke. 

And  on  the  question  to  agree  to  the  motion 
as  originally  submitted,  it  was  determined  in  the 
affirmative. 

So  it  was  Resolved,  That  the  committee  to 
whom  was  referred  the  petition  of  the  commit- 
tee of  the  yearly  meeting  of  the  Society  of 
Friends  at  Baltimore,  be  instructed  to  inquire 
into  the  expediency  of  so  amending  the  laws  of 
the  United  States  on  the  subject  of  the  African 
slave  trade,  as  more  effectually  to  prevent  said 
trade  from  being  carried  on  by  citizens  of  the 
United  States  under  foreign  flags,  and  also  into 
the  expediency  of  the  United  States  taking 
measures,  in  concert  with  other  nations,  for  the 
entire  abolition  of  said  trade. 


WEDNESDAY,  January  4. 
Amelia  Island. 

The  following  Message  was  received  yester- 
day,  from  the    PBESIDENT    OF    THE    UNITED 
STATES : 
To  the  Senate  and  House  of 

Representatives  of  the  United  States  : 

I  have  tbe  satisfaction  to  inform  Congress,  that  the 
establishment  at  Amelia  Island  has  been  suppressed, 
and  without  the  effusion  of  blood.  The  papers  which 
explain  this  transaction,  I  now  lay  before  Congress. 

By  the  suppression  of  this  establishment  and  of 
that  at  Galveztown,  which  will  soon  follow,  if  it  has 
not  already  ceased  to  exist,  there  is  good  cause  to  be- 
lieve that  the  consummation  of  a  project  fraught  with 
much  injury  to  the  United  States  has  been  prevented. 
When  we  consider  the  persons  engaged  in  it,  being 
adventurers  from  different  countries,  with  very  few, 
if  any,  of  the  native  inhabitants  of  the  Spanish  colo- 
nies, the  territory  on  which  the  establishments  were 
made  ;  one  on  a  portion  of  that  claimed  by  the  Unit- 
ed States,  westward  of  the  Mississippi,  the  other  on  a 
part  of  East  Florida,  a  province  in  negotiation  between 
I  the  United  States  and  Spain— the  claim  of  their  lead- 
er as  announced  by  his  proclamation  on  taking  pos- 
session of  Amelia  Island ;  comprising  the  whole  of 
both  the  Floridas,  without  excepting  that  part  of 
West  Florida  which  is  incorporated  into  the  State  of 
Louisiana — their  conduct  while  in  the  possession  of 
the  island,  making  it  instrumental  to  every  species  of 
contraband,  and  in  regard  to  slaves  of  the  most  odious 


and  dangerous  character,  it  may  fairly  be  concluded, 
that  if  the  enterprise  had  succeeded  on  the  scale  on 
which  it  was  formed,  much  annoyance  and  injury 
would  have  resulted  from  it  to  the  United  States. 

Other  circumstances  were  thought  to  be  no  less 
deserving  of  attention.  The  institution  of  a  Govern- 
ment by  foreign  adventurers  in  the  island,  distinct 
from  the  colonial  government  of  Buenos  Ayres,  Vene- 
zuela, or  Mexico,  pretending  to  sovereignty,  and  ex- 
ercising its  highest  offices,  particularly  in  granting 
commissions  to  privateers,  were  acts  which  could  not 
fail  to  draw  after  them  the  most  serious  consequences. 
It  was  the  duty  of  the  Executive  either  to  extend  to 
this  establishment  all  the  advantages  of  that  neutrali- 
ty which  the  United  States  had  proclaimed,  and  have 
observed  in  favor  of  the  colonies  of  Spain,  who  by 
the  strength  of  their  own  population  and  resources, 
had  declared  their  independence,  and  were  affording 
strong  proof  of  their  ability  to  maintain  it,  or  of  mak- 
ing the  discrimination  which  circumstances  required. 
Had  the  first  course  been  pursued,  we  should  not  only 
have  sanctioned  all  the  unlawful  claims  and  practices 
of  this  pretended  government  in  regard  to  the  United 
States,  but  have  countenanced  a  system  of  privateer- 
ing in  the  Gulf  of  Mexico,  and  elsewhere,  the  iH 
effects  of  which  might,  and  probably  would  have  been 
deeply  and  very  extensively  felt.  The  path  of  duty 
was  plain  from  the  commencement,  but  it  was  pain- 
ful to  enter  upon  it  while  the  obligation  could  be 
resisted.  The  law  of  1811,  lately  published,  and 
which  it  is  therefore  proper  now  to  mention,  was 
considered  applicable  to  the  case,  from  the  moment 
that  the  proclamation  of  the  chief  of  the  enterprise 
was  seen,  and  its  obligation  was  daily  increased  by 
other  considerations  of  high  importance  already  men- 
tioned, which  were  deemed  sufficiently  strong  in 
themselves  to  dictate  the  course  which  has  been  pur- 
sued. 

Early  intimation  having  been  received  of  the  dan- 
gerous purposes  of  these  adventurers,  timely  precau- 
tions were  taken  by  the  establishment  of  a  force  near 
the  St.  Mary's  to  prevent  their  effect,  or  it  ia  proba- 
ble that  it  would  have  been  more  sensibly  felt 

To  such  establishments,  made  so  near  to  our  set- 
tlements, in  the  expectation  of  deriving  aid  from 
them,  it  is  particularly  gratifying  to  find  that  very 
little  encouragement  was  given. 

The  example  so  conspicuously  displayed  by  our 
fellow-citizens,  that  their  sympathies  cannot  be  per- 
verted to  improper  purposes,  but  that  a  love  of  conn- 
try,  the  influence  of  moral  principles,  and  a  respect 
for  the  laws,  are  predominant  with  them,  is  a  sure 
pledge,  that  all  the  very  flattering  anticipations  which 
have  been  formed  of  the  success  of  our  institutions 
will  be  realized  This  example  has  proved,  that  if 
our  relations  with  foreign  powers  are  to  be  changed, 
it  must  be  done  by  the  constituted  authorities,  who, 
alone,  acting  on  a  high  responsibility,  are  competent 
to  the  purpose ;  and  until  such  change  is  thus  made, 
that  our  fellow-citizens  will  respect  the  existing  rela- 
tions by  a  faithful  adherence  to  the  laws  which  se- 
cure them. 

Believing  that  this  enterprise,  though  undertaken 
by  persons,  some  of  whom  may  have  held  commis- 
sions from  some  of  the  colonies,  was  unauthorized  by, 
and  unknown  to,  the  colonial  governments,  full  confi- 
dence is  entertained,  that  it  will  be  disclaimed  by 
them,  and  that  effectual  measures  will  be  taken  to 
prevent  the  abuse  of  their  authority  in  all  cases  to 
the  injury  of  the  United  States. 

For  these  injuries,  especially  those  proceeding  from 


20 


ABRIDGMENT  OF  THE 


SEMATE.J 


Surviving  Officers  of  the  Revolution. 


[JANUAEY,    1818 


Amelia  Island,  Spain  would  be  responsible,  if  it  was 
not  manifest  that,  though  committed  in  the  latter  in- 
stance through  her  territory,  she  was  utterly  unable 
to  prevent  them.  Her  territory,  however,  ought  not 
to  be  made  instrumental,  through  her  inability  to 
defend  it,  to  purposes  so  injurious  to  the  United 
States.  To  a  country  over  which  she  fails  to  main- 
tain her  authority,  and  which  she  permits  to  be  con- 
verted to  the  annoyance  of  her  neighbors,  her  juris- 
diction for  the  time  necessarily  ceases  to  exist.  The 
territory  of  Spain  will  nevertheless  be  respected,  so 
far  as  it  may  be  done  consistently  with  the  essential 
interests  and  safety  of  the  United  States.  In  expel- 
ling these  adventurers  from  these  posts,  it  was  not 
intended  to  make  any  conquest  from  Spam,  or  to  in- 
jure in  any  degree  the  cause  of  the  colonies.  Care 
will  be  taken  that  no  part  of  the  territory  contem- 
plated by  the  law  of  1811  shall  be  occupied  by  a 
foreign  government  of  any  kind,  or  that  injuries  of 
the  nature  of  those  complained  of,  shall  be  repeated, 
but  this,  it  is  expected,  will  be  provided  for,  with 
every  other  interest,  in  a  spirit  of  amity,  in  the  ne- 
gotiation now  depending  with  the  Government  of 
Spain  JAMES  MONROE. 

The  Message  and  accompanying  documents 
were  read. 


THURSDAY,  January  29. 
Surviving  Officers  of  the  Revolution. 

The  Senate  resumed,  as  in  Committee  of  the 
Whole,  the  consideration  of  the  bill,  entitled 
"  An  act  to  provide  for  certain  officers  and  sol- 
diers of  the  Revolutionary  army,"  together  with 
the  amendments  reported  thereto  by  the  Com- 
mittee on  Military  Affairs. 

Mr.  KING  took  a  comprehensive  view  of  the 
principal  features  of  the  bill,  stated  his  objec- 
tions to  the  provision  it  proposed  for  seamen, 
militia,  &c.,  and  concluded  by  moving  that  the 
bill  be  recommitted,  and  the  committee  instruct- 
ed to  amend  the  same,  so  as  to  confine  its  pro- 
visions to  a  grant  of  half  pay  for  life  to  the  sur- 
viving officers  of  the  Revolutionary  army  on 
the  continental  establishment,  who  served  for 
three  years,  or  until  the  end  of  the  war,  includ- 
ing those  who  were  entitled,  under  any  resolve 
of  Congress,  to  half  pay  for  life ;  the  half  pay  so 
to  be  granted,  to  be  ascertained  by  the  rank 
according  to  which  the  accounts  of  the  respec- 
tive officers  were  finally  settled. 

Mr.  BAEBOUE  followed,  and,  after  arguing  at 
some  length  to  show  the  impossibility  of  provid- 
ing for  all  included  in  the  bill,  and  the  imprac- 
ticability of  discriminating  bet  ween  the  different 
classes  provided  for,  moved  an  indefinite  post- 
ponement of  the  bill. 

Mr.  SMITH  said,  that,  during  the  discussion  of 
this  question,  the  gentleman  from  Virginia,  (Mr. 
BABBOTJB,)  and  the  gentleman  from  Massachu- 
setts, (Mr.  OTIS,)  had  contended  for  the  first 
honors  of  the  Kevolution,  in  the  acts  of  the  rival 
compatriots,  Mr.  Henry  and  Mr.  Adams.  Mr. 
S.  said,  if  South  Carolina  could  not  boast  of 
having  been  first  in  the  Revolution,  he  could 
confidently  say  she  was  not  the  least,  nor  yet 
the  last.  She  had  performed  her  ample  share. 


But,  if  he  was  to  decide  to  whom  the  first 
honor  was  due,  he  would  say  to  that  band  of 
patriots,  who,  regardless  of  the  consequences, 
entered  the  British  ships  in  Boston  harbor  and 
threw  the  tea  overboard.  This  was  the  first 
efficient  operation,  and  posterity  would  look 
back  upon  it  with  grateful  recollection. 

Mr.  S.  said  he  was  well  aware  of  the  disad- 
vantages under  which  he  should  address  the  Sen- 
ate, on  the  merits  of  the  bill,  and  the  amend- 
ment offered  by  the  gentleman  from  New  York, 
(Mr.  KING  ;)  as  what  he  should  urge,  he  plainly 
perceived,  would  be  in  direct  opposition  to  the 
general  sentiment  that  prevailed  in  the  House, 
as  he  was  decidedly  opposed  to  the  general 
principles  of  the  bill,  as  well  as  to  the  amend- 
ment. If  either  ought  to  prevail,  he  would 
prefer  the  bill.  The  amendment,  he  thought, 
was  entirely  inadmissible.  It  had  for  its  object 
a  special  provision  for  the  officers  of  the  Revo- 
lutionary army,  in  the  continental  line,  to  the 
utter  exclusion,  not  only  of  the  soldiers  of  the 
army,  but  of  the  militia  of  every  description ; 
many  of  whom  bore  a  distinguished  part  in  the 
contest  for  the  independence  of  this  nation. 
The  bill,  as  it  came  from  the  House  of  Repre- 
sentatives, was  more  liberal ;  it  makes  provision 
for  the  soldiers  as  well  as  officers ;  although  it 
makes  no  provision  for  the  militia,  the  bulwark 
of  the  nation.  It  also  provides  for  the  distressed 
seamen  and  marines  of  the  Revolution.  But, 
says  the  gentleman  who  offers  this  amendment, 
the  seamen  and  marines,  as  well  as  their  officers, 
were  well  provided  for ;  they  were  entitled  to 
the  prize  money.  The  naval  force  of  the  Unit- 
ed States,  at  that  tune,  was  very  inconsiderable. 
It  consisted  of  two  or  three  frigates,  a  few 
sloops,  and  a  few  privateers,  which  had  to  con- 
tend with  one  of  the  greatest  maritime  powers 
in  the  world.  The  consequence  of  which  was, 
instead  of  enriching  themselves,  most  of  them 
fell  into  the  hands  of  the  enemy,  who  threw 
them  into  prison-ships  and  dungeons,  where 
many  of  them  lingered  out  a  miserable  life,  and 
perished.  And  such  as  did  survive,  with  a  few 
accidental  exceptions,  were  left  poor. 

We  are  told  we  cannot  provide  for  all,  as  the 
state  of  the  Treasury  will  not  admit  of  it ;  and 
the  officers  are  to  be  selected  as  the  only  ob- 
jects of  the  public  bounty.  And  we  are  told  as 
a  reason  for  this  preference,  that  something  is 
due  to  the  rank  they  hold  in  society,  and  that 
some  distinction  must  be  made  between  men. 
This  is  a  language  not  known  to  our  constitu- 
tion. It  may  do  in  private  life,  if  a  man  is  dis- 
posed to  select  his  society ;  but,  when  we  are 
called  upon  to  legislate  on  the  subject,  we  ought 
to  know  of  -no  distinction.  It  is  repugnant  to 
the  principles  of  our  Government,  and  at  war 
with  good  sense  and  public  justice. 

What  is  the  object  of  this  provision  ?  Why, 
it  is  said,  to  relieve  the  indigent  and  necessitous ; 
and  our  benevolence,  our  sympathies,  and  our 
gratitude,  are  called  upon  to  prompt  us  to  this 
duty.  This  is  a  strange  sort  of  reasoning.  Be- 
nevolence, sympathy,  and  gratitude,  can  draw 


DEBATES  OF  CONGRESS. 


21 


JANUARY,  1818.] 


Surviving  Officers  of  the  Revolution. 


[Sou 


no  line  between  the  officer  and  the  soldier,  when 
both  have  served  their  country,  and  both  are 
indigent.  The  tide  of  pity  swells  as  high  for 
the  sufferings  of  the  indigent  and  necessitous 
soldier,  as  it  can  do  for  the  indigent  and  neces- 
sitous officer,  if  we  are  really  governed  by  pity. 
The  morsel  you  intend  to  bestow  will  be  as 
sweet  to  the  one  as  it  is  to  the  other.  Several 
gentlemen  have  told  us  we  must  wait,  and  feel 
our  way ;  and  if,  in  future,  we  should  find  we 
are  able,  then  the  soldiers  might  be  provided 
for.  If  the  principle  is  correct,  and  the  claim 
is  a  just  one,  why  not  provide  for  both  at  the 
same  time  ?  This  procrastinating,  timid  policy, 
which  so  lately  brought  this  country  to  the 
brink  of  ruin,  and  from  which  you  were  roused 
by  the  people,  is  not  so  well  suited  to  their  ge- 
nius. They  are  more  magnanimous;  and  if 
there  exists  a  debt  of  justice,  or  even  a  debt  of 
gratitude,  which  their  country  is  bound  to  dis- 
charge, they  will  submit  to  be  taxed  to  enable 
the  Government  to  pay  it.  The  Government 
is  now  one  hundred  millions  in  debt,  and  be- 
cause there  is  a  little  money  in  the  Treasury 
not  immediately  wanted,  we  are  endeavoring  to 
establish  a  pension  system  to  get  rid  of  it,  and 
pave  the  way,  when  our  debts  become  due,  for 
laying  another  tax  in  the  place  of  the  one  you 
have  just  repealed.  Mr.  S.  was  in  favor  of  re- 
pealing the  internal  taxes.  It  was  right  to  do 
so.  But  can  we  believe  the  public  mind  is  pre- 
pared to  pay  a  tax  to  maintain  a  pension  sys- 
tem, because  it  is  said  that  those  officers  cannot 
submit  to  any  industrious  pursuits  for  a  living? 
There  are  thousands  of  poor  who  are  unable  to 
work,  that  demand  your  attention  in  an  equal 
degree.  And  are  you  prepared  to  put  all  your 
poor  on  the  pension  list  ? 

It  is  said  this  is  a  just  debt ;  that,  under  the 
confederated  Government,  Congress  had  en- 
gaged to  make  these  officers  half-pay  for  life ; 
which  they  were  induced  to  commute  for  five 
years'  full  pay ;  and  that  this  five  years'  full  pay 
was  discharged  in  certificates,  which  fell  a  prey 
to  speculation ;  and  the  Government  ought  to 
pay  them  over  again.  As  respects  those  Revo- 
lutionary officers,  the  Government  has  acted 
with  perfect  good  faith.  It  performed  with 
fidelity  all  its  engagements,  as  far  as  it  had  ever 
promised,  or  as  far  as  any  hope  or  expectation 
had  been  raised  or  excited,  and  that  at  the  ear- 
liest possible  period  within  its  power,  after  the 
conclusion  of  peace.  It  is  well  known  that  the 
United  States  had  not  the  means  of  paying  its 
army  immediately  at  the  close  of  a  seven  years' 
war,  in  gold  or  silver.  But  it  is  as  well  known 
that  they  did  not  pay  that  army  in  depreciated 
Continental  money.  That  had  gone  to  oblivion 
in  the  hands  of  those  who  had  given  support  to 
the  army.  Their  full  pay  for  real  service  per- 
formed, as  well  as  for  five  years'  full  pay  after 
their  service  terminated,  was  liquidated  and 
settled  at  the  specie  standard ;  and  Government 
certificates  given,  which  bore  interest  from  the 
date ;  and  the  faith  of  the  nation  was  most  sol- 
emnly pledged  to  redeem  them. 


With  this  view  the  Government,  among  its 
earliest  acts  after  the  adoption  of  the  Federal 
Constitution,  established  the  funding  system; 
and  these  very  certificates  were  worth  twenty- 
six  shillings  in  the  pound,  and  at  that  price  this 
nation  redeemed  them.  If  there  was  a  specula- 
tion, the  Government  had  no  hand  in  it.  On 
the  contrary,  whilst  it  suffered  every  other  spe- 
cies of  public  security  to  perish  in  the  hands  of 
the  meritorious  holder,  it  gave  a  distinguished 
sanction  to  these  claims,  and  paid  them  with 
scrupulous  punctuality.  No  speculations  took 
place  as  regarded  these  certificates  until  after 
the  funding  system  was  established.  These 
officers  were  then  apprised  of  their  rights,  and 
if  they  did  not  think  fit  to  protect  them,  the 
Government  could  not  be  blamed.  Specula- 
tions did  run  high  at  that  time,  but  the  officers 
were  not  the  victims  of  it ;  the  soldiers  were 
the  persons  who  fell  a  sacrifice  to  its  ravages. 
Many  of  these  officers  are  honorable  men,  and 
stand  superior  to  any  such  charge ;  yet  it  is  a 
fact  not  to  be  denied,  that  many  of  them  en- 
riched themselves  by  speculating,  in  their  turn, 
on  the  poor  soldiers,  in  buying  then-  certificates 
and  land  warrants  at  very  reduced  prices.  It 
was  not  in  the  power  of  the  Government,  nor 
was  it  the  duty  of  Government,  to  guard  against 
the  speculations  that  succeeded.  It  is  a  mon- 
ster that  pervades  every  quarter,  and  almost 
every  department,  and  if  it  was  the  duty  of 
Government  to  repair  its  ravages,  the  treasures 
of  Peru  would  not  be  adequate  to  the  de- 
mand. 

But,  Mr.  S.  said,  upon  the  most  mature  con- 
sideration, he  was  opposed  to  both  the  bill  and 
amendment  in  any  form  in  which  they  could 
be  presented.  Because  he  believed  no  particu- 
lar merit  could  be  ascribed  to  any  particular 
portion  of  the  people  of  the  United  States,  for 
services  rendered  during  the  Revolutionary 
war,  in  exclusion  of  any  other  portion  who 
espoused  that  cause.  It  was  as  essential,  and 
as  indispensable,  to  the  support  and  mainte- 
nance of  that  war,  that  many  of  your  citizens 
should  have  been  engaged  in  other  spheres,  and 
employed  in  other  occupations,  as  it  was  that 
you  should  have  had  an  army  to  fight  your  bat- 
tles. And  one  could  have  been  as  well  dis- 
pensed with  as  the  other.  This  was  not  a  war 
carried  on  in  yoor  enemy's  country,  nor  were 
those  officers  and  soldiers  sent  from  home  into 
a  foreign  country,  where  they  alone  were  forced 
to  fight  your  battles,  and  undergo  the  toils  of 
war,  without  any  regard.  But  this  was  a  war  • 

of  a  very  different  character.  This  was  a  war 
brought  by  the  enemy  into  your  own  country ; 
a  war  brought  to  every  man's  door,  and  in 
which  every  man  was  obliged  to  take  an  active 
part  in  some  shape  or  other.  Yet  every  man 
could  not  be  in  the  army.  This  was  a  war  of 
a  different  character  from  all  other  wars.  It 
was  a  war  for  liberty  and  independence,  in 
which  every  soul  was  engaged,  and  in  which 
every  one  contributed,  by  every  means  in  his 
power,  or  your  independence  would  have  failed, 


22 


ABRIDGMENT  OF  THE 


SENATE.] 


Surviving  Officers  of  the  Revolution. 


[JANUABY,  1818. 


even  if  your  army  had  been  five  times  as  strong 
as  it  was. 

This  was  not  a  mercenary  army ;  not  one  offi- 
cer was  there  for  the  sake  of  money ;  but  to  do 
his  duty.  And  it  is  to  be  recollected,  on  this 
occasion,  as  in  the  late  war,  there  was  a  great 
solicitude  for  commissions.  It  was  not  only  the 
post  of  honor,  but  often  a  place  of  safety.  Other 
portions  of  your  citizens  were  active  in  the  pub- 
lic councils,  without  whose  bold  and  high-toned 
measures,  taken  at  the  hazard  of  their  lives  and 
fortunes,  your  army  would  have  sunk  into  in- 
significance. Whilst  others,  from  a  pure  love 
for  their  country,  fed  and  clothed  your  armies, 
supplied  them  with  wagons  and  horses,  and 
every  thing  else  which  they  could  furnish  for 
its  use,  without  any  compensation.  By  their 
means,  and  by  their  means  alone,  you  were  en- 
abled to  carry  on  a  seven  years'  war,  without 
money  or  credit;  a  thing  unparalleled  in  the 
history  of  any  other  nation  upon  earth.  They 
had  the  ostentatious  show  of  being  paid  for  it 
in  Continental  money ;  which  feh1  dead  in  their 
hands,  without  a  single  effort  on  the  part  of  the 
Government  to  redeem  it.  By  your  Continen- 
tal money,  thousands  of  the  most  devoted  friends 
of  the  Kevolution,  who  lived  in  affluence  and 
comfort,  sunk  their  whole  fortunes  in  its  cause, 
and  are  now  living  in  penury  and  want,  with 
no  other  consolation  than  that  of  dying  poor  in 
the  cause  of  their  country.  They  yielded  to 
their  misfortunes  without  a  murmur,  believing 
that  all  were  bound  to  give  their  aid,  and  satis- 
fied they  had  given  their  full  portion.  And, 
because  they  were  not  in  the  Continental  army, 
they  have  no  credit  for  all  those  sacrifices.  Of 
what  use  could  an  army  have  been,  if  this  aid 
had  not  been  afforded,  and  in  this  particular 
way  ?  for  you  had  no  other  possible  means  of 
subsisting  it.  This  was  the  very  life  and  soul 
of  the  army,  and  the  very  life  and  soul  of  the 
cause  in  which  they  were  employed.  Without 
it  your  army  could  have  done  nothing,  and  you 
would  yet  have  been  under  the  British  Govern- 
ment. It  is  a  maxim  brought  from  another 
science,  which  applies  as  well  to  governments 
as  to  individuals,  that  you  ought  to  be  just  be- 
fore you  are  liberal.  Before  you  speak  of  lib- 
erality to  the  Continental  officers,  redeem  your 
Continental  money,  and  relieve  that  numerous 
class  of  men,  widows,  and  orphans,  on  whom  it 
has  entailed  so  much  misery  and  poverty.  They 
have  a  strong  claim  upon  your  liberality,  your 
gratitude,  and  your  justice,  although  they  do 
not  assemble  around  you,  in  this  Hall,  as  Belisa- 
rius,  who  is  presented  in  your  lobby,  leaning  on 
his  staff,  at  the  moment  this  subject  is  called 
up,  as  if  your  cool  and  impartial  judgment  stood 
in  need  of  this  artificial  aid. 

Several  gentlemen  have,  with  much  confi- 
dence, asserted  that  we  are  exclusively  indebted 
to  the  Continental  army ;  that  the  civil  and  re- 
ligious liberty  we  so  pre-eminently  enjoy,  are 
the  fruits  of  their  toils.  Mr.  S.  said  he  was 
sensible  of  the  great  merit  of  that  army,  and 
believed  they  had  done  a  great  deal  in  the 


cause  of  liberty ;  yet,  he  had  no  hesitation  in 
declaring,  that  they  had  not  done  more  than 
they  ought  to  have  done ;  nor  had  they  done 
more  than  fell  to  the  lot  of  every  American  de- 
voted to  his  country.  That  army  did  not  meet 
the  common  foe,  and  repel  him  from  your  bor- 
ders with  its  single  arm,  and  leave  all  the  rest 
of  the  community  at  ease  and  security  under  its 
protecting  banners.  Gentlemen  who  believe  so, 
if  there  are  any  such,  know  but  little  of  the  char- 
acter of  the  Eevolutionary  war,  or  the  manner 
in  which  it  was  carried  on,  in  the  three  Southern 
States  of  North  and  South  Carolina,  and  Georgia. 
They  are  perfect  strangers  to  the  sufferings  and 
privations,  as  well  as  the  exertions  and  patriotism 
of  the  people  of  those  States ;  not  of  such  as  be- 
longed to  the  Continental  army — during  their 
worst  times  there  was  no  such  army  there — 
but  of  the  volunteers  and  patriots,  who,  inspired 
with  an  invincible  love  of  liberty,  were  deter- 
mined not  to  yield.  All  the  Continental  army 
was  in  the  Northern  States,  even  to  the  troops 
which  had  been  raised  in  the  Southern  States, 
except  a  few  who  were  occasionally  sent,  and 
who  were  defeated  as  soon  as  they  came,  and 
which  gave  no  sort  of  security  to  the  property, 
the  persons,  or  the  lives  of  the  inhabitants. 

Mr.  S.  said  it  was  impossible  for  gentlemen 
to  know  the  character  of  that  war  in  the  South, 
unless  they  had  been  there  to  witness  it,  and  he 
saw  but  one  gentleman  in  the  Senate  (Mr.  MA- 
CON  of  North  Carolina)  besides  himself,  who 
had.  All  the  rest  were  remote  from  the  scene 
of  action,  or  had  since  grown  up.  So  it  was  in 
the  House  of  Representatives,  where  this  bill 
originated.  Though  much  distinguished  for  their 
talents  and  worth,  yet  most  of  them  also  were 
remote,  or  have  been  born  since  that  war  com- 
menced. Its  true  character  can  never  be  learned 
from  history.  The  historian  never  has,  nor 
never  will,  record  many  of  the  most  striking 
events,  which  so  much  distinguish  it  from  all 
other  wars,  and  which  so  distinguished  it  as 
carried  on  in  that  section.  The  historian  ac- 
quires his  knowledge  from  sources,  in  most 
cases,  as  uninformed  as  himself,  and  often  be- 
stows the  laurels  on  heroes  who  never  fought 
the  battles.  He  was  not  himself  far  enough  ad- 
vanced in  life  to  bear  an  active  part  in  the 
operations  of  the  war,  but  was  old  enough  to 
observe  all  the  passing  events,  and  had  a  per- 
fect recollection  of  them. 

All  the  Continental  troops  sent  to  the  south- 
ward, previous  to  1781,  were  totally  defeated. 
General  Lincoln  lost  several  successive  battles, 
and  never  gained  one,  and  was,  with  his  whole 
force,  finally  taken  prisoner.  General  Gates, 
who  succeeded  him,  shamefully  fled  at  the  fire 
of  the  first  gun,  and  left  the  citizens  to  the 
mercy  of  the  enemy.  These  successive  defeats 
left  the  country  entirely  exposed.  The  British 
not  only  supported  their  whole  army  for  two 
years,  by  plundering  indiscriminately  from  all 
who  refused  to  take  protection,  their  cattle, 
their  hogs,  their  sheep,  their  corn,  rice,  and 
forage  of  every  kind,  but  they  turned  loose  the 


DEBATES  OF  CONGRESS. 


JANUARY,  1818.] 


Surviving  Officers  of  the  Revolution. 


[SEXATE. 


savage  Indians  upon  the  defenceless  frontiers, 
who  butchered  them  without  regard  to  age  or 
sex.  By  these  disasters,  the  Tory  parties,  that 
everywhere  infested  the  country,  became  in- 
creased, and,  with  a  fury  more  unrelenting,  and 
no  less  savage  than  the  Indians,  plundered, 
burned,  and  murdered  wherever  they  went; 
and  the  whole  country  became  a  perfect  scene 
of  internal  warfare.  They  not  only  stole  and 


infantry,  under  Colonel  Tarleton,  at  the  Cow- 
pens  ;  and  this  officer  never  had  been  defeated 
before. 

Can  it  be  said  these  men  owe  their  inde- 
pendence to  the  Continental  army,  for  whom 
you  are  now  about  to  provide  ?  Whether  you 
consider  them  as  patriots,  or  soldiers,  or  as 
sufferers,  or  conquerors,  they  are  entitled  to  as 
distinguished  a  rank  as  any  portion  of  the  Con- 


plundered  to  supply  the  enemy,  but  wantonly    tinental  army  during  the  Revolution.     "When 


burned  and  destroyed  to  distress  the  country ; 
they  waylaid  and  murdered  the  Whigs  wherever 
they  found  them ;  sometimes  murdered  them 
amidst  their  families,  with  their  wives  and  chil- 
dren around  them,  begging  in  vain  for  mercy. 
They  burned  up  their  houses  and  plantations, 
and  with  them  every  thing  that  could  give  com- 
fort or  support  to  the  distressed  women  and 
children,  who  were  reduced  to  a  morsel  of 
bread,  and  very  often  could  not  get  that.  The 
British  army  pervaded  the  whole  country,  and, 
wherever  they  went,  left  destruction  in  their 
train.  That  whole  country  was  a  wide  waste  ; 
nothing  presented  itself  but  ruins,  poverty,  and 
distress.  The  cultivation  of  the  fields,  in  many 
places,  was  left  entirely  to  the  women  and 
children.  Plundered  of  every  hog,  horse,  cow, 
and  every  thing  else  for  then-  support,  many 
mothers  and  daughters,  who  had  seen  better 
tunes,  were  obliged  to  lay  down  their  domestic 
employments,  and  go  to  the  fields  and  work 
like  slaves,  without  the  aid  of  a  horse  to  plough, 
to  raise  a  little  corn  to  subsist  themselves  and 
their  little  children ;  and  very  often  even  this 
hard-earned  morsel  was  plundered  from  them, 
or  destroyed  by  the  enemy.  This  picture  may 
appear  to  be  exaggerated,  but  there  are  many 
who  know  it  to  be  correct,  and  who  remember 
it  with  bitter  regret. 

Whilst  their  women  and  children  were  left 
in  this  forlorn  situation,  the  men  sought  their 
safety  by  imbodying  in  such  parties  as  circum- 
stances would  allow.  If  they  could  not  collect 
a  hundred,  they  could  collect  fifty ;  if  not  fifty, 
twenty,  or  ten,  or  five.  Armed  with  their  rules, 
with  more  than  veteran  bravery,  they  hung 
upon  the  borders  of  the  British  army  wherever 
they  went;  sometimes  firing  upon  the  whole 
army,  or  cutting  off  their  foraging  parties,  and 
circumscribing  their  ravages,  to  their  great  an- 
noyance ;  and  they  became  the  scourge  of  the 
Tories  in  all  quarters.  This  was  the  foundation 
of  that  military  force  which  proved  so  formida- 
ble to  the  British  arms,  and  gave  them  the  first 
check  in  the  Southern  States.  After  losing  all 
hopes  of  any  relief  from  the  Continental  army, 
they  threw  themselves  under  Campbell,  Cleve- 
land, Shelby,  Hill,  and  others,  without  one 
Continental  officer  or  soldier  among  them,  and 
totally  defeated  Colonel  Ferguson,  the  best  par- 
tisan officer  in  the  British  army,  at  the  battle 
of  King's  Mountain.  It  was  this  character  of 
men,  who,  under  Colonel  Pickens,  as  their 
commander,  composed  two-thirds  of  that  infe- 
rior force,  General  Morgan's  detachment,  which 
completely  defeated  tie  British  legions  and 


these  transactions  were  fresh,  and  their  impor- 
tance and  worth  well  understood,  there  was  a 
public  opinion,  competent  to  decide,  that  did 
them  justice.  But,  when  thirty-six  years  have 
elapsed,  like  every  thing  else,  not  performed  by 
great  men,  they  are  forgotten. 

Gentlemen  have  spoken  of  the  militia  service 
as  of  very  little  importance  during  the  war; 
and  seem  to  exclude  entirely  from  any  merit 
all  but  the  Continental  army  and  its  officers ; 
and  one  gentleman  has  intimated  they  could 
not  be  trusted  as  regards  their  veracity  and 
honor.  Who  fought  your  battles,  sir,  before 
you  had  a  Continental  army?  Who  fought 

Sjur  battles  at  Lexington,  at  Concord,  and  at 
unker's  Hill,  at  the  first  dawn  of  the  Revolu- 
tion, that,  like  the  electric  spark,  pervaded 
every  rank,  and  gave  a  tone  to  the  war  that 
only  ended  with  it?  These  warriors  were  your 
militia,  collected  upon  the  spur  of  the  occasion, 
from  their  shops,  and  their  domestic  and  rural 
pursuits  ;  and,  roused  by  the  eloquent  and  im- 
mortal Warren,  and  his  compatriots,  they  dis- 
played an  intrepidity  not  surpassed  by  your 
Continental  army.  Who  fought  and  dispersed 
that  numerous  and  formidable  body  of  Tories, 
on  Cape  Fear,  in  North  Carolina,  who  were 
corrupting  the  minds  of  all  around  them  ?  It 
was  the  militia,  collected  upon  a  single  day's 
notice,  who,  with  their  provisions  and  their 
blankets  on  their  backs,  marched  to  the  scene  of 
action,  under  General  Caswell,  with  a  prompt- 
ness unknown  in  any  but  freemen,  and  defeated 
their  enemy  without  the  loss  of  a  man,  or  with- 
out costing  the  Government  a  single  farthing, 
and  restored  peace  and  order  to  that  country 
for  a  long  time  after. 

Who  defended  Charleston  on  the  memorable 
28th  of  June,  1775,  before  you  had  any  Con- 
tinental army  there  ?  Where  the  whole  British 
fleet,  consisting  of  two  fifty-gun  ships,  several 
frigates,  and  a  number  of  smaller  armed  vessels, 
were  repelled,  and  some  of  them  burned.  The 
enemy,  after  a  battle  of  ten  hours,  were  obliged 
to  retire  with  great  loss  on  their  part,  and  very 
little  on  the  part  of  the  Americans.  The  in- 
habitants of  that  city  contributed  much  to' this 
defence,  and,  but  for  General  Moultrie,  the 
whole  garrison  would  have  been  surrendered 
by  General  Lee,  who  was  the  superior  officer, 
and  who,  it  is  to  be  recollected,  was  a  Con- 
tinental officer.  Who  composed  the  active 
corps  under  Sumter,  Hampton,  and  Middleton. 
Those  gallant  men  were  inferior  to  none,  and 
did  more  good  than  all  the  Continental  soldiers 
you  ever  had  there.  Yet  there  was  not  a  Con- 


ABRIDGMENT  OF  THE 


SENATE.] 


Surviving  Officers  of  the  Revolution. 


[JANUART,    1818. 


tinental  soldier  among  them ;  nor  does  one  of 
them  come  within  the  provisions  of  this  bill. 
Marion  raised  his  men  within  the  British  lines ; 
their  food  was  what  they  could  catch,  the 
earth  was  their  bed,  and  the  heavens  their 
covering,  and  the  swamps  and  marshes  were 
their  stronghold.  These  men  were  in  this 
service  for  more  than  a  year;  they  fought  more 
battles,  gained  more  victories,  killed  more  Brit- 
ish and  Tories,  in  proportion  to  their  own  num- 
ber, than  any  other  class  of  men  npon  the  con- 
tinent ;  and  gave  more  relief  to  the  Americans, 
and  more  annoyance  to  the  enemy.  These 
brave  fellows  never  cost  their  country  so  much 
as  a  single  charge  of  powder ;  they  furnished 
even  their  own  arms,  and  they  used  them  like 
heroes.  "These  were  times  that  tried  men's 
souls."  The  Government  gave  them  no  pay, 
and  they  are  excluded  from  its  bounty  by  the 
bill  before  you.  These  men  are  not  indebted 
to  the  Continental  army  for  their  independ- 
ence. 

In  the  two  celebrated  battles  of  Guilford  and 
Eutaw  Springs,  under  General  Greene,  a  con- 
siderable part  of  his  men  were  militia.  Although 
there  were  Continental  troops  among  them  that 
distinguished  themselves  with  great  bravery, 
yet  the  number  was  very  small ;  and  the  mili- 
tia, and  especially  at  Eutaw  Springs,  were  not 
inferior  to  the  Continental  troops,  and  did  more 
service.  These  were  said  to  be  the  best  fought 
battles  during  the  war.  While  these  scenes 
were  going  on  in  the  Carolinas,  Georgia,  under 
Clarke,  Williamson,  and  others,  was  a  perfect 
scene  of  bloodshed.  Notwithstanding  all  this, 
they  are  called  ephemeral,  and  we  are  told  the 
militia  cannot  be  relied  on  either  as  respects 
their  bravery  or  their  honor.  Sir,  among  these 
militia,  there  were  men  as  honorable  as  ever 
breathed,  and  as  brave  as  ever  drew  a  sword. 
And  the  Government  is  as  much  indebted  to 
them  for  their  bravery,  perseverance,  and 
sufferings,  and  owes  them  as  much  protection 
and  support,  as  any  portion  of  the  Continental 
army. 

The  principle  of  gratitude  has  been  strongly 
pressed.  It  is  said  we  are  reproached  with  in- 
gratitude by  the  European  nations.  And  what 
is  it  they  have  not  said  to  reproach  us  ?  They 
have  said  we  are  barbarous,  savage,  and  igno- 
rant; incapable  of  governing  ourselves;  that 
all  Republican  Governments  have  fallen ;  and 
that  we  have  been  ungrateful  to  our  armies. 
And  it  was  only  since  the  late  war,  the  com- 
mon people  of  Europe  knew  we  were  white 
men.  But,  they  have  at  last  found  out  that  we 
are  not  only  white,  but  that  our  Government 
has  some  energy.  And  if  they  will  compare 
what  we  have  done  for  our  army,  with  the 
condition  of  their  own,  they  will  find  also  that 
we  are  grateful.  The  Kings  and  Princes  of 
Europe  sometimes  sell  their  armies  to  one 
another  to  fight  their  battles  abroad — or  they 
hire  them  for  a  job  ;  and  all  that  are  not  re- 
turned, are  paid  for  at  a  stipulated  price.  The 
Hessian  troops,  attached  to  the  British  army 


during  our  Revolutionary  war,  were  hired  on 
these  terms.  However,  if  any  are  returned, 
that  are  worn  out  in  service,  they  are  stowed 
into  a  hospital  for  the  remainder  of  their  days, 
but  they  get  nothing  else.  If  there  is  a  favorite 
oflBcer,  he  is  converted  into  a  lord,  and  a  large 
pension  is  settled  upon  him,  and  his  heirs ;  and 
the  people  are  taxed  to  support  them.  It  is  the 
pensioner  who  complains  of  our  ingratitude, 
and  not  the  farmer  and  mechanic  who  pay  the 
tax. 

This  Government  gave  to  each  Continental 
soldier,  at  the  close  of  the  war,  his  pay  for  ser- 
vices, and  a  valuable  tract  of  land,  which  was 
giving  him  the  best  means  in  the  world  to  ena- 
ble him  to  live  happy.  It  paid  the  Continental 
officers  for  all  their  services  rendered,  and  five 
years'  full  pay  after  the  war  had  ended ;  and 
gave  each  a  large  tract  of  land,  which  has  been 
a  fortune  to  all  who  took  care  of  it,  and  their 
children  after  them.  In  addition  to  this,  there 
has  not  been  an  office  of  honor  or  profit  in  the 
gift  of  the  United  States,  or  any  individual 
State,  which  has  not  been  filled  by  a  Continental 
officer,  if  he  asked  for  it.  And  the  Govern- 
ment has  given  to  every  officer  and  soldier  who 
has  applied,  a  pension  for  life,  if  he  had  been 
wounded  or  disabled  in  the  public  service.  Let 
the  two  be  compared,  and  see  on  which  side 
the  gratitude  preponderates,  and  then  let  us  be 
told  what  the  despots  of  Europe  say. 

All  the  despotisms  of  Europe  have  had  their 
foundations  in  a  claim  to  military  merit.  All 
their  pensions  and  places  originated  in  it.  All 
the  orders  of  knighthood  and  other  distinctions 
now  so  oppressive ;  the  feudal  system,  which 
so  completely  prostrated  the  civil  liberty  of  all 
Europe,  against  which  the  wisdom  of  ages  has 
not  been  able  to  prevail,  originated  in  it.  All 
their  usurpations,  and  all  their  changes  of  em- 
pire, were  commenced  and  supported  by  it.  It 
was  military  fame  that  enabled  Cromwell  to 
turn  out  of  doors  a  British  Parliament,  and  as- 
sume the  reins  of  Government.  It  was  military 
distinction  that  prompted  Bonaparte,  at  the 
head  of  his  army,  to  supersede  the  French 
Convention,  and  put  himself  upon  the  imperial 
throne,  and  devastate  almost  the  whole  of  Eu- 
rope. Your  own  Revolutionary  officers,  for 
some  of  whom  you  are  now  providing,  at  the 
close  of  the  war  associated  themselves  into  a 
military  order,  and  called  it  the  Cincinnati  So- 
ciety, after  the  celebrated  Roman  General,  Cin- 
cinnatus,  who  left  his  plough  with  regret,  when 
called  by  his  country  to  the  head  of  the  army ; 
and  after  he  conquered  the  enemy  and  returned 
in  triumph,  he  laid  down  his  office,  and  retired 
back  to  plough  his  fields  at  the  age  of  eighty 
years.  This  society,  too,  made  an  early  effort 
to  perpetuate  itself,  and  ordained  that  the  son 
should  succeed  to  the  military  honors  of  his 
father.  However,  it  was  frowned  upon;  and 
they  soon  found  it  too  much  of  an  exotic  to 
flourish  upon  this  soil,  and  the  hereditary  clause 
was  abolished.  This  hereditary  quality  was 
not  in  conformity  to  their  great  prototype, 


DEBATES  OF  CONGRESS. 


25 


JAUUAHT,  1818.] 


Surviving  Officers  of  the  Revolution. 


"Washington.  He,  with  true  Roman  virtue,  re- 
turned to  perform  the  duties  of  a  citizen,  and 
maintained  himself  by  the  sweat  of  his  brow, 
after  lie  laid  down  the  pursuits  of  a  soldier.  It 
is  difficult  to  imagine  why  our  American  officers 
and  soldiers  did  not  do  so  too.  Many  of  them 
did,  and  are  rich  from  their  own  industry.  No 
country  upon  the  globe  ever  presented  more 
facilities  than  this.  But  the  Roman  virtue  has 
lost  its  charms,  and  we  are  imitating  nations 
nearer  our  own  times.  It  is  not  the  amount 
which  this  measure  will  cost  the  nation  that  is 
the  most  objectionable,  but  the  abominable  per- 
petual pension  system  that  is  to  grow  out  of  it. 
It  may  not  be  immediate;  it  is  to  come  on 
gradually,  as  all  other  systems  of  oppression 
have  done.  And  when  we  are  gone  to  rest 
posterity  will  writhe  beneath  the  yoke,  borne 
down  by  hearth  money,  excises,  and  taxes,  to 
support  pensions  and  places — the  curse  of  a  na- 
tion. 

Mr.  MOB  RILL  said  he  should  not,  at  this  late 
hour,  and  advanced  period  of  the  debate  at 
which  he  rose,  detain  the  Senate  with  many  re- 
marks on  the  subject  now  under  discussion. 

The  object  suggested  in  the  President's  Mes- 
sage, said  he,  and  that  which  is  also  contem- 
plated in  the  bill  from  the  House,  is  to  afford 
relief,  by  pecuniary  assistance,  to  surviving  offi- 
cers and  soldiers  of  the  Revolution,  who  are 
now  in  indigent  circumstances.  It  is  intimated 
that  it  is  impossible  to  frame  a  bill  which  shall 
equitably  meet  the  wants,  relieve  the  necessities, 
and  satisfy  the  expectations  of  this  meritorious 
class  of  our  fellow-citizens.  I  do  believe,  Mr. 
President,  that  the  wisdom  of  Congress  is  com- 
petent to  form  a  bill,  the  details  of  which  shall 
meet  all  reasonable  expectations  on  this  sub- 
ject. But  as  the  merits  of  the  bill  are  not  im- 
mediately under  discussion,  I  pass  them  to  the 
motion  which  is  directly  before  the  Senate,  that 
the  further  consideration  of  this  subject  be  in- 
definitely postponed.  To  this  motion,  sir,  I  am 
opposed,  and  shall  assign  some  reasons.  To 
pass  this  resolution,  would  be,  in  effect,  to  put 
this  subject  at  rest ;  if  I  may  use  the  expression, 
to  wink  it  out  of  sight.  To  this,  Mr.  President, 
I  cannot  give  my  assent.  If  we  take  a  concise 
view  of  our  country  previous  to  the  declaration 
of  independence,  and  the  trying  scenes  through 
which  our  fathers  passed  to  gain  and  establish 
this  independence,  I  presume  we  shall  be  fully 
satisfied,  that  the  few  remaining  veterans  of 
the  Revolution,  bowed  down  with  infirmity 
and  age,  deserve  the  interposing  hand  of  the 
National  Government  for  their  relief,  for  the 
mitigation  of  their  wants  in  their  declining 


What,  sir,  was  our  situation  antecedent  to  the 
bold  assertion  of  our  independence  ?  "Wo  were 
an  oppressed,  insulted,  degraded  people.  "We 
were  burdened  with  unjust  acts  and  duties,  too 
offensive  and  unreasonable  to  be  endured  by  a 
people  sensible  of  their  rights  and  privileges. 
"We  were  invaded  by  an  armed  force.  The  same 
power  who  we  had  reason  to  expect  would,  as  a 


parent,  protect  our  privileges,  entered  our  har- 
bors, blockaded  our  ports,  landed  an  army  on 
our  shores,  demolished  and  burnt  our  towns,  and 
fought  and  killed  our  citizens.  These  events 
roused  the  spirit,  called  forth  the  energy,  and 
marshalled  the  strength  of  the  nation.  This 
was  a  time  that  tried  men's  souls ;  this  was  the 
day  in  which  the  patriot  and  the  hero  distin- 
guished himself  from  the  sycophant  of  a  deluded 
monarch.  Independence  was  declared  by  a 
new  Government,  imperfectly  organized.  Now, 
sir,  it  needed  the  co-operation  of  the  whole 
strength,  patriotism,  and  energy  of  the  nation. 
The  heroes  of  the  country  flew  to  arms ;  they 
ran  to  the  field  of  battle ;  they  met  the  invading 
foe,  and  repelled  him  with  undaunted  deter- 
mination. 

And  what  were  the  sacrifices  of  those  who 
fought  our  battles,  and  achieved  the  numerous 
blessings  which  we  enjoy  ?  Many  of  us,  Mr. 
President,  who  have  seats  in  this  House,  who 
are  participating  the  favors  purchased  by  their 
toils,  and  basking  in  the  beams  of  national 
glory,  were  too  young  minutely  to  recollect  the 
distresses  of  that  day.  Those  who  were  of  age, 
and  were  active  on  that  memorable  era,  have 
informed  us.  History  has  not  been  silent  on  a 
subject  so  momentous. 

Were  I  to  endeavor,  sir,  to  paint  to  you  the 
sacrifices  of  those  times,  I  should  fail  in  the  at- 
tempt. I  will  only  say,  they  forsook  every  do- 
mestic accommodation;  they  left  their  homes 
and  their  families,  and  submitted  the  cultivation 
of  their  farms,  in  numerous  instances,  to  their 
wives,  their  little  sons,  and  their  daughters, 
who  were  under  the  necessity  of  laboring  in 
the  field  to  procure  subsistence ;  while  they 
endured  the  noisome  camp,  the  fatigues  of  an 
army,  and  the  dangers  of  battle.  But,  sir,  their 
efforts  were  not  unsuccessful ;  they  disputed 
the  ground  at  the  cannon's  mouth ;  they  sur- 
vived the  mighty  conflict ;  they  obtained  the 
ultimate  object — national  independence;  and 
some  of  them  now  live  to  enjoy  the  fruit  of  their 
labor,  though  in  indigence  and  want.  These  are 
the  characters,  Mr.  President,  whose  necessities 
I  wish  to  relieve.  Providence  has  protracted 
their  years ;  they  are  declining  under  the  pres- 
sure of  poverty  and  age ;  they  are  now  peti- 
tioning yon  for  assistance.  Will  you  suffer  the 
gray  hairs  of  these  veterans  of  the  Revolution  to 
come  down  with  sorrow  to  the  grave  ?  They, 
sir,  have  a  claim  upon  your  benevolence  and 
humanity — nay,  more,  your  justice.  Though 
some  honorable  gentlemen  suggest  that  these 
Revolutionary  patriots,  having  been  well  paid, 
have  no  claim  upon  the  justice  of  Coniriv-s  I 
am  inclined  to  think  otherwise,  because  I  con- 
ceive many  of  the  infirmities  under  which  they 
are  now  groaning,  are  in  consequence  of  the 
privations  and  exposures  endured  while  in  the 
service  of  their  country.  In  the  camp  and  the 
field,  their  constitutions  were  broken  down ; 
the  natural  effects  of  which  are  infirmity  and 
distress  in  advanced  years. 

Permit  me,  Mr.  President,  to  ask  the  honor- 


26 


ABRIDGMENT  OF  THE 


SENATE.] 


Surviving  Officers  of  the  Revolution. 


[JANUARY,  1818. 


able  members  of  this  Senate,  if  they  are  willing 
to  see  the  warworn  soldiers  of  the  Eevolution 
hovering  round  their  dwellings,  round  this  Cap- 
itol, asking  for  a  pittance,  and  not  manifest  a 
disposition  to  afford  them  that  pecuniary  as- 
sistance necessary  to  supply  the  cravings  of  na- 
ture, and  repair  their  tattered  garments  ?  This 
is  the  only  tribunal  to  which  they  can  apply. 
Shall  they  seek  in  vain?  Shall  those  who  met 
the  foo  at  Lexington,  Bunker's  Hill,  Monmouth, 
and  Bennington,  supplicate  your  aid  without 
success?  No,  sir;  we,  who  possess  the  bless- 
ings procured  by  their  sufferings,  have  too 
much  magnanimity,  too  much  humanity  1  They 
need  assistance;  they  merit  assistance.  It  is 
to  the  indigent  that  I  would  extend  the  hand 
of  liberality.  And,  sir,  so  long  as  I  have  the 
honor  of  a  seat  in  this  House,  I  will  exert  my 
feeble  powers  for  the  mitigation  of  the  necessi- 
ties of  those  who,  by  their  valor,  toils,  and 
blood,  achieved  the  civil  and  religious  privi- 
leges which  we  now  enjoy. 

Mr.  MAOON,  of  North  Carolina,  said,  when  he 
came  to  the  Senate  this  morning,  he  had  no  in- 
tention or  expectation  of  saying  a  word  on  this 
question,  which  had  excited  so  much  feeling. 
It  seemed  to  him  that  the  friends  of  the  bill 
founded  their  arguments  entirely  on  feeling — a 
feeling,  he  was  ready  to  acknowlege,  of  the  most 
honorable  kind ;  but  he  was  not  perfectly  satis- 
fied that  it  was  proper  to  legislate  on  feeling 
alone.  The  constitution  certainly  never  in- 
tended it,  or  it  would  not  have  required  a  cer- 
tain age  for  any  appointment;  nor  did  he 
believe  the  motion  to  postpone  liable  to  the  ob- 
jection which  had  been  made ;  that  the  friends 
of  the  bill  were  forced  to  defend  it  as  it  was, 
when  they  wished  to  amend  it.  The  motion 
was  agreed  by  all  to  be  perfectly  in  order,  and 
it  only  brought  the  principle  of  the  bill  into  de- 
bate, which  gave  both  sides  the  fairest  opportu- 
nity to  urge  whatever  they  thought  proper; 
and  this  he  conceived  ought  to  be  the  nature  of 
every  first  discussion,  especially  when  a  great 
and  important  change  was  about  to  be  made  in 
the  character  of  a  long-established  law;  the 
principles  of  which  were  settled  by  the  Revolu- 
tionary Congress,  and  not  attempted,  he  be- 
lieved, to  be  changed  before  the  present  session. 
A  debate  like  the  present  ought  always  to  take 
place  in  every  legislature,  when  motions  which 
only  contain  first  principles  are  under  considera- 
tion, and  cannot  with  propriety  be  omitted. 

Mr.  M.  said  he  felt  more  than  usual  embar- 
rassment in  attempting  to  speak  at  this  time, 
because  there  was  reason  to  suppose  that  a  great 
and  decided  majority  was  opposed  to  him,  and 
it  was  not  agreeable  to  speak  to  those  who  were 
prepared  to  vote,  but  it  was  all  that  a  minority 
could  do  to  state  their  opinions,  and  because, 
contrary  to  the  practice  of  the  Senate,  two  mo- 
tions, distinct  from  each  other,  had  been  debat- 
ed at  the  same  time ;  that  of  the  gentleman 
from  New  York  (Mr.  KING)  to  recommit  the  bill 
to  the  Military  Committee,  with  instructions  so 
to  amend  it,  as  only  to  include  the  officers  who 


were  in  service  at  the  end  of  the  war,  and  that 
of  the  gentleman  from  Virginia  (Mr.  BAKBOUH) 
to  postpone  the  bill  and  motion  to  a  day  beyond 
the  session.  He  would  here  say,  that  the  ob- 
servations of  the  gentleman  from  New  York,  in 
support  of  his  motion,  had  not  convinced  him, 
that  a  discrimination  such  as  he  desired,  or  any 
other,  could  with  justice  or  propriety  bo  made. 
To  discriminate  in  a  satisfactory  manner,  at  any 
time,  or  in  any  country,  between  those  who 
were  equally  worthy,  was  a  task  not  easily  per- 
formed ;  that  gentleman  having  failed  to  show 
that  it  could  be  done,  as  he  with  great  defer- 
ence verily  believed,  it  might  now  be  considered 
as  utterly  impossible,  and  would  not,  in  his 
opinion,  be  attempted  by  any  other. 

Mr.  President,  when  the  character,  numbers, 
and  wealth  of  the  British  nation,  to  which  may 
be  added  its  constant  preparation  for  Avar,  are 
compared  with  the  situation  of  the  United 
States  at  the  commencement  of  the  Revolution, 
it  must  prove  to  all,  that  every  whig  in  the 
country  had  as  much  as  he  could  do  to  maintain 
the  independence  which  the  Congress  of  1776 
had  manfully  declared,  to  the  joy  of  the  nation, 
and  which  the  whigs  boldly  determined  to  de- 
fend at  the  risk  of  their  lives  and  their  fortunes. 
It  was  the  day  that  tried  men's  souls.  The  im- 
mortals words  "  Liberty  or  Death,"  on  the  hunt- 
ing shirt  of  every  friend  of  the  Revolution,  con- 
tained nothing  but  the  truth.  The  practice  was 
according  to  the  motto;  but  now,  no  matter 
what  services  may  have  been  rendered,  unless 
the  persons  who  rendered  them  were  in  the  reg- 
ular army,  they  are  not  to  receive  a  cent  un- 
der the  bill,  though  they  may  have  paid  many. 
The  bill  does  not  provide  for  one-half  who  have 
equal  merit ;  as  to  claim,  there  is  none ;  and 
the  motion  of  the  gentleman  from  New  York 
will  leave  a  much  greater  number  not  provided 
x>r.  No  man  can  estimate  higher  than  I  do  the 
worth  and  service  of  the  Continental  troops,  but 
;he  fall  of  Charleston  left  none  in  the  Southern 
States,  and  it  is  certainly  true,  that  after  that 
event  the  men  commanded  by  Suinter,  Marion, 
ind  Jackson,  rendered  as  much  service  as  any 
n  the  nation  ;  in  fact,  they  had  no  superiors ; 
;hey  left  their  wives,  their  children,  their  homes 
and  their  all,  to  the  rage  of  a  victorious  enemy, 
•ho  was  in  pursuit  of  those  he  declared  rebels, 
and  enraged  neighbors,  in  the  most  gloomy  and 
disastrous  period  of  the  great  struggle,  to  fight 
'or  their  country,  its  liberty  and  independence, 
^"or  is  there  any  provision  for  that  man,  with 
his  small  band  of  warriors,  who  started  with 
heir  parched  corn  on  their  backs,  into  the 
country,  or  rather  wilderness,  mostly  inhabited 
>y  savages,  and  gained  by  their  victories  a 
country  to  the  nation,  out  of  which  five  large 
States  will  be  added  to  the  Union ;  indeed,  two 
are  already  added,  and  a  third  soon  will  be.  It 
s  scarcely  necessary  to  state  that  General 
Jeorge  R.  Clark  and  his  warriors  are  meant. 
Dan  justice,  honor,  generosity,  or  feeling,  re- 
quire that  all  these,  together  with  the  widows 
and  children  of  those  who  were  slain  in  battle, 


DEBATES  OF  CONGRESS. 


27 


JANUARY,  1818.] 


Surviving  Officers  of  the  Revolution. 


[SENATE. 


as  well  as  the  deranged  officers  mentioned  by 
the  gentleman  from  New  York,  should  be  tax- 
ed to  support  their  fellow  patriots,  who  were  at 
that  time,  as  far  as  respects  the  officers,  in  a 
more  enviable  situation?  It  is  well  known, 
that  the  deranged  officers  constantly  complain- 
ed of  their  being  deranged,  and  that  they  pre- 
ferred to  have  been  continued  in  the  service  ; 
many  of  them,  not  willing  to  stay  at  home,  ob- 
tained commands  in  the  militia,  and  in  that  way 
served  the  country.  Nor  ought  it  to  be  for- 
gotten, that  tents  and  all  camp  utensils  were 
never  plenty,  and  often  scarce,  and  that  the  reg- 
ulars were  always  first  supplied  with  whatever 
could  be  furnished,  and  that  too  with  the  best 
there  was ;  whatever  was  left,  after  furnishing 
the  regulars,  was  divided  among  the  militia, 
who  were  frequently  without  tents  or  camp 
utensils,  unless  they"  carried  them  from  their 
homes,  and  in  many  parts  of  the  Southern 
States  these  necessary  articles  were  not  abun- 
dant. In  wet  and  stormy  days  it  was  not  un- 
common to  see  tents  formed  by  two  or  three  or 
more  men  putting  together  not  their  blankets, 
for  but  very  few  had  them,  but  bed  covers, 
which  had  been  spun  and  wove  at  home ;  those 
who  were  not  fortunate  enough  to  carry  any 
thing  of  this  kind,  stood  by  trees  with  bark  or 
whatever  they  could  get  to  cover  their  heads 
to  keep  the  rain  off.  The  character  the  war 
then  assumed,  forbade  any  article  necessary  or 
convenient  to  the  soldier  to  be  in  plenty  ;  there 
was  nothing  like  it  in  any  other  part  of  the  na- 
tion, if  in  the  world.  In  calamity  and  fury  it 
so  far  surpassed  a  common  civil  war,  that  the 
name  is  improper  for  it.  He  knew  not  by  what 
name  to  call  it,  perhaps  a  domestic  war  would 
come  nearer  to  it  than  any  other.  In  the  parts 
of  the  country  where  the  Whigs  and  Tories 
were  mixed,  it  was  neighbor  against  neghbor, 
house  against  house,  and  neighborhood  against 
neighborhood ;  destruction  and  death  were  the 
orders  of  the  day  ;  each  party  hunted  the  other, 
either  alone  or  in  numbers,  as  circumstances 
would  permit — neither  trouble  nor  pains  were 
spared  to  destroy  and  kill.  In  many  places, 
houses,  fences,  and  every  thing  necessary  to 
support  life,  were  burnt,  leaving  the  women  and 
children  only  with  the  clothes  they  had  on,  to 
depend  on  a  more  fortunate  neighbor  for  sus- 
tenance and  shelter.  In  some  cases  this  was 
done,  when  the  husband  or  son,  or  perhaps 
both,  were  confined  in  jail,  because  they  were 
Whiga;  many  plantations  were  left  without 
stock  of  any  kind,  not  a  horse  nor  cow,  in  this 
forlorn  condition  to  be  cultivated  by  the  women 
and  children,  who,  if  they  were  fortunate 
enough  to  gather  a  part  of  the  corn  they  had 
labored  to  produce,  were  compelled  to  beat  it  in 
a  mortar  into  meal,  or  carry  it  themselves  to  a 
mill  to  be  ground,  if  one  was  left  in  the  neigh- 
borhood. Places  may  yet  be  seen  where  houses 
were  burnt,  which  yet  remain  not  built  on. 
The  rich  and  the  poor  who  survived,  and  who 
would  not  agree  on  any  terms  to  remain  neu- 
tral at  home,  when  parts  of  the  country  were 


overrun  by  the  enemy,  shared  nearly  the  same 
fate,  left  with  nothing  bnt  life  and  liberty. 

Many  gallant  actions  were  performed  in  this 
neighborhood  war,  which  history  will  never  re- 
cord, and  many  gallant  and  patriotic  men  fell, 
whose  names  will  in  a  little  time  be  forgotten 
in  this  their  beloved  country,  for  which  they 
freely  shed  their  blood  and  lost  their  Hies.  Me- 
bane  and  Kulp  are  of  the  number  who  were 
slam  in  these  terrible  conflicts,  and  are  now 
almost  forgotten.  These  engagements  were 
generally  fatal  and  sanguinary  in  proportion  to 
the  few  that  fought.  With  permission  he  would 
repeat  that  it  could  not  be  just  or  right  to  tax 
these  people  to  give  a  pension  to  any,  because 
they  were  in  the  regular  army ;  it  seemed  like 
taxing  the  bones  of  the  brave  and  the  ashes  of 
distress ;  the  officers  of  the  army,  at  the  end  of 
the  war,  received  five  years1  full  pay,  and  both 
officers  and  soldiers  land  from  the  United  States ; 
besides,  every  State  which  had  back  land  un- 
settled, gave  land  to  the  same  officers  and  sol- 
diers, which  were  raised  in  the  State.  But  it 
is  said  that  the  Continental  troops  were  paid  in 
depreciated  certificates,  not  worth  more  than 
one-eighth  of  their  value.  This  is  undoubtedly 
true ;  yet  they  were  considered  to  be  more  val- 
uable than  the  State  certificates,  in  which  the 
others  were  paid.  Certificates  were  then  the 
only  currency  of  the  governments ;  they  made 
all  their  payments  in  them.  After  the  fall  of 
the  paper  money,  provisions  for  the  army  were 
frequently  taken  from  families  which  could  not 
well  spare  them.  Whenever  necessity  com- 
pelled this,  Whig  and  Tory  fared  alike ;  bnt  a 
certificate  was  the  only  payment.  The  depre- 
ciation was  a  national  calamity,  from  which  no 
one  was  exempt ;  it  was  as  general  as  the  liberty 
we  now  enjoy,  and,  though  equally  free,  we  are 
not  now  equally  rich. 

We  have  been  frequently  told  that  some  of 
the  officers  and  soldiers  of  the  Continental  army 
are  poor.  This  no  doubt  was  true.  He  also  be- 
lieved it  was  equally  true  that  some  of  the 
troops  which  he  had  mentioned  were  equally  so. 
This  will  be  the  case  among  every  class  of  men ; 
some  will  get  rich  while  others  do  not ;  there 
is  a  time  to  get  and  a  time  to  spend ;  the  in- 
dustrious and  careful  will  either  get  rich  or  com- 
fortable, while  those  who  are  not  so,  will  neither 
be  rich  nor  comfortable.  To  undertake  to  pro- 
vide for  those  who  will  not  provide  for  them- 
selves, will,  on  experiment,  be  found  an  endless 
task;  it  may  suit  other  countries,  but  it  does 
not  this;  it  "will  drain  any  treasury  no  matter 
how  full,  and,  instead  of  repealing  taxes,  new 
ones  ought  to  be  imposed.  Pass  the  bill,  and 
the  pension  will  not  do  those  who  do  not  pro- 
vide for  themselves  as  much  good  as  it  will 
others,  who  know  their  failings,  and  will  take 
care  to  be  with  them  when  it  shall  be  received. 
The  gentleman  from  Maryland  (Mr.  GOLDS- 
BOROUGH)  wishes  the  bill  to  pass,  to  do  away 
an  opinion  which  had  been  entertained,  that 
Republics  were  ungrateful ;  he  did  not  state  it 
to  be  his  opinion.  It  was  a  pleasing  fact  that 


28 


ABRIDGMENT  OF  THE 


SENATE.] 


Surviving  Officers  of  the  Revolution. 


[JANUARY,  1818 


the  history  of  the  United  States  did,  in  the  most 
satisfactory  manner,  prove  that  it  was  not  true, 
as  it  regarded  them,  nor  did  he  believe  it,  as  it 
regarded  others.  It  has  been  promulgated  by 
the  flatterers  and  sycophants  of  kings  and  des- 
pots, to  become  their  favorites  and  pensioners, 
to  live  sumptuously  on  their  folly  or  wicked- 
ness, or  both,  on  the  profits  of  the  labor  of  those 
who  were  more  virtuous  and  better  than  them- 
selves. The  opinion  is  founded  in  idleness  and 
hatred  to  free  Governments,  where  every  man 
ought  to  live  by  the  sweat  of  his  own  brow — 
where  no  man  ought  to  be  paid  to  do  nothing. 
But,  do  as  you  will,  the  same  class  of  people  will 
entertain  and  promulgate  the  same  opinion ;  and 
he  was  unwilling  to  attempt  to  do  away  the 
opinion  by  passing  that  which  he  conceived  to 
be  an  improper  and  unjust  act.  He  would  add, 
that,  in  despotic  Governments,  to  complain 
would  be  deemed  a  crime,  and  that  the  only 
liberty  enjoyed  was  that  of  abusing  Kepublics. 
It  has  been  said  that  the  officers  of  the  Revo- 
lutionary army  would  have  been  severely  pun- 
ished if  the  United  States  had  been  conquered. 
This,  he  believed,  was  not  thought  of  at  the 
time,  because  no  Whig  ever  calculated  on  being 
conquered,  and  every  one  had  determined  not 
to  be.  But  whether  they  would  have  been  pun- 
ished more  severely  than  others,  he  did  not 
know ;  all  had  committed  openly  what,  in  that 
case,  would  have  been  deemed  treason.  He, 
however,  was  of  opinion  that  the  most  severe 
punishment  would  not  have  been  inflicted  on 
the  army.  The  history  of  the  times  warranted 
the  opinion.  He  rather  thought  it  would  have 
been  inflicted  on  those  daring  patriots  who  were 
members  of  the  first  Congress,  those  who  declared 
independence  with  the  halter  about  their  necks, 
and  those  who  ordered  an  army  to  be  raised. 
These  are  the  men,  he  thought,  on  whom  ven- 
geance would  have  been  taken.  Permit  me  here, 
said  Mr.  M.,  to  state  what  was  certainly  true, 
and  that  too  in  praise  of  a  class  of  men  who 
rarely  received  praise — that  no  class  of  men  in 
the  nation  had  more  merit  for  the  Revolution 
than  the  lawyers.  Where  he  was  acquainted, 
they  were  all  Whigs ;  he  did  not  at  this  mo- 
ment recollect  a  single  exception.  They  un- 
derstood better  than  most  others  the  rights  and 
privileges  of  the  then  colonies,  and  exerted 
themselves,  with  advantage  to  the  country  and 
honor  to  themselves,  to  persuade  others  to  ex- 
amine and  understand  them ;  they  succeeded, 
and  we  now  enjoy  the  benefit.  He  hoped  this 
digression  would  be  pardoned;  he  had  only 
given  the  well-merited  praise.  He  would  return 
to  the  subject.  If  the  pensions  are  to  be  given, 
because  the  army  deserved  well  of  the  country, 
and  some  of  them  are  now  poor,  would  it  not 
follow  that  all  who  deserved  well,  and  are  now 
poor,  ought  to  receive  a  pension  ?  Would  it 
not  follow  that  if  any  members  of  the  Congress 
he  had  mentioned,  were  now  alive  and  poor, 
that  they,  too,  for  the  same  cause,  ought  to 
have  a  pension?  It  would,  he  thought,  be 
difficult  to  give  a  reason  for  one,  which  would 


not  apply  as  forcibly  to  the  other.  The  deserv- 
ing well  and  being  poor,  would  apply  equally 
to  both.  He  repeated  that  he  wished  it  to  be 
distinctly  understood  that  he  was  not  denying 
the  worth  or  merit  of  the  Revolutionary  army. 
God  forbid  that  he  should ;  he  never  for  a  mo- 
ment entertained  a  single  sentiment  that  even 
tended  toward  its  dishonor ;  but  he  was  oppos- 
ing the  principles  of  the  bill,  and  the  motion  to 
recommit,  both  of  which  he  fully  believed  were 
against  the  principles  which  carried  it  into  the 
field.  Nor  did  he  mean  to  class  them  with  the 
seventeen  hundred  applicants  for  office  in  the 
late  war,  which  had  been  mentioned.  He,  how- 
ever, felt  no  hesitation  to  acknowledge  that  he 
approved  their  conduct ;  they  did  what  at  all 
times  they  ought  to  do — show  a  willingness  to 
aid  their  country  in  defence  of  its  just  rights, 
and  to  take  part  in  a  war  which  had  been  em- 
phatically called  a  second  war  for  independence. 
Pass  the  bill,  and  it  makes  a  precedent  for  the 
army  engaged  in  that  war  and  in  every  other. 
Precedent  is  now  almost  equal  to  the  constitu- 
tion, and  will  probably,  in  a  few  years,  be  quite 
so.  It  does  not  require  the  gift  of  prophecy  to 
foretell  that  thirty  or  forty  years  hence,  as  much 
may  be  said  in  favor  of  the  army  engaged  in  the 
second  war  for  independence,  as  we  have  now 
heard  about  the  first,  though  as  much  may  not 
be  said  about  the  state  of  the  country  and  of 
the  sufferings  of  the  people,  because  the  facts 
will  not  warrant  it.  The  troops,  however,  in 
the  late  war,  in  the  uninhabited  parts  of  the 
country,  suffered  greatly,  and  bore  their  suffer- 
ings manfully.  The  victories  obtained  by  them 
have  not  been  surpassed  in  any  age  or  any 
country ;  they  were  fully  equal  to  those  of  Lex- 
ington and  King's  Mountain;  but  the  men  who 
fought  these  two  glorious  battles  are  not  pro- 
vided for  in  the  bill,  because  they  were  militia. 
It  is  not  improper  to  observe,  that  pensions 
in  all  countries  begin  on  a  small  scale,  and  are 
at  first  generally  granted  on  proper  considera- 
tions, and  that  they  increase  till  at  last  they  are 
granted  as  often  on  whim  or  caprice  as  for 
proper  considerations.  The  bill  is  an  entire  de- 
parture from  any  principle  heretofore  establish- 
ed in  this  country ;  it  requires  little  or  no  proof 
to  get  the  pension,  and  it  gives  to  all  alike, 
without  regard  to  disability  or  meritorious  ser- 
vices. The  history  of  the  half-pay  for  life,  and 
the  commutation  for  it  of  five  years'  full  pay, 
show  as  clear  as  daylight  the  opinion  then  en- 
tertained by  the  nation  on  the  subject  of  pen- 
sions, and  the  bill  as  clearly  shows  how  much 
that  opinion  has  changed  since,  and  that  the 
opinion  in  favor  of  pensions  is  fast  gaining 
ground.  It  seemed  to  him  that  it  must  ope- 
rate on  the  mind  like  sweet  poison  does  on  the 
taste ;  it  pleases  at  first,  but  kills  at  last.  The 
objects  to  whom  they  are  granted  are  only 
thought  of  at  the  time,  without  reflecting  that 
a  part  of  the  money  to  pay  them  is  to  be  taken 
from  those  who  are  not  in  a  situation  to  spare 
it  conveniently;  the  few  rich  are  not  apt  to 
complain  of  taxes,  especially  if  they  believe  they 


DEBATES  OF  CONGRESS. 


FEBRUARY,  1818.] 


Surviving  Officers  of  the  Revolution. 


[SENATE. 


are  intended  to  promote  what  they  deem  the 
glory  and  splendor  of  the  country ;  they  take  a 
full  share  of  that  to  themselves,  and  they  can 
live  well  and  pay  the  tax ;  but  it  is  not  so  with 
the  poor ;  every  cent  taken  from  him  diminish- 
es his  comfort  and  lessens  his  independence. 
It  is  quite  probable  that  some  of  the  poor,  who 
may  contribute  their  mite  to  pay  the  pensions 
given  by  the  bill,  may  have  been  reduced  to 
poverty,,  by  the  enemy's  burning  and  destroy- 
ing their  property,  for  fighting  on  the  same 
side,  and  probably  in  the  same  battles  with 
those  who  are  to  receive  them.  lie  would  just 
remark,  that  he  did  not  think  this  a  proper 
place  to  speak  of  our  charity  at  home.  Charity 
is  commendable  in  all  men,  it  is  enjoined  on  all 
men,  but  it  ought  to  be  so  given  as  not  to  let 
one  hand  know  what  the  other  does.  Besides, 
our  private  worth,  whether  for  charity  or  any 
other  virtue,  is  best  known  to  our  neighbors, 
who  always  duly  appreciate  it.  He  had  heard 
so  much  said  of  the  feelings  of  gentlemen  on  this 
interesting  and  important  question,  that  he  was 
almost  induced  to  doubt  whether  he  had  as  fine 
feelings  as  others.  He,  however,  hoped  he 
had,  but  others  must  judge,  not  himself;  but, 
whether  he  had  or  not,  he  could  not  consent 
to  gratify  them  at  the  expense  of  his  judg- 
ment. 

The  old  Congress  is  often  praised  and  always 
deservedly;  on  the  present  occasion  it  would 
seem  proper  that  their  decision  should  have 
great  weight,  as  they  conducted  the  Revolution, 
raised  the  Army,  and  settled  with  it,  and  gave 
to  each  individual  whatever  was  his  due,  under 
all  the  circumstances  of  his  case.  It  may  not 
be  improper  to  state  that  that  Congress  only 
paid  the  Continental  troops;  the  militia  and 
State  troops  were  paid  by  the  States  to  which 
they  belonged,  and  the  States  granted  and  paid 
them  pensions  till  within  a  few  years  past, 
•when  the  General  Government  assumed  the 
pension  list  of  each  State,  placing  all  the  pen- 
sions granted  for  Revolutionary  services  on  the 
same  ground ;  and  this  policy,  if  the  bill  is  to 
pass,  ought  now  to  be  followed — that  is,  to 
place  all  having  equal  merit  on  the  same 
ground. 

The  recommendation  of  this  subject  to  the 
consideration  of  Congress  by  the  President,  who 
was  a  Revolutionary  character,  had  been  men- 
tioned. This  recommendation,  like  every  other 
from  the  Executive,  he  felt  it  his  duty  to  exam- 
ine with  deliberation,  and  treat  with  respect ; 
he  had,  however,  to  regret  that  he  could  not 
agree  to  pass  an  act  in  conformity  to  it ;  the 
reasons  for  this  he  had  endeavored  to  state; 
his  regret,  however,  would  be  much  greater,  if 
all  the  preceding  Presidents  had  not  also  have 
been  Revolutionary  characters ;  and  he  did  not 
recollect  at  this  time  that  any  one  of  them 
had  made  a  similar  recommendation,  though  he 
had  not  examined  their  Messages  to  ascertain 
the  fact,  he  spoke  only  from  a  momentary  re- 
collection of  a  memory  not  now  very  good  ;  if 
the  fact  was,  as  he  believed,  no  one  could 


doubt  but  that  one  of  them,  General  WASHING- 
TON, was  as  much  attached  to  the  Army  as  any 
man  in  the  nation.  He  had  thought  proper  to 
say  this  much  to  enable  all  to  decide  whether 
the  national  opinion  was  tending  towards  pen- 
sions or  not. 

As  much  had  been  said  about  our  rich  Treas- 
ury, and  but  few  to  provide  for,  he  thought 
proper  to  state  that  neither  of  these  facts  had 
any  weight  with  him ;  if  justice  required  that 
the  bill  should  pass,  neither  the  condition  of  the 
Treasury  nor  the  number  to  be  provided  for 
ought  to  be  taken  into  consideration.  As  to 
the  Treasury  being  rich,  it  had  been  more  so 
some  years  past,  but  was  emptied  without  the 
aid  of  such  a  bill  as  this. 

He  hoped  the  gentleman  from  New  York 
would  pardon  him  for  saying,  that,  whether 
the  national  opinion  was  changing  or  not,  he 
thought  the  vote  on  this  motion,  and  that  for 
passing  the  bill,  would  prove  that  the  gentle- 
man and  himself  were  both  a  little  out  of  fash- 
ion. He,  however,  believed  that  they  would 
bear  it  as  it  became  them,  without  grieving  or 
complaining;  each  generation  would  govern  it- 
self, and  they  had  had  their  day. 

On  the  exertions  of  the  Whigs  in  the  South- 
ern States,  after  the  fall  of  Charleston  and  the 
sufferings  of  the  people,  he  could,  he  was  sure, 
speak  a  month,  and  not  exhaust  the  subject. 
He  had,  however  tired  himself,  and,  he  feared, 
fatigued  the  Senate.  He  would,  therefore,  take 
his  seat. 

MONDAY,  February  2. 

The  following  Message  was  received  from  the 
PRESIDENT  OF  THE  UNITED  STATES  : 
To  the  Senate  of  the  United  States : 

In  compliance  with  a  resolution  of  the  Senate  of 
the  8th  of  last  month,  requesting  me  to  cause  to  be 
laid  before  it,  the  proceedings  which  may  have  been 
had  under  "  An  act,  entitled  '  An  act  for  the  gradual 
increase  of  the  Navy  of  the  United  States,' "  specify- 
ing the  number  of  ships  put  on  the  stocks,  and  of 
what  class;  the  quantity  of  materials  procured  for 
ship  building,  and  also  the  sums  of  money  which 
may  have  been  paid  out  of  the  fund  created  by  said 
act,  and  for  what  objects ;  and  likewise,  the  contracts, 
which  may  have  been  entered  into,  in  execution  of 
the  act  aforesaid,  on  which  moneys  may  not  yet  have 
been  advanced ;  I  now  transmit  a  report  of  the  Secre- 
tary of  the  Navy,  accompanied  by  a  report  from  the 
Board  of  Commissioners  of  the  Navy,  with  documents 
which  contain  the  information  desired. 

JAMES  MONROE. 

The  Message  and  accompanying  reports  and 
documents  were  read. 


THTTESDAT,  February  3. 
Surviving  Officers  of  the  Revolution. 
Agreeably  to  the  special  order  of  the  day, 
the  Senate  resumed,  as  in  Committee  of  the 
Whole,  the  consideration  of  the  bill  entitled 
"  An  act  to  provide  for  certain  surviving  offi- 
cers and  soldiers  of  the  Revolutionary  Army," 


ABRIDGMENT  OF  THE 


SENATE.] 


Surviving  Officers  of  the  Revolution. 


[FEBRUARY,  1818. 


together  with  the  amendments  reported  thereto 
by  the  Committee  on  Military  Affairs;  and  the 
question  recurring  on  the  motion  to  postpone 
the  further  consideration  of  the  bill  until  the 
first  Monday  in  July  next — 

Mr.  GOLDSBOBOUGH  addressed  the  Chair  as 
follows : 

Mr.  President,  as  it  appeared  to  be  the  dispo- 
sition of  the  Senate,  when  this  subject  was  un- 
der discussion  some  days  past,  to  go  into  the 
merits  of  the  bill  now  before  you,  upon  the 
question  of  postponement,  submitted  by  the 
honorable  gentleman  from  Virginia,  I  must 
conform  to  that  wish,  although  I  had  much 
rather  that  the  discussion  could  have  been  de- 
ferred until  the  bill  had  been  so  modelled  as  to 
have  approached  more  nearly  to  the  wishes  of  all. 

I  hope  the  motion  for  a  postponement  of  this 
bill  to  a  day  beyond  the  session  will  not  be  car- 
ried, as  I  consider  it  a  high  and  solemn  duty  in- 
cumbent upon  us  to  make  some  remuneration 
to  the  worthy  and  indigent  men  who  are  now 
presented  to  our  attention.  The  feelings  of  all 
who  have  delivered  their  opinions  upon  this 
subject  seem  to  be  in  accordance  with  the  ob- 
ject of  this  bill ;  but  difficulties  arise  on  every 
side  that  appear  to  be  insurmountable,  the 
greatest  of  which  is,  to  what  class  of  men  we 
shall  direct  our  benevolence.  The  merits  of  all 
have  been  exhibited  to  view,  and  we  are  told, 
if  we  discriminate  we  shall  do  injustice ;  and  if 
we  include  all,  that  the  finances  of  the  country 
will  be  exhausted  in  the  undertaking.  It  is  not 
my  purpose,  sir,  to  detract  from  the  merits  of 
any ;  but  surely,  Mr.  President,  if  there  is  any 
one  definite  class  of  men  more  meritorious  than 
another ;  if  there  are  any  men  in  this  country, 
who,  by  their  services  and  sufferings,  have  ren- 
dered themselves  most  dear  to  our  recollections, 
and  most  worthy  of  our  gratitude,  they  are  the 
officers  and  soldiers  of  the  Revolutionary  Army. 
If  they  are  infirm,  we  ought  to  sustain  them ; 
if  they  are  indigent,  we  ought  first  to  help 
them. 

The  objections  which  have  been  offered  to 
the  question  now  before  us  are  formidable,  from 
their  number  and  variety.  It  will  be  proper 
for  me  in  the  first  place  to  examine  these  objec- 
tions, not  with  the  arrogant  pretension  of  effect- 
ually doing  them  away,  but  of  endeavoring  to 
place  them  in  such  a  point  of  view  as  in  some 
degree  to  impair  their  force,  and  to  render 
them  less  imposing  than  they  have  been  con- 
sidered. 

It  is  objected,  that  the  Revolutionary  officers 
and  soldiers  have  no  claim  against  the  Govern- 
ment; that  all  that  was  ever  promised  them 
has  been  given,  and  all  that  was  ever  stipulated 
has  been  complied  with.  It  is  not  pretended 
by  any  of  the  advocates  of  this  measure  that 
these  men  have  any  strict  claim  in  law,  but  the 
expectation  is  most  ardently  and  sincerely  en- 
tertained that  a  case  can  be  made  out  that  will 
authorize  (and  we  hope  induce)  a  grateful  coun- 
try to  make  them  the  objects  of  generous  muni- 
ficence. 


By  various  resolutions  of  the  old  Congress, 
certain  officers  of  the  Revolutionary  Army  were 
to  be  placed  on  half-pay  for  life.  This  half-pay 
was  afterwards  commuted  for  five  years'  full- 
pay.  From  whom  the  proposition  of  commu- 
tation came,  is  a  disputed  point ;  and  as  I  do 
not  know  that  it  has  any  material  bearing  upon 
this  question,  I  will  forbear  to  inquire  into  it. 
The  origin  of  the  commutation  is  to  be  traced 
to  those  murmurings  and  discontents  which 
were  exhibited  in  many  parts  of  the  country 
against  the  half-pay  establishment;  and  those 
who  were  to  receive  it,  notwithstanding  the 
pledges  of  devotion  to  their  country  which  they 
had  given  in  the  field,  were  met  with  the  op- 
probrious epithets  of  hireling,  mercenary,  and 
pensioner  !  It  is  to  the  prejudice  which  existed 
everywhere  amongst  us,  against  the  country 
from  which  we  had  been  separated,  and  against 
every  establishment  similar  to  hers,  that  we 
are  to  look  for  the  cause  of  this  sensation.  It 
is  allowable  to  call  it  a  prejudice,  sir ;  for,  what 
we  term  a  prejudice  now,  was  a  virtue  then. 
The  superior  officers  in  the  Army,  who  were 
the  oldest,  first  agreed  to  this  commutation. 
At  their  time  of  life,  the  bargain  was  a  pretty 
good  one,  if  they  had  been  paid  in  good  money ; 
but  not  so  with  the  young  officers,  who  consti- 
tuted by  far  the  greater  portion.  Yet  these, 
under  the  influence  of  their  superior  officers,  to 
whom,  from  habits  of  discipline  and  long-tried 
confidence,  they  had  ever  looked  with  a  venera- 
tion that  knew  no  change,  and  with  an  affection 
that  found  no  limit,  at  length  consented,  and 
accepted  the  commutation.  It  seemed  to  be 
the  last  chance— the  only  hope.  No  sooner 
had  they  accepted  the  terms,  and  received  the 
final  settlement  certificate,  as  the  evidence  of 
the  debt  due  them  from  the  Government,  than 
their  necessities  forced  them  into  the  hands  of 
the  remorseless  speculator,  and  they  sold  the 
reward  of  their  toils — some  for  eighteen  pence, 
some  for  two  shillings,  and  some  (more  fortu- 
nate than  the  rest)  for  half  a  crown  in  the 
pound. 

A  captain's  pay  is  always  taken  as  a  fair  aver- 
age in  the  Army,  on  which  to  found  calculation. 
The  pay  of  a  captain  was  forty  dollars  a  month 
— four  hundred  and  eighty  dollars  a  year.  The 
commutation  of  five  years'  full-pay  would 
amount  to  twenty-four  hundred  dollars.  There 
was  due  at  the  time  of  disbanding  the  Army 
about  two  years'  and  a  half  pay,  or  fifty  per 
cent,  upon  the  amount  of  commutation.  This 
added  to  the  commutation  would  be  twelve 
hundred  dollars  more ;  making  in  all  thirty-six 
hundred  dollars.  A  final  settlement  for  thirty- 
six  hundred  dollars,  with  a  captain,  sold  by  him 
then  at  two-and-sixpence  in  the  pound,  or  thir- 
ty-three and  a  third  cents  in  the  two  dollars,  and 
sixty-six  and  two-thirds  of  a  cent,  would  give 
him  about  four  hundred  and  fifty  dollars — a  sum 
less  than  the  pay  for  one  year  for  his  whole  com- 
mutation and  arrearages.  If  it  is  remarked  that 
the  act  of  selling  was  his  own,  I  reply,  that  it 
was  his  necessity,  and  not  his  will,  consented — 


DEBATES  OF  CONGRESS. 


31 


FEBRUARY,  1818.] 


Surviving  Officers  of  the  Revolution. 


[SENATE. 


a  necessity  produced  by  the  incapacity  of  the 
country  to  pay  him  in  money  of  value. 

The  certificate  of  final  settlement  for  thirty- 
six  hundred  dollars  purported  upon  its  face  to 
bear  an  interest  of  six  per  cent,  until  paid.  It 
was  passed  in  1783.  Six  years  afterwards,  Con- 
gress, unable  to  pay  off  these  claims,  had  re- 
course to  the  plan  of  funding  them,  and  instead 
of  paying  the  six  years'  six  per  cent,  interest 
upon  the  certificate  of  thirty-six  hundred  dol- 
lars, (which  would  have  been  twelve  hundred 
and  ninety-six  dollars,)  they  converted  that  in- 
terest into  a  stock  bearing  three  per  cent,  inter- 
est. Thus,  by  the  very  act  of  conversion, 
saving  to  the  Government  and  taking  from  the 
captain  half  the  amount  of  his  interest,  (equal 
to  six  hundred  and  forty-eight  dollars ;)  for,  if 
any  interest  was  due,  it  was  six  per  cent.  Again : 
The  amount  of  principal,  being  thirty-six  hun- 
dred dollars,  was  also  converted  into  a  stock 
bearing  six  per  cent,  interest,  two-thirds  of 
which  was  to  bear  a  present  interest  of  six  per 
cent,  and  the  interest  upon  the  remaining  third 
was  deferred  for  ten  years,  saving  again  to  the 
Government  the  interest  of  six  per  cent,  upon 
twelve  hundred  dollars  for  ten  years,  which  is 
equal  to  seven  hundred  and  twenty  dollars; 
thus,  the  Government  saved  to  itself,  out  of  the 
money  due  a  captain,  by  the  mode  of  payment 
which  it  adopted,  six  hundred  and  forty-eight 
dollars  of  the  interest  due  him,  and  seven  hun- 
dred and  twenty  dollars  by  withholding  the  in- 
terest upon  one-third  of  his  principal  for  ten 
years,  making,  in  the  whole,  the  sum  of  thirteen 
hundred  and  sixty-eight  dollars.  Instead,  then, 
of  paying  the  captain  the  amount  of  principal 
and  interest  due  him  by  the  evidence  of  his 
certificate  from  under  the  hand  of  the  Govern- 
ment, their  necessities  compelled  them  to  have 
recourse  to  a  system  of  payment  to  which  the 
creditor  was  not  a  party,  that  saved  to  the  Gov- 
ernment the  sum  of  thirteen  hundred  and  sixty- 
eight  dollars,  and  took  it  from  him  to  whom  it 
was  justly  due.  I  do  not  pretend  to  say,  sir, 
that  this  constitutes  a  debt  at  this  time  of  day, 
according  to,  and  recoverable  by  law  ;  but  to 
my  mind  it  creates  an  obligation  to  make  some 
remuneration,  against  which  neither  time  nor 
circumstances  can  avail. 

I  know  full  well,  Mr.  President,  that  it  was 
the  depressed  condition  of  the  finances  of  the 
country  at  that  time,  that  produced  this  calami- 
tous state  of  things.  I  am  aware  of  it,  and  I 
regret  it.  The  condition  of  the  nation,  then, 
was  that  of  an  unfortunate  debtor,  who  had 
stopped  payment  with  a  prospect  of  more  ample 
resources  at  a  future  day,  and  called  upon  her 
creditors,  who  were  her  benefactors,  and  made 
the  most  equitable  and  fair  composition  with 
them  that  she  could.  It  is  now,  sir,  when  this 
debtor,  our  country,  is  opulent,  and  powerful, 
and  prosperous,  that  we  desire  her  to  do,  what 
every  honorable  member  in  this  Senate,  I  am 
persuaded,  would  do  in  his  own  private  capacity, 
I  mean  to  remunerate  those  who  had  sustained 


losses  in  consequence  of  her  former  disability 
to  discharge  her  just  debts. 

Other  objections  to  this  bill  are  derived  from 
the  various  classes  of  men  who  served  and  suf- 
fered in  the  Revolution.  We  are  told  of  those 
who  served  in  the  councils  of  the  country  at 
that  time — of  those  who  suffered  from  the 
ravages  of  the  enemy,  and  from  the  destructive 
neighborhood  wars,  which  existed  in  some  of 
the  States,  in  consequence  of  a  difference  of 
sentiment — and  lastly,  of  the  militia.  And,  as 
a  strengthener  to  all,  we  are  told,  that  the  States 
individually  have  done  much  for  the  officers 
and  soldiers  of  the  Revolution.  Mr.  President, 
towards  those  illustrious  men  who  filled  the 
councils  of  this  country,  during  the  great  Rev- 
olutionary struggle,  I  can  feel  nothing  but  the 
most  exalted  reverence,  and  respect,  and  admira- 
tion. It  was  to  their  steady  perseverance  and 
unshaken  fortitude,  that  we  owe  the  success  of 
that  contest  which  gave  independence  to  this 
country.  Their  wisdom,  their  constancy,  and 
their  fidelity,  will  ever  be  remembered.  But 
what  they  planned  in  council,  your  army  sus- 
tained in  the  field.  If  they  toiled  and  watched 
over  your  destinies,  they  had  some  periods  of 
time  that  they  could  devote  to  their  families 
and  their  private  concerns — they  had  it  in  their 
power  to  pay  some  attention  to  domestic  cares 
— and,  in  the  midst  of  their  faithful  labors, 
their  health  was  taken  care  of ;  they  were  plen- 
tifully fed,  and  comfortably  lodged  at  night. 
Not  so  with  your  army  :  half-starved,  half- 
naked,  tracked  on  their  course  by  the  blood 
from  their  unshod  feet,  they  followed  their 
Heaven-directed  leader  with  heroic  constancy 
and  courage — defying  the  elements — exposed  to 
every  vicissitude  of  season  and  of  weather — 
bearing  up  against  the  multiplied  calamities  of 
the  most  ill-provided  warfare,  they  sunk  from 
their  toils  to  catch  a  moment  of  repose  upon  the 
frozen  field,  uncovered,  except  by  the  skies. 
Sir,  there  is  no  comparison  between  the  suffer- 
ings of  these  men ;  and  as  little  between  their 
present  condition,  arising  from  the  difference  ot 
that  service. 

Whatever  may  have  been  the  misfortunes  of 
those  who  were  injured  by  the  fury  of  the  ene- 
my, or  of  their  neighborhood  wars,  it  is  im- 
possible at  this  time  of  day  to  estimate.  The 
case  is  remediless  with  all  its  horrors.  We  have 
seen  the  difficulty,  for  some  years  past,  of  pro- 
viding for  the  destruction  committed  in  the  late 
war.  Two  years  have  been  consumed  in  estab- 
lishing the  principles  which  shall  govern  in  those 
cases,  and  yet  every  day  a  memorial  is  laid 
upon  our  table,  asking  redress  for  cases  not  in- 
cluded in  the  law.  If  such  difficulties  are  felt 
on  account  of  losses  of  such  recent  date,  how 
can  we  hope  to  redress  those  where  time  has 
swallowed  up  both  the  parties  and  the  evidence ; 
and  gentlemen  must  excuse  me,  sir,  for  saying, 
that  I  do  not  consider  it  altogether  fair  to  intro- 
duce an  impracticable  case  against  us,  and  then 
deny  that  we  ought  to  do  that  which  is  feasi- 


32 


ABRIDGMENT  OP  THE 


SENATE.] 


Encouragement  to  Emigrants. 


[FEBEUABY,  1818. 


ble,  because  we  don't  do  that  which  is  impos- 
sible. 

As  for  the  militia,  sir,  their  services  were 
often  useful,  often  admirable — but  their  employ- 
ment was  very  different  from  that  of  the  Con- 
tinental army.  The  militia  were  generally 
employed  for  short  periods,  and  not  taken  far 
from  home ;  their  services  were  mostly  perform- 
ed in  defence  of  their  own  neighborhood,  and 
their  fatigues  and  exposure  were  comparatively 
small  when  contrasted  with  that  of  the  regular 
army.  As  to  the  rewards  which  the  States 
have  benevolently  bestowed  upon  such  of  the 
officers  and  soldiers  as  were  within  their  re- 
spective limits,  it  does  them  much  honor,  but 
we  cannot  shelter  ourselves  under  the  charity 
of  others.  It  was  for  the  nation  at  large  that 
these  men  fought  and  bled ;  it  was  for  the  coun- 
try they  encountered  all  their  hardships,  and  it 
is  from  the  national  Treasury  they  ought  to  be 
reimbursed. 

But  the  greatest  objection  of  all,  is  the  sup- 
posed exorbitancy  of  the  sum  necessary  for  the 
object.  This  is  the  point  at  which  I  fear  we 
shall  falter.  Perhaps  a  little  examination  into 
this  point  may  diminish  the  obstacles  that  our 
alarms  have  created.  There  is  no  certain  evi- 
dence to  which  we  can  have  recourse  at  this 
time  to  ascertain,  with  exactness,  the  number  of 
surviving  officers  and  soldiers  of  the  Continen- 
tal army.  Various  calculations  have  been  made 
by  those  who  may  be  supposed  to  have  the 
most  accurate  means  of  information,  and  these 
have  proved  unsatisfactory.  The  only  docu- 
ment we  can  find  upon  the  subject,  is  the  num- 
ber of  men  discharged  at  the  time  the  army 
was  disbanded,  which  was  about  thirteen  thou- 
sand five  hundred — if  to  this  is  added  one-fourth 
of  that  amount,  to  include  those  who  have  been 
discharged  after  one,  two,  or  three  years'  service, 
we  shall  have  in  the  whole  the  number  of  16,875 
men.  A  better  computation  can  be  made  of 
the  officers,  who  are  more  known  in  the  com- 
munity, and  who  are  generally  recorded  in  the 
society  of  the  Cincinnati.  They  are  estimated 
at  rather  more  than  two  hundred  survivors, 
being  one-tenth  of  the  whole.  If  we  calculate 
the  men  by  this  mode,  and  it  will  be  an  extrava- 
gant calculation — for  in  all  the  estimates  of 
human  life  the  most  precarious  hold,  the  great- 
est mortality,  is  always  found  to  be  among  that 
class  of  men  who,  from  their  condition,  are  most 
exposed,  least  attended  to,  and  most  destitute  of 
essential  comforts.  If,  I  remark,  we  adopt  this 
mode  of  calculation,  we  shall  have  1,614  sur- 
vivors of  the  non-commissioned  officers  and 
privates  of  the  Continental  army — a  number, 
one-third  if  not  one-half  exceeding  what  any 
intelligent  Kevolutionary  officer  now  alive  be- 
lieves to  be  the  true  one.  Taking  then  the 
estimate,  at  this  large  calculation,  of  two  hun- 
dred officers  and  sixteen  hundred  and  eighty- 
seven  privates,  the  whole  amount  of  half-pay 
per  annum  to  each,  (estimating  a  captain's  half- 
pay  as  the  measure  of  that  of  the  officers,) 


would  not  exceed  one  hundred  and  fifteen  thou- 
sand four  hundred  and  eighty  dollars,  a  sum  in- 
considerable in  itself  when  compared  with  the 
object,  and  a  sum  that  will  diminish  hi  an  accel- 
erated ratio  every  year,  until,  in  ten  years  from 
this,  there  will  not  be  a  tenth  remaining  to  be 
paid.  If  there  is  an  error  in  this  statement,  it 
unquestionably  is  by  making  the  estimate  too 
large,  and  when  we  come  to  reflect  upon  the 
object  to  be  accomplished,  and  the  means  neces- 
sary for  the  purpose,  I  trust  that  we  shall 
neither  feel  hesitation  nor  reluctance. 


FRIDAY,  February  13. 
Surviving  Revolutionary  Soldiers. 

The  Senate  resumed,  as  in  Committee  of  the 
Whole,  the  consideration  of  the  bill,  entitled 
"  An  act  to  provide  for  certain  surviving  officers 
and  soldiers  of  the  Kevolutionary  army,"  to- 
gether with  the  amendments  reported  thereto 
by  the  Committee  on  Military  Affairs ;  and  the 
question  recurring  on  the  motion,  that  the  fur- 
ther consideration  thereof  be  postponed  until 
the  first  Monday  in  July  next,  it  was  determined 
in  the  negative — yeas  3,  nays  30,  as  follows: 

YEAS. — Messrs.  Barbour,  Macon,  and  Smith. 

NATS. — Messrs.  Ashmun,  Burrill,  Campbell,  Crit- 
tenden,  Daggett,  Dickerson,  Eppes,  Fromentin,  Gail- 
lard,  Goldsborough,  Hunter,  King,  Lacock,  Leake, 
Morril,  Morrow,  Noble,  Otis,  Ruggles,  Sanford,  Stokes, 
Storer,  Tait,  Talbot,  Taylor,  Troup,  Van  Dyke,  Wil- 
liams of  Massachusetts,  Williams  of  Tennessee,  and 
Wilson. 


MONDAY,  February  16. 
Encouragement  to  Emigrants. 
Mr.  SANFOBD  presented  the  memorial  of  the 
New  York  Irish  Emigrant  Association,  praying 
that  a  portion  of  unsold  lands  (in  the  Illinois 
Territory)  may  be  set  apart,  or  granted  to  trus- 
tees, for  the  purpose  of  being  settled  by  emi- 
grants from  Ireland,  on  an  extended  term  of 
credit,  as  stated  in  the  memorial ;  which  was 
read,  and  referred  to  the  Committee  on  Public 
Lands. 

The  memorial  is  as  follows : 
To  the  honorable  the  Senate  and  Home  of  Represent- 
atives of  the  United  States  of  America  in   Congress 
assembled. 

The  memorial  of  the  New  York  Irish  Emigrant 
Association  respectfully  showeth  :  That  your  memo- 
rialists, while  they  presume  most  respectfully  to  solicit 
your  attention  to  the  helpless  and  suffering  condition 
of  the  numerous  foreigners  who,  flying  from  a  com- 
plicated mass  of  want  and  misery,  daily  seek  an  asylum 
in  the  bosom  of  the  United  States,  are  emboldened  by 
the  recollection  that  a  liberal  encouragement  to  the 
settlement  of  meritorious  strangers  has  always  char- 
acterized the  Government  and  constituted  authorities 
of  the«Union.  The  wise  and  brave  founders  of  its  in- 
dependence held  out  to  the  oppressed  and  suffering  of 
every  nation  the  consoling  assurance,  that  in  this 
country,  at  least,  they  should  find  a  refuge  and  a 
home.  The  successors  of  these  illustrious  men  have 
continued  to  redeem,  in  calmer  and  happier  times,  the 


DEBATES  OF  CONGRESS. 


FEBRUARY,  1818.] 


Encouragement  to  Emigrants. 


[SENATE. 


pledge  made  to  philosophy  and  benevolence  amidst 
perilous  scenes  of  distress  and  difficulty.  From  this 
humane  and  beneficent  policy  America  has  reaped  a 
rich  and  happy  harvest  She  has  added  to  the  na- 
tional resources  the  moral  and  physical  strength  to  be 
derived  from  so  many  thousands  and  tens  of  thousands, 
who,  actuated  by  attachment  to  her  free  constitution, 
have  adopted  the  nation  where  liberty  has  made,  and 
is  making,  her  most  glorious  stand,  as  the  country  of 
their  choice. 

Your  memorialists,  in  addressing  your  honorable 
body,  need  not  seek  to  enforce  by  argument  the  gen- 
erally received  maxim  of  political  economy,  that  the 
wealth  and  solidity  of  a  nation  consist  in  the  number, 
the  social  comforts,  and  the  productive  industry  of  its 
people.  In  the  dense  and  crowded  States,  and  under 
the  existing  Governments  of  Europe,  these  sources  of 
wealth  and  stability  are  not  always  found  will  com- 
bined. It  frequently  does  not  happen  that  the  social 
comforts,  or  even  the  productive  industry,  are  propor- 
tioned to  the  number  of  the  people.  In  the  extended 
territory  and  scattered  population  of  the  United  States, 
however,  and  under  their  free  and  blessed  institutions, 
it  is  an  unquestionable  and  important  truth,  that  every 
increase  of  inhabitants,  when  wisely  and  judiciously 
distributed  and  settled,  adds  to  the  social  comforts  and 
productive  industry  of  the  whole,  and  that  the  excess 
of  population,  which  cannot  be  considered  as  giving 
stability  to  the  various  Governments  of  Europe,  if  suf- 
fered or  encouraged  to  settle  here,  would  incalculably 
increase  our  wealth  and  strength.  But  that  accession 
is  doubly  valuable  which  also  brings  to  the  common 
fund,  with  a  mass  of  laborious  industry,  unalterable 
attachment  to  the  laws  and  constitution  of  the  country. 
And,  surely,  to  give  a  wise  direction  to  that  industry, 
and  to  secure  by  well-placed  kindness  that  attach- 
ment, are  among  the  noblest  exercises  of  legislative 
authority. 

Your  memorialists  beg  leave  respectfully  to  represent 
that  at  no  period  since  the  establishment  of  American 
independence  have  the  people  of  Europe,  particularly 
the  laboring  classes,  discovered  so  great  a  disposition 
as  at  present  to  emigrate  to  the  United  States.  But 
the  people  of  Ireland,  from  the  peculiar  pressures  under 
which  that  country  has  so  long  been  placed,  have 
flocked  thither  in  the  greatest  number,  and  perhaps 
under  the  most  trying  and  necessitous  circumstances. 
They  come,  indeed,  not  to  return  and  carry  back  the 
profits  of  casual  speculations,  but  to  dedicate  to  the 
land  of  their  hopes  then:  persons,  their  families,  their 
posterity,  their  affections,  their  all. 

It  is,  however,  a  truth,  regretted  by  those  who  have 
the  best  means  of  observation,  that,  for  want  of  guides 
to  their  steps,  and  congenial  homes,  where  all  their 
honest  energies  might  be  called  at  once  into  activity, 
and  their  hardy  enterprise  turned  to  their  own  advan- 
tage, as  well  as  to  the  general  good,  they  remain  per- 
plexed, undecided,  and  dismayed,  by  the  novelty  and 
difficulty  of  their  situations.  They  have  fled  from 
want  and  oppression —  they  touch  the  soil  of  freedom 
and  abundance ;  but  the  manna  of  the  wilderness 
melts  in  their  sight.  Before  they  can  taste  the  fruits 
of  happy  industry,  the  tempter  too  often  presents  to 
their  lips  the  cup  that  turns  man  to  brute,  and  the 
very  energies  which  would  have  made  the  fields  to 
blossom  make  the  cities  groan.  Individual  benevo- 
lence cannot  reach  this  eviL  Individuals  may  indeed 
solicit,  but  it  belongs  to  the  chosen  guardians  of  the 
public  weal  to  administer  the  cure.  Nor  is  the  mis- 
direction or  the  destruction  of  the  capabilities  and  in- 
Vou  VI.— 3 


dustry  of  these  emigrants  to  be  regretted  only  on  its 
own  account.  The  story  of  their  blessed  hopes  and 
fortunes  is  transmitted  back,  and  retailed  with  ma- 
licious exaggeration.  Others,  possessing  more  abun- 
dant means  and  more  prudent  habits,  who  have  been 
accustomed  to  look  with  longing  eyes  to  this  free 
country,  and  contrast  its  happiness  with  the  present 
state  of  Europe,  are  discouraged  and  deterred  by  their 
sufferings  and  misfortunes;  and  thus  a  large  current 
of  active  population  and  wealth,  inclined  to  flow  into 
and  enrich  the  United  States,  is  dammed  up  at  the 
fountain-head.  A  serious  consideration  of  these  cir- 
cumstances induce  your  memorialists  to  hope,  and 
most  earnestly  but  respectfully  to  request,  on  behalf  of 
those  whose  interests  they  urge,  that  a  portion  of  un- 
sold lands  may  be  set  apart  or  granted  to  trustees,  for 
the  purpose  of  being  settled  by  emigrants  from  Ireland, 
on  an  extended  term  of  credit.  The  conditions  of  this 
grant  your  memorialists  wish  to  be  such  as  may  give 
to  the  settlers  its  entire  benefit,  and  may  exclude  all 
private  speculation  in  others.  They  also  beg  leave  to 
suggest,  after  contemplating  the  various  uncultivated 
tracts  which  invite  the  labor  of  man,  that  a  situation 
adapted  for  a  settlement  of  that  description  might  be 
found  among  the  lands  lately  purchased  in  the  Illinois 
Territory. 

Your  memorialists  are  fully  sensible  that  many  of 
the  most  persuasive  arguments  in  favor  of  then-  appli- 
cation must  be  addressed,  and  will  not  be  addressed  in 
vain,  to  the  benevolence  and  sympathies  of  the  Legis- 
lature ;  but  they  also  confidently  appeal  to  its  wisdom 
and  patriotism.  The  lands  to  which  they  have  alluded, 
being  frontier  and  remote,  are  neither  likely  to  be 
speedily  exposed  to  sale,  to  be  rendered  by  cultivation 
subservient  to  the  general  prosperity,  nor  by  settle- 
ment conducive  to  the  general  strength.  The  portion 
which  might  be  granted  on  extended  credit  would 
probably  be  paid  for  almost  as  soon  as  if  it  had  not  been 
brought  into  the  market  before  its  regular  turn.  Dur- 
ing that  time,  in  which  it  would  otherwise  remain 
unproductive,  (and  therefore  unprofitable,)  thousands 
of  families  would  have  acquired  opulence,  would  have 
benefited  the  country  by  its  cultivation,  by  the  estab- 
lishing of  schools,  the  opening  of  roads,  and  the  other 
improvements  of  social  and  civilized  life.  They  would 
form  a  nucleus  round  which  a  more  abundant  popu- 
lation would  rapidly  accumulate,  and  all  the  con- 
tiguous lands  would  be  largely  increased  in  value.  The 
small  loss  which  might  appear  to  be  sustained  by  the 
suspension  of  interest  on  the*  credit  (if  it  should  have 
any  existence)  will  be  abundantly  compensated  by  the 
money  and  labor  that  must  be  almost  immediately  ex- 
pended on  works  of  general  utility,  which  the  conve- 
nience and  necessities  of  the  settlers  will  naturally  in- 
duce them  to  accomplish.  But  who  can  calculate  the 
physical  or  moral,  or  even  the  pecuniary  advantages 
in  time  of  war,  of  having  such  a  strong  and  embattled 
frontier  ? 

The  Irish  emigant,  cherished  and  protected  by  the 
Government  of  the  United  States,  will  find  his  attach- 
ment to  then-  interest  increase  in  proportion  to  the 
benefits  he  has  received.  He  will  love  with  enthusi- 
asm the  country  that  affords  him  the  means  of  honor- 
able and  successful  enterprise,  and  permits  him  to 
enjoy  unmolested  and  undiminished  the  fruits  of  his 
honest  industry.  Ingratitude  is  not  the  vice  of  Irish- 
men. Fully  appreciating  his  comparative  comforts, 
and  the  source  from  whence  they  flow,  he  will  him- 
self cherish,  and  will  inculcate  on  his  children,  an  un- 
alterable devotion  to  his  adopted  and  their  native 


34 


ABRIDGMENT  OF  THE 


SENATE.] 


Fugitive  Slaves. 


[MAECH,  1818. 


country.  Should  hostilities  approach  her  in  that 
quarter,  whether  in  the  savage  forms  of  the  tomahawk 
and  scalping-knife,  or  with  the  deadlier  weapon  of 
civilized  warfare,  the  Irish  settlers,  with  their  hardy 
sons,  will  promptly  repel  the  invasion,  drive  back  the 
war  upon  the  enemy,  and  give  to  our  extended  frontier 
security  and  repose. 

Your  memorialists  therefore  humbly  pray  your  hon- 
orable body  to  receive  and  listen  favorably  to  their 
application.  And,  as  in  duty  bound,  they  will  ever 
pray,  <fec. 

On  behalf  of  the  New  York  Irish  Emigrant  Asso- 
ciation : 

NEW  YORK,  December,  1817. 

THOS.  ADDIS  EMMET,  President. 

DANIEL  McCORMICK,  Vice  President. 

JAMES  McBRIDE,  2d  Vice  President. 

ANDREW  HERRIS,  Treasurer. 

JOHN  W.  MULLIGAN,  Secretary.      * 

WILLIAM  SAMPSON,  Secretary. 
Wm  J.  Macnevan,  James  Sterling, 

Mat  L.  Davis,  Wm.  Edgar,  jr., 

J.  Chambers,  Matthew  Carroll, 

Thomas  Kirk,  John  Mayhue, 

D.  H.  Doyle,  John  Heffernan, 

John  R.  Skidds,  Dennis  McCarthy, 

Robert  Fox,  James  R.  Mullany. 

R.  Swanton. 


TUESDAY,  February  17. 
Great  Britain — Extra  Dues. 

The  following  Message  was  received  from  the 
PEESIDENT  OP  THE  UNITED  STATES  : 
To  the  Senate  and  House  of  Representatives  : 

I  lay  before  the  House  of  Representative  copies  of 
two  communications  received  at  the  Department  of 
State  from  the  Minister  of  Great  Britain,  and  submit 
to  their  consideration  the  propriety  of  making  such 
legislative  provisions  as  may  be  necessary  for  a  com- 
pliance with  the  representations  contained  in  them. 

By  the  express  terms  of  that  compact  it  was,  when 
ratified  by  the  two  Governments,  to  be  in  force  for 
the  term  of  four  years  from  the  day  of  its  signa- 
ture. The  revocation  of  all  the  discriminating  duties 
became,  therefore,  the  obligation  of  both  Governments 
from  that  day,  and  it  is  conceived  that  every  indi- 
vidual who  has  been  required  to  pay,  and  who  has 
paid,  any  of  the  extra  duties  revoked  by  the  Conven- 
tion, has  a  just  and  lawful  claim  upon  the  respective 
Governments  for  its  return.  From  various  accidents 
it  has  happened  that,  both  here  and  in  Great  Britain, 
the  cessation  of  the  extra  duties  has  been  fixed  to 
commence  at  different  times.  It  is  desirable  that 
Congress  shall  pass  an  act,  providing  for  the  return 
of  all  the  extra  duties,  incompatible  with  the  terms  of 
the  Convention,  which  have  been  levied  upon  British 
vessels  or  merchandise,  after  the  3d  of  July,  1815. 
The  British  Parliament  have  already  set  the  example 
of  fixing  that  day  for  the  cessation  of  the  extra  duties 
of  export,  by  their  act  of.  30th  June  last,  and  the 
Minister  of  the  United  States  in  London  is  instructed 
to  require  the  extension  of  the  same  principle  to  all 
the  extra  duties  levied  on  vessels  and  merchandise  of 
the  United  States  in  the  ports  of  Great  Britain  since 
that  day.  It  is  not  doubted  that  the  British  Govern- 
ment will  comply  with  this  requisition,  and  that  the 
act  suggested  may  be  passed  by  Congress,  with  full 


confidence  that  the  reciprocal  measure  will  receive 
the  sanction  of  the  British  Parliament. 

JAMES  MONROE. 
WASHINGTON,  Feb.  12, 1818. 

THURSDAY,  February  19. 
DANIEL  D.  TOMPKINS,  Vice  President  of  the 
United  States  and  President  of  the  Senate,  at- 
tended, and  took  the  Chair. 

THURSDAY,  February  26. 

HENRY  JOHNSON,  appointed  a  Senator  by  the 
Legislature  of  the  State  of  Louisiana,  to  supply 
the  vacancy  occasioned  by  the  death  of  the  late 
William  Charles  Cole  Claiborne,  produced  his 
credentials,  was  qualified,  and  took  his  seat  in 
the  Senate. 

Surviving  Revolutionary  Soldiers. 

The  Senate  resumed  the  consideration  of  the 
bill,  entitled  "  An.  act  to  provide  for  certain  sur- 
viving officers  and  soldiers  of  the  Revolutiona- 
ry Army." 

The  bill  having  been  further  amended,  on 
the  question,  "Shall  the  amendments  be  en- 
grossed, and  the  bill  be  read  a  third  time,  as 
amended?"  it  was  determined  in  the  affirma- 
tive— yeas  23,  nays  8,  as  follows : 

YEAS. — Messrs.  Burrill,  Crittenden,  Daggett,  Eppes, 
Fromentin,  Gaillard,  Goldsborough,  Horsey,  Hunter, 
Johnson,  King,  Leake,  Morrill,  Otis,  Ruggles,  Stokes, 
Storer,  Tait,  Talbot,  Tichenor,  Van  Dyke,  Williams 
of  Mississippi,  and  Williams  of  Tennessee. 

NAYS. — Messrs.  Barbour,  Dickerson,  Lacock,  Ma- 
con,  Morrow,  Roberts,  Smith,  and  Taylor. 

MONDAY,  March  2. 
Fugitive  Slaves. 

Agreeably  to  the  special  order  of  the  day, 
the  Senate  resumed,  as  in  .Committee  of  the 
Whole,  the  consideration  of  the  bill  respecting 
the  transportation  of  persons  of  color  for  sale, 
or  to  be  held  to  labor,  and  the  bill  having  been 
amended,  the  PEESIDENT  reported  it  to  the 
House  accordingly;  and  on  the  question  to 
agree  to  the  amendment  made,  as  in  Committee 
of  the  Whole,  to  strike  out  the  6th  section  of 
the  bill,  amended  as  follows  : 

"  SEC.  6.  And  be  it  further  enacted,  That  no  per- 
son shall  transport  or  convey  by  land,  from  one  State 
to  another,  or  from  one  State  or  Territory  to  another, 
any  negroes,  mulattoes,  or  persons  of  color,  for  the 
purpose  of  sale,  without  first  recording  the  name,  age, 
sex,  color,  and  stature  of  every  such  negro,  mulatto, 
or  person  of  color  in  the  office  of  the  court  of  the 
county  where  such  negro,  mulatto,  or  person  of  color 
last  resided,  together  with  his  own  name  and  place 
of  residence.  And  any  person  who  shall  attempt, 
or  be  engaged  in  the  transportation  or  conveyance 
by  land  of  any  negro,  mulatto,  or  person  of  color, 
as  aforesaid,  without  first  making  the  record  as 
aforesaid,  a  copy  of  which,  under  seal  and  duly 
attested  by  the  clerk  of  the  court  in  which  such  re- 
cord is  made,  shall  be  the  only  evidence,  shall  forfeit 
and  pay  one  thousand  dollars  for  each  and  every  ne- 
gro, mulatto,  or  person  of  color  thus  attempted  to  be 
transported  or  conveyed  by  land,  one  moiety  thereof 
to  the  use  of  tfce  United  States,  the  other  to  any 


DEBATES  OF  CONGRESS. 


35 


MARCH,  1818.] 


Fugitive  Slaves. 


[SENATE. 


person  or  persons  who  shall  sue  for,  and  prosecute 
the  same  to  effect,  in  any  court  of  the  United  States 
having  jurisdiction  thereof." 

It  was  determined  in  the  affirmative — yeas 
23,  nays  6,  as  follows : 

YEAS.— Messrs.  Barbour,  Crittenden,  Eppes,  Fro- 
mentin,  .Gaillard,  Hunter,  Johnson,  King,  Leake, 
Macon,  Morrill,  Otis,  Sanford,  Smith,  Stokes,  Storer, 
Tait,  Talbot,  Taylor,  Tichenor,  Van  Dyke,  Williams 
of  Mississippi,  and  Williams  of  Tennessee. 

XAYS. — Messrs.  Burrill,  Goldsborough,  Horsey,  No- 
ble, Roberts,  and  Ruggles. 

On  motion  by  Mr.  TALBOT,  the  further  con- 
sideration of  the  bill  was  postponed  until  Fri- 
day.  

FRIDAY,  March  6. 
Fugitive  Slaves. 

The  Senate  resumed,  as  in  Committee  of  the 
Whole,  the  consideration  of  the  bill,  entitled 
"  An  act  to  provide  for  delivering  up  persons 
held  to  labor  or  service  in  any  of  the  States  or 
Territories,  who  shall  escape  into  any  other 
State  or  Territory." 

Mr.  SMITH,  of  South  Carolina,  said,  when  this 
subject  was  first  brought  before  the  Senate,  he 
had  determined  to  take  no  part  in  the  debate. 
But,  as  it  had  assumed  such  a  complexion,  both 
as  it  respects  the  constitutionality  of  the  provi- 
sions of  the  bill  itself,  and  the  subject-matter 
upon  which  it  is  founded,  as  well  as  the  severity 
of  the  remarks  used  by  gentlemen  opposed  to 
its  passage,  he  considered  it  his  duty  to  make 
some  reply.  The  gentleman  from  Rhode  Island 
(Mr.  BrEEiLL)  insists  that  the  privilege  of  the 
writ  of  habeas  corpus,  secured  by  the  ninth  sec- 
tion of  the  first  article  of  the  constitution,  will 
be  infringed  by  this  bill,  because  a  person  of 
color  taken  under  it  cannot  have  the  right  to 
his  freedom  tried  by  the  judge  before  whom  the 
return  of  the  writ  of  habeas  corpus  is  made. 
Mr.  S.  said  he  pretended  to  no  law  knowledge 
beyond  that  of  other  gentlemen,  yet  he  did 
most  unequivocally  deny  the  construction  of 
the  constitution  as  given  by  that  gentleman. 
The  writ  of  habeas  corpus  was  never  intended 
to  give  a  right  of  trial.  It  merely  gives  the 
right  to  the  person  confined  to  demand  an  in- 
quiry whether  he  is  held  in  custody  upon  a 
ground  warranted  by  law ;  and  if  the  judge  be- 
fore whom  he  is  brought  finds  he  is  detained  by 
k\L-;il  authority  and  upon  legal  grounds,  he  can- 
not discharge  him,  but  is  obliged  to  remand 
him.  If  the  authority  by  which  he  is  held  ap- 
pears to  be  legal,  it  is  perfectly  immaterial 
whether  the  cause  is  a  just  one  or  not.  And 
when  a  fugitive  from  labor  has  been  taken  un- 
der this  law,  the  cause  of  his  detention  will  be 
fully  set  forth  in  the  certificate  by  the  judge 
before  whom  he  is  to  be  taken,  whose  duty  it 
is  specially  made  to  do  so.  Then  can  it  be  pre- 
tended, after  you  pass  a  law  prescribing  ex- 
pressly under  what  proofs  a  fugitive  shall  be 
taken,  and  that  the  fugitive  shall  be  specially 
described  by  the  judge  in  the  order  he  is  to 


give  for  his  removal,  and  that  the  proofs  have 
been  satisfactorily  made  before  him  the  person 
therein  described  is  a  fugitive  slave,  and  be- 
longs to  the  person  who  holds  him  in  custody, 
that  another  judge  has  a  right  to  question  all 
this,  and  take  upon  himself  alone  to  try  his 
right  to  freedom,  and  discharge  him  ?  It  is  im- 
possible. The  writ  of  habeas  corpus  was  never 
intended  to  give  any  such  right. 

This  would  give  a  judge  the  sole  power  of 
deciding  the  right  of  property  the  master  claims 
in  his  slave,  instead  of  trying  that  right  by  a 
jury,  as  prescribed  by  the  constitution.  He 
would  be  judge  of  matters  of  law  and  matters 
of  fact ;  clothed  with  all  the  powers  of  a  jury 
as  well  as  the  powers  of  a  court.  Such  a  prin- 
ciple is  unknown  in  your  system  of  jurispru- 
dence. Your  constitution  has  forbid  it.  It 
preserves  the  right  of  trial  by  jury  in  all  cases 
where  the  value  in  controversy  exceeds  twenty 
dollars.  The  gentleman  has  said,  if  this  biU 
should  pass  it  will  enable  the  Southern  planters 
to  take  and  carry  away,  not  only  their  own  fu- 
gitive slaves,  but  any  other  person  of  color, 
whether  he  be  a  free  man  or  a  slave.  It  would 
enable  them  to  carry  off  a  free  white  man,  and 
even  one  of  the  members  of  this  Senate.  Sir, 
the  gentleman  from  Rhode  Island  may  consider 
himself  as  perfectly  safe  from  any  such  hazard ; 
for,  however  much  we  may  respect  our  North- 
ern friends  as  gentlemen,  as  lawyers,  and  as 
statesmen,  we  should  have  no  sort  of  use  for 
them  in  our  cotton  fields.  Nor  should  we  ad- 
mire their  political  instructions  to  our  slaves  if 
they  should  carry  with  them  their  present  im- 


The  honorable  gentleman  has  spoken  of  the 
practice  of  the  Southern  people  in  kidnapping 
their  free  negroes,  and  calls  them  man-stealers. 
And  the  gentleman  from  Pennsylvania  (Mr. 
ROBERTS)  has  called  them  kidnappers,  men- 
stealers,  and  soul  drivers;  and  he  asks,  in  a 
very  emphatic  manner,  who  drew  this  bill,  and 
upon  what  authority?  Or  if  it  was  brought 
in  upon  the  application  of  any  of  the  abolition 
societies?  And  then  he  answers  these  ques- 
tions himself,  and  says  it  was  not,  but  that  it 
had  been  drawn  by  a  cunning  lawyer,  and  was 
supported  by  lawyers.  Sir,  this  language  does 
not  comport  with  the  moderation  which  that 
gentlemen  expressed  a  desire  should  prevail  in 
this  discussion  when  he  addressed  the  Senate 
on  the  subject  early  in  this  debate.  Is  tMs 
the  language  we  are  to  meet  when  we  are  suing 
for  our  constitutional  rights  ?  The  Constitution 
of  the  United  States  has  guaranteed  to  the  mas- 
ter a  right  to  pursue  his  fugitive  slave,  and  has 
enjoined  upon  the  State  to  which  he  shall  fly  to 
deliver  him  up.  It  has  not  left  it  optional  with 
the  State  to  which  he  flies,  but  has  made  it  im- 
perative that  he  shall  be  delivered  np.  And 
has  it  come  to  this,  that  we  must  wait  for  the 
permission  of  the  abolition  societies  before  a 
law  can  be  offered  to  secure  the  recovery  of 
just  rights?  This  was  not  more  novel  than 
strange. 


ABRIDGMENT  OF  THE 


SENATE.] 


Fugitive  Slaves. 


[MARCH,  1818. 


Mr.  S.  said,  it  had  been  a  practice  in  monarch- 
ical governments  to  discredit  lawyers,  where 
they  had  often  been  foremost  in  checking  a  high- 
handed tyranny ;  but  he  had  not  expected  to 
hear  it  practised  in  the  Senate  of  the  United 
States.  The  lawyers  of  this  country  had  noth- 
ing to  fear  upon  an  investigation  of  their  general 
character.  They  had  been  wanting  in  no  public 
duty.  During  the  [Revolutionary  war,  as  well 
as  the  late  war,  many  of  them  had  displayed  as 
much  gallantry  in  the  field,  and  as  much  ability 
in  the  councils,  as  any  men  in  the  nation,  whilst 
these  abolition  societies  were  in  ease  and  securi- 
ty at  home,  following  their  domestic  pursuits, 
and  leaving  it  to  others  to  fight  their  battles. 
Mr.  S.  said  he  was  sorry  to  make  these  remarks, 
but  they  were  just,  and  were  forced  from  him. 
He  admired  the  moderation  and  virtue  of  these 
people ;  he  thought  them  worthy  of  imitation  in 
many  respects,  but  he  did  not  admire  their  con- 
stant efforts  to  alienate  the  affections  of  the 
people  of  color  from  their  masters,  with  whom 
they  lived  happy,  and  by  whom  they  were  bet- 
ter provided  for  than  the  peasantry  of  any 
other  country  upon  earth ;  or,  indeed,  in  some 
portions  of  this  country,  if  the  facts  given  by 
their  writers  be  correct.  Mr.  Melish,  of  Phila- 
delphia, in  an  essay  published  only  a  few  days 
ago,  states,  that  there  are  in  the  city  and  county 
of  Philadelphia  at  least  fifteen  thousand  people, 
all  able  and  willing  to  work,  who  are  either 
idle  or  occupied  in  unproductive  labor,  and  says, 
that  melancholy  picture  pervades  the  country 
throughout.  This  place  is  the  very  centre  of 
emancipation  ;  and  if  unable  to  furnish  employ- 
ment for  their  own  population,  is  there  any  rea- 
son why  they  should  add  to  this  picture  of 
growing  distress,  by  an  accumulation  of  free 
negroes  ? 

Notwithstanding  all  that  has  been  said  by 
our  northern  brethren  against  us  for  keeping 
slaves,  they  employ  their  free  blacks  in  all  their 
drudgery,  and  obtain  their  labor  on  better  terms 
than  masters  do.  And  although  it  does  not 
apply  to  that  body  generally,  yet  it  is  a  fact, 
susceptible  of  proof,  that  some  who  profess  to 
promote  this  principle  of  abolition,  have  seduced 
the  slaves  from  the  neighboring  States  under 
promises  to  secure  their  emancipation,  instead 
of  which  they  put  them  to  work,  and  treat  them 
•with  so  much  more  severity  and  injustice  than 
their  masters,  that  the  slaves  either  made  it 
known  where  they  were,  or  run  away  from 
these  new  tyrants  and  went  back  to  their  for- 
mer state  of  slavery,  as  a  better  and  more  de- 
sirable condition. 

With  all  this  boast  about  freedom  and  emanci- 
pation, there  are  only  four  States  that  have  no 
slaves.  Even  the  magnificent  State  of  Penn- 
sylvania is  a  slaveholding  State ;  so  is  the  State 
of  Rhode  Island.  Those  which  are  non-slave- 
holding  States,  with  the  exception  of  Ohio, 
have  not  long  since  got  rid  of  them.  Ehode 
Island,  New  York,  and  Pennsylvania,  previous 
to  taking  steps  to  abolish  slavery,  furnished  the 
Southern  markets  with  considerable  numbers. 


And  the  very  moment  the  African  trade  was 
opened  in  South  Carolina,  in  the  year  1803, 
these  very  States  furnished  their  full  proportion 
of  shipping  to  carry  it  on.  Even  our  friends  in 
Boston,  and  other  New  England  States,  were 
willing  to  help  with  their  shipping ;  besides,  it 
furnished  a  market  for  their  surplus  rum.  So 
we  perceive,  whenever  interest  is  concerned, 
and  a  little  profit  is  to  be  made,  all  this  delicacy 
about  slavery  is  laid  aside. 

Whilst  it  was  their  interest  to  hold  slaves,  so 
long  they  kept  them.  Whenever  the  interest 
coupled  with  it  ceased,  slavery  ceased,  but  not 
before.  After  the  war,  trade  revived,  especially 
in  the  Eastern  States ;  it  was  found  that  a  negro 
capital  must  give  way  to  a  commercial  capital; 
which  was  infinitely  more  profitable.  So  it  is 
now  with  banking  capital.  Even  in  the  States 
where  slavery  exists  to  the  greatest  extent,  we 
find  many  selling  off  their  negroes  and  vesting 
the  proceeds  in  bank  stock ;  and  especially  those 
who  live  in  the  towns  and  cities.  This  capital, 
being  so  much  more  profitable  than  the  other,  it 
is  constantly  increasing.  And  there  are  no  per- 
sons more  apt  to  remonstrate  against  that  cry- 
ing sin  slavery,  than  such  as  have  just  sold  off 
their  stock  of  negroes,  and  vested  the  price  in 
bank  stock.  Slavery,  then,  becomes  very  odious. 
They  wish  to  see  it  abolished — they  do  not  like 
to  see  this  traffic  in  human  flesh.  But  it  is  be- 
cause they  have  got  its  precious  price  in  a  stock 
that  will  yield  them  a  three  or  four-fold  profit ; 
not  till  then  can  they  see  its  enormity.  It  is  a 
very  convenient  thing  to  be  receiving  a  large 
profit  upon  his  stock,  which  is  going  on  under 
the  fostering  hand  of  bank  directors,  whilst  the 
owner  is  asleep  or  taking  his  pleasure.  We 
have  lately  seen  it  published,  that  some  banks 
have  divided  as  much  as  thirty  per  cent,  upon 
their  capital,  whilst  the  most  successful  planter 
will  not  receive  more  than  ten,  and,  very  many 
years,  not  half  that  amount.  This  banking  sys- 
tem is  what  will  form  the  groundwork  for 
overthrowing  this  species  of  property,  by  grad- 
ually diminishing  the  number  of  its  holders, 
and  increasing  the  bank  stock  influence.  Look 
how  slavery  has  diminished  in  the  public  esti- 
mation, as  the  other  system  has  grown.  The 
States  which  have  taken  measures  to  abolish 
slavery,  have  become  perfectly  bank  mad.  New 
York  has  abolished  slavery  after  ten  years,  and 
she  is  convulsed  with  banks,  and  not  yet  satis- 
fied. There  was  a  late  attempt  to  establish  one 
with  a  capital  of  six  millions,  but  it  was  checked 
by  the  Executive.  ^The  State  of  Pennsylvania, 
already  abounding  in  banks,  incorporated  forty- 
seven  by  one  law — they  climbed  over  the  Exec- 
utive veto  to  do  so ;  two-thirds  of  the  Senate, 
and  about  three-fourths  of  the  House  of  Repre- 
sentatives supporting  it.  Many  of  these  banks, 
without  a  farthing  of  capital,  drawing  a  large 
income  from  the  hard  earnings  of  the  honest 
and  unwary  part  of  the  community,  and  abso- 
lutely refusing  to  redeem  their  paper,  without 
one  compunction  for  the  misery  and  rum  it 
brings  with  it.  When  these  very  frauds  were 


DEBATES  OF  CONGKESS. 


87 


MARCH,  1818.] 


Fugitive  Slaves. 


[SENATE. 


practising  to  an  enormous  degree,  without  a 
murmur,  except  from  those  who  were  sinking 
under  it,  the  feelings  of  that  country  were  .bleed- 
ing for  the  supposed  distress  of  the  slaves  of  the 
South. 

The  famous  article  in  the  Treaty  of  Ghent,  hy 
which  we  have  guaranteed  to  England  our  co- 
operation in  abolishing  the  African  slave  trade, 
is  worth  notice.  Our  Commissioners,  friendly 
to  banks  and  opposed  to  slavery,  had  no  instruc- 
tions to  enter  into  any  such  stipulation.  Great 
Britain  had  not  long  before  abolished  that  trade ; 
and  our  Government  had  done  so  forty  years 
before,  by  an  ordinance  of  the  First  Congress, 
in  1774,  and  which  had  been  rendered  more 
complete  by  a  law  of  1807.  It  was  totally  un- 
connected with  the  subject  of  negotiation.  We 
were  at  war  upon  other  grounds  entirely.  Not 
even  a  question  of  commerce  had  ever  arisen 
between  the  two  nations  upon  it ;  yet  it  found 
its  way,  an  isolated  article,  into  a  Treaty  of 
Peace ! 

The  Colonizing  Society  is  another  step  in  this 
grand  scheme.  This  society  intends  to  send  the 
free  negroes,  and  other  persons  of  color,  into 
the  wilds  of  Africa ;  by  which  they  are  to  be 
torn  from  the  land  of  their  nativity,  and  every 
thing  to  which  they  are  attached  by  friendship 
and  habit,  and  the  advantages  of  civilized  life,  and 
left  to  sink  again  into  all  the  miserable  barbarity 
of  their  ancestors.  But  it  is  said  it  will  pave 
the  way  to  a  general  emancipation. 

We  do  by  no  means  suppose  that  any  honora- 
ble member  of  Congress  would  think  of  such  a 
thing  as  a  general  emancipation  ;  because,  inde- 
pendently of  interfering  with  private  rights, 
they  know  too  well  that  such  a  measure  could 
not  take  place  without  involving  the  whole  of 
the  United  States  in  an  awful  situation.  But, 
that  a  general  emancipation  is  intended  there 
can  be  no  doubt,  by  the  Eastern  and  Northern 
States,  if  they  can  find  means  to  effect  it.  The 
abolition  societies  are  avowedly  for  it ;  what 
else  can  the  very  name  itself  indicate?  Al- 
though their  numerous  petitions,  now  before 
Congress,  purport  to  extend  no  further  than  to 
prevent  kidnapping,  yet,  look  at  the  language 
of  the  petitions.  If  they  had  applied  directly 
for  emancipation,  they  could  not  speak  plainer. 
Connected  with  these  petitions,  now  in  the 
possession  and  under  the  consideration  of  Con- 
gress, is  the  resolution  of  the  gentleman  from 
Rhode  Island,  (Mr.  BUEEILL,)  to  inquire  "  into 
the  expediency  of  the  United  States  taking 
measures,  in  concert  with  other  nations,  for  the 
entire  abolition  of  said  trade."  As  this  resolu- 
tion had  been  once  before  the  Senate,  and  had 
been  referred  by  a  majority  to  a  committee  to 
report  with  what  nations,  and  under  what  reg- 
ulations we  should  connect  ourselves  to  effect 
this  project,  Mr.  S.  said  it  would  not  be  out  of 
the  way  to  advert  to  it,  and  inquire  what  hopes 
we  had  of  a  fortunate  result.  With  whom  is 
this  Government  to  connect  itself  in  this  desira- 
ble work  ?  It  would  seem  that  it  ought  to  be 
with  nations  whose  general  policy  is  favorable 


to  emancipation,  and  whose  subjects  enjoy  the 
blessings  of  civil  liberty  at  home,  before  we 
could  expect  much  beneficial  aid  from  their  co- 
operation. We  are  not  to  hope  for  this  from 
Russia,  Prussia,  and  Austria,  whose  subjects  are 
borne  down  by  the  iron  hand  of  tyranny.  Their 
peasantry  are  bought  and  sold  at  home  like 
slaves,  and  are  suffered  to  be  sent  to  this  coun- 
try and  sold  in  our  markets.  Nor  is  it  to  be 
hoped  for  from  England,  if  her  policy  should 
dictate  to  her  a  different  course.  She  is  now 
riding  foremost  in  this  career,  because  it  prom- 
ises to  extend  and  promote  her  commercial 
interest,  whilst  her  millions  of  paupers  at  home 
are  dying  in  garrets,  or  falling  by  the  wayside, 
and  if  they  assemble,  to  raise  their  cry  to  their 
rulers  for  bread,  the  riot  act  is  read,  and  then 
the  military  is  ordered  to  fire  on  them.  Three 
of  these  nations,  assisted  by  the  ships  of  the 
other,  have  spread  their  sceptre  over  the  des- 
tinies of  Europe,  and  formed  a  holy  league 
against  its  dawning  liberties.  These  are  the  na- 
tions with  whom  you  are  to  associate  to  abolish 
slavery.  It  is  not  to  be  wondered  at,  under  all 
this  influence,  with  a  total  want  of  knowledge 
of  the  comfortable  condition  of  the  slaves,  that 
our  northern  neighbors  should  feel  unfavorable 
to  slavery.  But  most  of  the  northern  gentle- 
men, when  they  remove  to  the  southward,  and 
when  they  can  see  and  judge  for  themselves, 
have  no  hesitation  in  buying  slaves.  General 
Greene,  to  whom  the  State  of  Georgia  gave  a 
plantation  that  cost  five  thousand  guineas,  and 
South  Carolina  ten  thousand  pounds  sterling, 
for  his  services  during  the  Revolutionary  war, 
had  no  hesitation  in  purchasing  a  large  gang  of 
negroes  to  cultivate  this  plantation,  notwith- 
standing he  had  been  raised  to  the  northward, 
and  had  been  brought  up  a  Quaker. 

But,  there  is  another  perpetual  source  of  mis- 
representation, which  serves  to  place  it  in  an 
odious  light  to  strangers :  it  is  the  number  of 
catch-penny  prints  and  pamphlets  that  are  pub- 
lished by  persons  who  know  no  more  of  the 
condition  of  the  slaves  than  they  do  of  the  man 
in  the  moon.  Go  to  a  bookstore,  and  you  meet 
prints  hung  up  in  some  conspicuous  place,  in 
large  capital  letters,  "Portraiture  of  Domestic 
Slavery,"  published  in  Philadelphia;  or  the 
"  Horrors  of  Slavery,"  published  in  Cambridge, 
and  sold  in  Boston.  These  pamphlets  contain 
all  the  extraordinary  cases  collected  on  the  high 
seas,  in  the  West  Indies,  or  United  States,  to- 
gether with  such  inflammatory  speeches  of 
travellers,  who  have  no  other  means  of  giving 
to  their  writings  interests,  than  by  dealing  hi 
the  marvellous;  or  of  fanatic  preachers,  or 
speeches  in  the  British  Parliament,  calculated 
to  inflame  without  being  able  to  instruct,  and 
suited  more  to  promote  a  particular  policy  than 
to  promote  the  rights  of  humanity. 

At  the  time  the  memorials  of  the  several  abo- 
lition societies  were  presented  to  the  Senate, 
some  unknown  hand  had  laid  on  the  desk  of 
each  Senator  a  pamphlet  entitled  u  The  Horrors 
of  Slavery,  in  two  parts,  by  John,  Kenrick ;  sold 


428978 


38 


ABRIDGMENT  OF  THE 


SENATE.] 


Fugitive  Slaves. 


[MARCH,  1818. 


in  Boston,  price  twenty  cents."  This  twenty- 
cent  pamphlet  gives  many  horrible  pictures  of 
slavery;  and  no  doubt  the  author  knew  this 
great  moving  cause,  the  twenty  cents,  would 
multiply  in  proportion  to  the  extravagance  of 
his  descriptions.  This  twenty-cent  pamphleteer, 
amongst  his  other  good  offices,  has  pointed  out 
Louisiana  as  a  very  fit  place  to  colonize  all  the 
slaves,  after  they  are  emancipated,  (which  he 
seems  to  think  a  certain  event,)  and  takes  care 
Dot  to  lose  sight  of  the  fine  market  it  would  af- 
ford for  their  manufactures.  Mr.  S.  said,  if  an 
emancipation  should  take  place  he  would  rather 
see  them  settled  in  the  Northern  States  among 
their  friends,  where  they  could  be  better  super- 
intended. The  people  of  the  Southern  States 
•would  by  no  means  thank  Mr.  Kenrick  for  such 
neighbors ;  and  more  especially  if  they  are  to 
be  educated  like  the  free  negroes  in  the  North- 
ern and  Eastern  States,  if  the  account  given  by 
the  gentleman  from  Connecticut  (Mr.  DAGGETT) 
be  correct,  of  which  we  have  no  doubt.  He 
says  they  have  fifty  white  inhabitants  for  one 
black,  and  that  there  are  three  public  crimes 
committed  by  the  blacks  where  there  is  one 
committed  by  a  white  person.  This  will  make 
the  proportion  one  hundred  and  fifty  to  one. 
And,  if  we  are  to  judge  from  the  registers  of 
their  penitentiaries,  we  should  believe  they  have 
their  full  share  of  crimes,  even  amongst  their 
whites. 

This  same  pamphleteer,  after  giving  us  the 
pious  effusions  of  English  travellers,  Northern 
pamphleteers,  American  map-makers,  and  Brit- 
ish members  of  Parliament,  gives  us  a  pathetic 
extract  from  the  speech  of  the  late  Mr.  Pitt, 
in  the  British  House  of  Commons,  upon  the 
question  for  abolishing  the  African  slave  trade, 
which,  sir,  is  worth  reading.  It  is  in  the  follow- 
ing words  :  "  The  present  was  not  a  mere  ques- 
tion of  feeling.  The  argument  which  ought,  in 
his  opinion,  to  determine  the  committee,  was, 
that  the  slave  trade  was  unjust.  It  was  there- 
fore such  a  trade  as  it  was  impossible  for  him 
to  support,  unless  it  could  first  be  proved  to 
him  that  there  were  no  laws  of  morality  binding 
on  nations,  and  that  it  was  not  the  duty  of  a 
Legislature  to  restrain  its  subjects  from  invading 
the  happiness  of  other  countries,  and  from  vio- 
lating the  fundamental  principles  of  justice." 
This,  sir,  was  the  language  of  Mr.  Pitt,  the  cele- 
brated orator  and  accomplished  statesman,  who 
decries  the  traffic,  after  his  country  has  filled 
her  colonial  possessions  with  slaves,  whilst  there 
was  yet  an  inch  of  ground  for  them  to  cultivate, 
and  to  check  the  growth  of  the  colonies  of  other 
rival  nations,  and  under  whose  policy  every 
nation  in  Europe  has  been  drenched  in  blood 
for  twenty  years ;  and  who,  at  the  very  moment 
he  was  remonstrating  so  strongly  against  in- 
vading the  happiness  of  other  countries,  and 
violating  the  fundamental  principles  of  justice, 
was  planning  and  carrying  on  a  most  cruel  and 
desolating  war  in  the  distant  regions  of  Asia — 
a  war,  not  of  defence,  but  a  war  purely  for  con- 
quest— a  war  carried  on  by  corrupting  and  ex- 


citing rival  chiefs,  and  then  holding  out  terms 
of  friendship  to  the  conqueror,  who  is  made 
the  tool  of  further  treachery,  and  who  falls  in 
his  turn,  a  victim  to  the  same  perfidy;  until 
England  has  reduced  under  her  dominions  more 
than  seventy  millions  of  people,  who  pay  them 
tribute,  and  have  no  liberty  left,  but  that  of 
worshipping  Juggernaut !  At  no  time  since  the 
days  of  civilization  has  the  happiness  of  other 
nations  been  more  disturbed  or  injustice  more 
practised  towards  them  than  during  the  admin- 
istration of  Mr.  Pitt.  When  the  sources  of  our 
admonitions  shall  become  more  pure,  we  shall 
no  doubt  allow  them  more  weight. 

But  we  are  told  by  these  pamphlet  writers, 
that  slavery  is  "  a  violation  of  the  Divine  laws." 
And  the  gentleman  from  New  York,  (Mr.  KIXG,) 
in  discussing  this  subject,  has  told  us,  "it  is 
contrary  to  our  holy  religion."  And  the  gen- 
tleman from  New  Hampshire  (Mr.  MOERJLL)  has 
told  us,  that  in  New  England,  they  believe  "  all 
men  are  born  equally  free  and  independent ;" 
that  "every  human  affection  recoils  at  their 
bondage."  The  gentleman  has  said,  "the  Bible 
is  our  moral  guide ;"  and  says  it  was  for  dealing 
"in  gold  and  silver,  and  precious  stones,  and 
pearls,  and  chariots,  and  slaves,  and  souls  of 
men,  that  produced  the  downfall  of  the  great 
Babylon."  And  he  seems  to  think,  that,  unless 
we  abolish  slavery,  we  shall  provoke  the  wrath 
of  Heaven,  and  that  we  shall  go  next.  The  gen- 
tleman has  forgot  one  of  the  great  offences  of  that 
people ;  it  was  for  taking  of  usury.  The  same 
Bible  which  he  has  adopted  for  his  moral  guide 
says :  "  Take  thou  no  usury  of  him,  or  increase  ; 
but  fear  thy  God."  This  part  of  the  Bible  must 
have  become  obsolete  in  New  England  since  the 
introduction  of  banks.  It  must  now  be  pleasing 
in  the  sight  of  Heaven  to  see  a  dividend  as  large 
as  twenty  per  cent,  to  each  bank  share.  There 
are  as  many  chariots,  as  many  pearls,  as  much 
gold  and  silver,  perhaps,  in  New  England,  as 
there  was  in  Babylon,  at  the  time  of  its  fall ; 
yet  they  are  in  no  danger  till  the  vengeance  of 
Heaven  has  fallen  on  the  slaveholding  States 
first,  the  gentleman  seems  to  think. 

Upon  this  great  question,  sir,  notwithstanding 
the  opinion  of  honorable  gentlemen  to  the  con- 
trary, there  have  been  some  very  respectable 
opinions  as  to  the  Divine  authority  in  fuvor  of 
slavery.  We  all  know  that  Ham  sinned  against 
his,Gpd  and  against  his  father,  for  which  Noah 
the  inspired  patriarch  cursed  Canaan  the  son  of 
Ham,  and  said,  "  A  servant  of  servants  shall  he 
be  unto  his  brethren."  Newton,  who  was  per- 
haps as  great  a  divine  as  any  in  New  England, 
and  as  profound  a  scholar,  in  a  book  of  great 
celebrity,  called  his  Prophecies,  in  which  he  en- 
deavors to  prove  the  divinity  of  the  Bible  by 
the  many  prophecies  that  are  now  fulfilling,  says 
that  this  very  African  race  are  the  descendants 
of  Canaan,  and  have  been  the  slaves  of  many 
nations,  and  are  still  expiating  in  bondage  the 
curse  upon  themselves  and  their  progenitors. 
But  it  may  be  said  that  this  is  only-  an  opinion 
of  Mr.  Newton,  and  that  we  can  see  no  reason 


DEBATES  OF  CONGRESS. 


39 


MARCH,  1818.] 


Fugitive  Slaves. 


[SENATE. 


in  it.  Mr.  S.  said,  if  the  gentleman  was  unwill- 
ing to  believe  Mr.  Newton,  he  would  surely 
believe  Moses  and  the  prophets.  And  if  the 
Senate  would  indulge  him,  he  would  show  from 
the  Bible  itself,  that  slavery  was  permitted  by 
Divine  authority ;  and  for  that  purpose  he  would 
open  to  the  xxvth  chapter  of  Leviticus,  and  read 
as  follows:  "And  the  Lord  spake  unto  Moses 
in  Mount  Sinai,  saying,  Speak  unto  the  children 
of  Israel,  and  say  unto  them,"  &c.  39.  "  And  if 
thy  brother  that  dwelleth  by  thee  be  waxen 
poor,  and  be  sold  unto  thee ;  thou  shalt  not 
compel  him  to  serve  as  a  bond- servant :  40. 
But  as  an  hired  servant,  and  as  a  sojourner,  he 
shall  be  with  thee,  and  shall  serve  thee  unto  the 
year  of  jubilee."  44.  "  Both  thy  bond-men  and 
thy  bond-maids,  which  thou  shalt  have,  shall 
be  of  the  heathen  that  are  round  about  you : 
and  of  them  shall  ye  buy  bond-men  and  bond- 
maids. 45.  Moreover,  of  the  children  of  the 
strangers  that  do  sojourn  among  you,  of  them 
shall  ye  buy,  and  of  their  families  that  are  with 
you,  which  they  begat  in  your  land  :  and  they 
shall  be  your  possession :  46.  And  ye  shall  take 
them  as  an  inheritance  for  your  children  after 
you.  to  inherit  them  for  a  possession ;  they  shall 
be  your  bond-men  forever,"  &c. 

This,  Mr.  President,  is  the  word  of  God,  as 
given  to  us  in  the  Holy  Bible,  delivered  by  the 
Lord  himself  to  his  chosen  servant  Moses.  It 
might  be  hoped  this  would  satisfy  the  scruples 
of  all  who  believe  in  the  divinity  of  the  Bible ; 
as  the  honorable  gentleman  from  New  Hamp- 
shire certainly  does,  as  he  has  referred  to  that 
sacred  volume  for  his  creed.  It  might  satisfy 
the  scruples  of  Mr.  Kenrick,  and  the  divines 
who  appear  so  shocked  at  seeing  a  father  dispose 
of  his  slaves  to  his  children  by  his  last  will  and 
testament,  as  they  will  perceive  the  Scriptures 
direct  them  to  go  as  an  inheritance.  The  hon- 
orable gentleman  says,  he  speaks  not  only  his 
own,  but  the  universal  sentiments  of  all  those 
he  represents.  If  he  and  his  friends  of  New 
Hampshire  have  not  turned  aside  after  strange 
gods,  it  is  hoped  the  authority  I  have  quoted 
might  satisfy  them. 

The  Senate  adjourned  to  Monday  morning. 


MONDAY,  March  9. 
Fugitive  Slaves. 

The  Senate  resumed,  as  in  Committee  of  the 
"Whole,  the  consideratiom  of  the  bill,  entitled 
"  An  act  for  delivering  up  persons  held  to  labor 
or  service  in  any  of  the  States  or  Territories, 
who  shall  escape  into  any  other  State  or  Ter- 
ritory." 

Mr.  MOREILL  addressed  the  Chair  as  follows : 
Mr.  President,  I  think  it  correct  and  proper 
for  any  gentleman  who  is  not  in  favor  of  the 
bill,  to  present  his  objections  on  the  second 
reading,  that  its  friends  may  have  a  fair  oppor- 
tunity to  amend  it.  Under  these  impressions,  I 
make  a  motion  for  a  recommitment,  that  any 
imperfections  may  be  properly  laid  before  the 
Senate. 


I  am  not  insensible,  sir,  of  the  peculiar  disad- 
vantages under  which  I  address  you  on  the  bill 
upon  your  table.  I  am  extremely  depressed 
with  an  apprehension  of  unfavorable  impres- 
sions, which  may  have  been  erroneously  made, 
on  the  minds  of  honorable  gentlemen  from  the 
South,  in  consequence  of  remarks  which  fell 
from  me  on  another  occasion,  upon  a  subject 
not  altogether  foreign  from  this.  Sentiments 
which  originated  in  the  purest  motives,  and,  in 
my  opinion,  in  perfect  coincidence  with  the 
spirit  of  our  constitution ;  I  may,  therefore,  be 
allowed  this  opportunity  peremptorily  to  dis- 
claim any  hostility  to  the  provisions  of  the  con- 
stitution respecting  slavery  ;  or  to  any  law 
founded  upon  the  principles  and  in  accordance 
with  such  provisions.  Sir,  I  wish  it  to  be  dis- 
tinctly understood,  that  I  have  no  disposition 
to  deprive  slaveholders  of  that  species  of  prop- 
erty; to  aid  their  slaves  in  escaping;  to  de- 
tain them  when  they  have  escaped;  or  to  im- 
pede their  exertions  in  recovering  them  in  a 
constitutional  and  legal  manner,  without  en- 
dangering the  rights,  or  infringing  the  privi- 
leges of  free  citizens. 

I  very  readily  acknowledge,  that  there  are 
provisions  in  the  constitution  which  recognize 
slavery — which  I  consider  a  kind  of  compact 
by  compromise,  into  which  the  States  mutually 
entered  when  they  adopted  that  instrument, 
about  which  I  have  neither  a  right  nor  disposi- 
tion to  complain.  I  hold  it,  sir,  as  sacredly 
binding  as  any  part  of  this  palladium  of  our 
rights,  and  to  prevent  its  due  operation  is  not 
the  wish  of  my  heart ;  at  the  same  time,  I  am 
far  from  being  the  advocate  or  friend  of  slavery. 
If  I  were  to  be  governed  by  my  own  personal 
feelings,  independent  of  any  other  control,  or 
were  I  to  be  guided  by  my  views  of  the  princi- 
ples of  the  common  law,  I  should  assuredly  say, 
no  slavery.  But,  sir,  in  my  present  situation, 
I  deem  it  my  duty  to  divest  myself  of  all  pre- 
possessions and  partialities,  and,  as  a  legislator, 
to  be  directed  by  the  express  provisions  of  the 
constitution — the  glory  of  our  country,  and  the 
admiration  of  the  world. 

Previous  to  my  adverting  to  the  provisions 
and  details  of  this  bill,  it  was  my  intention  to 
make  a  few  observations  upon  the  law  now  in 
force  upon  this  subject ;  the  existence  of  which, 
in  my  view,  renders  the  passing  of  this  alto- 
gether unnecessary.  But,  as  my  remarks  have 
been  anticipated  by  the  honorable  gentleman 
from  Ehode  Island,  (Mr.  BUREUX,)  I  shall  very 
consisely  observe,  that  law  provides  "that 
when  any  person  held  to  labor  in  any  of  the 
States  or  Territories,  under  the  laws  thereof, 
shall  escape  into  any  other  State  or  Territory, 
the  person  to  whom  such  labor  or  service  may 
be  due,  his  agent  or  attorney,  is  empowered  to 
seize  or  arrest  such  fugitive  from  labor,  and  to 
take  him  or  her  before  any  judge  of  the  circuit 
or  district  courts  of  the  United  States,  residing 
or  being  within  the  State,  or  before  any  magis- 
trate of  a  county,  city,  or  town  corporate, 
wherein  such  seizure  or  arrest  shall  be  made ; 


40 


ABRIDGMENT  OF  THE 


SENATE.] 


Fugitive  Slaves. 


[MAKCH,  1818. 


and  upon  proof,  to  the  satisfaction  of  such 
-udge  or  magistrate,  either  by  oral  testimony 
or  affidavit,  taken  before  and  certified  by  a 
magistrate  of  any  such  State  or  Territory,  that 
the  person  arrested  doth,  under  the  laws  of  the 
State  or  Territory  from  which  he  or  she  fled, 
owe  service  or  labor  to  the  person  claiming 
him  or  her,  it  shall  be  the  duty  of  such  judge 
or  magistrate  to  give  a  certificate  thereof  to 
such  claimant,  his  agent  or  attorney,  which 
shall  be  a  sufficient  warrant  for  removing  the 
said  fugitive  from  labor  to  the  State  or  Terri- 
tory from  which  he  or  she  fled." 

In  this  section  of  the  law,  sir,  I  conceive  every 
provision  is  made  for  the  speedy  recovery  of 
fugitive  slaves,  that  gentlemen  can  rationally 
expect  or  reasonably  desire.  They  have  noth- 
ing more  to  do  than  seize  the  fugitive,  and  apply, 
by  themselves  or  agent,  to  a  judge  or  magis- 
trate, and  prove,  to  his  satisfaction,  by  oral 
testimony  or  affidavit,  that  the  person  so  seized 
has  fled,  and  does  owe  labor  or  service  to  the 
claimant,  and  the  judge  or  magistrate  shall 
issue  his  certificate,  which  shall  be  sufficient 
for  removing  such  fugitive  to  the  place  from 
which  he  or  she  absconded.  This  is  a  consise, 
plain,  and  easy  course.  But,  sir,  permit  me 
now  to  examine  the  bill  under  our  immediate 
consideration. 

The  provisions  and  details  of  this  bill,  in  my 
humble  opinion,  are  very  deficient,  imperfect, 
and  improper.  The  first  section  provides  "  that 
when  any  person  held  to  labor,  &c.,  shall  es- 
cape, &c.,  the  person  to  whom  such  labor  may 
be  due,  or  his  agent,  may  apply  to  any  judge 
of  the  district  or  circuit  court,  &c.,  or  to  any 
judge,  or  two  justices  of  a  court  of  record,  of 
the  State  or  Territory  from  whence  such  fugi- 
tive shall  have  escaped ;  and  upon  proof  to  the 
satisfaction  of  such  judge  or  magistrates  that 
such  fugitive  is  a  slave,  &c.,  and  does  owe  labor 
to  the  person  claiming  him,  and  shall  become 
bound  in  a  recognizance,  &c.,  to  perform  cer- 
tain acts,  then,  and  in  that  case,  it  shall  be  the 
duty  of  such  judge  of  the  district  or  circuit 
court,  or  such  judge  or  magistrates  of  the  State 
or  Territory  from  whence  such  fugitive  shall 
have  escaped,  to  award  a  certificate,  stating 
the  place  of  abode  of  such  claimant,  and  setting 
forth  the  name,  age,  and  sex  of  such  fugitive. 
This  certificate  shall  be  verified  by  the  signa- 
ture of  the  judge  or  justice  awarding  the  same, 
and  by  the  certificate  of  the  clerk,  under  the 
seal  of  his  court,  (if  there  be  a  seal,)  that  the 
person  signing  the  certificate  first  mentioned  is 
a  judge  or  justice  of  the  description  required 
by  this  act."  The  second  section  provides 
u  that  on  producing  such  certificate  as  afore- 
said, to  any  judge  of  the  circuit  or  district 
court,  or  judge  or  justice  of  a  court  of  record 
in  the  State  or  Territory  to  which  such  fugitive 
shall  have  escaped,  it  shall  be  the  duty  of  such 
judge  or  magistrate  to  grant  a  warrant,  author- 
izing any  marshal,  sheriff,  sergeant,  constable, 
or  public  bailiff  of  the  State  or  Territory  last 
aforesaid,  to  apprehend  such  fugitive,  and  bring 


him  before  such  judge  or  justice.  And  if  it 
shall  thereupon  appear  to  the  satisfaction  of 
such  judge  or  magistrate,  by  the  oath  of  one 
or  more  credible  witnesses,  who  shall,  upon 
their  own  knowledge,  swear  to  the  identity  of 
such  fugitive,  (the  owner  or  claimant  being,  for 
this  purpose,  deemed  a  competent  witness,)  or 
by  the  voluntary  confession  of  such  fugitive, 
that  the  person  so  apprehended  hath  escaped 
from  the  State  wherein  the  said  certificate  was 
granted,  and  is  the  same  person  named  in  the 
said  certificate,  the  said  judge  or  justice  shall 
deliver  such  person  to  the  owner  or  his  agent, 
with  his  certificate  thereof,  or,  at  the  request 
of  such  owner  or  agent,  shall  issue  his  warrant, 
requiring  any  marshal,  sheriff,  sergeant,  con- 
stable, or  public  bailiff,  of  such  State  or  Terri- 
tory, to  take  charge  of  such  fugitive,  and  de- 
liver him  to  the  said  claimant,  &c.,  on  the 
confines  of  the  State  or  Territory  last  afore- 
said ;  "  and,  by  the  same  process,  he  shall  be 
conducted  to  the  place  from  which  he  ab- 
sconded. 

The  most  prominent  exception  which  I  shall 
note  in  the  first  section,  respects  the  character 
of  the  officers  to  be  employed  to  take  cognizance 
of  a  crime,  and  aid  in  carrying  into  effect  the 
provisions  of  this  bill.  In  this  case,  it  is  made 
the  duty  of  two  magistrates  to  take  the  testi- 
mony, that  such  fugitive,  being  very  imperfectly 
described,  is  a  slave,  to  award  a  certificate  of 
this  fact,  to  be  verified  and  certified  as  therein 
directed.  Here,  sir,  you  call  upon  a  State  offi- 
cer, under  the  State  government,  to  perform  a 
judicial  act  authorized  by  a  law  of  the  United 
States.  Upon  the  services  of  this  officer  you 
have  no  claim ;  to  demand  them  you  have  no 
power.  This  certificate,  which  is  the  founda- 
tion of  a  warrant,  is  granted  without  oath  or 
affirmation,  on  a  mere  representation  of  the  case. 

By  the  second  section,  on  producing  this 
certificate,  you  make  it  the  imperative  duty  of 
a  justice  of  the  peace  to  grant  a  warrant,  au- 
thorizing a  sheriff  or  constable  (as  he  may 
please)  to  apprehend  such  fugitive,  as  therein 
mperfectly  described,  and  bring  him  before 
such  justice  for  examination.  In  this  instance, 
you  give  as  much  validity  to  this  certificate  of  a 
justice,  granted  in  a  distant  State  or  Territory, 
as  is  given  to  a  judgment  obtained  by  a  solemn 
decision  of  the  Supreme  Court  of  any  State  in 
the  Union  in  any  other  State.  In  obtaining 
judgments  or  judicial  decisions  in  civil  actions, 
you  require  witnesses  upon  oath;  but  here, 
where  the  liberty  and  rights  of  the  citizen  may 
be  depending,  you  require  none.  Judgments 
out  of  the  State  where  they  are  obtained,  are 
considered  no  more  than  prima  facie  evidence 
of  a  debt;  but  in  this  respect  the  certificate  is 
made  stronger  evidence  of  a  fact.  Here,  con- 
trary to  all  the  ordinary  rules  in  criminal  pros- 
ecutions, you  oblige  a  justice  of  the  peace  to 
.ssue  his  warrant  to  apprehend  a  person,  with- 
out requiring  the  applicant  to  give  oath  or 
affirmation  of  the  existence  of  a  crime,  or  of  the 
ground  of  suspicion.  You  require  him  to  per- 


DEBATES  OF  CONGRESS. 


41 


MARCH,  1818.] 


Fugitive  Slaves. 


[SENATE. 


form  a  judicial  act,  which  may  seriously  and 
very  materially  affect  the  rights  of  the  citizen, 
whose  jurisdiction  in  civil  actions  is  restricted 
to  thirteen  dollars  thirty-three  cents,  and  in 
criminal  to  six  dollars  sixty-six  cents,  by  the 
constitution  and  laws  of  the  State  which  gave 
him  judicial  existence.  These  remarks,  how- 
ever, particularly  apply  to  the  State  of  New 
Hampshire.  By  the  same  section,  you  require 
and  oblige  (or  subject  to  a  fine)  a  constable  or 
sheriff  to  perform  an  act  under  a  law  of  the 
United  States,  which  exposes  and  puts  in  jeop- 
ardy the  freedom  of  the  citizen,  the  most  val- 
uable privilege  he  can  enjoy  or  possess  here  on 
earth. 

The  constable,  under  the  laws  of  the  State 
which  are  to  direct  his  conduct,  is  not  empow- 
ered to  serve  a  precept  where  the  sum  demanded 
exceeds  thirteen  dollars  thirty-three  cents.  He 
is  chosen  by  a  town,  without  a  commission  or 
responsibility,  many  times  little  informed,  and 
generally  unacquainted  with  your  laws  and  the 
duties  required  under  them.  If  a  sheriff  is  em- 
ployed, he  is  a  county  officer,  appointed  by  the 
Governor  and  Council  for  five  years,  and  knows 
no  other  duties  than  such  as  are  pointed  out  to 
him  by  the  laws  of  the  State  in  which  he  lives, 
and  particularly  relate  to  his  official  conduct, 
within  the  limits  of  the  county  in  which  he  re- 
sides. 

"What  is  this  officer  directed  to  do  ?  To  arrest 
a  fugitive  upon  a  warrant,  founded  upon  a  cer- 
tificate illegal  in  its  origin,  and  imperfect  in  its 
structure.  The  only  description  given  of  the 
fugitive  by  which  the  officer  is  to  identify  and 
be  governed  in  making  the  arrest,  is,  "  name, 
age,  and  sex,"  which,  in  fact,  is  no  description. 
There  is  neither  color,  size,  nor  any  other  marks 
required  to  be  given,  by  which  the  officer  can 
identify  the  person,  or  safely  make  an  arrest. 

Here,  Mr.  President,  is  a  simple  statement  of 
facts,  as  they  arise  in  examining  this  bill.  I 
shall  venture  to  say,  the  course  here  directed  is 
improper.  Nay,  more :  the  United  States  can- 
not constitutionally  demand,  or  employ,  the 
agency  of  any  other  power  than  its  own,  to  dis- 
charge duties  and  perform  services,  under  crim- 
inal laws  emanating  from  Congress.  The  Con- 
stitution of  the  United  States  expressly  says, 
"  The  judicial  power  shall  extend  to  all  cases  in 
law  and  equity  arising  under  this  constitution, 
the  laws  of  the  United  States,  and  the  treaties 
made,  or  which  shall  be  made,  under  their  au- 
thority." 

By  this  process  of  the  constitution,  we  may 
distinctly  see  where  the  judicial  power  of  the 
United  States  is  deposited — that  the  laws  of  the 
United  States  are  to  be  explained  and  enforced 
only  by  officers  created  by  the  constituted  au- 
thorities of  the  United  States.  Are  State  and 
county  judges,  and  justices  of  the  peace,  officers 
made  under  the  Government  of  the  United 
States  ?  If  they  are,  they  are  so  made  by  a 
law  of  Congress.  "Will  it  be  pretended  that 
Congress  have  authority,  by  a  legislative  act, 
to  prescribe  the  duty,  create  the  office  and  the 


officer,  ordain  and  establish  the  court  and  the 
judge  ?  The  doctrine  is  preposterous ;  it  is  too 
absurd  to  be  admitted  for  a  moment ;  it  would 
be  an  assumption  of  power  inconsistent  in  its 
nature  and  dangerous  in  its  consequences.  A 
part  of  this  duty  is  confided  to  another  branch 
of  the  Government  by  the  express  provision  of 
the  constitution  and  immemorial  usage.  The 
Government  of  the  United  States  is  composed 
of  three  distinct  branches — each  of  which  has 
duties  to  perform — the  Legislative,  Executive, 
and  Judicial.  They  are  designed  to  be  kept  as 
distinct  and  independent  of  each  other,  as  the 
nature  of  a  free  Government  will  admit.  It  is 
the  province  of  the  Legislature  to  make  laws, 
not  judges.  You  have  lately  passed  a  law 
dividing  the  State  of  Pennsylvania  into  two 
districts,  by  which  a  new  court  is  created,  but 
you  have  not  created  the  judges.  To  do  this 
t>y  law,  would  have  been  too  manifest  a  viola- 
tion of  legislative  power  to  be  countenanced  in 
this  House.  These  State  and  county  officers 
are  not  officers  of  this  Government,  and  Con- 
gress have  no  claims  upon  their  services  as 
such.  It  is  the  duty  of  the  Executive  depart- 
ment to  appoint  officers.  For  this  important 
feature  in  the  structure  of  our  Government, 
there  are  many  cogent  reasons.  The  law,  and 
the  execution  of  the  law,  s.hould  always  emanate 
from  different  sources.  This  is  a  fundamental 
principle  in  a  republican  government.  And 
when  this  principle  is  abandoned,  one  of  the 
great  barriers  to  the  encroachments  of  power  is 
annihilated — usurpation  is  the  natural  result, 
and  collision  must  be  the  unavoidable  conse- 
quence. It  is  the  business  of  the  judicial  power 
to  expound  and  execute  the  laws.  For  these 
duties  the  courts  are  qualified  by  their  previous 
education  and  application  to  the  general  and 
particular  principles  of  jurisprudence. 

The  extent  of  the  several  powers  and  duties 
of  these  respective  branches  of  the  Govern- 
ment, are  distinctly  prescribed  by  the  constitu- 
tion. Each  has  an  orbit  in  which  it  may  safely 
revolve,  and,  while  it  keeps  within  its  own 
sphere,  no  danger  will  result  from  its  legitimate 
action ;  but,  when  permitted  to  diverge,  colli- 
sion, confusion,  and  destruction,  are  the  inevi- 
table consequences.  It  is  not  sufficient  that  an 
agent,  who  performs  an  act  for  the  United 
States,  be  an  officer  of  the  United  States;  it 
must  also  appear  that  his  authority  to  perform 
that  act  is  derived  from  a  legitimate  source, 
otherwise  the  act  is  void.  For  an  officer,  in 
the  District  of  Columbia,  to  apprehend  a  per- 
son, by  virtue  of  a  law  of  Virginia,  would  be  an 
illegal  arrest,  and,  of  course,  void.  We  may  re- 
verse the  position.  It  is  not  competent  for  an 
officer,  who  executes  a  law  of  the  General  Gov- 
ernment, to  show  that  there  is  such  a  law ;  but, 
that  he  derived  his  office  from  the  constituted 
authority  of  the  United  States.  Apply  this  to 
the  State  or  county  officer  whom  you  employ.  A 
warrant,  an  arrest,  a  commitment,  or  trial,  pre- 
supposes authority,  power,  and  jurisdiction.  The 
granting  of  a  warrant,  pre-supposes  authority. 


4-2 


ABRIDGMENT  OF  THE 


SKNATE.] 


Fugitive  Slaves. 


[MARCH,  1818. 


To  arrest,  pre-supposes  power.  To  commit  or 
try,  pre-supposes  jurisdiction. 

From  what  source  does  the  county  justice  re- 
ceive authority  to  arrest  a  person  under  a  law 
of  the  United  States?  Surely  not  from  the 
State,  from  the  United  States.  You  give  him 
no  authority — you  cannot.  The  laws  of  the 
General  Government  do  not  make  him  a  judi- 
cial officer,  nor  invest  him  with  judicial  power. 
He  possesses  powers  for  certain  purposes,  to  be 
exercised  according  to  the  constitution  and  laws 
of  that  independent  sovereignty  from  whom  he 
derived  all  his  authority. 

On  this  view  of  the  subject,  sir,  I  am  led  to 
the  conclusion  that  Congress  has  no  constitu- 
tional power  to  authorize  an  officer,  under  a 
State  government,  to  perform  a  judicial  act.  As 
false  premises  give  rise  to  incorrect  conclusions, 
it  may  be  proper  for  me  distinctly  to  state  and 
define  my  view  of  judicial  power  and  a  judicial 
act.  Sound  premises  render  sophistical  reason- 
ing unnecessary,  and  present  the  force  of  an  ar- 
gument in  a  convincing  point  of  view.  By 
judicial  power,  I  understand  constitutional  and 
"legal  authority  and  discretion  to  adjudicate 
on  any  matter,  which  is,  in  some  form  or  way, 
the  subject  of  litigation  and  controversy ;  and 
he  who  exercises  such  authority  and  discretion, 
performs  a  judicial  act."  To  declare  what  shall 
be  a  rule,  or  make  a  law,  is  an  act  of  legislation ; 
but  to  apply  the  law  to  the  case,  is  a  judicial 
act.  Judicial  discretion  extends  only  to  the  ap- 
plication of  the  rules  of  law  to  the  facts  and 
circumstances  of  each  case.  And  this  discre- 
tionary power  of  applying  the  rules  of  law  to 
the  variety  of  cases  which  may  be  presented 
for  adjudication,  carries  with  it  other  incidental 
powers,  as  the  right  to  judge  of  the  compe- 
tency, pertinency,  and  credibility  of  evidence. 
If  these  positions  are  correct,  it  needs  no  argu- 
ment to  show,  that,  under  the  provisions  of  this 
bill,  the  judge  or  justice  exercises  judicial  power 
in  every  instance  in  which  he  is  authorized  to  act. 
On  the  application  of  the  owner  of  a  fugitive,  or 
his  agent,  the  judge  or  justice  is  to  decide,  in 
view  of  the  testimony  presented,  whether  he  is 
a  slave,  and  does  owe  service  or  labor  to  the 
claimant,  according  to  the  laws  of  the  State  or 
Territory  from  which  such  fugitive  may  have 
escaped.  This  being  decided  in  the  affirmative, 
the  claimant,  or  his  agent,  enters  into  a  recog- 
nizance, on  certain  conditions,  to  perform  cer- 
tain acts.  In  consequence  of  which,  the  judge 
or  justice  grants  his  certificate,  setting  forth  the 
name,  age,  and  sex,  of  such  fugitive,  which  cer- 
tificate shall  be  verified  by  the  signature  of  the 
person  who  grants  it,  and  shall  be  certified  by 
a  clerk  of  a  court  that  such  officer  is  a  judge  or 
justice  of  the  description  required  by  this  act. 

This,  sir,  I  consider  a  judicial  act — not  be- 
cause giving  a  certificate  of  a  fact  is  a  judicial 
act,  but  because  the  certificate  has,  in  its  ulti- 
mate operation,  the  very  nature  of  a  warrant. 
The  efficacy  given  to  it,  by  the  provisions  of 
this  bill,  entirely  changes  it  from  the  original 
character  of  a  simple  certificate,  and  makes  it  a 


sufficient  warrant  for  a  specific,  judicial  act.  On 
presenting  this  certificate  to  a  judge  or  justice, 
in  a  State  or  Territory  to  which  the  1'ugitivo 
may  have  escaped,  it  is  made  ample  authority 
for  him,  nay,  you  declare  it  is  his  "duty  to 
grant  a  warrant,  authorizing  a  sheriff  or  con- 
stable to  apprehend  such  fugitive  and  bring  him 
before  such  magistrate ;  and  if  it  shall  there- 
upon appear  to  the  satisfaction  of  such  judge  or 
magistrate,"  by  the  testimony  then  produced, 
"  that  the  person  so  apprehended  has  escaped, 
&c.,  the  said  judge  or  justice  shall  deliver  such 
person  to  the  owner,  or  his  agent,  with  his  cer- 
tificate thereof,  or  at  the  request  of  such  owner, 
or  agent,  shall  issue  his  warrant  requiring  any 
sheriff,  &c.,  to  take  charge  and  custody  of  such 
fugitive,  and  deliver  him,"  &c.  If  it  shall  here 
appear,  on  examination,  by  the  testimony  offer- 
ed, that  the  person  named  in  the  certificate,  and 
arrested,  is  a  fugitive,  the  justice  shall  deliver 
him  to  the  claimant,  or  issue  his  warrant,  and 
commit  him  to  the  custody  of  an  officer.  In 
these  instances,  I  presume,  no  one  will  contend 
that  the  justice  does  not  perform  judicial  acts. 
If  it  is  possible  for  a  magistrate  to  exercise  ju- 
dicial power,  it  must  be  in  the  performance  of 
the  duties  above  enjoined. 

It  is  not  only  in  granting  a  warrant,  but  in 
determining  on  the  competency  of  the  testimo- 
ny, and  the  legality  of  the  duty  performed,  that 
this  judicial  power  is  exercised ;  it  is  the  prov- 
ince of  a  judicial  officer  to  judge  of  the  pro- 
priety and  exercise  the  power  of  issuing  a  war- 
rant to  arrest  a  person.  This,  I  presume,  is  a 
principle  universally  admitted.  "  To  judge  of 
the  grounds  of  an  accusation,  on  which  a  war- 
rant to  arrest  may  or  may  not  be  issued,  is  as 
really  a  judicial  act  as  the  process  of  trial  and 
condemnation."  Neither  names  of  office,  forms 
of  evidence,  nor  degree  of  criminality,  have  any 
essential  weight  in  determining  the  abstract 
nature  and  character  of  judicial  power.  This 
capacity  to  exercise  the  judgment,  in  view  of 
testimony,  for  the  purpose  of  removing  doubts, 
obviating  objections,  and  deciding  on  matters 
which  are  affirmed  on  the  one  part  and  presumed 
to  be  denied  on  the  other,  is  always  accompanied 
with  a  confidence  of  trust,  the  exercise  of 
which,  even  in  the  incipient  act  of  a  justice 
of  the  peace,  in  granting  a  warrant  to  arrest  a 
person,  is  an  exercise  of  judicial  power. 

But,  sir,  permit  me  to  take  another  view  of 
the  subject.  It  is  not  expedient  for  the  United 
States  to  call  on  State  and  county  officers,  un- 
der State  governments,  to  perform  any  duty 
under  the  criminal  laws  of  Congress.  It  is  much 
more  suitable,  correct,  and  proper,  to  empower 
only  the  officers  of  the  General  Government  to 
execute  its  laws.  It  may  justly  be  considered  a 
perversion  of  the  Constitution  of  the  United 
States,  and  extremely  dangerous,  to  commit 
power  into  the  hands  of  those  who  are  no  way 
officially  responsible ;  and,  also,  very  unjust  to 
exact  service  without  compensation ;  especially, 
in  many  instances,  where  the  State  constitution 
and  laws  peremptorily  prohibit  the  performance 


DEBATES  OF  CONGRESS. 


43 


MARCH,  1818.] 


Fugitive  Slaves. 


[SENATE. 


of  such  official  acts  with  the  informalities  allow- 
ed by  the  provisions  of  this  bill.  "With  the  offi- 
cers of  the  United  States  it  is  otherwise.  They 
derive  their  appointment  and  official  existence 
from  your  Government,  to  be  employed  in  your 
service  in  the  execution  of  your  laws ;  they  are 
compensated  by  the  General  Government,  re- 
sponsible to  it,  removable  and  punishable  by  it, 
and  upon  their  services  you  have  just  claims. 
But  this  connection  and  mutual  obligation  be- 
tween the  Government  of  the  United  States  and 
individual  State  and  county  officers  does  not, 
and  cannot,  exist.  They  derive  their  official 
existence  and  power  from  the  Government  of 
the  State  in  which  they  reside.  The  constitu- 
tion and  laws  of  their  State  define  and  regulate 
their  power  and  duties;  the  extent  of  their 
jurisdiction  in  civil  and  criminal  causes,  and  the 
tenure  of  their  offices.  They  are  commissioned 
to  perform  services  for  the  State ;  they  are  com- 
pensated by  the  State;  they  are  amenable  to 
the  State ;  they  are  removable  and  punishable 
by  the  State,  and  by  that  only. 

WEDNESDAY,  March  11. 
Fugitive  Slaves. 

The  Senate  resumed,  as  in  Committee  of  the 
Whole,  the  consideration  of  the  bill,  entitled 
"An  act  for  delivering  up  persons  held  to  labor 
or  service  in  any  of  the  States  or  Territories, 
who  shall  escape  into  any  other  State  or  Terri- 
tory ;"  and  the  bill  having  been  further  amend- 
ed, on  motion  by  Mr.  RUGGLES,  that  the  further 
consideration  thereof  be  postponed  until  the 
first  Monday  in  July  next,  it  was  determined  in 
the  negative — yeas  11,  nays  18,  as  follows : 

YEAS. — Messrs.  Burrill,  Daggett,  Horsey,  Hunter, 
King,  Morrow,  Noble,  Roberts,  Ruggles,  Tichenor, 
and  Van  Dyke. 

NAYS.— Messrs.  Campbell,  Crittenden,  Dickerson, 
Eppes,  Fromentin,  Gaillard,  Goldsborough,  Johnson, 
Leake,  Macon,  Otis,  Sanford,  Smith,  Tait,  Talbot, 
Taylor,  Williams  of  Mississippi,  and  Williams  of  Ten- 
nessee. 

On  motion  by  Mr.  DAGGETT  to  strike  out  the 
following  section  of  the  bill : 

SEC.  6.  And  be  it  further  enacted,  That  whenever 
the  Executive  authority  of  any  State  in  the  Union, 
or  of  either  of  the  Territories  thereof,  shall,  for  or  in 
behalf  of  any  citizen  or  inhabitant  of  such  State  or 
Territory,  demand  any  fugitive  slave  of  the  Execu- 
tive authority  of  any  State  or  Territory,  to  which 
such  slave  shall  have  fled,  and  shall  moreover  pro- 
duce a  certificate,  issued  pursuant  to  the  first  section 
of  this  act,  it  shall  be  the  duty  of  the  Executive 
authority  of  the  State  or  Territory  to  which  such 
fugitive  shall  have  fled,  to  cause  him  or  her  to  be  ar- 
rested and  secured,  and  notice  of  the  arrest  to  be 
given  to  the  Executive  authority  making  such  de- 
mand, or  to  the  agent  of  such  authority  appointed  to 
receive  the  fugitive,  and  to  cause  such  fugitive  to  be 
delivered  to  the  said  agent,  on  the  confine  or  boundary 
of  the  State  or  Territory  in  which  said  arrest  shall 
be,  and  in  the  most  usual  and  direct  route  to  the 
place  from  whence  the  said  fugitive  shall  have  escap- 
ed ;  and  the  reasonable  expense  of  such  arrest,  de- 


tention, and   delivery  of  such  fugitive,  shall  be  paid 
by  the  said  agent. 

It  was  determined  in  the  negative — yeas  13, 
nays  16,  as  follows: 

YEAS.— Messrs.  Burril],  Daggett,  Dickerson,  Hor- 
sey, Hunter,  King,  Lacock,  Morrill,  Noble,  Roberts, 
Ruggles,  Tichenor,  and  Van  Dyke. 

NAYS. — Messrs.  Campbell,  Crittenden,  Eppes,  Fro- 
mentin, Gaillard,  Goldsborough,  Leake,  Macon,  Otis, 
Smith,  Stokes,  Tait,  Talbot,  Taylor,  Williams  of  Mis- 
sissippi, and  W'illiams  of  Tennessee. 

On  motion  by  Mr.  VAN  DYKE,  to  insert  in 
section  2,  line  13,  after  "certificate,"  "and 
doth,  under  the  laws  of  the  State  or  Territory 
from  which  he  or  she  fled  owe  service  or  labor 
to  the  person  claiming  him  or  her ;"  it  was  de- 
termined in  the  negative — yeas  11,  nays  18,  as 
follows : 

YEAS. — Messrs.  Bnrrill,  Daggett,  Horsey,  Hunter, 
Lacock,  Morrill,  Noble,  Roberts,  Ruggles,  Storer,  arid 
Van  Dyke. 

NAYS. — Messrs.  Campbell,  Crittenden,  Eppes,  Fro- 
mentin, Gaillard,  Goldsborough,  Johnson,  King, 
Leake,  Macon,  Otis,  Sanford,  Smith,  Stokes,  Tait, 
Talbot,  Williams  of  Mississippi,  and  Williams  of  Ten- 


The  bill  having  been  farther  amended,  the 
PRESIDENT  reported  it  to  the  House  according- 
ly ;  and  the  amendments  having  been  concurred 
in,  on  motion  by  Mr.  LACOCK,  to  add  the  follow- 
ing section  to  the  bill : 

"  SEC.  — .  And  be  it  further  enacted,  That  this  law 
shall  be  and  remain  in  force  for  the  term  of  four 
years,  and  no  longer  " 

The  Senate  being  equally  divided,  the  PRESI- 
DENT determined  the  question  in  the  affirmative ; 
and,  on  the  question,  "  Shall  the  amendments 
be  engrossed  and  the  bill  be  read  a  third  time, 
as  amended  ?"  it  was  determined  in  the  affirm- 
ative. 


THURSDAY,  March  12. 

Fugitive  Slaves. 

The  amendments  to  the  bill,  entitled  "An 
act  to  provide  for  delivering  up  persons  held  to 
labor  or  service  in  any  of  the  States  or  Territo- 
ries, who  shall  escape  into  any  other  State  or 
Territory,"  having  been  reported  by  the  com- 
mittee correctly  engrossed,  the  bill  was  read  a 
third  time  as  amended ;  and,  on  the  question, 
"  Shall  this  bill  pass  as  amended?"  it  was  de- 
termined in  the  affirmative — yeas  17,  nays  18, 
as  follows : 

YEAS.— Messrs.  Campbell,  Crittenden,  Eppes,  Fro- 
mentin, Gaillard,  Goldsborongh,  Johnson,  Macon, 
Otis,  Sanford,  Smith,  Stokes,  Tait,  Talbot,  Taylor, 
Williams  of  Mississippi,  and  Williams  of  Tennessee. 

NAYS. — Messrs.  Burrill,  Daggett,  Dickerson,  Hor- 
sey, Hunter,  King,  Lacock,  Morrow,  Noble,  Roberts, 
Buggies,  Tichenor,  and  Van  Dyke. 

So  it  was  Resolved,  That  this  bill  pass  with 
amendments. 


44 


ABRIDGMENT  OF  THE 


SENATE.] 


Seminole  Indians. 


[MARCH,  1818. 


TUESDAY,  March  24. 
Case  of  R.  W.  Meade. 

Mr.  BARBOTTB,  from  the  Committee  on  For- 
eign Relations,  to  whom  was  referred  the  peti- 
tion of  sundry  citizens  of  Philadelphia,  asking 
the  interposition  of  Congress  in  behalf  of  Rich- 
ard "W.  Meade,  an  American  citizen,  unjustly 
and  wantonly  confined  in  a  dungeon  in  Spain, 
by  the  authority  of  that  Government,  made  a 
report ;  which  was  read,  as  follows : 

The  Committee  of  the  Senate  on  Foreign  Rela- 
tions, to  whom  was  referred  the  petition  of  sundry 
citizens  of  Philadelphia,  asking  the  interposition  of 
Congress  in  behalf  of  Richard  W.  Meade,  an  Ameri- 
can citizen,  unjustly  and  wantonly  confined  hi  a  dun- 
geon in  Spain,  by  the  authority  of  that  Government, 
have  given  to  the  subject  the  deliberation  its  im- 
portance deserved,  and  beg  leave  to  submit  the  fol- 
lowing report :  It  appears  from  the  documents,  R. 
W.  Meade  is  an  American  citizen,  who  went  to  Spain 
in  the  year  1803  on  lawful  business ;  that  in  the 
year  1806,  such  was  the  confidence  of  the  Govern- 
ment in  his  integrity,  that  he  was  appointed  Navy 
Agent  for  the  United  States  at  the  port  of  Cadiz;  a 
station  which  he  held  until  the  time  of  his  confine- 
ment. Such  was  the  correctness  of  his  deportment, 
as  to  have  been  appointed  by  the  tribunal  of  com- 
merce at  Cadiz,  with  the  consent  of  all  the  parties 
concerned,  assignee  of  a  bankrupt,  the  amount  of 
whose  estate  involved  a  high  responsibility.  He  per- 
formed the  duties  thus  devolved  upon  him,  honestly  ; 
and,  having  collected  for  distribution  fifty  thousand 
dollars,  he  several  times  petitioned  the  tribunal  to 
permit  him  to  remit  this  sum  to  the  creditors  of  the 
bankrupt  resident  in  England ;  the  only  proper 
course  left  him  to  pursue,  inasmuch  as  he  had,  when 
appointed  agent  of  the  bankrupt,  given  his  bond  to 
that  tribunal  conditioned  to  take  charge  of  the  effects 
of  the  bankrupt,  and  to  be  responsible  solely  to  the 
tribunal  for  the  proceeds,  being  prohibited  under  the 
penalty  of  the  bonds  from  disposing  of  the  funds 
without  the  sanction  of  the  tribunal.  A  controversy 
having  arisen  between  the  creditors  and  bankrupt 
about  the  distribution,  Meade  offered  the  money  to 
either,  if  they  would  give  bond,  with  sureties,  to  the 
satisfaction  of  the  tribunal  of  commerce,  by  which 
his  own  might  be  cancelled.  This  they  were  unable 
to  do.  The  tribunal,  of  its  own  accord,  and  unex- 
pectedly, decided  that  Meade  should,  on  the  following 
morning,  place  the  money  in  the  King's  treasury,  un- 
til the  parties  litigant  should  give  the  security  re- 
quired ;  it  being  declared  that  all  Meade's  property 
should  be  sequestered  in  the  case  of  non-payment  at 
the  time  limited.  The  money  was  forthwith  paid  by 
Meade  into  the  treasury,  in  treasury  notes  equal  to 
specie,  and  hence  acknowledged  by  the  Treasurer, 
that  the  deposit  had  been  made  in  due  form,  under 
his  inspection,  in  effective  specie,  and  that  whenever 
the  tribunal  should  order  its  payment,  His  Majesty 
would  pay  it  in  the  same  coin. 

Notwithstanding  this  judgment,  and  the  discharge 
thereof,  by  the  payment  aforesaid,  Mr.  Dermot,  the 
agent  for  the  British  creditors,  brought  suit  against 
Meade  in  the  same  court  to  recover  the  very  sum  he 
had  heretofore  paid  in  conformity  to  its  own  judg- 
ment. The  court  awarded  judgment  against  Meade 
a  second  time  for  this  money.  The  latter  appealed 
to  the  superior  tribunal,  called  Abradas.  During  its 
pendency,  it  is  charged  by  Meade,  that  the  cause  was 


removed,  by  the  interposition  of  the  British  Minister, 
to  the  council  of  war,  and,  by  the  same  interposition, 
his  arrest  and  confinement  were  procured,  from  which 
he  could  be  relieved  only  by  a  repayment  of  the  mo- 
ney. He  has  languished  in  confinement  from  the  2d 
of  May,  1816,  down  to  the  last  accounts  from  Spam. 

The  Representative  of  this  nation  at  that  Court 
has  repeatedly  appealed  to  His  Catholic  Majesty  for 
the  relief  of  Meade  ;  and  the  appeal  has  been  in  vain 
— the  Court  of  Spain  having  refused  either  to  restore 
the  money  deposited  in  its  own  treasury,  by  order  of 
its  own  competent  judicial  authority,  or  to  release 
the  person  of  Meade  from  the  long  confinement  to 
which  he  has  been  doomed ;  and,  finally,  the  Presi- 
dent of  the  United  States,  whose  peculiar  province  is 
to  take  cognizance  of  subjects  of  this  kind,  has  caused 
a  representation  of  the  subject  to  be  made  to  the 
Minister  of  Spain  to  the  United  States,  demanding 
his  immediate  liberation.  Nothing  but  a  confidence 
that  this  representation  will  produce  the  desired  re- 
sult, would  have  restrained  your  committee  from  re- 
commending the  adoption  of  measures  of  severe  ret- 
ribution. 

Your  committee  are  of  opinion,  that  it  is  due  to 
the  dignity  of  the  United  States  to  adopt,  as  a  funda- 
mental rule  of  its  policy,  the  principle,  that  one  of  its 
citizens,  to  whatever  region  of  the  earth  his  lawful 
business  may  carry  him,  and  who  demeans  himself 
as  becomes  his  character,  is  entitled  to  the  protec- 
tion of  his  Government,  and  whatever  intentional 
injury  may  be  done  him  should  be  retaliated  by  the 
employment,  if  necessary,  of  the  whole  force  of  the 
nation. 

Medals  to  Harrison  and  Shelby. 

Mr.  DiCKEBSOJf,  agreeably  to  notice  given 
yesterday,  asked  leave  to  introduce  a  resolution 
offering  the  thanks  of  Congress  to  Major  Gen- 
eral William  Henry  Harrison  and  Isaac  Shelby, 
late  Governor  of  Kentucky,  for  their  distin- 
guished bravery  and  good  conduct  in  capturing 
the  British  army  under  command  of  Major  Gen- 
eral Proctor,  at  the  battle  of  the  Thames  in 
Upper  Canada,  on  the  5th  of  October,  1813. 

Mr.  D.  then  offered  the  following  resolution: 

Resolved  by  the.  Senate  and  House  of  Representatives 
of  the  United  States  of  America  in  Congress  assembled, 
That  the  thanks  of  Congress  be,  and  they  are  hereby, 
presented  to  Major  General  William  Henry  Harrison, 
and  Isaac  Shelby,  late  Governor  of  Kentucky,  and 
through  them  to  the  officers  and  men  under  their 
command,  for  their  gallantry  and  good  conduct  in 
defeating  the  combined  British  and  Indian  forces  un- 
der Major  General  Proctor,  on  the  Thames,  in  Up- 
per Canada,  on  the  5th  day  of  October,  one  thousand 
eight  hundred  and  thirteen,  capturing  the  British 
army,  with  their  baggage,  camp  equipage,  and  ar- 
tillery; and  that  the  President  of  the  United  States 
be  requested  to  cause  two  gold  medals  to  be  struck, 
emblematical  of  this  triumph,  and  presented  to  Gen- 
eral Harrison  and  Isaac  Shelby,  late  Governor  of 
Kentucky. 

The  resolution  was  read  and  passed  to  a  sec- 
ond reading. 


WEDNESDAY,  March  25. 

Seminole  Indians. 

The  folio  wing  Message  was  received  from  the 
PKESIDENT  OF  THE  UNITED  STATES  : 


DEBATES  OF  CONGRESS. 


45 


MARCH,  1818.] 


Honors  to  Colonel  R.  M.  Johnson. 


[SEHATE. 


To  the  Senate  of  the  United  States  : 

I  now  lay  before  Congress  all  the  information  in 
the  possession  of  the  Executive,  respecting  the  war 
with  the  Seminoles,  and  the  measures  which  it  has 
been  thought  proper  to  adopt,  for  the  safety  of  our 
fellow-citizens  on  the  frontier  exposed  to  their  rav- 
ages. The  enclosed  documents  show  that  the  hos- 
tilities of  this  tribe  were  unprovoked,  the  offspring  of 
a  spirit  long  cherished,  and  often  manifested  towards 
the  United  States,  and  that,  in  the  present  instance, 
it  was  extending  itself  to  other  tribes,  and  daily  as- 
suming a  more  serious  aspect.  As  soon  as  the  nature 
and  object  of  this  combination  were  perceived,  the 
Major  General  commanding  the  Southern  division  of 
the  troops  of  the  United  States,  was  ordered  to  the 
theatre  of  action,  charged  with  the  management  of 
the  war,  and  vested  with  the  powers  necessary  to 
give  it  effect.  The  season  of  the  year  being  unfavor- 
able to  active  operations,  and  the  recesses  of  the 
country  affording  shelter  to  these  savages,  in  case  of 
retreat,  may  prevent  a  prompt  termination  of  the 
war,  but  it  may  be  fairly  presumed  that  it  will  not  be 
long  before  this  tribe,  and  its  associates,  receive  the 
punishment  which  they  have  provoked  and  justly 
merited. 

As  almost  the  whole  of  this  tribe  inhabits  the  coun- 
try within  the  limits  of  Florida,  Spain  was  bound,  by 
the  Treaty  of  1795,  to  restrain  them  from  commit- 
ting hostilities  against  the  United  States.  We  have 
seen,  with  regret,  that  her  Government  has  altoge- 
ther failed  to  fulfil  this  obligation,  nor  are  we  aware 
that  it  made  any  effort  to  that  effect.  When  we 
consider  her  utter  inability  to  check,  even  in  the 
slightest  degree,  the  movements  of  this  tribe,  by  her 
very  small  and  incompetent  force  in  Florida,  we  are 
not  disposed  to  ascribe  the  failure  to  any  other  cause. 
The  inability,  however,  of  Spain,  to  maintain  her 
authority  over  the  territory,  and  Indians  within  her 
limits,  and  in  consequence  to  fulfil  the  treaty,  ought 
not  to  expose  the  United  States  to  other  and  greater 
injuries.  When  the  authority  of  Spain  ceases  to  ex- 
ist there,  the  United  States  have  a  right  to  pursue 
their  enemy,  on  a  principle  of  self-defence.  In  this 
instance,  the  right  is  more  complete  and  obvious, 
because  we  shall  perform  only  what  Spain  was  bound 
to  have  performed  herself.  To  the  high  obligations 
and  privileges  of  this  great  and  sacred  right  of  self- 
defence  will  the  movement  of  our  troops  be  strictly 
confined.  Orders  have  been  given  to  the  General  in 
command  not  to  enter  Florida,  unless  it  be  in  pur- 
suit of  the  enemy,  and  in  that  case,  to  respect  the 
Spanish  authority,  wherever  it  is  maintained,  and  he 
will  be  instructed  to  withdraw  his  forces  from  the 
province,  as  soon  as  he  shall  have  reduced  that  tribe 
to  order,  and  secure  our  fellow-citizens,  in  that  quar- 
ter, by  satisfactory  arrangements,  against  its  unpro- 
voked and  savage  hostilities  in  future. 

JAMES  MONROE. 

WASHINGTON,  March  25,  1818. 

The  Message  and  accompanying  documents 
were  read,  and  two  hundred  additional  copies 
thereof  ordered  to  be  printed  for  the  use  of  the 
Senate. 


TUESDAY,  March  81. 

Honors  to  Colonel  R.  M.  Johnson. 

Agreeably  to    notice    given,   Mr.  BAKBOUK 

asked  and  obtained  leave  to  bring  hi  a  resolu- 


tion requesting  the  President  of  the  United 
States  to  present  to  Colonel  Richard  M.  John- 
son a  sword,  as  a  testimony  of  the  high  sense 
entertained  by  Congress  of  the  daring  and  dis- 
tinguished valor  displayed  by  himself  and  the 
regiment  of  volunteers  under  his  command,  in, 
charging  the  enemy  on  the  Thames,  in  Upper 
Canada,  on  the  5th  October,  1813;  and  the 
resolution  was  read  twice  by  unanimous  con- 
Bent,  and  considered  as  in  Committee  of  the 
Whole,  and  having  been  amended,  the  PRESI- 
DENT reported  it  to  the  House  accordingly  ;  and 
the  amendments  being  concurred  in,  the  reso- 
lution was  ordered  to  be  engrossed,  and  read  a 
third  time. 

On  introducing  the  proposition  for  causing 
a  sword  to  be  presented  to  Colonel  B.  M.  John- 
son— 

Mr.  BARBOTTB  said,  in  availing  himself  of  the 
notice  given  on  yesterday,  of  asking  leave  to 
introduce  a  resolution,  whose  object  would  be 
to  present  to  Colonel  Richard  M.  Johnson  some 
testimonial  of  the  high  sense  entertained  by  the 
nation  of  the  distinguished  services  rendered  by 
him  on  the  5th  October,  1813,  in  the  battle  of 
the  Thames,  he  considered  himself  bound  to 
make  a  few  remarks,  disclosing  the  propriety 
of  granting  the  leave  asked. 

As  to  the  distinguished  merit  of  Colonel 
Johnson,  he  presumed  there  could  be  no  differ- 
ence of  opinion ;  the  only  objection  that  could 
possibly  present  itself  would  be,  the  time  when 
the  resolution  was  presented,  or  possibly  the 
grade  which  Colonel  Johnson  held  in  the  army. 
To  remove  these,  if  they  exist,  was  all  that  de- 
volved on  him.  As  to  the  objection  of  time,  it 
will  at  once  be  removed  by  reflecting  on  that 
which  has  just  occurred — the  vote  of  thanks 
which  has  been  awarded  in  favor  of  General 
Harrison  and  Governor  Shelby.  It  is  not  un- 
known that  rumor,  the  result  of  envy,  or  some 
other  bad  passion,  had  attempted  to  throw  a 
shade  around  the  character  of  that  distinguished 
commander.  He  felt  as  he  ought,  and  sought 
an  investigation,  to  vindicate  his  character  from 
the  foul  aspersions  which  had  been  cast  upon 
it.  It,  after  some  delay,  took  place,  and  re- 
sulted hi  an  honorable  acquittal.  In  the  mean 
tune  the  venerable  Shelby  was,  at  his  own  re- 
quest, withheld  from  the  notice  of  the  nation, 
as  it  regarded  the  distinguished  services  he  had 
rendered — Shelby,  a  name  which  can  never  be 
mentioned  without  awakening  in  every  Ameri- 
can bosom  emotions  of  gratitude.  I  see  in  this 
illustrious  character  a  display  of  that  love  of 
country  and  chivalrous  spirit  which  conceived 
and  effected  our  independence,  and,  unabated 
by  age,  it  reappeared  to  vindicate  those  rights, 
to  the  establishment  of  which,  in  his  more 
youthful  days,  he  had  so  essentially  contributed  ; 
but  he  is  as  generous  as  he  is  brave,  and  he  re- 
fused to  accept  a  tribute  of  respect,  whose  indi- 
rect consequence  might  have  been  a  reflection 
on  the  Commander-in-chief,  to  whose  zeal,  pa- 
triotism, and  capacity  in  conducting  this  cam- 
paign, he  always  bore  a  cheerful  testimony. 


ABRIDGMENT  OF  THE 


SENATE.] 


Honors  to  Colonel  R.  M.  Johnson. 


[MAHCH,  1818. 


Colonel  Johnson,  influenced  by  the  same  sensi- 
bility, peremptorily  refused  to  his  friends  the 
Eission  of  bringing  this  subject  before  the 
esentatives  of  the  people.  I,  however, 
barely  remark,  in  regard  to  the  command- 
ing general,  that,  with  the  regrets  which  the 
delay  of  justice  to  this  citizen  must  necessarily 
create,  will  be  mingled  some  consolation  in  the 
reflection,  that  his  character  has  been  entirely 
purified  from  the  censure  which  had  been  im- 
properly cast  upon  it ;  and  that  the  meed  now 
dispensed  has  the  sanction  of  the  deliberate  judg- 
ment of  the  nation,  unbiassed  by  passion  or  the 
false  fire  of  the  moment.  He  will  now  receive 
it  with  a  grateful  feeling,  as  the  highest  reward 
which  freemen  can  give  or  a  freeman  receive. 

With  regard  to  Colonel  Johnson,  it  is  due  to 
him  to  say,  this  proposition  is  now  made  without 
his  consent.  Mr.  B.,  however,  who  took  a  pride 
in  calling  him  his  friend,  took  the  responsibility 
upon  himself,  because  he  thought  it  would  be  an 
act  of  consummate  injustice,  were  no  lasting 
memorial  to  be  erected  to  the  valor  which  he 
so  signally  displayed  on  the  occasion  alluded 
to.  Another  motive  with  Mr.  B.  was,  a  notifi- 
cation on  the  part  of  Colonel  Johnson,  of  his 
retiring  from  public  life.  While  he  regretted 
this  event  as  a  serious  loss  to  the  public  coun- 
cils, he  was  perfectly  satisfied  that  his  reasons 
were  sufficient  to  justify  it.  While  upon  this 
subject  he  would  barely  add,  that  he  was  satis- 
fied it  would  not  be  deemed  an  exaggeration 
when  he  asserted  that  no  man  in  Congress  had 
performed  more  service  than  Colonel  Johnson. 
In  addition  to  the  just  claims  of  his  own  par- 
ticular constituents  upon  him,  what  part  of  the 
Union  is  it  from  which  applications  have  not 
been  made  and  cheerfully  attended  to  by  this 
patriotic  citizen  ?  So  much  for  the  first  objec- 
tion that  might  possibly  be  made,  although  he 
did  not  anticipate  it.  As  to  the  second  diffi- 
culty, that  might  exist  in  the  opinion  of  some 
gentlemen,  the  grade  of  Colonel  Johnson — if 
there  were  no  precedent  applicable  to  this  case, 
Mr.  B.  would  have  had  no  difficulty  in  fixing 
one.  It  is  the  attribute  of  all  governments  to 
adapt  their  proceedings  to  the  endless  vicissi- 
tudes which  human  affairs  continually  present. 
The  valor  displayed  by  Colonel  Johnson  is  un- 
surpassed by  any  example  in  the  annals  of  man- 
kind. But  it  is  not  now  necessary  to  press  this 
question,  because  you  have  a  precedent  in  the 
case  of  McDonough  and  his  associates,  in  the 
distinguished  victory  gained  by  them  on  Lake 
Champlain,  over  a  British  squadron,  and  some 
others.  Mr.  B.  said  he  should  but  ill  represent 
the  feelings  of  his  friend,  or  his  own,  if,  in  ask- 
ing for  this  tribute  of  respect,  any  thing  could 
be  inferred  from  what  is  said  or  done,  unfavor- 
able to  those  patriotic  officers  holding  grades 
between  Colonel  Johnson  and  the  Commander- 
in-chief.  It  was  but  justice  to  them  to  say, 
that  had  it  been  their  good  fortune  on  the  day 
of  battle  to  have  had  the  post  of  honor,  they 
would  have  acquired  those  laurels  so  dearly 
earned  by  Colonel  Johnson.  Generous  as 


brave,  so  far  from  looking  with  an  eye  of  envy 
upon  this  honorable  tribute  of  gratitude,  dis- 
pensed in  behalf  of  this  distinguished  citizen, 
they  will  warmly  participate  in  the  fine  feel- 
ings with  which  Colonel  Johnson  will  receive 
this  mark  of  his  country's  distinction. 

As  to  the  merit  of  Colonel  Johnson  to  this 
evidence  of  our  gratitude,  Mr.  B.  said,  he  had 
already  declared  that  upon  this  point  there 
could  be  no  difference  of  opinion.  To  expatiate 
upon  it  would  be  unnecessary;  yet  he  could 
not  dismiss  this  subject  without  briefly  enumer- 
ating some  of  the  leading  acts  of  his  public  life, 
so  far  at  least  as  they  connect  themselves  with 
the  question  under  consideration. 

Let  it  then  be  remembered  that  he  was  zeal- 
ously in  favor  of  the  war.  Not  content  with 
the  distinguished  place  he  held  in  the  councils 
of  the  nation,  he  patriotically  resolved  to  vindi- 
cate with  his  own  arm  those  rights  which  he 
had  so  manfully  asserted  while  voting  for  the 
declaration  of  war.  He  erects  his  standard  and 
proclaims  his  purpose,  and  although  much  was 
to  have  been  expected  from  the  patriotism,  the 
zeal,  the  enterprise,  and  courage  of  Kentucky — 
a  people  Mr.  B.  delighted  to  honor,  as,  in  addi- 
tion to  their  merit,  he  considered  them  his  own 
kindred,  thousands  of  his  near  and  highly  re- 
spected relations  being  there — although,  he  said, 
much  was  to  have  been  expected,  yet,  when  we 
reflect  upon  the  devotedness  of  those  old  and 
young,  rich  and  poor,  rallying  around  the  stand- 
ard of  their  country,  we  see  a  new  subject  of 
admiration. 

In  doing  justice  to  those  patriots,  let  it  not 
be  understood  that  any  invidious  distinction  is 
intended  to  be  made  in  their  favor.  Mr.  B. 
said  he  well  knew  that  illustrious  examples  of 
courage  and  patriotism  were  exhibited  in  other 
portions  of  the  Union,  and  on  all  proper  occa- 
sions he  was  prepared  to  lift  his  feeble  voice  to 
do  them  ample  justice.  But,  to  return  to  the 
patriotic  volunteers,  who  embodied  at  the  call 
of  Colonel  Johnson,  displaying  a  spectacle  as 
honorable  to  themselves  as  to  Colonel  Johnson 
— manifesting  the  high  confidence  they  reposed 
in  this  their  illustrious  citizen — these  brave 
men,  leaving  their  homes  and  their  domestic 
blessings,  and,  weighing  the  honor  of  their 
country  and  the  defence  of  her  rights  against 
the  privations  and  hazards  of  war,  willingly 
accepted  them  as  an  equivalent.  Undeterred 
by  the  difficulties  or  dangers  to  which  they  are 
about  to  be  exposed,  they  fearlessly  commit 
themselves  to  the  trackless  desert,  to  the  secret 
danger  of  the  ambuscaded  savage,  or  the  more 
open  perils  of  their  less  savage  ally.  A  night 
of  misfortune  had  shed  its  disastrous  gloom 
over  our  affairs.  It  was  given  to  Commodore 
Perry  to  turn  back  the  tide  of  adversity  upon 
the  fountain  from  which  it  flowed.  Lake  Erie 
was  reserved  for  the  display  of  the  brilliant  su- 
periority of  American  bravery  and  seamanship 
over  our  then  haughty  foe — achieving  a  victo- 
ry, which,  in  the  language  of  President  Madi- 
son, will  fill  an  early  page  in  our  naval  annals, 


DEBATES  OF  CONGRESS. 


47 


APRIL,  1818.] 


British  West  India  Trade. 


[SENATE. 


as  having  never  been  surpassed  in  lustre,  how- 
ever much  it  may  have  been  in  magnitude. 
The  way  having  been  opened,  the  commanding 
general" and  his  veteran  associate,  with  promp- 
titude, availed  themselves  of  the  opportunity 
thus  offered,  to  throw  themselves  in  the  ene- 
my's country,  and  pursuing,  with  unanimity 
and  an-  unexampled  rapidity,  (of  which  pursuit 
Colonel  Johnson  led  the  van,)  speedily  overtook 
them.  The  battle  is  arrayed ;  the  post  of  hon- 
or, for  such  he  made  it,  is  assigned  Colonel 
Johnson.  The  enemy  have  the  Thames  on  the 
left ;  a  British  regiment,  seven  hundred  strong, 
has  also  a  ravine  on  the  right,  beyond  which 
was  the  celebrated  Tecumseh,  at  the  head  of 
fifteen  hundred  savages — a  force  truly  formida- 
ble. When  we  refer  to  the  commander,  of 
whom  it  may  be  said,  unless  his  character  has 
been  greatly  exaggerated,  that,  had  he  have 
been  favored  with  the  embellishments  of  civil- 
ized life,  and  the  benefits  of  military  experience, 
he  would  have  been  one  of  the  most  distin- 
guished captains  of  the  present  eventful  period ; 
to  which,  when  we  superadd  that  his  associates 
were  acting  under  the  impression  of  their  being 
under  the  particular  favor  of  Heaven,  it  well 
may  be  said  that  the  force  thus  to  be  encoun- 
tered was  indeed  formidable.  This  force,  so 
placed,  and  so  formidable  to  ordinary  minds, 
presented  nothing  alarming  to  the  mounted 
regiment.  Colonel  Johnson  divides  his  regi- 
ment, say  one  thousand  strong — one  battalion 
placed  under  the  command  of  Colonel  James 
Johnson,  who  gave,  in  accepting  his  station  un- 
der a  younger  brother,  an  honorable  evidence 
of  his  patriotism  ;  the  other  battalion,  headed 
by  himself,  passed  a  defile,  and  placed  itself  on 
the  right  of  the  marsh.  The  bugle  was  to  an. 
nounce  the  readiness  for  attack.  The  sound  is 
heard,  and,  mingled  with  the  watchword,  vic- 
tory or  death,  floated  along  the  line.  The  Brit- 
ish force  was  overwhelmed  in  an  instant ;  they 
threw  down  their  arms,  and  on  their  knees  sup- 
plicated mercy.  Although  there  was  a  long 
account  of  unatoned-for  blood,  impiously  shed 
by  this  united  British  and  Indian  force,  and  re- 
taliation justified  even  to  their  entire  extermi- 
nation, yet,  at  the  cry  of  mercy,  the  sword  was 
immediately  sheathed,  and  the  guilty  survived. 
Far  different  was  the  conflict  with  the  savage 
foe ;  there  man  was  opposed  to  man,  in  single 
combat,  rifle  to  rifle,  and  tomahawk  to  toma- 
hawk ;  wounds  and  death  were  mutually  dealt 
out.  Colonel  Johnson,  early  in  the  combat,  re- 
ceived two  severe  wounds,  attended  with  the 
loss  of  much  blood.  In  this  trying  crisis  an  or- 
dinary courage  would  have  retired  from  the 
combat;  on  him  it  had  a  different  effect.  It 
seemed  to  impart  to  him  new  courage,  which 
manifested  itself  in  a  prodigy  of  valor,  which 
loses  nothing  in  a  comparison  with  the  most 
splendid  achievement  recorded  hi  the  whole 
extent  of  "backward  time."  Calling  around 
him  twenty  spirits,  the  bravest  among  the 
brave,  he  resolved,  at  their  head,  to  precipitate 
himself  on  the  fiercest  part  of  the  conflict, 


where  Tecumseh  in  person  commanded,  and 
who  was  the  soul  of  the  battle.  Of  these  dar- 
ing spirits,  composing  the  forlorn  hope,  one 
only  escaped.  The  others  were  all  cut  down, 
some  to  rise  no  more ;  the  remainder  mangled 
by  numerous  wounds,  of  which  the  subject  of 
the  present  resolution  had  his  melancholy  share. 
Bleeding,  exhausted  by  effusion  of  blood,  and 
alone,  his  fate  seemed  inevitable,  when  Tecum- 
seh, cool,  and  collected,  approached  with  his 
unerring  rifle  and  ruthless  tomahawk.  It 
pleased  Providence  to  interpose.  Amidst  uni- 
versal carnage,  and  in  the  teeth  of  approaching 
death,  Colonel  Johnson  remained  undismayed, 
and  hurled  at  Tecumseh  that  death  which  had 
been  prepared  for  him.  This  is  the  man  and 
the  services  to  which  Mr.  B.  wished  an  honor- 
able testimony  to  be  erected,  one  more  lasting 
than  that  which  is  found  in  evanescent  papers 
of  the  day.  If  any  thing  was  necessary  to  be 
added  in  support  of  the  high  claims  of  this  dis- 
tinguished citizen  upon  the  gratitude  of  his 
country,  it  would  be  found  in  the  honorable 
notice  taken  of  him  by  the  commanding  gener- 
al, and  repeated,  in  the  most  flattering  manner, 
by  President  Madison,  hi  communicating  the 
result  of  the  battle  to  Congress.  But  it  is  more 
than  unnecessary  to  furnish  any  additional 
proofs.  Wherever  there  is  an  American,  the 
courage  and  services  of  Colonel  Johnson  are 
known  and  applauded.  Mr.  B.  indulged  a 
hope,  bordering  on  confidence,  that  the  measure 
he  now  proposed  would  receive  the  unanimous 
consent  of  the  Senate,  for  in  that  unanimity  its 
principal  merit  would  consist. 


FRIDAY,  April  3. 
British  West  India  Trade— Navigation,  Bill 

The  Senate  resumed  the  consideration  of  the 
bill  concerning  navigation,  reported  by  the 
Committee  of  Foreign  Relations  on  Wednesday. 

[The  1st  section  provides,  that  from  and  af- 
ter the  30th  of  September  next,  the  ports  of  the 
United  States  shall  be  and  remain  closed  against 
every  vessel  owned  wholly  or  in  port  by  a  sub- 
ject or  subjects  of  His  Britannic  Majesty,  com- 
ing or  arriving  from  any  part  or  place  in  a 
colony  or  territory  of  His  Britannic  Majesty, 
that  is  or  shall  be,  by  the  ordinary  laws  of 
navigation  and  trade,  closed  against  vessels 
owned  by  citizens  of  the  United  States ;  and 
every  such  vessel,  so  excluded  from  the  ports 
of  the  United  States,  that  shall  enter,  or  at- 
tempt to  enter  the  same,  in  violation  of  this 
act,  shall,  with  her  tackle,  apparel,  and  furni- 
ture, together  with  the  cargo  on  board  such 
vessel,  be  forfeited  to  the  United  States. 

The  2d  section  provides,  substantially,  that 
any  British  vessel  entering  onr  ports,  shall,  on 
her  departure,  if  laden  with  the  productions  of 
the  United  States,  give  bonds  not  to  land  her 
cargo  at  any  of  the  British  ports  prohibited  in 
the  first  section,  and  to  forfeit  vessel,  tackle, 
&c.,  if  she  attempts  to  sail  without  so  giving 
bond. 


48 


ABRIDGMENT  OF  THE 


SENATE.] 


British  West  India  Trade, 


[APBIL,  1818. 


The  3d  section  enacts  the  manner  of  recover- 
ing the  penalties,  accounting  for  them,  &c.] 

Mr.  BARBOUR,  of  Virginia,  said,  as  the  organ 
of  the  committee  who  reported  the  bill,  it  was 
expected  of  him  by  the  Senate  that  he  should 
disclose  the  views  of  the  committee  on  this  in- 
teresting subject. 

It  certainly  behooved  the  Senate  to  give  this 
subject  its  most  serious  attention,  and  to  act 
only  upon  the  most  mature  deliberation;  for 
remember,  when  once  adopted,  it  must  be  ad- 
hered to.  To  recede,  would  be  to  insure  an 
endless  duration  to  the  serious  evils  of  which 
we  complain,  and,  what  is  still  of  more  conse- 
quence, it  must  be  attended  with  a  diminution 
of  character.  Any  policy,  adopted  by  the  unan- 
imous consent  of  the  nation,  founded  in  jus- 
tice and  wisdom,  and  sustained  by  perseverance, 
must  finally  be  felt  and  yielded  to  by  any  and 
every  nation  on  which  it  operates.  The  object 
of  the  bill  under  consideration,  is  to  relieve  from 
the  effects  of  measures  adopted  by  Great  Brit- 
ain in  relation  to  our  commercial  intercourse 
with  her  North  American  colonies  and  West 
Indies ;  measures  exclusively  against  us,  as  in- 
jurious to  our  navigating  interest  as  they  are 
offensive  to  our  dignity.  The  invidious  policy 
of  which  we  complain,  and  which  is  attended 
with  such  unpleasant  effects,  may  be  summed 
up  in  a  few  words.  She  has  shut  her  ports  in 
the  possessions  formerly  alluded  to,  against 
American  vessels  and  American  property.  Not 
a  cock-boat,  not  an  atom  of  any  thing  that  is 
American,  does  she  permit  to  enter,  while  she 
modestly  insists  to  bring  every  thing  that  she 
pleases  from  these  possessions  to  the  United 
States,  and  to  purchase,  and  exclusively  to 
carry  the  produce  and  manufactures  of  the 
United  States  in  return;  that  is,  she  insists 
upon,  and  we  have  been  tame  enough  to  sub- 
mit to  it,  to  enjoy  exclusively  the  whole  of  this 
valuable  intercourse. 

The  evil  has  been  of  long  standing ;  it  com- 
menced upon  our  becoming  an  independent 
people.  She  was  not  generous  enough  to  for- 
get that  we  had  been  enemies,  nor  wise  enough 
to  profit  by  a  liberal  policy.  She  would  have 
found  in  the  same  language,  the  same  habits, 
the  same  feelings;  and  in  the  kind  affections 
inseparably  attending  two  people  of  a  common 
origin,  except  when  repressed  by  injustice  or 
oppression ;  she  would  have  found  in  these  cir- 
cumstances sure  guarantees  to  an  uninterrupted, 
friendly,  and,  to  her,  highly  beneficial  inter- 
course. But  other  counsels  prevailed,  and  dis- 
played a  new  proof  of  the  mortifying  truth,  that 
small,  indeed,  is  the  portion  of  wisdom  that  di- 
rects the  government  of  human  affairs.  Hence, 
the  moment  she  acknowledged  our  independ- 
ence, she  immediately  denounced  against  the 
United  States  all  the  rigor  of  her  colonial  sys- 
tem—departing from  it  only  in  such  parts  as 
would  promote  her  interest,  and  render  it  more 
injurious  and  humiliating  to  us.  She  super- 
ciliously rejected  all  offers  at  negotiation.  The 
United  States,  without  a  common  head,  and 


pursuing  among  themselves  an  insulated,  and 
frequently  a  selfish  and  an  unwise  policy,  be- 
came the  footballs  of  Great  Britain,  who, 
watching,  as  she  always  does,  with  a  sleepless 
eye,  whatever  is  to  affect  her  commerce,  seized 
instantly  upon  her  defenceless  prey,  and  push- 
ed her  exclusive  system  to  the  uttermost  of  en- 
durance. In  this  spirit,  instead  of  being  con- 
tent with  enforcing  towards  us  the  real  colonial 
system,  which  was,  that  the  trade  should  be  ex- 
clusive through  and  with  the  mother  country, 
she  permitted  the  produce  of  her  dependencies 
to  be  brought  directly  to  this  country,  and  the 
produce  of  this  country  to  be  carried  back  di- 
rectly to  them,  but  both  operations  to  be  effect- 
ed exclusively  by  British  shipping,  to  the  con- 
sequent exclusion  of  the  American  shipping 
from  the  transportation  of  the  produce  even  of 
America.  So  injurious  were  the  effects  result- 
ing from  our  commercial  intercourse,  and  so  en- 
tirely unable  were  the  United  States  to  coun- 
teract these  effects  in  their  then  disjointed 
condition,  that  our  sanguine  anticipations  from 
the  successful  result  of  our  Revolution,  began 
fast  to  dissipate,  and  no  little  solicitude  to  be 
experienced  in  regard  to  the  future.  This  state 
of  things  produced  a  convention  of  the  States, 
and  finally  resulted  in  our  present  happy  con- 
stitution. I  am  authorized  to  say,  from  the 
best  authority,  that  it  is  to  this  cause  chiefly,  if 
not  entirely,  that  we  are  indebted  for  this 
greatest  blessing  of  Heaven.  In  looking  through 
the  history  of  mankind,  and  tracing  the  causes 
which  contribute  to  the  rise  and  downfall  of 
nations,  it  frequently  becomes  a  subject  of  curi- 
ous speculation,  when  we  see  the  most  propiti- 
ous results  flowing  from  apparently  injurious 
causes,  and  the  worst  passions  of  mankind  con- 
verted into  the  means  of  furthering  some  bene- 
ficent purpose  of  Providence.  Little  did  the 
statesman  of  Britain  think,  when  indulging  his 
thirst  for  cupidity  or  revenge,  that  he  was  to 
become  the  involuntary  benefactor  of  America, 
by  essentially  contributing  to  the  order  of 
things  which  now  exists,  and  which,  under 
Providence,  will  insure  us  an  endless  succes- 
sion of  power,  of  prosperity,  and  of  happiness. 
The  new  Governemnt  being  organized,  it 
turned  its  attention  to  the  particular  subject  in- 
trusted to  its  care.  Unfortunately,  however, 
other  objects,  both  foreign  and  domestic,  inter- 
posed before  its  deliberations  ripened  into  ac- 
tion. Europe  was  agitated  by  a  convulsion 
the  most  important  in  the  annals  of  the  world, 
whether  we  regard  its  duration,  its  extent,  or 
its  effects.  During  this  troubled  state  of  the 
world,  the  policy  now  under  consideration,  en- 
gaged the  attention  of  Congress.  The  result  of 
the  effort  at  that  time  is  known  to  the  Senate 
— the  causes  leading  thereto  lie  out  of  the  proper 
sphere  of  the  present  discussion.  Mr.  Jay  was 
sent  to  England — he  negotiated  a  treaty — so 
much  of  it  as  relates  to  the  trade  in  question, 
eventuated  in  nothing;  but  such  was  the  con- 
dition of  the  nations  of  Europe,  that  we  enjoy 
ed,  from  the  necessities  of  England,  what  we 


DEBATES  OF  CONGRESS. 


49 


APBIL,  1818.] 


British  West  India  Trade. 


had  a  right  to  expect  from  her  justice.  Amer- 
ica became  the  carrier  of  the  world,  and  her 
commerce,  her  shipping,  and  her  wealth,  in- 
creased in  the  most  astonishing  ratio,  till  at 
length  America,  in  her  turn,  felt  the  effects  of 
war,  and  its  frequent  privations.  Peace  was 
no  sooner  established,  than  Great  Britain  re- 
sorted to  her  colonial  system,  with  all  its  abuse. 
The  more  intolerable,  as  it  is  exclusively  di- 
rected against  us,  inasmuch  as  she  indulges  to 
the  vessels  of  other  nations  an  intercourse 
withheld  from  us ;  a  course  aggravated  by  the 
consideration  that  she  stands  alone  in  this 
policy,  American  vessels  being  admitted  into 
French,  Spanish,  Dutch,  and  Swedish  colonies. 
This  course,  so  injurious  to  our  interest,  and  so 
offensive  to  a  just  pride,  claimed  the  immediate 
attention  of  the  Government,  and  efforts  were 
made  to  obtain  redress  by  a  treaty ;  the  result 
is  known.  Mr.  B.  begged  leave  to  read  so 
much  of  President  Madison's  Message  at  the 
last  session  of  Congress,  as  regards  this  subject. 
Here  you  perceive  the  door  of  negotiation  is 
closed ;  all  hope  of  redress  in  that  way  is  des- 
perate, and  lie  calls  upon  Congress  to  interpose. 
Independently  of  the  respect  due  to  the  recom- 
mendation of  a  President  of  the  United  States, 
there  were  other  considerations  which  would 
give  a  weight  to  this  opinion  of  Mr.  Madison. 
"When  it  is  recollected,  that  he  devoted  the 
whole  of  his  most  useful  life  to  his  country, 
with  motives  always  pure,  and  with  a  judgment 
but  little  liable  to  err,  guided  as  it  was  by  a  su- 
perior genius;  when  such  a  man,  from  the 
commencement  of  the  Government,  down  to 
the  moment  of  his  quitting  public  life,  with  the 
benefit  of  thirty  years'  observation  and  experi- 
ence, invariably  entertains  the  same  opinion, 
and,  in  his  last  solemn  appeal  to  the  nation, 
strongly  inculcates  the  propriety  of  the  measure 
now  under  consideration,  Mr.  B.  was  justifiable 
in  saying  a  recommendation  thus  sustained 
would  receive  from  the  Senate  a  degree  of  con- 
sideration far  beyond  that  arising  from  mere 
official  respect.  In  addition  to  this,  we  have 
been  advised  by  President  Monroe  of  his  fruit- 
less attempts  to  procure  redress  by  negotiation, 
and  he  also  submits  to  Congress  the  propriety 
of  interposing  by  regulations,  whose  effects  will 
produce  that  which  he  has  in  vain  sought  to 
obtain  by  negotiation. 

Mr.  KING  addressed  the  Chair  as  follows : 
Agriculture,  manufactures,  and  foreign  com- 
merce, are  the  true  sources  of  wealth  and  power 
of  nations ;  agriculture  is  the  chief  and  well- 
rewarded  occupation  of  our  people,  and  yields, 
in  addition  to  what  we  want  for  our  use,  a  great 
surplus  for  exportation.  Manufactures  are 
making  a  sure  and  steady  progress;  and,  with 
the  abundance  of  food  and  of  raw  materials, 
which  the  country  affords,  will,  at  no  distant 
day,  be  sufficient,  in  the  principal  branches,  for 
our  own  consumption,  and  furnish  a  valuable 
addition  to  our  exports. 

But,  without  shipping  and  seamen,  the  sur- 
pluses of  agriculture  and  of  manufactures  would 
Vou  VL— 4 


depreciate  on  our  hands ;  the  cotton,  tobacco, 
breadstuff's,  provisions,  and  manufactures,  would 
turn  out  to  be  of  little  worth,  unless  we  have 
ships  and  mariners  to  carry  them  abroad,  and  to 
distribute  them  in  the  foreign  markets. 

Nations  have  adopted  different  theories,  as  re- 
spects the  assistance  to  be  derived  from  naviga- 
tion ;  some  have  been  content  with  a  passive 
foreign  commerce — owning  no  ships  themselves, 
but  depending  on  foreigners  and  foreign  vessels 
to  bring  to  them  their  supplies,  and  to  purchase 
of  them  their  surpluses;  while  others,  and  al- 
most every  modern  nation  that  borders  upon 
the  ocean,  have  preferred  an  active  foreign  trade, 
carried  on,  as  far  as  consistent  with  the  recipro- 
cal rights  of  others,  by  national  ships  and  sea- 
men. 

A  dependence  upon  foreign  navigiation  sub- 
jects those  who  are  so  dependent,  to  the  known 
disadvantages  arising  from  foreign  wars,  and  to 
the  expense  and  risk  of  the  navigation  of  bellig- 
erent nations — the  policy  of  employing  a  na- 
tional shipping  is,  therefore,  almost  universally 
approved  and  adopted:  it  affords  not  only  a 
more  certain  means  of  prosecuting  foreign  com- 
merce, but  the  freight,  as  well  as  the  profits  of 
trade,  are  added  to  the  stock  of  the  nation. 

The  value  and  importance  of  national  ship- 
ping and  national  seamen,  have  created  among 
the  great  maritime  powers,  and  particularly  in 
England,  a  strong  desire  to  acquire,  by  restric- 
tions and  exclusions,  a  disproportionate  share  of 
the  general  commerce  of  the  world. 

As  all  nations  have  equal  rights,  and  each 
may  claim  equal  advantages  in  its  intercourse 
with  others,  the  true  theory  of  international 
commerce  is  one  of  equality,  and  of  reciprocal 
benefits ;  this  theory  gives  to  enterprise,  to  skill, 
and  to  capital,  their  just  and  natural  advantages ; 
any  other  scheme  is  merely  artificial ;  and  so 
far  as  it  aims  at  advantages  over  those  who 
adhere  to  the  open  system,  it  aims  at  profit  at 
the  expense  of  natural  justice. 

The  colonial  system  being  founded  in  this 
vicious  theory,  has,  therefore,  proved  to  be  the 
fruitful  source  of  dissatisfaction,  insecurity,  and 
war.  According  to  this  system,  the  colonies 
were  depressed  below  the  rank  of  their  fellow 
subjects,  and  the  fruits  of  their  industry  and 
their  intercourse  with  foreign  countries,  placed 
under  different  regulations  from  those  of  the 
inhabitants  of  the  mother  country ;  it  was  the 
denial  to  Americans  of  the  rights  enjoyed  by 
Englishmen,  that  produced  the  American  Rev- 
olution— and  the  same  cause,  greatly  aggravated, 
is  working  the  same  effect  in  South  America. 

Among  the  navigators  and  discoverers  of  the 
ifteenth  and  sixteenth  centuries,  the  Dutch 
became  highly  distinguished,  and,  by  enterprise, 
economy,  and  perseverance,  made  themselves 
;he  carriers  of  other  nations,  and  their  country 
;he  entrepot  of  Europe — and  it  was  not  until 
;he  middle  of  the  fourteenth  century,  that  Eng- 
and  passed  her  navigation  act,  which  had  for 
ts  object  to  curtail  the  navigation  of  the  Dutch 
and  to  extend  her  own. 


50 


ABRIDGMENT  OF  THE 


SENATE.] 


British  West  India  Trade. 


[APEIL,  1818. 


According  to  this  act,  the  whole  trade  and 
intercourse  between  England,  Asia,  Africa,  and 
America,  were  confined  to  the  shipping  and 
mariners  of  England ;  and  the  intercourse  be- 
tween England  and  the  rest  of  Europe  was 
placed  under  regulations  which,  in  a  great 
measure,  confined  the  same  to  English  ships 
and  seamen. 

This  act  was  strenuously  opposed  by  the 
Dutch,  and  proved  the  occasion  of  the  obstinate 
naval  wars  that  afterwards  followed.  England 
was  victorious,  persisted  in  her  navigation  act, 
and,  in  the  end,  broke  down  the  monopoly  in 
trade  which  the  Dutch  possessed. 

That  in  vindication  of  her  equal  right  to  navi- 
gate the  ocean,  England  should  have  resisted 
the  monopoly  of  the  Dutch,  and  freely  expended 
her  blood  and  treasure  to  obtain  her  just  share 
of  the  general  commerce,  deserved  the  approba- 
tion of  all  impartial  men.  But,  having  accom- 
plished this  object,  that  she  should  herself  aim 
at,  and  in  the  end  establish,  the  same  exclusive 
system,  and  on  a  more  extended  scale,  is  neither 
consistent  with  her  own  laudable  principles,  nor 
compatible  with  the  rights  of  others;  who, 
relatively  to  her  monopoly  now,  are  in  the  like 
situation  towards  England  in  which  England 
was  towards  the  Dutch,  when  she  asserted  and 
made  good  her  rights  against  them. 

By  the  English  act  of  navigation,  the  trade  of 
the  colonies  is  restrained  to  the  dominions  of 
the  mother  country,  and  none  but  English  ships 
are  allowed  to  engage  in  it. 

So  long  as  colonies  are  within  such  limits  as 
leave  to  other  nations  a  convenient  resort  to 
foreign  markets  for  the  exchange  of  the  goods 
which  they  have  to  sell,  for  those  they  want  to 
buy,  so  long  this  system  is  tolerable ;  but  if  the 

Crer  of  a  State  enables  it  to  increase  the  num- 
of  its  colonies  and  dependent  territories,  so 
that  it  becomes  the  mistress  of  the  great  mili- 
tary and  commercial  stations  throughout  the 
globe,  this  extension  of  dominion,  and  the  con- 
sequent monopoly  of  commerce,  seem  to  be  in- 
compatible with,  and  necessarily  to  abridge  the 
equal  rights  of  other  States. 

In  the  late  debates  in  the  English  Parliament, 
the  Minister,  in  the  House  of  Lords,  stated 
"  that  instead  of  seventeen  thousand  men,  em- 
ployed abroad  in  1791,  forty-one  thousand  were 
then  (1816)  required,  exclusive  of  those  that 
were  serving  in  France  and  in  India.  That 
England  now  has  forty-three  principal  colonies, 
in  all  of  which  troops  are  necessary ;  that  six- 
teen of  these  principal  colonies  were  acquired 
since  1791,  and  six  of  them  had  grown  into  that 
rank  from  mere  colonial  dependencies."  And, 
in  the  House  of  Commons,  the  Minister,  allud- 
ing to  the  acquisitions  made  during  the  war 
with  France,  said  "  that  England  had  acquired 
what,  in  former  days,  would  have  been  thought 
romance—she  had  acquired  the  keys  of  every 
great  military  station." 

Thus,  the  commercial  aggrandizement  of 
England  has  become  such,  as  the  men  who  pro- 
tested against  monopoly,  and  devised  the  navi- 


gation act  to  break  it  down,  could  never  have 
anticipated ;  and  it  may,  ere  long,  concern  other 
nations  to  inquire  whether  laws  and  principles, 
applicable  to  the  narrow  limits  of  English 
dominion  and  commerce,  at  the  date  of  the 
navigation  act,  when  colonies  and  commerce, 
and  even  navigation  itself,  were  comparatively 
in  their  infancy ;  laws  and  principles  aimed 
against  monopoly,  and  adopted  to  secure  to 
England  her  just  share  in  the  general  commerce 
and  navigation  of  the  world,  ought  to  be  used 
by  England  to  perpetuate  in  her  own  hands  a 
system  equally  as  exclusive,  and  far  more  com- 
prehensive, than  that  which  she  was  the  chief 
agent  to  abolish. 

Our  commercial  system  is  an  open  one— our 
ports  and  our  commerce  are  free  to  all — we 
neither  possess,  nor  desire  to  possess,  colonies  ; 
nor  do  we  object  that  others  should  possess 
them,  unless  thereby  the  general  commerce  of 
the  world  be  so  abridged,  that  we  are  restrained 
in  our  intercourse  with  foreign  countries  want- 
ing our  supplies,  and  furnishing  in  return  those 
which  we  stand  in  need  of. 

But,  it  is  not  to  the  colonial  system,  but  to  a 
new  principle,  which  in  modern  tunes  has  been 
incorporated  with  those  of  the  navigation  act, 
that  we  now  object.  According  to  this  act, 
no  direct  trade  or  intercourse  can  be  carried  on 
between  a  colony  and  a  foreign  country ;  but  by 
the  free  port  bill,  passed  in  the  present  reign, 
the  English  contraband  trade,  which  had  been 
long  pursued,  in  violation  of  Spanish  laws,  be- 
tween English  and  Spanish  colonies,  was  sanc- 
tioned and  regulated  by  an  English  act  of  Par- 
liament; and,  since  the  independence  of  the 
United  States,  England  has  passed  laws,  open- 
ing an  intercourse  and  trade  between  her  West 
India  colonies  and  the  United  States,  and,  ex- 
cluding the  shipping  of  the  United  States,  has 
confined  the  same  to  English  ships  and  sea- 
men ;  departing  by  this  law  not  only  from  the 
principles  of  the  navigation  act,  which  she  was 
at  liberty  to  do,  by  opening  a  direct  intercourse 
between  the  colonies  and  a  foreign  country,  but 
controlling,  which  she  had  no  authority  to  do, 
the  reciprocal  rights  of  the  United  States  to 
employ  their  own  vessels  to  carry  it  on.* 

Colonies  being  parts  of  the  nation,  are  subject 
to  its  regulations ;  but,  when  an  intercourse  and 


country,  the  foreign  country  becomes  a  party, 
and  has  a  reciprocal  claim  to  employ  its  own 
vessels  equally  in  the  intercourse  and  trade  with 
such  colonies,  as  with  any  other  part  of  the 
nation  to  which  they  belong. 

Governments  owe  it  to  the  trust  confided  to 
them,  carefully  to  watch  over,  and  by  all  suita- 
ble means  to  promote,  the  general  welfare ;  and 
while,  on  account  of  a  small  or  doubtful  incon- 


*  England  alone  excludes  our  vessels  and  seamen  from 
the  trade  opened  between  her  West  India  colonies  and  the 
United  States.  In  the  same  trade  between  the  United 
States  and  the  colonies  of  France,  Spain,  Holland,  Denmark 
and  Sweden,  our  vessels  and  seamen  are  alike  employed,  as 
those  of  the  parent  countries,  respectively. 


DEBATES  OF  CONGKESS. 


51 


APRIL,  1818.] 


British  West  India  Trade. 


[SENATE. 


venience,  they  will  not  disturb  a  beneficial  inter- 
course between  their  people  and  a  foreign  coun- 
try, they  ought  not  to  omit  the  interposition  of 
their  corrective  authority,  whenever  an  impor- 
tant public  interest  is  invaded,  or  the  national 
reputation  affected.  "It  is  good  not  to  try 
experiments  in  states,  unless  the  necessity  be 
urgent,  -or  the  utility  evident;  and  well  to 
beware,  that  it  be  the  reformation  that  draweth 
on  the  change,  and  not  the  desire  of  change 
that  pretendelth  the  reformation." 

In  this  case,  the  importance  of  the  reforma- 
tion is  seen  and  acknowledged  by  every  one, 
and  the  delay  that  has  occurred  in  the  making 
of  it  may  call  for  explanation. 

We  are  unable  to  state  with  accuracy  the 
tonnage  and  seamen  employed  before  the  Rev- 
olution, in  the  trade  between  the  territories  of 
the  United  States  and  the  other  English  colo- 
nies, but  it  is  known  to  have  been  a  principal 
branch  of  the  American  navigation. 

The  colonies  that  England  has  since  acquired 
from  France,  Spain,  and  Holland,  together  with 
the  increased  population  of  the  old  colonies,  re- 
quire more  ships  and  seamen  to  be  employed  in 
the  trade  now  than  were  engaged  in  it  before 
the  independence  of  the  United  States. 

Without  reference  to  the  tonnage  and  trade 
between  the  United  States  and  the  English 
West  India  colonies,  during  the  late  wars  be- 
tween England  and  France,  which,  by  reason 
of  the  suspension  of  the  English  navigation  act, 
and  the  neutrality  of  the  United  States,  will 
afford  no  standard  by  which  the  tonnage  and 
trade  of  peace  can  be  ascertained,  the  present 
custom-house  returns  are  the  best  documents 
that  we  can  consult  upon  this  subject.  Accord- 
ing to  a  late  report  from  the  Department  of  the 
Treasury,  the  tonnage  employed  in  this  trade 
during  the  year  1816,  which  may  be  taken  as 
an  average,  amounted  to  one  hundred  and  two 
thousand  tons,  requiring  between  five  and  six 
thousand  seamen.  There  may  be  some  error  in 
this  return,  though  we  are  not  able  to  detect 
it ;  the  magnitude  and  importance  of  the  ship- 
ping and  seamen  engaged  in  this  trade,  will  be 
more  readily  understood  by  comparison  than 
otherwise.  The  tonnage  thus  employed  ex- 
ceeds the  whole  tonnage  employed  by  the  Eng- 
lish East  India  Company  in  its  trade  with  Asia; 
is  nearly  a  moiety  of  the  American  and  Engh'sh 
tonnage  employed  between  the  United  States 
and  England,  and  her  possessions  in  Europe; 
is  equal  to  the  American  tonnage  employed  be- 
tween the  United  States  and  England,  and  is 
almost  an  eighth  part  of  the  whole  registered 
tonnage  of  the  United  States. 

To  the  loss  of  profits,  which  would  accrue 
from  an  equal  participation  in  this  trade,  may 
be  added  the  loss  of  an  equal  share  of  the  freights 
1  made  by  the  vessels  engaged  in  it ;  the  amount 
whereof  must  be  equal  to  two  millions  of  dol- 
lars, annually.  Other  advantages  are  enjoyed 
by  England,  by  the  possession  of  the  exclusive 
navigation  between  the  United  States  and  her 
colonies,  and  between  them  and  England. 


Freights  are  made  by  English  vessels  between 
England  and  the  United  States,  between  them 
and  the  English  colonies,  as  well  as  between 
those  colonies  and  England.  English  voyages 
are  thus  made  on  the  three  sides  of  the  triangle, 
while  those  of  the  United  States  are  confined 
to  one  side  of  it,  that  between  the  United  States 
and  England. 

The  documents  that  have  been  communicated 
to  the  Senate,  by  the  Chairman  of  the  Commit- 
tee of  Foreign  Relations,  (Mr.  BAEBOTTE,)  satis- 
factorily prove  that  we  are  independent  of  the 
English  colonies  for  a  supply  of  sugar  and  coffee 
for  our  own  consumption ;  our  annual  re-expor- 
tation of  these  articles  exceeding  the  quantity 
of  them  annually  imported  from  the  Engh'sh 
colonies ;  and,  in  respect  to  rum,  the  other  ar- 
ticle imported  from  these  colonies,  its  exclusion 
will  be  the  loss  to  England  of  its  best  and  al- 
most only  market ;  and  its  place  will  be  readily 
supplied  by  other  foreign  rum  and  by  brandy ; 
or,  which  is  more  probable,  by  domestic  spirits 
distilled  from  grain. 

The  exports  from  the  United  States  to  the 
English  West  India  colonies  have  been  esti- 
mated at  four  millions  of  dollars  annually ;  the 
problem  has  been  disputed  ever  since  the  inde- 
pendence of  the  United  States,  and  still  remains 
to  be  solved,  whether  these  colonies  could  ob- 
tain from  any  other  quarter  the  supplies  re- 
ceived from  the  United  States.  To  make  this 
experiment  effectually,  further  restrictions  and 
regulations  may  become  necessary,  which  it  is 
not  now  deemed  expedient  to  propose.  If 
the  question  be  decided  in  the  negative,  the 
supplies  will  be  continued  from  the  United 
States,  and  our  shipping  will  be  benefited. 

If  the  articles  heretofore  supplied  from  this 
country  can  be  obtained  elsewhere,  we  must 
find  out  other  markets  for  our  exports,  or  the 
labor  employed  in  preparing  them  must  be  ap- 

Elied  to  some  other  branch  of  industry.  We 
ave  the  power,  and  hereafter  it  may  become 
our  policy,  as  it  is  that  of  other  countries,  to 
resort  to  a  regulation,  the  effect  of  which 
would  go  far  to  balance  any  disadvantage 
arising  from  the  loss  of  the  English  colonial 
markets.  We  import  annually  upwards  of  six 
millions  of  gallons  of  West  India  mm,  more 
than  half  of  which  comes  from  the  English 
colonies;  we  also  import,  every  year,  nearly 
seven  millions  of  gallons  of  molasses :  as  every 
gallon  of  molasses  yields,  by  distillation,  a  gal- 
lon of  rum ;  the  rum  imported,  added  to  that 
distilled  from  imported  molasses,  is  probably 
equal  to  twelve  millions  of  gallons,  -which  enor- 
mous quantity  is  chiefly  consumed  by  citizens 
of  the  United  States. 

But  why  has  a  measure  of  this  importance 
been  so  long  deferred  ?  The  explanation  which 
this  question  requires  cannot  be  made  without 
some  reference  to  the  history  of  our  communi- 
cations with  England  since  the  peace  of  1783. 
as  well  as  to  the  views  and  policy  of  men  and 
parties  that  have  in  succession  influenced  our 
public  affairs. 


ABKIDGMENT  OF  THE 


SENATE.] 


British  West  India  Trade. 


[APRIL,  1818. 


As,  according  to  the  powers  of  England,  not- 
withstanding the  acknowledgment  of  our  inde- 
pendence, neither  trade  nor  intercourse  could 
be  carried  on  between  the  United  States  and 
her  dominions,  it  became  necessary  after  the 
treaty  of  peace  to  pass  some  act  whereby  this 
trade  and  intercourse  might  be  prosecuted,  a 
bill  for  this  purpose  was  introduced  into  the 
House  of  Commons  by  the  Administration 
which  concluded  the  treaty  of  peace  with  the 
United  States.  The  general  scope  and  provi- 
sions of  the  bill  correspond  with  the  liberal 
principles  which  were  manifested  in  the  treaty 
of  peace.  They  plainly  show  that  the  authors 
of  this  bill  understood  that  the  true  basis  of  the 
trade  and  intercourse  between  nations  is  reci- 
procity of  benefit;  a  foundation  on  which 
alone  the  friendly  intercourse  between  men  and 
nations  can  be  permanently  established.  The 
preamble  of  this  bill  declares  "that  it  was 
highly  expedient  that  the  intercourse  between 
Great  Britain  and  the  United  States  should  be 
established  on  the  most  enlarged  principles  of 
reciprocal  benefit  to  both  countries ; "  and  as, 
from  the  distance  between  them,  it  would  be  a 
considerable  time  before  a  treaty  of  commerce, 
placing  their  trade  and  intercourse  on  a  perma- 
nent foundation,  could  be  concluded,  the  bill, 
for  the  purpose  of  a  temporary  regulation 
thereof,  provided,  that  American  vessels  should 
be  admitted  into  the  ports  of  Great  Britain,  as 
those  of  other  independent  States,  and  that 
their  cargoes  should  be  liable  to  the  same  duties 
only  as  the  same  merchandise  would  be  subject 
to  if  the  same  were  the  property  of  British 
subjects,  and  imported  in  British  vessels ;  and, 
further,  that  the  vessels  of  the  United  States 
should  be  admitted  into  the  English  plantations 
and  colonies  in  America,  with  any  articles  the 
growth  or  manufacture  of  the  United  States, 
and  with  liberty  to  export  from  such  colonies 
and  plantations  to  the  United  States  any  mer- 
chandise whatsoever,  subject  to  the  same  duties 
only  as  if  the  property  of  British  subjects, 
and  imported  or  exported  in  British  vessels ; 
allowing,  also,  the  same  bounties,  drawbacks, 
and  exemptions,  on  goods  exported  from  Great 
Britain  to  the  United  States  in  American  ves- 
sels, as  on  the  like  exportation  in  British  ves- 
sels to  the  English  colonies  and  plantations. 

The  persons  benefited  by  the  English  exclu- 
sive system  of  trade  and  navigation  were  put  in 
motion  by  this  bill,  which  was  earnestly  op- 
posed, and,  after  a  variety  of  discussion,  post- 
poned or  rejected.  About  this  period  Mr.  Pitt, 
who  had  supported  this  bill  in  the  House  of 
Commons,  resigned  his  office  of  Chancellor  of 
the  Exchequer,  as  his  colleagues  in  Lord  Shel- 
burne's  administration  had  before  done.  The 
coalition  administration  that  succeeded  intro- 
duced a  new  bill,  which  became  a  law,  vesting 
in  the  King  and  Council  authority  to  make  such 
temporary  regulations  of  the  American  navi- 
gation and  trade  as  should  be  deemed  expe- 
dient. 

Sundry  Orders  in  Council  were  accordingly 


made,  whereby  a  trade  and  intercourse  in 
American  and  English  vessels  between  the 
United  States  and  Great  Britain  were  allowed  ; 
and,  with  the  exception  of  fish  oil,  and  one  or 
two  other  articles,  the  produce  of  the  United 
States,  imported  into  Great  Britain,  was  admit- 
ted freely,  or  subject  to  the  duties  payable  on 
the  like  articles  imported  in  English  vessels 
from  the  American  colonies. 

An  intercourse  and  a  trade  in  enumerated 
articles  were  also  opened  between  the  United 
States  and  the  English  West  India  colonies,  but 
with  a  proviso,  (the  principle  whereof  is  still 
maintained  against  us,)  whereby  American  ves- 
sels were  excluded,  and  the  whole  trade  con- 
fined to  English  vessels. 

After  a  periodical  renewal  of  these  orders 
for  several  years,  the  regulations  that  they  con- 
tained were  adopted  by,  and  became  an  act  of, 
Parliament.  This  act  was  afterwards  modified, 
and  rendered  conformable  to  the  provision  of 
Mr.  Jay's  treaty,  the  commercial  articles  of 
which  expired  in  the  year  1803 — not  long  after 
which  date  England  passed  a  new  act  of  Par- 
liament concerning  the  American  navigation 
and  trade.  This  act  maintains  the  exclusion  of 
American  vessels  from  the  intercourse  between 
the  United  States  and  the  English  colonies,  and 
confines  the  same,  as  former  acts  and  Orders  in 
Council  had  done,  to  English  vessels ;  it  re- 
pealed the  settlement  of  duties  pursuant  to  Mr. 
Jay's  treaty ;  and,  giving  up  the  policy  of  the 
enlarged  and  liberal  system  of  intercourse 
which  had  been  proposed  in  Mr.  Pitt's  bill,  it 
repealed  such  parts  of  all  former  acts  and 
orders  as  admitted  the  productions  of  the 
United  States,  either  freely,  or,  on  paying  the 
same  duties  only  as  were  payable  on  the  like 
articles  imported  from  the  English  colonies  and 
plantations ;  and  placed  all  articles  the  produce 
of  the  United  States,  imported  in  American 
vessels,  on  the  same  footing  as  the  like  articles 
imported  in  foreign  ships  from  other  foreign 
countries.  This  new  footing  of  our  trade  with 
England,  the  importance  whereof  is  well  under- 
stood by  those  who  are  engaged  in  supplying 
her  markets  with  masts,  spars,  timber,  naval 
stores,  and  pot  and  pearl  ashes,  may  be  regarded 
as  decisive  evidence  of  a  complete  change  of 
policy  concerning  the  American  trade  and  in- 
tercourse— which,  however  unsatisfactory,  as 
respected  the  colonial  trade,  has  become  more 
so  by  the  foregoing  provision  of  this  act  of  Par- 
liament. 

The  policy  that  manifested  itself  in  the  treaty 
of  our  independence,  and  which  is  seen  in  the 
bill  to  regulate  the  trade  and  intercourse  be- 
tween England  and  the  United  States,  prepared 
by  the  Administration  that  made  the  Treaty  of 
Peace,  was  to  unite  in  a  firm  bond  of  friend- 
ship, by  the  establishment  of  trade  and  inter- 
course on  the  solid  basis  of  reciprocal  benefit,  a 
people  politically  separate,  living  under  differ- 
ent governments,  but  having  a  common  origin, 
a  common  language,  a  common  law,  and  kindred 
blood ;  circumstances  so  peculiar,  as  not  to  be 


DEBATES  OF  CONGRESS. 


53 


APRIL,  1818.] 


British  West  India  Trade. 


[SENATE. 


found  between  any  other  nation.  Instead  of 
this  policy,  one  of  a  different  sort  is  preferred — 
one  that  England  has  a  right  to  prefer ;  and 
against  the  many  evils  of  which,  we  must  pro- 
tect ourselves  as  well  as  we  are  able  to  do.  The 
intricate,  countervailing  and  perplexing  code  of 
commercial  intercourse,  founded  in  jealousy, 
and  the  rival  establishments  and  pursuits  of  the 
powers  of  Europe  bordering  upon,  and  con- 
stantly interfering  with  each  other,  has  been 
adopted  and  applied  to  the  United  States — a 
people,  agricultural  more  than  manufacturing 
or  commercial,  placed  in  another  quarter  of  the 
globe,  cultivating,  and  proposing  to  others,  an 
open  system  of  trade  and  intercourse ;  and 
herein,  as  in  many  other  important  discrimina- 
tions, differing  from  the  nations  of  Europe, 
and  therefore  not  fit  subjects  to  which  these 
restrictive  and  jealous  regulations  are  applica- 
ble. 

Our  policy  is,  and  ever  has  been,  a  different 
one.  We  desire  peace  with  all  nations;  and 
the  wars  of  maritime  Europe  have  taught  us 
that  a  free  system  of  trade  and  intercourse 
would  be  the  best  means  of  preserving  it. 

With  these  principles  as  our  guide,  at  the  ne- 
gotiation of  the  Treaty  of  Peace  in  1783,  our 
Ministers  were  authorized  to  conclude  a  treaty 
of  commerce  with  England  on  this  basis ;  but 
no  treaty  was  concluded.  Afterwards,  and 
when  a  temporary  trade  and  intercourse  were 
opened  by  England,  looking,  as  we  supposed, 
to  a  treaty  of  commerce,  Congress  instructed 
Messrs.  Adams,  Franklin,  and  Jefferson,  to  re- 
new the  overture  of  a  treaty  of  commerce, 
which  was  done  through  the  English  Ambas- 
sador at  Paris,  in  the  year  1784 ;  but  no  cor- 
respondent disposition  being  shown  by  England, 
this  second  overture  failed. 

The  interest  and  prejudice  of  those  who  were 
benefited  by  the  monopolies  and  exclusive  sys- 
tem of  England,  were  opposed  to  any  treaty 
with  this  country,  on  the  principle  of  reciprocal 
advantage.  The  political  writers  of  that  day, 
under  the  influence  of  these  partial  views,  or 
not  sufficiently  appreciating  the  true  theory  of 
commerce,  contended  that  it  would  be  folly  to 
enter  into  engagements  by  which  England 
might  not  wish  to  be  found  in  future;  that 
such  engagements  would  be  gratuitous ;  as,  ac- 
cording to  their  interpretation,  Congress  pos- 
sessed no  power,  under  the  confederation,  to 
enforce  any  stipulation  into  which  they  might 
enter ;  that  no  treaty  that  could  be  made  would 
suit  all  the  States  ;  if  any  were  necessary,  they 
should  be  made  with  the  States  separately  ;  but 
that  none  was  necessary ;  and  those  who  talked 
of  liberality  and  reciprocity  in  commercial 
affairs,  were  either  without  argument  or  knowl- 
edge ;  that  the  object  of  England  was,  not  re- 
ciprocity and  liberality,  but  to  raise  as  many 
sailors  and  as  much  shipping  as  possible.* 

This  unequal  footing  of  our  foreign  com- 
merce, and  the  language  made  use  of  by  Eng- 


*  Sheffield,  Chalmers,  and  Knox. 


land  at  this  juncture,  served  still  more  to  in- 
crease the  public  discontent;  especially  as  it 
was  plainly  avowed  that  England  ought  to  ren- 
der the  trade  with  us  as  exclusively  advan- 
tageous to  herself  as  her  power  would  enable 
her  to  do.  Congress  having  no  power,  under 
the  Confederation,  to  impose  countervailing 
and  other  corrective  regulations  of  trade,  the 
States  separately  attempted  to  establish  regula- 
tions upon  this  subject.  But,  as  a  part  only  of 
the  States  joined  in  this  measure,  and  as  the 
laws  that  were  passed  for  this  purpose  differed 
from  each  other,  the  experiment  completely 
failed. 

In  this  condition  of  our  navigation  and  trade, 
subject  to  foreign  restrictions  and  exclusion, 
without  a  power  at  home  to  countervail  and 
check  the  same,  Congress  resolved  to  make  an- 
other effort  to  conclude  a  commercial  treaty 
with  England.  For  this  purpose  Mr.  Adams, 
since  President  of  the  United  States,  was  ap- 
pointed, and  went  to  England.  Mr.  Adams 
resided  in  England  for  several  years ;  but  found 
and  left  the  Government  unchanged,  and  equally 
as  before  disinclined  to  make  with  us  a  treaty 
of  commerce. 

This  further  disappointment,  with  the  depre- 
ciating condition  of  our  navigation  and  trade, 
joined  to  the  embarrassment  of  the  public 
finances,  produced  what  no  inferior  pressure 
could  have  done  ;  it  produced  the  General  Con- 
vention of  1787,  that  formed  the  Constitution 
of  the  United  States. 

Had  England  entered  into  a  liberal  treaty  of 
commerce  with  the  United  States,  this  conven- 
tion would  not  have  been  assembled.  Without 
so  intending  it,  the  adherence  of  England  to 
her  unequal  and  exclusive  system  of  trade  and 
navigation,  gave  to  this  country  a  constitution ; 
and  the  countervailing  and  equalizing  bill  now 
before  the  Senate,  arising  from  the  same  cause, 
may  assist  us  in  establishing  and  extending 
those  great  branches  of  national  wealth  and 
power,  which  we  have  such  constant  and  urgent 
motives  to  encourage. 

The  establishment  of  the  Constitution  of  the 
United  States  was  coe"  val  with  the  commence- 
ment of  the  French  Kevolution.  The  sessions 
of  the  General  Convention  at  Philadelphia,  and 
of  the  Assembly  of  Notables  at  Paris,  were  in 
the  same  year. 

Laws  were  passed  by  the  first  Congress  as- 
sembled under  the  new  constitution,  partially 
to  correct  the  inequality  of  our  navigation  and 
trade  with  foreign  nations;  and  a  small  dis- 
crimination in  duties  of  impost  and  tonnage 
was  made  for  this  purpose. 

Afterwards,  in  the  year  1794,  a  number  of 
resolutions  on  the  subject  of  navigation  and 
trade  were  moved  in  the  House  of  Representa- 
tives, by  a  distinguished  member  of  that  body. 
These  resolutions  had  a  special  reference  to  the 
refusal  of  England  to  enter  into  an  equal  com- 
mercial treaty  with  us,  aimed  at  countervailing 
her  exclusive  system.  Other  and  more  direct 
resolutions,  bearing  on  England,  were  also  pro- 


54 


ABRIDGMENT  OF  THE 


British  West  India  Trade. 


[APRIL,  1818 


posed  by  other  members,  and  referred  to  the 
inexecution  of  the  Treaty  of  Peace,  and  to  the 
recent  captures  of  American  vessels  by  English 
cruisers,  in  the  American  seas. 

The  policy  of  these  resolutions  was  doubted  ; 
they  were  therefore  strenuously  opposed,  and 
the  extraordinary  mission  of  Mr.  Jay  to  Eng- 
land suspended  their  further  discussion. 

The  French  Kevolution  had  by  this  time  be- 
come the  subject  of  universal  attention.  War 
had  broken  out  between  France  and  England. 
The  avowed  policy  of  our  own  Government  to 
avoid  war,  and  to  adhere  to  a  system  of  neu- 
trality, was  much  questioned ;  and  for  a  time  it 
was  matter  of  great  uncertainty  whether  the 
country  would  support  the  neutrality  recom- 
mended by  the  President. 

The  universal  dissatisfaction,  on  account  of 
the  commercial  system  of  England,  the  inexe- 
cution of  the  articles  of  peace,  the  numerous 
captures  by  orders  of  the  French  Government, 
of  our  vessels,  employed  in  a  trade  strictly  neu- 
tral, combined  with  our  friendly  recollections 
of  the  services  of  France,  and  our  good  wishes 
in  favor  of  the  effort  she  professed  to  be 
making  to  establish  a  free  constitution,  consti- 
tuted a  crisis  most  difficult  and  important. 

It  was  in  these  circumstances  that  President 
WASHINGTON  nominated  Mr.  Jay  as  Envoy  to 
England.  The  Senate  confirmed  the  nomina- 
tion, and  the  immediate  effect  was,  the  sus- 
pension of  the  further  discussion  of  the  impor- 
tant resolutions  before  the  House  of  Repre- 
sentatives. 

England  seems  never  to  have  duly  appre- 
ciated the  true  character  and  importance  of 
this  extraordinary  measure.  France  well  un- 
derstood and  resented  it.  Mr.  Jay  was  received 
with  civility,  and  concluded  a  treaty  with  Eng- 
land on  all  the  points  of  his  instructions.  When 
published,  it  met  with  great  opposition.  The 
article  respecting  the  West  India  trade  had 
been  excluded  from  the  treaty  by  the  Senate, 
by  reason  of  the  inadmissible  condition  or  pro- 
viso that  was  coupled  with  it — with  this  excep- 
tion, it  was  finally  ratified  by  the  President. 

Although  the  treaty  did  not  come  up  to  the 
expectation  of  all,  in  addition  to  the  satisfac- 
tory arrangements  concerning  English  debts, 
the  unlawful  capture  and  condemnation  of  our 
vessels,  and  the  delivery  of  the  ports,  points  of 
very  great  importance,  it  contained  articles 
regulating  the  trade,  navigation,  and  maritime 
rights  of  the  two  countries.  No  treaty  that 
could  have  been  made  with  England  would,  in 
the  highly  excited  temper  of  the  country,  have 
satisfied  it.  But,  to  those  whose  object  it  was 
to  prevent  the  country  from  taking  part  in  the 
war  between  France  and  England,  and  to  pre- 
vail upon  it  to  adhere  to  a  system  of  impartial 
neutrality ;  who,  moreover,  believed,  that  the 
safety,  and  even  liberties  of  the  country  were 
concerned  in  the  adoption  of  this  course,  the 
treaty  proved  a  welcome  auxiliary. 

It  suspended  the  further  agitation  of  difficult 
and  angry  topics  of  controversy  with  England ; 


it  enabled  the  Government  to  persist  in,  and  ta 
maintain,  the  system  of  neutrality  which  had 
been  recommended  by  the  Father  of  his  Coun- 
try— a  policy,  the  correctness  and  benefits  of 
which,  whatever  may  have  been  the  disagree- 
ment of  opinion  among  the  public  men  of  those 
times,  that  will  now  scarcely  be  doubted. 

During  the  continuance  of  this  treaty,  further 
though  ineffectual  attempts  were  made  to  es- 
tablish a  satisfactory  intercourse  with  the  Eng- 
lish colonies  in  the  West  Indies,  and,  likewise, 
to  place  the  subject  of  impressment  on  a  mutu- 
ally safe  and  equitable  footing. 

The  commercial  articles  of  this  treaty  expired 
in  1804,  no  proposal  having  been  made  to  re- 
new them.  A  subsequent  negotiation  took 
place,  but  nothing  was  definitively  concluded. 
The  peace  of  Amiens  was  of  short  duration. 
Another  war  took  place  between  France  and 
England ;  no  maritime  treaty  existed  between 
the  United  States  and  England ;  and  the  man- 
ner in  which  England  exercised  her  power  on 
the  ocean  ;  the  great  interruption  of  the  navi- 
gation and  trade  of  neutral  nations ;  the  nu- 
merous captures  of  their  ships  and  cargoes  under 
the  retaliatory  decrees  and  orders  of  France  and 
England,  with  other  vexatious  occurrences,  re- 
vived the  former  angry  feelings  towards  Eng- 
land, and  greatly  contributed  to  the  late  war 
with  that  nation. 

This  war  was  closed  not  long  after  the  con- 
clusion of  the  general  peace  in  Europe ;  and  the 
Treaty  of  Ghent  was  followed  by  a  meagre 
commercial  convention,  made  at  London,  and 
limited,  in  its  duration,  to  a  few  years  only. 

Neither  the  spirit  of  the  negotiation,  nor  the 
scope  of  the  articles,  afford  any  evidence  that 
England  is  inclined  to  treat  with  this  country 
on  the  only  principle  on  which  a  commercial 
treaty  with  her  can  be  desirable.  Her  decision 
on  this  point  seems  to  be  beyond  question,  as 
our  latest  communications  inform  us  that  her 
ancient  system  will  not  be  changed  ;  and,  in 
case  we  are  dissatisfied  with  its  operation,  that 
England  has  no  objection  to  our  taking  any  such 
measures  concerning  the  same,  as  we  may  deem 
expedient — an  intimation  that  puts  an  end  to 
further  overtures  on  our  part.  Such  is  the  ex- 
planation why  the  measure  now  proposed  has 
been  so  long  deferred. 

During  the  Confederation,  Congress  were 
without  power  to  adopt  it. 

The  treaty  concluded  by  Mr.  Jay,  1794,  the 
relaxation  of  the  navigation  and  colonial  laws, 
during  the  war  between  France  and  England, 
and  the  advantages  derived  from  our  neutral 
trade  while  this  war  continued,  rendered  the 
measure  inexpedient  during  this  period. 

And  the  expectation  since  entertained  that  a 
more  enlarged  and  equal  treaty  of  commerce 
and  navigation,  applicable  in  its  .provisions  to 
peace  as  well  as  war,  might  be  substituted  in 
place  of  the  present  commercial  convention, 
has  hitherto  suspended  the  interference  of  Con- 


This  expectation  must  be  given  up ;  England 


DEBATES  OF  CONGRESS. 


55 


APRIL,  1818.] 


Bank  of  the  United  States. 


[SENATE. 


has  apprised  us  of  her  decision  to  adhere  to  her 
ancient  and  exclusive  system  of  trade  and  navi- 
gation, and  the  only  alternative  before  us,  is  to 
submit  to  the  regulation  of  our  own  navigation 
by  England,  or  to  interpose  the  authority  of  the 
constitution  to  countervail  the  same.  There 
can  be  no  hesitation  hi  the  choice. 

The  bill  before  the  Senate,  is  in  nothing  un- 
friendly towards  England — it  is  merely  a  com- 
mercial regulation,  to  which  we  are  even  in- 
vited; a  measure  strictly  of  self-defence,  and 
intended  to  protect  the  legitimate  resources  of 
our  own  country  from  being  any  longer  made 
use  of,  not  as  they  should  be,  for  our  benefit, 
but  to  increase  and  strengthen  the  resources  and 
power  of  a  foreign  nation. 

Mr.  MACON  spoke  in  support  of  the  bill ;  after 
which — 

The  question,  "Shall  the  bill  be  engrossed 
and  read  a  third  time  ?"  was  taken,  and  deter- 
mined in  the  affirmative — yeas  32,  nay  1,  as 
follows : 

YEAS.— Messrs.  Barbour,  Burrill,  Crittenden,  Dag- 
gett,  Dickerson,  Fromentin,  Gaillard,  Goldsborough, 
Horsey,  Hunter,  Johnson,  King,  Lacock,  Leake,  Ma- 
con,  Morrill,  Morrow,  Noble,  Otis,  Roberts,  Ruggles, 
Sanford,  Smith,  Stokes,  Storer,  Tait,  Talbot,  Taylor, 
Tichenor,  Van  Dyke,  Williams  of  Mississippi,  and 
Williams  of  Tennessee. 

NAY.— Mr.  Eppes.* 

THUBSDAY,  April  9. 

SAMTTEL  "W.  DANA,  from  the  State  of  Connec- 
ticut, took  his  seat  in  the  Senate. 

On  motion  by  Mr.  BABBOUB,  it  was  unani- 
mously agreed  to  suspend  the  third  rule  for  con- 
ducting business  in  the  Senate,  as  it  respects  the 
honorable  Mr.  DANA,  to  wit :  "  Every  member 
when  he  speaks  shall  address  the  Chair,  stand- 
ing in  his  place,  and  when  he  has  finished  shall 
sit  down." 

Bank  of  the  United  States — Application  for  Au- 
thority to  appoint  Persons  to  sign  its  Notes. 

Mr.  CAMPBELL,  from  the  same  committee,  to 
whom  was  recommended  the  memorial  of  the 
President  and  Directors  of  the  Bank  of  the 
United  States,  reported  a  bill  supplementary  to 
the  act,  entitled  u  An  act  to  incorporate  the  sub- 
scribers to  the  Bank  of  the  United  States,"  and 
the  bill  was  read  twice  by  unanimous  consent, 
and  considered  as  in  Committee  of  the  Whole ; 
and  no  amendment  having  been  made  thereto, 


*  As  revolted  colonies,  we  lost  the  rights  of  trade  with 
the  British  dominions,  and  at  the  restoration  of  peace  it 
was  found  impracticable  to  recover  the  right  in  full— the 
trade  to  her  colonies  being  the  exception,  and  the  direct 
trade  to  her  West  Indies  totally  interdicted.  Negotiation, 
though  tried  under  every  President,  failed  to  obtain  it: 
legislation  was  resorted  to,  of  which  thla  bill  was  one  in- 
stance, but  still  without  effect  The  interdiction  remained 
until  the  year  1880,  when,  under  the  administration  of  Pres- 
ident Jackson,  it  was  removed,  and  the  direct  trade  with 
the  British  West  Indies  placed  upon  the  Just  and  fair  prin- 
ciples of  reciprocity  which  have  prevailed  ever  since. 


the  PRESIDENT  reported  it  to  the  House ;  and 
the  bill  was  amended.  Mr.  C.  also  laid  on  the 
table  the  following  document : 

TREASURY  DEPARTMENT,  April  7,  1818. 

SIR  :  I  have  been  informed  by  the  President  of  the 
Bank  of  the  United  States,  that  the  board  of  directors 
have  applied  to  the  Congress  of  the  United  States  for 
permission  to  issue  bills  and  notes  signed  by  other 
persons  than  the  president  and  cashier  of  the  bank. 
The  intimate  connection  which  necessarily  exists  be- 
tween that  institution  and  the  department  of  the  Ex- 
ecutive Government  confided  to  my  direction,  may 
render  it  excusable  on  my  part  to  present  to  the  Com- 
mittee on  Finance,  under  whose  consideration  the 
subject  has  been  placed  by  the  Senate,  some  of  the 
reasons  which  appear  to  be  necessarily  connected 
with  the  application.  It  is  not  my  intention  to  urge 
the  sanction  of  the  committee  to  the  particular  modi- 
fication sought  by  the  bank.  I  shall  attempt  only  to 
satisfy  the  committee  that,  under  the  existing  provi- 
sions of  the  charter,  as  construed  by  the  corporation, 
it  is  impossible  to  put  into  circulation  an  amount  of 
bills  of  suitable  denominations  to  supply  the  necessary 
and  indispensable  demands  of  the  community. 

The  president  and  cashier  of  the  bank  have  to  sign 
and  countersign  all  the  bills  of  the  bank  and  of  its 
various  offices.  They  have,  in  addition  to  the  ordi- 
nary duties  of  president  and  cashier  of  a  bank,  to 
perform  all  the  duties  of  commissioners  of  loans  for 
the  State  of  Pennsylvania,  and  of  agents  for  the  pay- 
ment of  pensioners  of  every  description  for  that  State. 
They  are  necessarily  charged  with  the  general  super- 
intendence of  all  the  offices  established  by  the  bank, 
from  the  District  of  Maine  to  the  State  of  Louisiana, 
involving  a  most  extensive  correspondence,  and  im- 
posing upon  them  an  examination  of  the  weekly  re- 
turns of  those  offices.  This  examination  is  neces- 
sarily imposed  upon  those  officers,  who  are  bound  to 
watch  over  the  interests  of  the  bank  generally,  and 
to  supply  the  wants  of  the  different  officers ;  to  trans- 
mit specie  where  there  is  a  demand  for  it,  and  to 
withdraw  it  from  points  where,  from  the  course  of 
trade  or  other  causes,  it  may  have  temporarily  accu- 
mulated. The  duty  of  transmitting  the  public  funds 
wherever  required  within  the  United  States  demands 
and  receives  their  unremitted  attention.  From  the 
view  here  presented  of  the  various  and  important 
duties  assigned  to  them  by  the  charter,  many  of 
which  are  so  intimately  connected  with  the  Govern- 
ment as  to  constitute  them  highly  important  officers, 
it  will  be  readily  perceived  that  but  a  very  small  por- 
tion of  their  time  can  be  devoted  to  the  mechanical 
labor  of  signing  bills  and  notes.  It  may,  indeed,  be 
said  that  the  corporation,  having  the  power  of  ap- 
pointing such  officers  and  servants  as  the  interest  of 
the  institution  may  require,  may  appoint  other  offi- 
cers, who  may  be  charged  with  the  superintendence 
of  the  interests  of  the  institution  generally,  and  of 
course  with  the  correspondence  and  distribution  of 
the  capital  of  the  bank  among  the  different  offices, 
according  to  their  various  wants  and  necessities  aris- 
ing out  of  the  course  of  trade,  or  any  other  cause. 
Such  a  course  might,  indeed,  be  pursued ;  but  it 
would  be  an  entire  inversion  of  the  established  prin- 
ciple of  action,  not  only  in  institutions  of  this  nature, 
but  of  right  reason,  when  applied  to  all  associations 
whatsoever. 

The  signing  of  bills  and  notes  is  a  mere  me- 
chanical act.  The  superintendence  of  an  institu- 
tion so  extensive  and  complicated,  intimately  con- 


ABRIDGMENT  OF  THE 


SENATE.] 


Proceedings. 


1818. 


nected  not  only  with  the  Government,  but  with  all 
the  wants  and  conveniences  of  society,  especially  in- 
fluencing in  a  very  high  degree  the  commercial 
transactions  of  the  nation,  requires  intellects  of  more 
than  ordinary  elevation,  and  information  as  various 
as  the  wants  and  conveniences  of  civilized  society. 
To  metamorphose  the  highest  officers  of  the  institu- 
tion into  mere  machines,  the  operations  of  which  are 
to  he  confined  to  tracing  certain  characters  infinitely 
repeated,  whilst  subordinate  officers  or  servants  are 
invested  with  duties  requiring  the  highest  order  of 
intellect  and  the  most  extensive  degree  of  informa- 
tion, would  indeed  be  an  inversion  of  the  established 
ideas  of  the  moral  fitness  of  things. 

It  is  not  my  intention,  nor  is  it  the  wish  of  the 
bank,  to  relieve  the  president  and  cashier  from  the 
mechanical  labor  of  signing  bills.  This  duty  will 
always  be  performed  by  them,  as  far  as  a  due  atten- 
tion to  their  other  and  more  important  duties  will 
permit 

The  reasons  and  facts  which  I  have  presented,  in 
order  to  prove  that  it  is  impossible  for  the  president 
and  cashier  to  sign  the  bills  necessary  to  the  wants 
and  convenience  of  the  community,  are  supported  by 
the  experience  of  the  bank.  Twenty  offices  have 
been  established,  and  applications  for  others  remain 

with  bills  for  circulation.  Two  of  those  which  were 
organized  more  than  six  months  back,  have  not  yet 
been  supplied  with  bills  to  commence  operations. 
Several  of  those  established  in  the  Western  country 
have  been  so  scantily  supplied  as  to  render  their 
operations  extremely  circumscribed.  That  estab- 
lished at  Augusta,  in  Georgia,  will  probably  be 
abandoned,  on  account  of  the  impossibility  of  sup- 
plying it  with  bills  to  make  the  employment  of  capi- 
tal profitable. 

I  remain,  with  sentiments  of  the  highest  respect, 
your  most  obedient  and  very  humble  servant, 

WM.  H.  CRAWFORD. 

Hon.  G.  W.  CAMPBELL,  Chairman  Com.  Finance. 


FBIDAY,  April  10. 
Statistics  of  the  United  States. 

Mr.  BAKBOTTB,  from  the  committee  to  whom 
was  referred  the  resolution  authorizing  a  sub- 
scription of  five  hundred  copies  of  Statistical 
Annals,  proposed  to  be  published  by  Adam  Sey- 
bert,  and  the  purchase  of  a  certain  number  of 
copies  of  a  Statistical  view  of  the  Commerce  of 
the  United  States,  by  Timothy  Pitkin,  made  a 
report,  accompanied  by  a  bill,  authorizing  a  sub- 
scription for  the  Statistical  Annals  by  Adam 
Seybert,  and  the  purchase  of  Pitkin's  Statistics ; 
and  the  report  and  bill  were  read,  and  the  bill 
passed  to  a  second  reading. 

The  report  is  as  follows : 

That  the  manuscript  of  Dr.  Seybert's  work  has 
been  submitted  to  their  inspection,  and,  in  their 
opinion,  it  combines  a  mass  of  various  and  valuable 
facts  and  materials,  collected  with  thorough  diligence 
from  authentic  documents,  lucidly  and  conveniently 
arranged  and  methodized.  Its  main  object  appears 
to  be  to  furnish  complete  information  as  to  the  past 
and  present  state  of  the  population,  navigation,  com- 
merce, manufactures,  army,  navy,  public  lands,  and 
finances  of  the  United  States,  and  a  series  of  impor- 


tant facts  in  relation  to  these  and  other  connected 
subjects,  is  condensed  into  tabular  forms  and  state- 
ments, exhibiting  in  one  view  an  entire  and  compara- 
tive history  of  each  subject.  To  this  work,  much 
time,  industry,  and  ability  must  have  been  devoted ; 
and  it  forms  a  vast  depository  of  information,  the  whole 
of  which  is  useful  and  interesting,  and  some  of  which, 
from  the  conflagration  of  the  public  offices,  and  other 
untoward  events,  is  now,  perhaps,  nowhere  else  pre- 
served. It  must  be  apparent,  then,  that  this  work 
must  be  deemed  necessary  and  acceptable  to  every 
functionary  of  the  Government  of  the  United  States, 
either  in  its  administrative  or  legislative  departments. 
It  was  principally  for  their  use  the  work  was  designed. 
It  will  expedite  and  facilitate  the  performance  of 
their  respective  duties,  and  it  is  therefore  natural  and 
proper  that  it  should  receive  their  protection  and  en- 
couragement. It  appears  to  the  committee  altogether 
hopeless  that  the  publication  of  these  Statistical  An- 
nals can  otherwise  be  obtained.  It  will  not  be  un- 
dertaken by  the  author  at  his  own  risk.  From  the 
variety  of  numerical  tables,  the  expense  of  printing 
would  considerably  exceed  that  of  ordinary  books ; 
and  as  profit  cannot  be  expected  from  the  sale  of  a 
work,  which,  from  its  nature,  can  never  be  in  a  cer- 
tain sense  popular,  there  is  no  inducement  to  stimu- 
late the  enterprise  of  a  bookseller.  Works  of  a 
similar  description  in  other  countries  have  frequently 
been  published  at  the  national  charge ;  and  surely 
there  is  something  in  the  nature  of  our  liberal  insti- 
tutions that  ought  to  induce  us,  as  freely  as  any 
other  nation,  to  give  publicity  to  all  we  have  done,  as 
fully  to  develop  the  principles  of  our  policy,  and  to 
ascertain  as  clearly  the  causes  of  our  prosperity. 
And  it  may  be  added,  that  the  best  mode  of  deriving 
benefit  from  experience,  of  rendering  what  is  valu- 
able in  onr  system  of  political  economy  permanent, 
and  of  reforming  what  is  injudicious  and  erroneous, 
can  best  be  suggested  by  a  systematic  collation  of 
the  facts  and  principles  on  which  that  system  is 
established. 

The  most  of  the  foregoing  remarks  are  likewise 
strictly  applicable  to  Mr.  Pitkin's  published  work, 
entitled  "Commercial  Statistics  of  the  United 
States."  It  is  a  work  of  undoubted  merit  and 
utility;  its  facts  are  drawn  from  authentic  official 
documents,  and  its  numerical  tables  and  calculations 
exhibit  great  industry  and  accuracy  of  research.  It 
is  understood  that,  intrinsically  valuable  as  this  work 
is,  it  has  produced  little  or  no  profit  to  the  publisher 
or  the  author ;  and  it  appears  to  the  committee  it 
would  be  unjust  and  ungrateful  to  distinguish  one  of 
these  works  by  the  praise  and  patronage  of  Congress, 
and  leave  the  other  unnoticed  and  unrewarded.  The 
committee  are  therefore  of  opinion  that  a  subscription 
for  both  these  works  ought  to  be  authorized,  and  re- 
port a  bill  for  that  purpose. 


SATTODAY,  April  11. 
Five  o'clock  in  the  Evening. 
On  motion  by  Mr.  MACOU,  a  committee  was 
appointed  on  the  part  of  the  Senate,  jointly  with 
such  committee  as  may  be  appointed  on  the 
part  of  the  House  of  Representatives,  to  wait 
on  the  President  of  the  United  States,  and  notify 
him  that,  unless  he  may  have  any  further  com- 
munication to  make  to  the  two  Houses  of  Con- 
gress, they  are  ready  to  adjourn.    Mr.  MACON 


DEBATES  OF  CONGRESS. 


57 


APRIL,  1818.] 


Proceedings. 


[SENATE. 


and  Mr.  KING  were  appointed  the  said  commit- 
tee. 

A  message  from  the  House  of  ^Representatives 
informed  the  Senate  that  the  House,  having 
finished  the  business  before  them,  are  about  to 
adjourn. 

Mr.  MACON  reported  from  the  joint  committee, 
that  they  had  waited  on  the  President  of  the 
Cnited  States,  who  informed  them  that  he  had 


no  further  communication  to  make  to  the  two 
Houses  of  Congress. 

Ordered,  That  the  Secretary  inform  the  House 
of  Representatives  that  the  Senate,  having 
finished  the  Legislative  business  before  them, 
are  about  to  adjourn. 

Whereupon,  the  PRESIDENT  adjourned  the 
Senate  to  meet  on  the  third  Monday  in  Novem- 
ber next. 


ABRIDGMENT  OF  THE 


H.  OF  R.] 


Proceedings. 


[DECEMBER,  1817. 


FIFTEENTH  CONGRESS -FIRST  SESSION, 


PROCEEDINGS  AND  DEBATES 


THE    HOUSE   OF    REPRESENTATIVES/ 


MONDAY,  December  1,  1817. 

This  being  the  day  appointed  by  the  Constitu- 
tion of  the  United  States  for  the  meeting  of 
Congress,  the  following  members  of  the  House 
of  Bepresentatives  appeared,  produced  their 
credentials,  and  took  their  seats,  to  wit :  i 

From  New  Hampshire— Josiah  Butler,  Clifton 
Clagett,  Salma  Hale,  Arthur  Livermore,  John  F. 
Parrott,  and  Nathaniel  Upham. 

From  Massachusetts — Benjamin  Adams,  Samuel  C. 


Allen,  Walter  Folger,  jr.,  Joshua  Gage,  John  Holmes, 
Marcus  Morton,  Jeremiah  Nelson,  Benjamin  Orr, 
Albion  K.  Parris,  Nathaniel  Ruggles,  Zabdiel  Samp- 
son, Henry  Shaw,  Nathaniel  Silsbee,  Solomon  Strong, 
and  Ezekiel  Whitman. 

From  Rhode  Island — John  L.  Boss,  jr. 

From  Connecticut — Uriel  Holmes,  Ebenezer  Hunt- 
ingdon, Jonathan  0.  Mosely,  Timothy  Pitkin,  Sam- 
uel B.  Sherwood,  Nathaniel  Terry,  and  Thomas  S. 
Williams. 

From  Vermont — Heman  Allen,  Samuel  C.  Crafts, 


*  LIST  OF  REPRESENTATIVES. 

New  ffamp*Mre.—Josla,h  Butler,  Clifton  Clagett,  Salma 
Hale,  Arthur  Livermore,  John  F.  Parrott,  Nahaniel  Up- 
ham. 

Massachusetts.— Benjamin  Adams,  Samuel  C.  Allen,  Tim- 
othy Fuller,  Walter  Folger,  jr.,  Joshua  Gage,  John  Holmes, 
Elijah  H.  Mills,  Jonathan  Mason,  Marcus  Morton,  Jeremiah 
Nelson,  Benjamin  Orr,  Albion  K.  Parris,  Thomas  Rice,  Na- 
thaniel Ruggles,  Zabdiel  Sampson,  Henry  Shaw,  Nathaniel 
Silsbee,  Solomon  Strong,  Ezekiel  Whitman,  John  Wilson. 

Rhode  Island. — John  L.  Boss,  jr.,  James  B.  Mason. 

Connecticut.— Uriel  Holmes,  Ebenezer  Huntingdon,  Jona- 
than O.  Mosely,  Timothy  Pitkin,  Samuel  B.  Sherwood,  Na- 
thaniel Terry,  Thomas  8.  Williams. 

Vermont.— Heman  Allen,  Samuel  C.  Crafts,  William  Hun- 
ter, Orasmns  C.  Merrill,  Charles  Rich,  Mark  Richards. 

New  York. — Oliver  C.  Comstock,  Daniel  Cruger,  John  P. 
Cushman,  John  R.  Drake,  Benjamin  Ellicott,  Josiah  Has- 
brouck,  John  Herkimer,  Thomas  H.  Hubbard,  "William 
Irving,  Dorrance  Kirtland,  Thomas  Lawyer,  David  A.  Og- 
den,  John  Palmer,  James  Porter,  John  Savage,  Philip  J. 
Schuyler,  Tredwell  Scudder,  John  C.  Spencer,  Henry  R. 
Storrs,  James  Tallmadge,  jr.,  John  W.  Taylor,  Caleb  Tomp- 
kins,  George  Townsend,  Peter  H.  Wendover,  Rensellaer 
Westerlo,  James  W.  Wilkin,  Isaac  Williams. 

New  Jersey. — Ephraim  Bateman,  Benjamin  Bennett,  Jo- 
seph Bloomfleld,  Charles  Kinsey,  John  Linn,  Henry  South- 
ard. 

Pennsylvania.— William  Anderson,  Henry  Baldwin,  An- 
drew Boden,  Isaac  Darlington,  Joseph  Heister,  Joseph  Hop- 
kinson,  Samuel  D.  Ingham,  William  Maclay,  William  P. 
Maclay,  David  Marchand,  Robert  Moore,  John  Murray,  Al- 
exander Ogle,  Thomas  Patterson,  Levi  Pawling,  Thomas  J. 
Rodgers,  John  Ross,  John  Sergeant,  Adam  Seybert,  Jacob 
Spangler,  Christian  Tarr,  James  M.  Wallace,  Thomas  Wil- 
son. 


Delaware.— Willard  Hall,  Louis  McLane. 

Maryland.— Thomas  Culbreth,  Thomas  Bayley,  John  C. 
Herbert,  Peter  Little,  George  Peter,  Philip  Reed,  Samuel 
Binggold,  Samuel  Smith,  Philip  Stuart. 

Virginia.— Archibald  Austin,  William  Lee  Ball,  Philip 
P.  Barbour,  Burwell  Bassett,  William  A.  Burwell,  Edward 
Colston,  John  Floyd,  Robert  8.  Garnett,  Peterson  Good- 
wyn,  James  Johnson,  William  J.  Lewis,  William  McCoy, 
Charles  F.  Mercer,  Hugh  Nelson,  Thomas  M.  Nelson, 
Thomas  Newton,  James  Pindall,  James  Pleasants,  Alexander 
Smyth,  George  F.  Strother,  Henry  St.  George  Tucker,  John 
Tyler. 

North,  Carolina.— Joseph  H.  Bryan,  Weldon  N.  .Ed- 
wards, Daniel  M.  Forney,  Thomas  H.  Hall,  George  Mum- 
ford,  James  Owen,  Lemuel  Sawyer,  Thomas  Settle,  Jesse 
Slocumb,  James  8.  Smith,  James  Stewart,  Felix  Walker, 
Lewis  Williams. 

South  Carolina.— Joseph  Bellinger,  Elias  Earle,  James 
Ervin,  William  Lowndes,  Henry  Middleton,  Stephen  D. 
Miller,  William  Ncsbitt,  Eldred  Simkins,  Sterling  Tucker. 

Georgia.— Joel  Abbott,  Thomas  W.  Cobb,  Zadock  Cook, 
Jool  Crawford,  John  Foreyth,  William  Terrell. 

Kentucky.— Richard  C.  Anderson,  jr.,  Henry  Clay,  Joseph 
Desha,  Richard  M.  Johnson,  Anthony  New,  Tunstall 
Quarles,  jr.,  George  Roblrtson,  Thomas  Speed,  David  Trim- 
ble, David  Walker. 

Tennessee—  William  G. Blount, Thomas Claiborne, Thom- 
as Hogg,  Francis  Jones,  George  Washington  L.  Marr,  John 
Rhea. 

Ohio.— Levi  Barber,  Philemon  Beecher,  John  W.  Camp 
bell,  William  H.  Harrison,  Peter  Hitchcock,  Samuel  Her- 
rick. 

Mississippi.— George  Polndexter. 

Louisiana. — Thomas  Boiling  Robertson. 

Indiana.— William  Hendricks. 

Illinois  Territory.— Nathaniel  Pope,  Delegate. 

Missouri  Territory.— John  Scott,  Delegate. 


DEBATES  OF  CONGRESS. 


59 


DECEMBER,  1817.] 


Election  of  Speaker,  &c. 


[H.  OF  R. 


William  Hunter,  Orsamus  C.  Merrill,  Charles  Rich, 
and  Mark  Richards. 

From  New  York — Oliver  C.  Comstock,  Daniel 
Cruger,  John  P.  Cushman,  John  R.  Drake,  Benjamin 
Ellicott,  Josiah  Hasbrouck,  John  Herkimer,  Thomas 
H.  Hubbard,  William  Irving,  Dorrance  Kirtland, 
Thomas  Lawyer,  John  Palmer,  James  Porter,  John 
SavagOj  Philip  J.  Schuyler,  Tredwell  Scudder,  John 
C.  Spencer,  Henry  R.  Storrs,  James  Tallmadge,  jr., 
John  W.  Taylor,  Caleb  Tompkins,  George  Town- 
send,  Peter  H.  Wendover,  Rensellaer  Westerlo,  James 
W.  Wilkin,  and  Isaac  Williams. 

From  Neto  Jersey — Benjamin  Bennett,  Joseph 
Bloomfield,  Charles  Kinsey,  John  Linn,  and  Henry 
Southard. 

From  Pennsylvania — William  Anderson,  Andrew 
Boden,  Isaac  Darlington,  Joseph  Heister,  Joseph 
Hopkinson,  Samuel  D.  Ingham,  William  P.  Maclay, 
David  Marchand,  Robert  Moore,  John  Murray, 
Thomas  Patterson,  Levi  Pawling,  Adam  Seybert, 
Jacob  Spangler,  Christian  Tarr,  James  M.  Wallace, 
John  Whiteside,  and  William  Wilson. 

From  Delaware — Louis  McLane. 

From  Maryland—  Thomas  Culbreth,  John  C.  Her- 
bert, Peter  Little,  George  Peter,  Philip  Reed,  Sam- 
uel Ringgold,  Samuel  Smith,  and  Philip  Stuart, 

From  Virginia— William  Lee  Ball,  Philip  P.  Bar- 
bour,  Burwell  Bassett,  William  A.  Burwell,  Edward 
Colston,  Robert  S.  Garnett,  William  McCoy,  Charles 
F.  Mercer,  Hugh  Nelson,  Thomas  Newton,  James 
Pindall,  James  Pleasants,  Alexander  Smyth,  George 
F.  Strother,  Henry  St.  George  Tucker,  and  John 
Tyler. 

From  North  Carolina — Weldon  N.  Edwards,  Dan- 
iel M.  Forney,  Thomas  H.  Hall,  George  Mumford, 
James  Owen,  Lemuel  Sawyer,  Thomas  Settle,  Jesse 
Slocumb,  James  S.  Smith,  Felix  Walker,  and  Lewis 
Williams. 

From  South  Carolina — Joseph  Bellinger,  William 
Lowndes,  Henry  Middleton,  Stephen  D.  Miller,  and 
Sterling  Tucker. 

From  Georgia — Joel  Abbott,  Thomas  W.  Cobb, 
Zadock  Cook,  Joel  Crawford,  John  Forsyth,  and 
William  Terrell 

From  Kentucky — Richard  C.  Anderson,  jr.,  Henry 
Clay,  Joseph  Desha,  Richard  M.  Johnson,  Anthony 
New,  Tuustall  Quarles,  jr.,  George  Robertson,  Thomas 
Speed,  David  Trimble,  and  David  Walker. 

From  Tennessee — William  G.  Blount,  Francis  Jones, 
George  W.  L.  Marr,  and  John  Rhea. 

From  Ohio — Levi  Barber,  Philemon  Beecher,  John 
W.  Campbell,  William  Henry  Harrison,  and  Samuel 
Herrick. 

From  Louisiana — Thomas  B.  Robertson. 

From  Indiana — William  Hendricks. 

Election  of  Speaker,  &c. 

A  quorum,  consisting  of  a  majority  of  the 
whole  number  of  members,  being  present,  the 
House  then  proceeded  to  the  choice  of  a  SPEAK- 
ER. On  counting  the  votes,  it  appeared  that  of 
147  votes  given  in,  there  were  for  HENBY  CLAY, 
140 ;  for  SAMUEL  SMITH,  6  ;  blank,  1. 

So  that  Mr.  CLAY  was  declared  to  be  duly 
elected  Speaker;  and,  being  conducted  to  the 
Chair,  the  usual  oath  was  administered  to  him, 
by  Mr.  BASSETT  ;  when  the  Speaker  made  his 
acknowledgments  to  the  House  in  the  following 
terms : 


"  If  we  consider,  gentlemen,  the  free  and  illustrious 
origin  of  this  assembly ;  the  extent  and  magnitude 
of  the  interests  committed  to  its  charge;  and  the 
brilliant  prospects  of  the  rising  confederacy,  whose 
destiny  may  be  materially  affected  by  the  legislation 
of  Congress,  the  House  of  Representatives  justly 
ranks  amongst  the  most  eminent  deliberative  bodies 
that  have  existed.  To  be  appointed  to  preside  at  its 
deliberations,  is  an  exalted  honor  of  which  I  enter- 
tain the  highest  sense ;  and  I  pray  you  to  accept,  for 
the  flattering  manner  in  which  yon  have  conferred 
it,  my  profound  acknowledgments. 

"  If  I  bring  into  the  Chair,  gentlemen,  the  advan- 
tage of  some  experience  of  its  duties,  far  from  in- 
spiring me  with  undue  confidence,  that  experience 
aerves  only  to  fill  me  with  distrust  of  my  own  capa- 
city. I  have  been  taught  by  it,  how  arduous  those 
duties  are,  and  how  unavailing  would  be  any  efforts 
of  mine  to  discharge  them,  without  the  liberal  sup- 
port and  cheering  countenance  of  the  House.  I 
shall  anxiously  seek,  gentlemen,  to  merit  that  sup- 
port and  countenance,  by  an  undeviating  aim  at  im- 
partiality, and  at  the  preservation  of  that  decorum, 
without  the  observance  of  which,  the  public  business 
must  be  illy  transacted,  and  the  dignity  and  the 
character  of  the  House  seriously  impaired." 

The  members  having  been  severally  qualified 
by  taking  the  oath  to  support  the  constitution, 
the  House  proceeded  to  elect  a  clerk.  On 
counting  the  ballots,  it  appeared  that  144  votes 
were  given  in,  all  of  which  were  for  THOMAS 
DOUGHERTY,  who  resumed  his  place  as  Clerk  of 
the  House. 

THOMAS  CLAXTON  was  then  reappointed  Door- 
keeper, BENJAMIN  BUEOH  Assistant  Doorkeeper, 
and  THOMAS  DUNN  Sergeant-at-Arms,  without 
opposition. 

After  the  usual  incipient  proceedings,  and  in- 
terchanging messages  with  the  Senate,  the 
House  adjourned  to  12  o'clock  to-morrow. 


TUESDAY,  December  2. 

Several  other  members,  to  wit :  from  New 
Jersey,  EPHEAIM  BATEMAN  ;  from  Virginia,  WIL- 
LIAM J.  LEWIS;  and  from  Tennessee,  THOMAS 
CLAIBOKNE  and  THOMAS  HOGG,  appeared,  pro- 
duced their  credentials,  were  qualified,  and  took 
their  seats. 

Mr.  HOLMES,  of  Massachusetts,  from  the  joint 
committee  appointed  yesterday  to  wait  on  the 
President  of  the  United  States,  reported,  that 
the  committee  had  performed  that  service,  and 
that  the  President  answered,  that  he  would 
make  a  communication  to  the  two  Houses  of 
Congress  to-day,  at  12  o'clock. 

A  Message  in  writing,  was  then  received  from 
the  PRESIDENT  OF  THE  UNITED  STATES,  which 
was  read  and  referred  to  the  Committee  of  the 
Whole  on  the  state  of  the  Union ;  and  five 
thousand  copies  thereof  ordered  to  be  printed 
for  the  use  of  the  members  of  the  House.  [For 
this  Message,  see  Senate  proceedings  of  this 
date,  page  4.] 

WEDNESDAY,  December  3. 
Several  other  members,  to  wit :  from  Penn- 


ABRIDGMENT  OF  THE 


H.  OF  R] 


Reference  of  the  Message. 


[DECEMBEH,  1817. 


sylvania,  JOHN  SERGEANT  ;  from  Virginia,  PE- 
TERSON GoomvYN  and  THOMAS  M.  NELSON  ;  and 
from  South  Carolina,  WILSON  NESBITT,  appeared, 
produced  their  credentials,  were  qualified,  and 
took  their  seats. 

Reference  of  the  Message. 

On  motion  of  Mr.  TAY.LOB,  of  New  York,  the 
House  resolved  itself  into  a  Committee  of  the 
Whole  on  the  state  of  the  Union,  Mr.  SMITH,  of 
Maryland,  being  called  to  the  Chair. 

The  President's  Message  was  the  subject  of 
consideration. 

Mr.  TAYLOR  moved  a  series  of  resolutions, 
embracing  the  following  references  of  various 
parts  of  the  Message : 

"  Resolved,  That  so  much  of  the  Message  of  the 
President  of  the  United  States  as  relates  to  the  sub- 
ject of  Foreign  Affairs,  and  to  our  commercial  inter- 
course with  British  Colonial  ports,  be  referred  to  a 
select  committee." 

The  first  resolution  having  been  read  for  con- 
sideration, Mr.  CLAY  (the  Speaker)  moved  to 
amend  the  same  by  adding  to  the  end  thereof 
the  following  words : 

"And  that  the  said  committee  be  instructed  to 
inquire  whether  any,  and  if  any,  what  provisions  of 
law  are  necessary  to  insure  to  the  American  colonies 
of  Spain  a  just  observance  of  the  duties  incident  to 
the  neutral  relation  in  which*  the  United  States 
stand,  in  the  existing  war  between  them  and 
Spain." 

Mr.  CLAY  said,  that  his  presenting  at  so  early 
a  period  of  the  session  this  subject  to  the  con- 
sideration of  the  House,  was  in  consequence  of 
certain  proceedings  which  he  had  seen  repre- 
sented in  the  public  prints,  as  having  taken 
place  before  certain  of  our  courts  of  justice. 
Two  or  three  cases  bearing  on  this  subject  had 
come  to  his  knowledge,  which  he  wished  to 
state  to  the  House.  The  first  had  occurred  at 
Philadelphia,  before  the  circuit  court  of  the 
United  States  held  in  that  city.  The  circum- 
stances of  the  case,  for  which  however  he  did 
not  pretend  to  vouch,  having  seen  them  through 
the  channel  already  indicated,  were  these — if 
they  were  incorrectly  stated,  he  was  happy  that 
a  gentleman  had  taken  his  seat  this  morning 
from  that  city,  who  would  be  able  to  correct 
him :  that  nine  or  ten  British  disbanded  officers 
had  formed  in  Europe  the  resolution  to  unite 
themselves  with  the  Spanish  patriots  in  the 
contest  existing  between  them  and  Spain ;  that 
to  carry  into  effect  this  intention  they  had  sail- 
ed from  Europe,  and  in  their  transit  to  South 
America  had  touched  at  the  port  of  Philadel- 
phia ;  that,  during  their  residence  in  Philadel- 
phia, wearing,  perhaps,  the  arms  and  habili- 
ments of  military  men,  making  no  disguise  of 
their  intention  to  participate  in  the  struggle, 
they  took  passage  in  a  vessel  bound  to  some 
port  in  South  America ;  that,  a  knowledge  of 
this  fact  having  come  to  the  ears  of  the  public 
authorities,  or,  perhaps  at  the  instigation  of 
some  agent  of  the  Spanish  Government,  a  pros- 
ecution was  commenced  against  these  officers, 


who,  from  their  inability  to  procure  bail,  were 
confined  in  prison.  If,  said  Mr.  C.,  the  circum- 
stances attending  this  transaction  be  correctly 
stated,  it  becomes  an  imperious  duty  in  the 
House  to  institute  the  inquiry  contemplated  by 
the  amendment  which  I  have  proposed.  That 
this  was  an  extraordinary  case  was  demonstrat- 
ed by  the  fact  of  the  general  sensation  which  it 
had  excited  on  the  subject  in  the  place  where 
it  had  occurred.  Filled  as  that  respectable  and 


prevailed  on  this  subject,  which  was  favorable  to 
the  persons  thus  arraigned.  With  regard  to  the 
conduct  of  the  court  on  this  occasion,  he  would 
say  nothing.  The  respect  which,  whilst  he  had 
a  seat  on  this  floor,  he  should  always  show  to 
every  department  of  the  Government ;  the  re- 
spect he  entertained  for  the  honorable  Judge 
who  had  presided,  forbade  him  pronouncing 
the  decision  of  that  court  to  have  been  unwar- 
ranted by  law.  But  he  felt  himself  perfectly 
sustained  in  saying,  that  if  the  proceeding  was 
warranted  by  the  existing  law,  it  was  the  im- 
perious duty  of  Congress  to  alter  the  law  in 
this  respect.  For  what,  he  asked,  was  the  neu- 
tral obligation  which  one  nation  owed  to 
another  engaged  in  war?  The  essence  of  it  is 
this :  that  the  belligerent  means  of  the  neutral 
shall  not  be  employed  in  the  war  in  favor  of 
either  of  the  parties.  That  is  the  whole  of  the 
obligation  of  a  third  party  in  a  war  between 
two  others.  It  certainly  does  not  require  of 
one  nation  to  restrain  the  belligerent  means  of 
other  nations.  If  those  nations  choose  to  per- 
mit their  means  to  be  employed  in  behalf  of 
either  party,  it  is  their  business  to  look  to  it, 
and  not  ours.  Let  the  conduct  of  the  persons 

Erosecuted  be  regarded  in  its  most  unfavorable 
ght;  let  it  be  considered  as  the  passage  of 
troops  through  our  country,  and  there  was 
nothing  in  our  neutral  obligations  forbidding  it. 
The  passage  of  troops  through  a  neutral  coun- 
try, according  to  his  impressions,  was  a  ques- 
tion depending  on  the  particular  interest,  quiet, 
or  repose  of  the  country  traversed,  and  might 
be  granted  or  refused,  at  its  discretion,  without 
in  any  degree  affecting  the  obligations  of  the 
neutral  to  either  of  the  parties  engaged  in  the 
controversy.  But  surely,  Mr.  C.  said,  this  was 
not  a  case  of  the  passage  of  troops,  the  persons 
apprehended  not  being  in  sufficient  number; 
not  organized  or  equipped  in  such  a  manner  as, 
under  any  construction,  to  constitute  a  military 
corps. 

On  this  case  he  would  detain  the  House  no 
longer,  he  said ;  for  he  was  satisfied  they  could 
not  but  agree  with  him,  if  the  law  justified  the 
proceeding  that  had  taken  place,  that  law  ought 
to  be  immediately  amended.  Other  cases  had 
occurred  in  which  it  appeared  to  him  it  became 
the  Congress  to  interpose  its  authority.  Per- 
sons sailing  under  the  flag  of  the  provinces  had 
been  arraigned  in  our  courts,  and  tried  for 
piracy ;  in  one  case,  after  having  been  arraign- 


DEBATES  OF  CONGRESS. 


Gl 


DECEMBER,  1817.] 


Spanish  American  Provinces. 


[H.  OF  R. 


ed,  tried,  and  acquitted  of  piracy,  the  same  in- 
dividuals, on  the  instigation  of  a  Spanish  officer 
or  agent,  had  heen  again  arraigned  for  the  same 
offence.  The  gentleman  from  Massachusetts 
would  correct  him  if  he  was  wrong,  for  the 
case  had  occurred  in  the  town  of  Boston.  We 
admit  the  flag  of  these  colonies  into  our  ports, 
said  Mr.  C. ;  we  profess  to  be  neutral ;  hut  if 
our  laws  pronounce  that  the  moment  the  prop- 
erty and  persons  under  that  flag  enter  our  ports, 
they  shall  he  seized,  the  one  claimed  hy  the 
Spanish  Minister  or  Consul  as  the  property  of 
Spain,  and  the  other  prosecuted  as  pirates,  that 
law  ought  to  be  altered  if  we  mean  to  perform 
our  neutral  professions.  I  have  brought  the 
subject  before  this  House  thus  promptly,  said 
Mr.  C.,  because  I  trust  that  in  this  House  the 
cause  will  find  justice;  that,  however  treated 
elsewhere,  on  this  floor  will  be  found  a  guard- 
ian interest  attending  to  our  performance  of 
the  just  obligations  of  neutrality.  Hitherto,  he 
said,  whatever  might  have  been  our  intentions, 
our  acts  have  all  been  on  the  other  side.  From 
the  proclamation  of  1815,  issued  to  terminate 
an  expedition  supposed  to  be  organizing  in 
Louisiana — an  expedition  existing  only  in  the 
mind  of  the  Chevalier  de  Onis— -down  to  the 
late  act,  whether  the  measure  was  a  proper  one 
or  not  he  did  not  say ;  his  confidence  in  the 
Executive  led  him  to  suppose  it  was  adopted 
on  sufficient  grounds — down  to  the  order  for 
suppressing,  as  it  was  called,  the  establishments 
at  Amelia  Island  and  Galveston — all  the  acts 
of  the  Government  had  been  on  one  side ;  they 
all  bore  against  the  colonies,  against  the  cause 
in  which  the  patriots  of  South  America  were 
arduously  engaged.  It  became  us,  he  said,  to 
look  to  the  other  side,  honestly  intending  neu- 
trality, as  he  believed  we  did.  Let  us  recollect 
the  condition  of  the  patriots ;  no  minister  here 
to  spur  on  our  Government,  as  was  said  in  an 
interesting,  and  it  appeared  to  him  a  very  can- 
did work  recently  published  in  this  country,  re- 
specting the  progress  of  the  South  American 
revolution;  no  Minister  here  to  be  rewarded 
by  noble  honors  in  consequence  of  the  influence 
he  is  supposed  to  possess  with  the  American 
Government.  No ;  their  unfortunate  case,  Mr. 
C.  said,  was  what  ours  had  been  in  the  years 
1778  and  1779 — their  Ministers,  like  our  Frank- 
lins and  Jays  at  that  day,  were  skulking  about 
Europe  imploring  inexorable  legitimacy  one 
kind  look — some  aid  to  terminate  a  war  af- 
flicting to  humanity.  Nay,  their  situation  was 
worse  than  ours ;  for  we  had  one  great  and 
magnanimous  ally  to  recognize  us,  but  no  na- 
tion had  stepped  forward  to  acknowledge  any 
of  these  provinces.  Such  disparity  between 
tie  parties,  Mr.  C.  said,  demanded  a  just  at- 
tention to  the  interests  of  the  party  which  was 
unrepresented ;  and  if  these  facts  which  he  had 
mentioned,  and  others  which  had  come  to  his 
knowledge,  were  correct,  they  loudly  demand- 
ed the  interposition  of  Congress.  He  trusted 
the  House  would  give  the  subject  their  atten- 
tion, and  show  that  here,  in  this  place,  the  ob- 


igations  of  neutrality  would  be  strictly  regard- 
ed in  respect  to  Spanish  America. 

Mr.  SERGEANT  rose  in  consequence  of  the 
gentleman  having  appealed  to  him,  not  to  enter 
'nto  any  discussion  of  the  question  presented  bj 


were  within  his  knowledge.  The  statement 
made  by  the  Speaker  was  substantially  correct ; 
it  was  also  correct  that  the  circumstance  had 
occasioned  considerable  sensation  among  all 
parties  in  the  city  of  Philadelphia.  Mr.  S.  re- 
capitulated the  principal  facts,  adding,  that  the 
vessel  in  which  these  persons  embarked  was 
laden  with  munitions  of  war.  As  respected 
the  views  and  intentions  of  the  persons  appre- 
hended, Mr.  S.  said,  he  believed  they  had  neither 
any  intention  nor  any  idea  of  violating  the  laws 
of  the  United  States,  and  that  their  conduct 
had  been  perfectly  decorous  and  correct.  The 
court  had  thought  they  had  offended  against 
the  act  of  Congress  of  the  last  session ;  or  were 
so  far  at  least  of  that  opinion,  that  they  thought 
it  necessary  to  detain  them.  The  bail  demand- 
ed was  not  high ;  but  they  were  not  able  to 
procure  it,  and  were,  therefore,  committed  to 
jail.  It  was  because  of  the  correct  deportment 
of  these  persons,  that,  the  sentiment  in  their  fa- 
vor had  been  so  general — but  no  complaint  was 
made  of  the  court,  for  which  the  same  respect 
was  entertained  with  which  the  Speaker  him- 
self had  regarded  it.  He  had  mentioned  these 
facts  only  that  the  House  might,  when  the  time 
came  for  acting  on  it,  be  aware  of  the  construc- 
tion put  on  the  existing  law,  so  far  as  any  had 
been  given. 

The  amendment  moved  by  Mr.  CLAY  to  the 
first  resolution  was  agreed  to  without  opposi- 
tion. 

THURSDAY,  December  4. 
Three  other  members,  to  wit:  from  Penn- 
sylvania, HENBY  BALDWIN  ;  from  Maryland, 
THOMAS  BAYLEY  ;  and  from  Virginia,  JAMES 
JOHNSON,  appeared,  produced  their  credentials, 
were  qualified,  and  took  their  seats. 

FEIDAY,  December  5. 

Two  other  members,  to  wit :  from  Pennsyl- 
vania, WILLIAM  MAOLAY,  and  from  Virginia, 
BAULAED  SMITH,  appeared,  produced  their  cre- 
dentials, were  qualified,  and  took  their  seats. 

Spanish  American  Provinces. 

Mr.  ROBERTSON,  of  Louisiana,  offered  the  fol- 
lowing resolution  for  consideration : 

Resolved,  That  the  President  of  the  United  States 
be  requested  to  lay  before  the  House  of  Representa- 
tives such  information  as  he  may  possess  and  think 
proper  to  communicate,  relative  to  the  independence 
and  political  condition  of  the  provinces  of  Spanish 
America. 

The  resolution  having  been  read — 

Mr.  KOBERTBON  said  that  he  supposed  there 
would  be  no  objection  to  the  adoption  of  the 
resolution  which  he  had  just  submitted  to  the 


ABRIDGMENT  OF  THE 


H.  OF  R] 


Spanish  American  Provinces. 


[DECEMBER,  1817. 


consideration  of  the  House.  He  found,  from 
the  late  Message  of  the  President,  that  the  at- 
tention of  the  House,  as  well  as  of  the  nation, 
had  been,  in  a  general  way,  directed  to  the  situa- 
tion of  the  provinces  of  Spanish  America.  The 
President  had  observed,  too,  and  very  truly, 
that  the  citizens  of  the  United  States  sympa- 
thized in  the  events  which  affected  their  neigh- 
bors. Mr.  R.  said  that,  as  far  back  as  the  year 
1811,  this  subject  had  excited  considerable  in- 
terest ;  that  a  committee  had  been  raised ;  the 
declaration  of  independence  and  the  constitution 
of  Venezuela,  with  other  information,  laid  be- 
fore it  by  the  then  President,  and  a  report  on 
them  submitted  to  the  House.  The  report, 
among  other  things,  expressed  much  good  will 
towards  the  Venezuelans,  and  an  intention  to 
acknowledge  their  independence  whenever  that 
independence  should  be  achieved.  From  that 
time  till  the  present,  silence  had  been  observed 
in  regard  to  the  affairs  of  that  part  of  the  con- 
tinent. The  reason  was  obvious ;  we  were  soon 
after  engaged  in  war  with  England,  and  since 
the  peace,  our  own  pressing  concerns  had  occu- 
pied our  attention. 

The  President  has  spoken,  sir,  of  the  interest 
and  the  sympathy  we  feel  in  the  affairs  of  our 
southern  neighbors.  Perhaps  it  may  be  said, 
with  truth,  that  no  subject  excites,  throughout 
the  civilized  world,  a  stronger  interest  than  the 
contest  in  which  the  provinces  of  Spanish  Amer- 
ica are  engaged.  Every  wind  that  blows  wafts 
to  our  shores  the  schemes  and  speculations  of 
European  statesmen  and  politicians ;  from  the 
frozen  regions  of  the  North  to  the  milder  climes 
of  the  Peninsula,  it  elicits  remark  and  commands 
attention.  Even  Alexander,  he  who  indites  epis- 
tles about  peace  and  bible  societies,  while  he 
whets  the  sword  of  battle  and  prepares  the 
weapons  of  destruction ;  he,  it  is  said,  is  about 
to  furnish  his  Cossacks  to  add  to  the  horrors  of, 
as  it  is  already  called,  the  war  of  death.  The 
thunders  of  the  Pope,  too,  the  head  of  the  Chris- 
tian church,  began  to  be  heard,  and  no  doubt 
we  shall  soon  see  his  anathemas  giving  up  the 
people  of  South  America,  body  and  soul,  to  the 
punishments  due  here  and  hereafter  to  the 
crimes  of  rebellion  and  republicanism.  If,  then, 
to  governments  across  the  Atlantic,  the  situa- 
tion of  this  people  be  thus  interesting,  surely  it 
is  not  a  matter  of  surprise  that  the  citizens  of 
the  United  States  should  with  some  solicitude 
turn  their  attention  towards  them.  Every  Re- 
publican in  the  United  States  must  lament  their 
disasters  and  exult  in  their  triumphs ;  they  do 
but  follow  the  example  we  have  set  them ;  we 
owe  our  glory  and  our  fame  to  resistance  to 
arbitrary  power,  and  the  people  of  Spanish 
America,  and  all  others  groaning  under  oppres- 
sion, must  owe  their  elevation  and  worth  of 
character  to  the  same  circumstance.  They  do 
but  follow  in  our  footsteps ;  it  is  in  vain  to  deny 
or  disguise  the  fact;  it  is  known  throughout 
the  world — whatever  of  injury  despotism  or 
priestcraft  have  sustained,  whether  from  the 
revolution  of  France,  or  that  which  now,  I  hope, 


flourishes  in  our  hemisphere,  is  laid  to  the  ac- 
count of  our  glorious  Revolution,  and  the  excel- 
lent principles  of  our  constitution. 

It  is  to  be  regretted,  Mr.  Speaker,  that  our 
acquaintance  with  the  people  of  Spanish  Amer- 
ica is  not  more  particular  and  intimate  than  it 
is :  we  entertain  but  one  sentiment  about  them 
— our  feelings  are  all  in  unison  ;  yet  we  differ 
and  dispute  on  a  variety  of  points,  which  it  is 
desirable  should  be  no  longer  suffered  to  remain 
in  doubt.  Mexico,  Peru,  Chili,  Buenos  Ayres, 
Venezuela,  New  Granada,  are  they  independ- 
ent ?  Are  they  struggling  for  independence,  or 
have  they  yielded  to  their  European  tyrant? 
Have  they  made  known  their  situation  to  the 
Executive  Department  ?  Have  they  demanded 
to  be  recognized  as  independent  sovereignties  ? 
Do  they  govern  themselves  ?  elect  their  agents, 
legislature,  executive,  and  judiciary?  lay  and 
collect  taxes,  raise  and  support  armies,  and  na- 
vies ?  It  is  possible  that  these  facts  are  in  the 
possession  of  the  President;  it  is  very  well 
known  that  there  have  been  agents,  men  of  high 
respectability,  sent  publicly  from  the  govern- 
ments of  Venezuela,  New  Granada,  Buenos 
Ayres,  and  Mexico,  to  this  country,  and,  for 
any  thing  I  know  to  the  contrary,  from  other 
provinces.  It  is  probable  that  they  have  not 
remained  silent,  but  whatever  they  may  have 
said  has  not  been  made  known  to  this  House,  or 
to  this  nation .  As  our  Government  is  essentially 
popular,  I  wish  information  to  be  given  to  the 
people.  I  wish  for  information,  that  our  judg- 
ments may  sanction  sentiments  our  hearts  so 
warmly  approve.  I  do  not  mean,  Mr.  Speaker, 
to  commit  myself  in  regard  to  my  future  course 
— it  must,  to  a  certain  extent,  depend  upon  cir- 
cumstances. This  House  will  act  as  circum- 
stances may  require,  but  for  myself,  I  have  no 
hesitation  to  say,  that  if  it  shall  appear  that  the 
provinces  of  Spanish  America,  or  any  of  them, 
are  really  independent,  no  earthly  consideration 
shall  prevent  me,  in  my  public  character,  from 
acknowledging  them  as  sovereign  States. 

Mr.  FORSYTE  said  he  was  too  well  acquainted 
with  the  temper  of  the  people  of  the  United 
States  on  this  subject,  to  oppose  any  motion  for 
inquiring  into  it ;  such  was  not  his  object ;  but 
he  knew  from  experience,  that  some  inquiries 
were  proper  and  some  dangerous.  In  this  case, 
he  thought  that  all  which  could  be  known  ought 
to  be  known ;  but  he  suggested  to  the  mover 
of  the  resolution,  whether  it  was  not  too  broad 
in  its  call  on  the  Executive,  and  whether  it 
ought  not  to  contain  the  usual  qualification  of 
excepting  such  information  as  the  President 
might  deem  the  communication  of  incompatible 
with  the  public  interest.  Mr.  F.  presumed  the 
President  had  communicated  all  that  he  know, 
or  all  that  he  wished  Congress  to  know  on  the 
subject;  and  as  it  was  usual  in  requesting  in- 
formation of  the  Executive,  to  ask  for  such  only 
as  the  public  interest  would,  in  his  opinion,  per- 
mit to  be  disclosed,  he  proposed  so  to  modify 
this  motion ;  in  which  shape  only  could  he  con- 
sent to  vote  for  it. 


DEBATES  OF  CONGRESS. 


63 


DECEMBER,  1817.] 


Amelia  Island  and  Spanish  Patriots. 


[H.  OF  R. 


Mr.  ROBERTSON  signified  his  ready  assent  to 
Mr.  FOKSYTH'S  proposition. 

The  resolution  passed  nem.  con.  as  modified, 
and  a  committee  of  two  was  appointed  to  wait 
on  the  President  with  it. 

The  House  adjourned  to  Monday. 

MONDAY,  December  8. 

Several  other  members,  to  wit :  from  Massa- 
chusetts, JONATHAN  MASON  ;  from  Virginia,  AB- 
CHIBALD  AUSTIN  and  JOHN  FLOYD;  and  from 
Ohio,  PETEE  HITCHCOCK,  appeared,  produced 
their  credentials,  were  qualified,  and  took  their 
seats. 

NATHANIEL  POPE  from  the  Illinois  Territory, 
and  JOHN  SCOTT,  from  the  Territory  of  Missouri, 
having  also  appeared  and  produced  their  cre- 
dentials as  Delegates  to  represent  the  said  Ter- 
ritories in  the  Fifteenth  Congress  of  the  United 
States,  were  also  qualified,  and  took  their  seats. 

Amelia  Island  and  Spanish  Patriots. 

Mr.  RHEA  offered  for  consideration  the  fol- 
lowing resolution : 

Resolved,  That  the  President  be  requested  to  lay 
before  the  House  of  Representatives  any  information 
he  may  possess,  and  think  proper  to  communicate, 
relative  to  the  proceedings  of  certain  persons  who 
took  possession  of  Amelia  Island,  at  the  mouth  of  the 
St.  Mary's  River,  near  the  boundary  of  the  State  of 
Georgia,  in  the  summer  of  the  present  year,  and  made 
an  establishment  there  ;  and  also  any  information  he 
hath,  and  may  think  proper  to  communicate,  relative 
to  an  establishment  made,  at  an  earlier  period,  by 
persons  of  the  same  description,  in  the  Gulf  of  Mexico, 
at  a  place  called  Galveston,  within  the  limits  of  the 
United  States,  as  we  contend,  under  the  cession  of 
Louisiana ;  together  with  the  reasons  inducing  him 
to  issue  orders  to  suppress  the  said  establishments. 

Mr.  RHEA  said  that  the  establishments  referred 
to  in  the  resolution  he  had  just  offered,  had  al- 
ready excited  much  attention  throughout  the 
country,  which  would  be  still  more  attracted  to 
that  point  by  the  order  given  to  suppress  them. 
His  object  in  offering  this  motion  was  to  obtain 
such  information  as  might  satisfy  the  minds  of 
the  American  people  on  the  expediency  of  that 
measure. 

Mr.  FOESYTH  moved  to  strike  out  the  last 
clause  of  the  proposed  resolution.  It  would  be 
an  extraordinary  course  for  the  House  to  ask  for 
the  reasons  of  the  measure  in  question,  when 
they  were  distinctly  and  satisfactorily  avowed 
in  the  Message  of  the  President.  To  call  upon 
Mm,  after  that  exposition,  to  explain  the  reasons 
for  his  conduct,  would  be  to  cast  a  severe  re- 
flection on  the  Executive,  as  implying  dissatis- 
faction at  the  reasons  already  given.  For  his 
own  part,  Mr.  F.  said,  the  conduct  of  the  Exec- 
utive appeared  to  him  to  have  been  perfectly 
correct;  but  he  had  no  objection  to  any  in- 
formation desired,  if  asked  for,  unconnected 
with  the  clause  he  had  excepted  to. 

Mr.  HUGH  NELSON,  of  Virginia,  twice  ad- 
dressed the  House  on  the  main  subject  of  the 


resolution,  but,  being  interrupted  in  his  remarks 
by  incidental  circumstances,  we  have  connected 
his  observations  in  the  following  report  of  the 
substance  of  them.  A  few  remarks  are  added, 
which  the  interruptions  referred  to  prevented 
him  from  making.  Mr.  N.  was  decidedly  in  favor 
of  the  motion.  Like  the  honorable  SPEAKER, 
who  had  alluded  to  this  matter  when  in  Com- 
mittee of  the  Whole  the  other  day,  Mr.  N.  said 
he  felt  his  confidence  in  the  Executive  not  di- 
minished ;  like  him,  he  felt  confident  that  the 
measure  of  the  suppression  of  these  establish- 
ments, was  founded,  in  their  opinion,  in  a  just 
sense  of  propriety,  and  in  a  desire  to  promote 
the  public  weal :  and  he  believed  that,  for  the 
satisfaction  of  the  public,  and  for  a  just  vindica- 
tion of  the  Executive,  these  documents  should 
be  exhibited.  I  cannot  but  believe,  said  he, 
that  the  public  will  see,  that,  in  this  measure, 
the  conduct  of  the  Government  has  been  marked 
by  a  due  respect  to  the  rights  of  the  Spanish 
provinces,  and  a  vigilant  and  prompt  attention 
to  the  rights  and  interests  of  our  own  country. 
It  is  the  best  interest  of  the  Spanish  provinces, 
embarked  in  the  noble  cause  of  emancipating 
themselves,  to  give  evidence  to  the  world,  that  all 
then*  proceedings  are  the  result  of  just  and  sound 
principles ;  to  repel  and  refute,  by  a  high-minded 
and  magnanimous  conduct,  the  malignant  and 
calumnious  representations  which  would  place 
them  in  the  grade  of  savages  and  barbarians. 
A  just  regard  to  the  opinions  of  the  civilized 
world ;  a  due  estimate  of  their  own  dignity  and 
self-respect,  will  lead  them  to  disclaim  all  con- 
nection with  these  piratical  establishments. 
Their  own  interest  would  lead  them  to  co- 
operate in  the  extinction  of  these  hordes  of  buc- 
caneers. There  was  a  time  when  the  union  of 
McGregor,  distinguished  by  his  gallant  exertions 
in  the  patriot  cause  of  the  Spanish  provinces, 
with  then*  naval  commander,  Aury,  and  sup- 
ported by  some  of  the  high-minded  and  gallant 
spirits  of  our  own  late  military  establishment, 
might  have  led  to  the  opinion  that  it  was  a 
bold  and  valorous  enterprise,  to  wrest  from  their 
oppressors  a  portion  of  their  territory,  and 
bravely  to  wage  the  war  in  the  assailable  do- 
minions of  the  Spanish  monarch.  But  the  mo- 
ment for  that  opinion  has  gone  by — McGregor 
has  abandoned  them.  Posey  and  the  other 
gallant  spirits  of  this  country,  no  more  give 
color  to  the  enterprise.  And  have  they  not 
themselves  given  further  proofs,  if  proofs  are 
wanting,  that  they  are  but  a  horde  of  bucca- 
neers, invading  our  own  territory,  and  plunder- 
ing our  own  citizens  ?  See  the  accounts  from 
Savannah.  To  believe  that  these  settlements 
are  sanctioned  by  the  Patriots,  would  be  to  de- 
grade them  from  the  high  and  dignified  station 
which  they  hold  in  our  estimation.  That  the 
Patriots  should  themselves  countenance  such 
establishments,  would  be  further  to  descend 
from  the  highest  pinnacle  of  honorable  eleva- 
tion, to  the  lowest  abyss  of  humiliation  and 
contempt.  Men  embarked  in  the  glorious  and 
magnanimous  struggle  for  freedom  and  the  rights 


64 


ABRIDGMENT  OF  THE 


H.  OF  R.] 


Repeal  of  Internal  Duties. 


[DECEMBER,  1817 


of  man,  can  never  stoop  to  the  condition  of 
buccaneers,  banditti,  and  pirates. 

Mr.  KHEA  having  accepted  Mr.  FOBSYTH'S 
proposed  amendment  as  part  of  his  own  motion, 
the  main  question  was  taken  on  the  resolution, 
and  decided  in  the  affirmative  without  a  divi- 
sion ;  and  a  committee  ordered  to  be  appointed 
to  wait  on  the  President  therewith. 

TUESDAY,  December  9. 

Another  member,  to  wit :  ELIAS  EABLE,  from 
the  State  of  South  Carolina,  appeared,  pro- 
duced his  credentials,  was  qualified,  and  took 
his  seat. 


WEDNESDAY,  December  10. 
Representative  Qualifications. 
Mr.  FOBSYTH,  of  Georgia,  offered  for  consid- 
eration the  following  resolution,  to  obtain  a  de- 
cision on  a  question  raised  by  a  memorial  yes- 
terday presented,  contesting  the  election  of  a 
member  from  Ohio,  and  which  Mr.  F.  considered 
of  great  importance : 

Resdved,  That  the  Committee  of  Elections  be  in- 
structed to  inquire  and  report  what  persons  elected  to 
serve  in  the  House  of  Representatives  have  accepted 
or  held  offices  under  the  Government  of  the  United 
States  since  the  4th  day  of  March,  1817,  and  how 
far  their  right  to  a  seat  in  this  House  is  affected 
thereby. 

The  adoption  of  this  resolution  was  warmly 
opposed  by  Mr.  TAYLOE,  of  New  York,  and  Mr. 
JOHNSON,  of  Kentucky,  and  was  also  opposed  by 
Mr.  SEYBEET,  of  Pennsylvania,  Mr.  LIVEEMOEE, 
of  New  Hampshire,  and  Mr.  W.  P.  MACLAY,  of 
Pennsylvania,  and  was  supported  by  Mr.  FOB- 

BYTH. 

It  was  opposed  as  a  novel  proceeding,  impos- 
ing inconvenient  and  extraordinary  duties  on 
the  Committee  of  Elections,  by  requiring  them 
to  go  through  the  alphabet  from  A  to  Z,  and 
inquire  into  the  qualifications  of  every  member 
of  the  House.  It  was  also  opposed  as  imputing 
impurity  to  the  House,  not  justly  attributable 
to  it ;  since  the  fact  of  taking  the  oath  to  sup- 
port the  constitution  was  prima  facie  evidence 
that  the  member  taking  it  was  conscious  of  hav- 
ing violated  no  provision  of  that  instrument.  If 
we  inquire  into  the  qualifications  of  members, 
why  not  also  into  others  equally  prescribed  by 
the  constitution  ?  It  was  time  enough  to  in- 
quire into  the  rights  of  members  to  their  seats 
when  any  specific  allegation  was  made  as  to  the 
want  of  qualification  of  any  one  or  more  of  them. 

To  which  the  mover  (Mr.  FOESYTH)  replied, 
by  expressing  his  surprise  at  the  opposition  to 
his  motion.  There  was  nothing  in  it,  he  said, 
which  accused  any  part  of  this  House,  or  any 
member  of  it,  of  improper  conduct.  It  neither 
charged  the  House  with  suffering  members  to 
remain  who  ought  not,  nor  any  member  of  the 
House  with  remaining  when  he  ought  not.  The 
object  was  to  inquire  whether  persons  in  certain 
situations  had  a  right  to  a  seat  or  not.  It  was 


presumed  that  those  gentlemen  so  situated  had 
examined  their  own  rights,  and  were  convinced 
of  their  title  to  seats  here.  But  as  he  very 
much  doubted  the  right  of  any  person  so  situat- 
ed to  a  seat  in  this  House,  he  wished  to  have 
the  question  settled.  If  the  House  should  be  of 
his  opinion,  he  should  see  with  great  regret  any 
gentleman  so  situated  return  even  temporarily 
to  his  constituents — for  temporarily  he  was  sure 
it  would  be,  and  that  the  House  would  at  the 
next  session,  if  not  at  the  close  of  this,  have  the 
aid  of  their  judgments  and  abilities.  As  to 
specifying  the  members  who  would  fall  under 
this  rule,  Mr.  F.  said  he  did  not  know  all  there 
were ;  he  had  been  informed  that  there  were 
ten  or  eleven  members  whose  right  to  a  seat 
depended  on  the  decision  of  this  question — he 
did  not  know  them ;  if  he  did,  he  should  have  no 
objection  to  comprehend  their  names  in  his  mo- 
tion. He  concluded  his  observations  by  disclaim- 
ing the  intention  to  impute  the  least  blame  to 
gentlemen  who  had  taken  their  seats  under  these 
circumstances ;  for  they  had  no  doubt  satisfied 
themselves  on  the  question. 

The  question  on  the  resolution  was  taken, 
when  there  appeared  in  favor  of  the  resolution 
85,  against  it  85. 

The  House  being  equally  divided,  the  SPEAK- 
EE,  assigning  as  his  reason  his  desire  to  have  the 
constitutional  question  fully  investigated,  voted 
in  favor  of  the  motion,  which  was  therefore 
adopted. 

Repeal  of  Internal  Duties. 

The  House  resolved  itself  into  a  Committee 
of  the  Whole  on  the  bill  to  abolish  the  internal 
duties. 

The  bill  having  been  read  through — 

Mr.  LOWNDES,  the  chairman  of  the  Committee 
of  Ways  and  Means,  made  a  few  remarks  of 
the  same  bearing  as  the  reasoning  of  the  re- 
port. He  took  occasion  also  to  say  that  it  was 
due  to  candor  and  to  himself  to  add,  that  he 
should  have  individually  thought  it  better,  in- 
stead of  a  total  repeal,  to  have  made  a  modifi- 
cation of  the  duties,  so  as  to  reduce  their  amount 
and  lighten  their  burden,  but  still  to  leave  a  part 
of  the  system  in  operation.  Believing,  how- 
ever, that  the  expectation  of  the  total  repeal 
was  such  as  to  render  vain  any  attempt  to  dis- 
criminate, or  to  modify,  he  had  concurred  in  the 
course  adopted  by  the  committee  of  recommend- 
ing a  total  repeal,  in  preference  to  retaining  the 
whole. 

Mr.  WILLIAMS,  of  North  Carolina,  heartily 
concurred  in  the  sentiment  of  the  gentleman 
from  South  Carolina,  that  these  taxes  ought  not 
to  be  retained  for  the  purpose  of  adding  to  the 
surplus  in  the  treasury.  He  rejoiced  that, 
whether  gentlemen  voted  on  the  subject  from 
the  spontaneous  determination  of  their  own 
minds,  or  the  recommendation  of  the  Execu- 
tive, the  taxes  were  to  be  repealed.  He  con- 
gratulated the  country,  that  from  this  time  the 
people  would  be  exempted  from  a  system  as  un- 
equal in  its  operation  as  it  was  unjust.  Our 


DEBATES  OF  CONGRESS. 


65 


DECEMBER,  1817.] 


Expatriation* 


[H.  OF  R. 


citizens,  lie  said,  bad  sustained  it  with  a  patience 
and  long-suffering  which  was  remarkable,  and 
afforded  a  pledge  that,  should  it  be  necessary 
hereafter  again  to  resort  to  internal  taxes,  the 
Government  might  do  so,  and  trust  to  the  good 
sense  of  the  people  for  their  justification.  The 
people,  he  argued,  were  always  willing  to  pay 
taxes  wjien  the  necessity  of  them  was  apparent. 
But,  for  more  than  a  year  past,  that  necessity 
had  not  existed  for  the  internal  duties,  and, 
therefore,  the  people  had  demanded  the  repeal 
of  them.  Mr.  W.  referred  to  the  estimates  of 
the  revenue  from  imposts  for  the  present  and 
last  years,  to  show  that  the  actual  product  had 
nearly  doubled  the  estimate,  as  had  been  shown 
and  predicted  by  the  gentleman  from  Virginia, 
who  was  his  able  coadjutor  at  the  last  session, 
(Mr.  JOHNSON,)  and  himself.  He  mentioned 
these  facts,  he  said,  to  show  that,  if  there  was 
any  blame  anywhere  for  the  occurrences  of  last 
session  having  reference  to  this  subject — and 
blame  had  been  imputed — the  blame  belonged 
to  those  who  opposed  the  repeal  of  the  taxes  at 
that  time,  and  not  to  those  who  advocated  it. 
We  rejoice  now,  said  Mr.  W.,  that  the  President 
has  thought  proper  to  recommend  the  measure, 
and  that  there  appears  to  be  a  unanimous  dis- 
position at  this  time  favorable  to  it. 

The  committee  rose  and  reported  their  agree- 
ment to  the  bill,  without  amendment. 

On  the  question  to  engross  the  bill — 

Mr.  BEECHEB,  of  Ohio,  said  he  was  not  suffi- 
ciently acquainted  with  this  subject  to  act  con- 
clusively on  it,  and  he  presumed  others  might  be 
in  the  same  situation.  To  give  them  time  to  ex- 
amine, he  moved  to  adjourn. 

This  motion  was  lost  by  a  large  majority ; 
and  the  bill  was  ordered  to  be  engrossed  for  a 
third  reading  to-morrow. 


SATURDAY,  December  13. 
Revolutionary  Survivors. 

Mr.  BLOOMFIELD,  of  New  Jersey,  from  the 
committee  to  whom  was  referred  so  much  of  the 
President's  Message  as  relates  to  the  surviving 
Revolutionary  patriots,  reported,  in  part,  a  bill 
conceruing  certain  surviving  officers  and  soldiers 
of  the  late  Revolutionary  army. 

[This  bill  provides  that  every  commissioned  and 
non-commissioned  officer  or  soldier,  who  had  served 
in  the  Army  during  the  war  which  terminated  in  the 
Treaty  of  Peace  with  Great  Britain  in  1783,  and  re- 
duced to  indigence,  or  by  age,  sickness,  or  any  other 
cause,  may  be  unable  to  procure  subsistence  by  manual 
labor,  shall  receive  half-pay  during  life,  equal  to  the 
half  of  the  monthly  pay  allowed  to  his  grade  of  ser- 
vice during  the  Revolutionary  war — provided  that  no 
pension  thus  allowed  to  a  commissioned  officer  shall 
exceed  the  half-pay  of  a  lieutenant-colonel.] 

The  bill  was  twice  read  and  committed. 

The  motion  submitted  by  Mr.  BASSETT,  of 

Virginia,  to  amend  the  rules  of  the  House,  was 

taken  up  and  agreed  to.     [The  question  of  con- 

»ideration,  which  has  heretofore  been  a  matter 

VOL.  VI.— 5 


of  much  contention  in  the  House,  in  the  days  of 
party  conflict,  is  thus  expunged  from  the  rules 
of  the  House.] 

MONDAY,  December  15. 
Two  other  members,  to  wit :  from  Pennsyl- 


Amelia  Island  and  Galveston. 

The  following  Message  was  received  from  the 
PRESIDENT  OF  THE  UNITED  STATES  : 
To  the  House  of  Representatives : 

In  compliance  with  the  resolution  of  the  House  of 
Representatives  of  the  8th  of  this  month,  I  transmit, 
for  the  information  of  the  House,  a  report  from  the 
Secretary  of  State,  with  the  documents  referred  to  in 
it,  containing  all  the  information  of  the  Executive, 
which  it  is  proper  to  disclose,  relative  to  certain  per- 
sons who  lately  took  possession  of  Amelia  Island  and 
Galveston. 

JAMES  MONROE. 

WASHINGTON,  December  15,  1817. 

DEPARTMENT  OF  STATE, 

December  13,  1817. 

The  Secretary  of  State,  to  whom  has  been  referred 
the  resolution  of  the  House  of  Representatives  of  the 
8th  instant,  requesting  the  President  to  lay  before  the 
House  any  information  he  may  possess,  and  think 
proper  to  communicate,  relative  to  the  proceedings  of 
certain  persons  who  took  possession  of  Amelia  Island, 
at  the  mouth  of  St.  Mary's  River,  in  the  summer  of 
the  present  year,  and  made  an  establishment  there ; 
and,  relative  to  a  similar  establishment  previously 
made  at  Galveston,  has  the  honor  to  submit  to  the 
President  the  accompanying  papers  containing  the 
information  received  at  the  respective  Departments  of 
State,  the  Treasury,  and  the  Navy,  upon  the  subjects 
embraced  in  the  resolution. 

The  above  documents  and  accompanying 
papers  were  ordered  to  be  printed. 


Mr.  ROBERTSON,  of  Louisiana,  offered  the  fol- 
lowing resolution  to  the  House : 

Resolved,  That  a  committee  be  appointed  to  inquire 
into  the  expediency  of  providing,  by  law,  for  the  ex- 
ercise of  the  right  of  expatriation ;  and  that  they 
have  leave  to  report  by  bill  or  otherwise. 

Mr.  ROBERTSON  said  that,  for  a  very  consid- 
erable length  of  time,  he  had  wished  this  ques- 
tion to  be  decided  by  that  tribunal  to  whom  the 
decision  of  it  belonged.  He  had,  some  years 
ago,  offered  a  resolution  similar  to  this,  which 
was  then  not  adopted ;  whether  on  account  of 
the  war  in  which  we  were  then  engaged,  or  for 
what  other  considerations,  he  had  never  been 
able  to  decide.  The  question  which  had  arisen 
during  the  late  war  made  a  decision  of  it  neces- 
sary. It  would  be  well  recollected,  that  among 
the  soldiers  of  the  United  States  were  many  in- 
dividuals, natives  of  Great  Britain,  who  were 
taken  prisoners  of  war,  and,  according  to  the 
doctrine  of  the  British  Government,  an  odious 
doctrine,  reprobated,  he  believed,  by  every  other 


ABRIDGMENT  OF  THE 


H.  OF  R.] 


Pensions  to  Sufferers  in  War. 


[DECEMBER,  1817. 


Government,  were  treated  as  traitors  fighting 
against  their  Government ;  and  that,  if  this 
construction  had  been  consummated,  our  Gov- 
ernment had  menaced  severe  retaliation.  But, 
with  what  consistency  could  the  United  States 
take  the  ground  of  retaliation,  when  they  them- 
selves had  never  recognized,  in  regard  to  our 
own  citizens,  what  we  demanded  of  Great 
Britain  in  regard  to  hers  ?  So  far  as  proceed- 
ings have  heen  had  on  this  point,  Mr.  R.  said 
he  was  led  to  believe  this  right  had  been  denied 
to  our  citizens.  lie  would  not  dwell  on  the 
particulars  of  the  decision  on  this  subject  by 
Judge  Ellsworth,  some  years  ago,  but  merely 
state  that  Isaac  Williams,  a  citizen  of  the 
United  States,  became  a  citizen  of  the  French 
Republic,  and  was  thereafter  fined  and  imprison- 
ed, by  the  decision  of  our  courts,  for  making 
war  on  Great  Britain,  on  the  ground  that  he 
could  not  divest  himself  of  the  allegiance  he 
owed  to  the  United  States.  It  was  certainly 
proper,  he  said,  that  there  should  be  some  de- 
cision of  the  Legislature  on  a  question  of  this 
nature  and  magnitude,  which,  at  present,  de- 
pended on  the  opinions  of  the  Judiciary ;  and, 
as  far  as  acts  of  Congress  can  regulate  the  judi- 
cial opinions,  that  such  directions  should  be 
given  on  this  head  as  he  thought  were  obviously 
just  and  necessary.  He  had  thought  proper  to 
make  these  remarks,  because,  although  he  be- 
lieved the  right  to  be  clear,  and  that  the  Gov- 
ernment would  maintain  it,  as  they  ought  to  do, 
if  they  possessed  the  respect  which  is  professed 
for  the  principles  of  liberty  and  for  civil  rights 
— a  decision  of  the  Legislature  on  the  subject 
was  more  important  at  this  moment,  from  con- 
siderations growing  out  of  the  present  relations 
between  the  United  States  and  foreign  nations. 
By  the  existing  treaty  with  Spain,  a  citizen  of 
the  United  States,  holding  a  commission  under 
any  Government  at  war  with  Spain,  while  we 
are  at  peace  with  her,  is  considered  as  a  pirate. 
This  extraordinary  provision  of  the  treaty  must 
have  escaped  the  attention  of  that  power  in  our 
Government  which  makes  treaties,  or  it  would 
have  been  rejected,  as  well  for  its  cruelty,  as 
because  it  is  an  act  of  legislation  to  define  and 
punish  piracies,  and  not  a  power  confided  to  the 
treaty-making  authority.  To  say  nothing  more 
of  that,  however,  Mr.  R.  observed,  that  he 
deemed  it  necessary  to  protect  the  citizens  of 
the  United  States  from  punishment,  due  only  to 
piracy,  when  found  with  commissions  in  their 
hands  from  any  Government  at  war  with  Spain. 
He  wished  to  see  our  citizens  at  perfect  liberty 
to  become  citizens  of  what  nation  they  chose, 
on  such  terms  as  that  nation  should  prescribe. 
It  would  appear,  from  what  he  had  said,  Mr.  R. 
remarked,  that  there  was  not  that  neutrality  in 
our  conduct  towards  the  two  parties,  in  the  war 
between  Spain  and  her  colonies,  which  we  all 
profess.  In  this  respect,  the  parties  were  cer- 
tainly not  on  the  same  footing ;  since  a  citizen 
of  the  United  States  in  the  employ  of  Spain 
against  the  colonies  is  not  considered  as  a  pirate, 
but  engaged  in  the  service  of  the  colonies 


against  Spain,  he  is.  He  did  not  know  that 
this  fact  would  have  induced  him  to  have 
brought  the  question  before  the  House,  but  for 
the  deep  impression  he  felt  of  the  justice  and 
propriety  of  adopting  the  principle,  abstracted 
from  the  existing  state  of  things.  But  it  was 
the  more  necessary  to  reduce  the  principle  to 
legislation,  because  of  the  situation  in  which 
the  want  of  it  has  placed  us  in  regard  to  foreign 
nations. 

The  motion  of  Mr.  ROBERTSON  was  adopted 
without  opposition,  and  without  a  division  ;  and 
Messrs.  ROBERTSON  of  Louisiana,  MASON  of  Mas- 
sachusetts, POINDEXTER,  Ross,  and  FLOYD,  were 
appointed  the  committee. 

Pensions  to  Sufferers  in  War. 

Mr.  HARBISON,  of  Ohio,  offered  the  following 
resolution : 

Resolved,  That  the  Committee  on  Military  Affairs 
be,  and  they  are  hereby,  instructed  to  inquire  into  the 
expediency  of  continuing  the  pensions  which  now  are 
or  have  been  heretofore  allowed  to  the  widows  and 
orphans  of  the  officers  and  soldiers  who  were  killed 
or  who  died  in  the  service  of  the  late  war,  for  a  term 
of  five  years  beyond  the  periods  at  which  they  shall 
respectively  cease  under  the  existing  laws. 

Mr.  H.  said,  that,  as  the  resolution  only  con- 
templated an  inquiry,  he  would  detain  the 
House  but  a  few  minutes  only,  with  the  mo- 
tives which  induced  him  at  this  time  to  bring 
it  forward.  Some  of  the  pensions  which  had 
been  granted,  said  he,  have  already  expired, 
and  others  will  expire,  probably,  before  the 
session  of  Congress  closes.  Amongst  the  latter 
is  that  which  was  granted  to  the  widow  and 
orphan  of  the  late  Brigadier-General  Pike.  In 
descending  the  Ohio  River,  said  Mr.  H.,  the  eye 
of  the  inquisitive  stranger  is  attracted  by  the 
humble  dwelling  which  shelters  the  widow  and 
orphan  of  that  distinguished  hero.  Should  his 
curiosity  carry  him  further,  and  he  should  be 
induced  to  visit  the  abode  of  this  interesting 
family,  he  would  find,  however  humble  the  ex- 
terior, that  neatness,  frugal  hospitality,  and  com- 
fort, were  to  be  found  within  its  walls — that  the 
lady  had  expended  a  proper  portion  of  her  pen- 
sion in  the  pious  purpose  of  educating  her  daugh- 
ter. .  But,  said  Mr.  H.,  if  the  visit  should  be  re- 
peated at  the  end  of  a  year,  and  the  law  which 
the  resolution  contemplated  should  not  pass,  it 
would  be  found  that  the  comforts  of  which  he 
had  spoken  had  fled,  or  that  the  means  of  pro- 
curing them  were  obtained  by  the  personal  ex- 
ertions of  the  lady  herself.  From  my  knowledge 
of  her  situation,  said  Mr.  H.,  I  can  state,  with 
confidence,  that  her  dependence  for  a  comfort- 
able support  rests  on  the  generosity — no,  sir, 
not  on  the  generosity,  but  on  the  justice  of  this 
nation ;  for,  can  there  be,  under  Heaven,  a  juster 
claim  than  that  which  is  presented  by  a  widow, 
under  such  circumstances?  In  fighting  your 
battles  she  has  lost  a  husband — he  has  bled  that 
his  country  might  be  great,  might  be  free,  might 
be  happy.  But  our  advantage  has  been  to  her 
an  insuperable  misfortune.  It  has  thrown  her 


DEBATES  OF  CONGRESS. 


07 


DECEMBER,  1817.] 


Estimate  of  Appropriations. 


[H.  OF  R. 


"  On  the  wide  world,  without  that  only  tie 
For  which  she  wished  to  live,  or  feared  to  die." 

It  is  our  duty  to  supply,  as  far  as  -we  can 
supply,  the  loss  she  has  sustained.  There  are 
other  cases,  sir,  which  form  the  strongest  claims 
upon  the  justice  and  the  honor  of  the  nation. 
Let  me  not  be  told,  said  Mr.  H.,  that  the  Gov- 
ernment has  performed  its  contract  by  giving  the 
five  years'  pension  which  was  provided  at  the 
commencement  of  the  war.  Sir,  the  contract 
was  all  on  one  side,  and  it  would  have  been 
immaterial  what  had  been  its  provisions.  The 
noble  spirits  of  Allen,  of  Hart,  and  of  Pike, 
would  have  met  your  enemy  with  as  much  zeal 
and  devotedness  as  if  the  provision  for  their 
families  had  been  such  as  they  would  have  dic- 
tated; no  personal  consideration  would  have 
withheld  them  from  the  field  of  glory.  But, 
said  Mr.  H.,  there  are  moments  when  the  claims 
of  nature  will  have  their  full  effect.  I  have 
seen,  said  he,  the  wounded  and  expiring  war- 
rior in  that  awful  moment,  when  the  martial 
ardor  which  had  filled  his  bosom  had  been  sus- 
pended by  the  pain  which  he  felt — when  the 
sacrifice  being  made,  naught  of  public  duty  re- 
mained to  be  performed — then  it  is,  sir,  that  the 
thoughts  of  his  family  would  fill  him  with  the 
greatest  solicitude.  A  beloved  wife  and  chil- 
dren left  friendless  and  unprotected — the  latter 
without  the  means  of  education,  and  both  with- 
out support.  In  such  a  situation,  said  Mr.  H.,  I 
have  heard,  amidst  the  fervent  aspirations  to 
Heaven  for  their  happiness,  a  consoling  hope 
expressed  that  his  country  would  not  forsake 
them.  Shall  we,  sir,  not  realize  that  hope? 
The  country,  said  Mr.  H.,  may  be  engaged  in 
another  war ;  if  it  should  be  the  case,  let  us 
commence  it  with  the  benedictions  of  the  widow 
and  the  orphan  upon  our  heads.  Let  not  their 
prayers  ascend  to  Heaven  charged  with  accusa- 
tions against  your  justice  and  humanity.  But, 
said  Mr.  H.,  I  am  anticipating  a  thing  that  can- 
not happen ;  the  resolution  will  pass,  as  will  a 
law  that  will  be  reported  in  obedience  to  it. 

The  motion  of  Mr.  HAEEISON  was  not  opposed, 
and  was  adopted. 

Internal  Improvements. 

Mr.  TUCKER,  of  Virginia,  from  the  committee 
appointed  on  so  much  of  the  President's  Mes- 
sage as  relates  to  roads,  canals,  and  seminaries 
of  learning,  made  a  report  in  part,  which  was 
read,  and  committed  to  a  Committee  of  the 
whole  House  on  Friday  next. 

TUESDAY,  December  16. 

National  Flag. 

Mr.  WEXDOVER  submitted  for  consideration 
the  following  resolution : 

Resolved,  That  a  committee  he  appointed  to  inquire 
into  the  expediency  of  altering  the  flag  of  the  United 
States,  and  that  they  have  leave  to  report  hy  bill  or 
otherwise. 

Mr.  W.  said,  in  submitting  this  motion,  that 


not  being  a  novel  one ;  a  bill  relative  thereto 
having  been  reported  at  the  last  session,  but  laid 
over  from  the  pressure  of  business  deemed  of 
more  importance.  Had  the  flag  of  the  United 
States  never  have  undergone  an  alteration,  he 
certainly  should  not,  he  said,  propose  to  make 
a  further  alteration  in  it.  But,  having  been  al- 
tered once,  he  thought  it  necessary  and  proper 
that  an  alteration  should  now  be  made.  It  was 
his  impression,  and  he  thought  it  was  generally 
believed,  that  the  flag  would  be  essentially  in- 
jured by  an  alteration  on  the  same  principle  as 
that  which  had  before  been  made,  of  increasing 
the  stripes  and  the  stars.  Mr.  W.  stated  the  in- 
congruity of  the  flags  in  general  use,  (except 
those  in  the  Navy,)  not  agreeing  with  the  law, 
and  greatly  varying  from  each  other.  He  in- 
stanced the  flags  flying  over  the  building  in 
which  Congress  sat,  and  that  at  the  Navy 
Yard,  one  of  which  contained  nine  stripes,  the 
other  eighteen,  and  neither  of  them  conform- 
able to  the  law.  It  was  of  some  importance, 
he  conceived,  that  the  flag  of  the  nation  should 
be  designated  with  precision,  and  that  the  prac- 
tice under  the  law  should  be  conformed  to  its 
requisitions. 
The  motion  was  agreed  to  without  opposition. 


WEDNESDAY,  December  17. 
Another  member,  to  wit,  from  North  Caro- 
lina, JOSEPH  H.  BEYAN  appeared,  produced  his 
credentials,  was  qualified,  and  took  his  seat. 

Estimate  of  Appropriations. 
The  SPEAKER  laid  before  the  House  the  fol- 
lowing communication  from  the  Treasury  De- 
partment, which  was   ordered  to  be  printed, 
with  the  accompanying  documents : 

TEEASTJBY  DEPARTMENT, 

December  17,  1817. 

SIR  :  I  have  the  honor  to  transmit  herewith  for  the 
information  of  the  House  of  Representatives,  an  esti- 
mate of  the  appropriations  for  the  service  of  the  year 
1818,  amounting  to  $10,925,191  62,  viz: 
For  the  Civil  List  -        -        -        -  $1,070,708  02 
For  miscellaneous  expenses      -        -       490,308  51 
For  intercourse  with  foreign  nations       487,666  64 
For  the  Military  Establishment,  in- 
cluding arrearages,  and  Indian  de- 
partment -  6,265,132  25 
For  the  Naval  Establishment,  includ- 
ing the  marine  corps    -        -        -    2,611,876  20 

$10,925,191  62 


The  funds  ont  of  which  the  appropriations  for  the 
year  1818  may  be  discharged,  are  the  following : 

1.  The  sum  of  six  hundred  thousand  dollars  an- 
nually reserved  by  the  act  of  the  4th  of  August,  1790, 
out  of  the  duties  and  customs,  towards  the  expenses 
of  Government. 

2.  The  proceeds  of  the  stamp  duties,  and  the  duty 
on  sugar  refined  within  the  United  States. 

8.  The  surplus  which  may  remain  of  the  customs 
and  internal  duties,  after  satisfying  the  pledge  for 
which  they  are  pledged  and  appropriated. 


ABRIDGMENT  OP  THE 


H.  OF  R.] 


Expatriation. 


[DECEMBER,  1817. 


4.  Any  other  unappropriated  money  which  may 
come  into  the  Treasury  during  the  year  1818. 

I  have  the  honor  to  be,  very  respectfully,  sir,  your 
most  obedient  servant, 

WM.  H.  CRAWFORD. 
The  Honorable  the  SPEAKER 

of  the  House  of  Representatives. 


FBIDAT,  December  19. 

Another  member,  to  wit,  from  Delaware, 
WILLABD  HALL,  appeared,  produced  his  creden- 
tials, was  qualified,  and  took  his  seat. 

Surviving  Revolutionary  Soldiers. 

The  House  having  resolved  itself  into  a  Com- 
mittee of  the  Whole  on  the  bill  concerning  the 
surviving  soldiers  of  the  Revolutionary  war, 

Mr.  BLOOMFIELD  delivered  his  impressions  in 
respect  to  the  operation  and  scope  of  this  bill. 
He  made  a  statement  to  show  what  were  his 
views  of  the  probable  number  of  applicants  un- 
der this  bill,  if  it  should  pass ;  and  the  annual 
amount  of  the  expenditure  it  would  occasion. 
The  Jersey  brigade,  he  said,  consisted,  during 
the  war,  of  four  regiments ;  there  were  forty 
officers  to  each  regiment,  making  in  the  whole 
one  hundred  and  sixty.  On  the  4th  of  July 
last,  as  he  was  enabled  from  personal  knowl- 
edge to  state,  there  were  living  but  twenty  of 
those  officers,  being  precisely  one-eighth  of  the 
whole  number.  Taking  this  fact  for  his  guide, 
as  the  proportion  of  survivors,  he  said,  there 
were  in  the  Continental  army  sixty-eight  bat- 
talions, of  whom  about  seventeen  thousand  men 
were  killed  or  died  in  the  service ;  and  at  the 
close  of  the  war,  it  was  a  well-known  fact,  the 
battalions  did  not  average  more  in  each  than 
two  hundred  and  fifty  ;  making  in  the  whole 
seventeen  thousand  men — of  whom,  say  about 
one-tenth  (being  generally  not  of  as  regular 
habits  as  the  officers)  were  living ;  that  is,  sev- 
enteen thousand.  Estimating  the  proportion 
of  applicants  for  the  pension  at  one-sixth,  would 
make  three  hundred  and  forty.  The  full  pay 
of  the  Revolution,  six  and  two-thirds  dollars 
per  month  to  each,  of  these,  would  amount  to 
$2,295  per  month.  Of  the  officers,  the  whole 
original  number  he  estimated  at  two  thousand 
seven  hundred  and  twenty ;  of  whom,  suppos- 
ing one-eighth  to  have  survived,  as  in  the  in- 
stance of  the  Jersey  brigade,  there  were  now 
living  about  one  thousand  three  hundred  and 
forty.  Of  this  number,  he  supposed  one-tenth 
of  the  whole  would  become  applicants  for  pen- 
sions— say  thirty-four ;  at  the  full  subaltern  Rev- 
olutionary pay  of  seventeen  dollars  per  month, 
their  pensions  would  amount  to  $578  per  month. 
The  monthly  pension  for  both  officers  and  sol- 
diers, on  this  estimate,  would  be  $2,873,  and  the 
annual  amount  only  $34,376 — an  amount  which 
must  daily  decrease.  But,  instead  of  full  pay 
pension,  the  bilLas  it  now  stood,  provided  only 
for  half  pay.  Would  this  House  be  satisfied, 
Mr.  B.  asked,  with  giving  to  these  men,  borne 
down  with  age  and  service,  a  pension  of  three 
and  a  third  dollars  a  month  during  the  small  re- 


mainder of  their  lives,  whilst  they  had  given 
the  soldiers  of  the  late  war  (no  disparagement 
to  them)  eight  dollars  per  month  ?  He  hoped 
not ;  and  therefore  moved  to  amend  the  bill  so 
as  that  the  amount  of  pension  should  be  for 
every  officer  seventeen  dollars  per  month,  and 
for  every  soldier  eight. 

Mr.  COLSTON  objected  to  the  qualification  of 
indigence,  required  by  the  bill,  to  entitle  the 
surviving  Revolutionary  officer  and  soldier  to 
the  benefit  of  its  provision.  Let  not  the  sol- 
dier, said  he,  by  whose  bravery  and  sufferings 
we  are  entitled  to  hold  seats  on  this  floor,  be 
required  to  expose  his  poverty  to  the  world, 
and  exhibit  the  proof  of  it,  to  entitle  him  to  re- 
lief. The  incorporation  of  such  a  provision  in 
the  bill  he  considered  as  degrading  to  the  House. 
In  what  light  was  this  bill  to  be  regarded  ?  Was 
it  to  be  considered  as  an  act  of  justice  ?  It  was 
less  than  justice,  having  suffered  these  meritori- 
ous men  to  have  remained  for  years  unreward- 
ed, to  offer  to  the  poor  remains  of  them  the 
right  to  a  pension  during  life,  clogged  with  such 
conditions.  As  an  act  of  beneficence,  he  should 
be  ashamed  to  hear  it  supported  on  this  floor. 
On  this  subject,  Mr.  0.  said  he  hoped  a  liberal 
spirit  would  prevail ;  and  that,  for  the  short 
remnant  of  their  lives  a  pension  would  be  given 
to  all  who  survived  of  the  soldiers  of  the  Revo- 
lution. 

Mr.  OEB  accorded  fully  in  the  sentiment  of 
Mr.  COLSTON.  On  the  first  perusal  of  the  bill, 
he  was  struck  with  the  thought,  what  must  be 
the  feelings  of  the  high-minded  officer  of  the 
Revolution,  compelled  to  produce  in  open  court 
the  proofs  of  his  own  indigence ;  and  he  hoped 
the  House  would  amend  that  part  of  the  bill. 

Mr.  HABBISON,  of  Ohio,  avowed  his  high  re- 
spect for  the  survivors  of  the  Revolution,  and 
his  sincere  desire  to  contribute  to  their  comfort 
in  old  age.  But,  he  said,  the  amendment  now 
proposed  went  too  far,  because  it  would  embrace 
every  one  who  had  shouldered  a  musket,  even 
for  an  hour,  during  the  Revolutionary  war.  As 
to  those  who  had  seen  serious  service,  so  far  from 
having  claim  to  the  meed  of  liberality,  the 
amendment  would  be  but  a  measure  of  justice, 
as  no  bounty  had  been  accorded  to  them.  Per- 
sons, however,  covered  with  scars  and  borne 
down  by  length  of  service  in  those  days,  ought 
not  be  confounded  with  those  who  had  been 
called  out  for  an  hour  or  a  day.  Some  of  the 
militia,  he  thought,  were  as  well  entitled  to  this 
pension  as  any  regulars,  of  whom  the  Jersey 
militia  might  be  particularly  mentioned.  But 
he  wished  to  have  the  operation  of  the  bill  lim- 
ited to  such  as  should  have  served  six  months 
or  more. 


MONDAY,  December  22. 
Another  member,  to  wit,  from  Pennsylvania, 
ALEXANDER  OGLE,  appeared,  produced  his  cre- 
dentials, was  qualified,  and  took  his  seat. 

Expatriation. 
Mr.  ROBEBTSON,  of  Louisiana,  from  the  select 


DEBATES  OF  CONGRESS. 


69 


DECEMBER,  1817.] 


Surviving  Revolutionary  Soldiers. 


[H.  OF  R. 


committee  to  whom  the  subject  had  been  re- 
ferred, reported  a  bill  providing  the  manner  in 
which  the  right  of  citizenship  may  be  relin- 
quished. 

[The  bill  proposes  to  provide  that  when  any 
citizen,  by  application  in  writing  to  the  district 
court  of  any  district  of  the  United  States,  in 
open  court,  and  there  to  be  recorded,  shall  de- 
clare that  he  relinquishes  the  character  of  a 
citizen,  and  means  to  depart  out  of  the  United 
States,  he  shall  be  thenceforth  considered  as 
having  exercised  the  right  of  expatriation,  and 
as  being  no  longer  a  citizen  of  the  United  States ; 
that  such  person  shall  be  held  as  an  alien  for- 
ever after,  and  shall  not  resume  the  rights  of 
citizenship  without  going  through  the  same 
process  of  naturalization  as  other  citizens.] 

Surviving  Revolutionary  Soldiers. 

The  remainder  of  this  day's  sitting  was  spent 
in  Committee  of  the  Whole,  on  the  bill  con- 
cerning the  surviving  officers  and  soldiers  of  the 
Eevolution.  There  was  much  debate,  occasion- 
ally eloquent,  but  generally  desultory,  on  amend- 
ments proposed  to  the  bill,  but  involving  also  its 
principles. 

Mr.  STEOTHEE  said,  that  he  had  not  intended 
to  trouble  the  House  with  any  observations  upon 
the  passage  of  this  bill ;  but  he  could  not  remain 
silent,  when,  by  the  proposed  amendment,  a  fea- 
ture was  endeavored  to  be  incorporated  into  it, 
which,  to  him,  appeared  to  narrow  the  opera- 
tion of  the  bill,  and  to  strip  it,  at  least,  of  one 
moiety  of  its  merit.  Is  it  just,  or  is  it  politic, 
he  asked,  to  discriminate  between  the  Conti- 
nental line  and  the  State  troops,  and  the  militia  ? 
"What  is  the  professed  object  of  the  bill  ?  To 
provide  for  the  indigent  soldiers  of  the  Revolu- 
tion. What  is  the  feeling  or  sentiment  from 
which  it  springs  ?  He  said  he  had  hailed  the 
introduction  of  this  bill  as  an  auspicious  circum- 
stance— as  a  gratifying  evidence  of  the  re-con- 
nection of  public  feeling  with  the  principles  of 
the  Revolution.  If  gratitude  be  the  feeling  or 
sentiment  from  which  this  bill  springs,  by  what 
principle  would  you  limit  and  confine  it  to  the 
Continental  line  ?  Is  the  reason  to  be  found  in 
the  bright  page  of  your  Revolutionary  history, 
or  in  what  celebrated  system  of  ethics  will  you 
find  its  justification?  If,  said  he,  you  look  to 
the  magnitude  of  the  boon  conferred,  how  awful 
is  the  debt  of  gratitude !  Mark  this  mighty 
empire  arising  into  existence  from  peril  and 
from  blood,  and  then  sit  down,  if  you  can,  and, 
by  cool  arithmetical  calculation,  draw  a  line  of 
discrimination  between  those  who  gratuitously 
bestowed  upon  you  that  freedom  and  that  pros- 
perity you  now  enjoy.  But  why,  said  he,  shall 
the  militia  be  excluded  the  nation's  bounty  ?  Did 
they  not  assist  in  the  conflict?  Did  they  not, 
half  armed  and  undisciplined,  meet  the  invading 
foe,  and  assist  in  repelling  him  from  your  shores? 
The  battle  ground  of  GuUford  speaks  their  eulo- 
gium ;  Bunker's  Hill  is  the  imperishable  monu- 
ment of  their  valor.  If  motive  gives  character 
to  action,  the  indigent  militiaman  has  the  high- 


est claim  to  the  interposition  of  this  Govern- 
men.  That  love  of  liberty  and  country,  which 
elevates  man  to  his  highest  destiny,  was  the 
sole  emulating  principle  which  gave  courage  to 
their  hearts,  and  strength  to  their  arms,  in  the 
hour  of  battle.  Here  were  motives  as  pure,  and 
achievements  as  brilliant,  as  illustrate  the  proud- 
est nations  of  antiquity.  Sir,  said  Mr.  S.,  it  13 
with  the  deepest  regret  that  I  am  driven  to  the 
comparison.  I  would  ask  that  hand  to  perish, 
that  would  snatch  one  leaf  from  that  laurel  that 
adorns  the  brow  of  the  Revolutionary  Army ; 
but  it  must  be  admitted  that  the  Continental 
army  had  a  mixture  and  compound  motive; 
the  holy  flame  that  then  electrified  the  coun- 
try no  doubt  burnt  bright  in  their  bosoms ;  but 
they  were  surrounded  by  all  the  pride,  pomp, 
and  circumstance  of  glorious  war ;  ambition  had 
his  prize  in  view,  and  avarice  his  reward.  But 
why  shall  this  invidious  distinction  be  drawn 
in  our  legislative  provisions?  Let  national 
pride,  let  national  gratitude,  obliterate  it  forever. 
Length  of  service,  said  he,  is  a  criterion  of  merit 
equally  fallacious  and  unjust.  With  the  best 
possible  disposition  to  render  services,  unfavor- 
able circumstances  may  doom  one  soldier  to 
waste  his  energies  in  inglorious  ease,  whilst 
others,  favored  by  more  auspicious  fortune,  may, 
within  a  comparatively  short  period,  have  fre- 
quently been  led  to  battle,  and,  by  their  personal 
prowess,  have  contributed  to  the  emancipation 
of  their  country.  Within  the  experience  of  many 
members  of  this  committee,  these  facts  have  oc- 
curred, and  they  are  within  the  observation  of 
all ;  shall  we,  then,  he  asked,  with  these  facts 
ringing  in  our  ears,  and  occurring  recently  be- 
fore our  eyes,  admit  a  principle  so  deceptive  and 
so  inequitable  ?  Sir,  said  Mr.  S.,  I  have  viewed 
this  bill  in  a  different  light ;  I  have  considered 
it  emanating  from  feelings  of  mingled  respect 
and  sympathy ;  as  a  homage  paid  to  that  stoic 
fortitude  and  heroic  courage  that  reclaimed  a 
hemisphere  from  slavery ;  as  a  tribute  of  respect 
to  sages  who  conceived  and  framed  a  Govern- 
ment, embracing  in  its  gigantic  arms  an  entire 
continent,  protecting  its  inhabitants  in  the 
enjoyment  of  freedom  and  happiness.  This 
House,  said  he,  cannot  more  appropriately 
evince  these  feelings  than  by  rejecting  the  pro- 
posed amendment  All  who  contributed  to  build 
up  our  magnificent  political  fabric,  should  be 
embraced  in  the  wide  circle  of  gratitude.  Per- 
mit not  him,  who,  in  the  pride  of  vigor  and 
of  youth,  wasted  his  health  and  shed  his  blood 
in  freedom's  cause,  with  desponding  heart  and 
palsied  limbs  to  totter  from  door  to  door,  bow- 
ing his  yet  untamed  soul  to  melt  the  frozen 
bosom  of  reluctant  charity!  No,  sir,  he  said, 
the  nation  should  seek  out  these  noble  ruins  of 
that  splendid  period,  and  spread  its  charity 
around  to  warm  and  cheer  them  into  a  fprget- 
f ulness  of  their  wrongs  and  their  sorrows,  in  the 
evening  of  their  days.  Mr.  S.  concluded  by  re- 
marking, that  he  flattered  himself  the  amend- 
ment would  not  obtain.  The  object  of  the  bill 
seems  to  connect  gratitude  and  charity,  service 


70 


ABRIDGMENT  OF  THE 


H.  OF  R.] 


The  Case  of  Mr.  Meade. 


[DECEMBER,  1817. 


and  distress.  The  beams  of  national  charity 
should  not  be  concentrated  on  the  head  of  the 
enlisted  soldier ;  the  beams  of  national  benefi- 
cence should  equally  visit  the  domicil  of  the 
militiaman,  and  convey  comfort  to  his  fire- 
side. 


TUESDAY,   December  23. 
Indemnity  for  Slaves. 

Mr.  WILLIAMS,  from  the  Committee  of  Claims, 
to  whom  was  referred  the  report  of  the  Sec- 
retary of  State  on  the  petitions  of  Antoine 
Bienvenu,  Peter  Lacoste,  and  Jacques  Villerd, 
citizens  of  Louisiana,  made  to  the  House  the 
following  report ;  which  was  concurred  in  by 
the  House : 

That  the  petitions  and  accompanying  documents 
were,  by  a  resolution  of  the  29th  of  January  last,  re- 
ferred to  the  Secretary  of  State  ;  that  the  Secretary 
of  State  has  submitted  to  the  House  a  report,  (hereto 
annexed,)  which  the  committee  beg  leave  to  adopt  as 
a  part  of  their  report. 

The  Committee  of  Claims  would  at  any  time  un- 
dertake with  great  diffidence,  to  discuss  principles  of 
national  law,  or  settle  questions  of  conventional  right. 
But  at  this  time  it  would,  in  their  opinion,  be  pecu- 
liarly indelicate,  if  not  premature,  for  Congress  to 
adopt  any  measure  whatever.  It  would  seem  to 
them  more  correct  that  the  subject  of  the  petitions 
should  await  the  result  of  a  negotiation  now  pending 
between  the  Governments  of  the  United  States  and 
Great  Britain.  They  therefore  recommend  to  the 
House,  the  following  resolution : 

Resolved,  That  the  petitioners  have  leave  to  with- 
draw their  petitions  and  documents. 

DEPARTMENT  OF  STATE,  Dec.  12,  1817. 

The  Secretary  of  State,  to  whom,  by  a  resolution 
of  the  House  of  Representatives  of  the  29th  of  Jan- 
uary last,  were  referred  the  petitions  of  Antoine  Bien- 
venn,  Peter  Lacoste,  and  Jacques  Vlliere,  citizens  of 
Louisiana,  has  the  honor  of  submitting  the  following 
report: 

The  petitioners  complain  that  when  the  British 
forces  retreated  from  the  Island  of  Orleans,  at  the 
close  of  the  late  war,  they  carried  away  a  considera- 
ble number  of  slaves  belonging  to  them  ;  the  resto- 
ration of  which  was,  after  the  ratification  of  the 
treaty  of  peace,  demanded  by  General  Jackson,  con- 
formably to  the  first  article  of  that  treaty,  of  the 
British  commanding  officer,  General  Lambert,  and 
by  him  refused ;  and  they  apply  to  Congress  for  in- 
demnity for  the  loss  of  their  property. 

Subsequently  to  the  reference  of  these  petitions,  a 
Message  from  the  President  to  the  Senate  of  the 
United  States,  was,  on  the  7th  of  February  last, 
transmitted  to  that  body,  with  all  the  documents  then 
in  the  possession  of  this  Department,  relating  to  the 
subject  of  these  petitions ;  a  printed  copy  of  that 
Message  and  of  those  documents  is  herewith  trans- 
mitted, which  it  is  respectfully  requested  may  be  re- 
ceived as  part  of  this  report.  By  them  it  will  be 
seen  that  a  different  construction  has  beeu  given  by 
the  British  Government  to  that  part  of  the  first  arti- 
cle of  the  Treaty  of  Ghent,  which  relates  to  the  res- 
titution of  slaves  captured  during  the  war,  from  that 
contended  for  by  this  Government.  That,  according 


to  their  construction,  the  British  Government  have 
not  considered  themselves  bound  to  make  restitution 
of  any  of  the  slaves  or  other  property  thus  taken  and 
carried  away  ;  and  that  the  difference  of  opinion  be- 
tween the  two  Governments  remaining,  after  all  the 
amicable  discussion  between  them  of  which  the  sub- 
ject was  susceptible,  a  proposal  was  made,  on  the  part 
of  the  United  States,  on  the  17th  of  September,  1816, 
that  the  question  should  bd  referred  to  the  arbitration 
of  some  friendly  power.  To  this  proposal  no  answer 
from  the  British  Government  has  yet  been  received. 
Their  attention  to  it  was  again  invited  by  the  late 
Minister  of  the  United  States  in  England,  before  he 
left  London,  and  has  been  urged  anew  in  the  instruc- 
tions to  his  successor. 

All  which  is  respectfully  submitted, 

JOHN  QUINCY  ADAMS. 

The  Case  of  Mr.  Meade. 

Mr.  TRIMBLE,  of  Kentucky,  offered  for  con- 
sideration the  following  resolution : 

Resolved,  That  the  President  of  the  United  States 
be  requested  to  cause  to  be  laid  before  the  House  any 
information  he  may  be  able  to  communicate  relative 
to  the  impressment  and  detention  of  Kichard  Cowles 
Meade,  a  citizen  of  the  United  States. 

Mr.  T.  said  that,  having  offered  the  resolu- 
tion, it  might  be  expected  that  he  would  give 
some  explanation  of  the  case  to  which  it  alludes. 
He  had  a  right  to  presume  that  every  member 
of  the  House  had  heard  of  the  confinement  of 
Mr.  Meade.  More  than  three  years  ago  that 
gentleman  had  been  incarcerated  in  a  Spanish 
dungeon,  where  he  had  ever  since  remained.  It 
was  within  his  (Mr.  T.^s)  recollection,  that  many 
persons  had  expected  that  the  last  Congress 
would  have  caused  an  inquiry  to  be  made  into 
the  subject;  but,  since  that  period,  the  case 
had  assumed  a  new  character,  of  most  extraor- 
dinary complexion.  It  was  well  known,  he 
said,  that  Mr.  Meade  is  a  citizen  of  the  United 
States,  and  he  believed,  was,  at  one  time,  an 
accredited  Consul,  resident  in  some  part  of  the 
Spanish  dominions.  Either  character  ought  to 
have  protected  him  from  violence  and  outrage. 
But,  unfortunately  for  him,  they  did  not.  The 
causes  which  produced  his  confinement  were 
unknown  to  Mr.  T. — they  were  probably  buried 
in  the  vaults  of  the  Inquisition.  That,  however, 
was  of  little  consequence,  if  the  facts  which  he 
was  about  to  state  were  true ;  and  that  they 
are  true  was  evinced,  he  said,  by  a  document 
which  he  held  in  his  hand,  and  which,  he  said, 
struck  the  mind  with  as  much  force  as  if  it  was 
marked  with  the  characters  of  official  certainty. 
I  am  prepared,  said  he,  to  admit,  that  if  a  citi- 
zen of  the  United  States  shall  violate  the  penal 
or  criminal  code  of  any  other  country,  he  must 
submit  to  the  punishment  which  may  be  inflict- 
ed on  him ;  but  such  is  not  the  case  of  Mr. 
Meade.  It  was  not  contended,  he  said,  that 
the  person  in  question  had  violated  the  letter 
or  spirit  of  any  part  of  the  penal  or  criminal 
code  of  Spain — and,  on  the  contrary,  the  docu- 
ment which  he  held  in  his  hand  afforded  the 
highest  evidence  that  there  was  no  cause  of 
complaint  against  him.  Upon  some  urgent  and 


DEBATES  OF  CONGRESS. 


71 


DECEMHER,  1817.] 


Revolutionary  Survivors. 


[H.  OF  R. 


vigorous  remonstrances  being  made  on'this  sub- 
ject by  our  Minister,  Mr.  Erring,  &  public  noto- 
rious royal  order  was  issued.  Mark  nie,  sir,  said 
he — a  public  notorious  royal  order,  announcing 
to  Spain,  to  America,  and  the  whole  world, 
that  there  was  no  cause  for  the  detention  of  Mr. 
Meade,  and  directing  his  immediate  release- 
ment.  How  the  aching  heart  of  Mr.  Meade 
must  have  throbbed  and  swelled,  cheered  with 
the  prospect  of  leaving  in  a  few  hours  his  loath- 
some, pestilential  dungeon,  to  breathe  once 
more  the  free  and  wholesome  air!  How  it 
must  have  sunk  and  died  within  him,  when  the 
doors  of  his  "  prison  house"  were  unbarred  by 
a  meagre  minion,  who  had  come  skulking 
through  the  vaults  of  those  abodes  of  death, 
with  another  secret  order!  Mark  me  again, 
sir — another  secret  order  issued  at  the  same 
time,  under  the  same  royal  signature,  com- 
manding his  keeper  to  hold  the  prisoner  at  his 
peril.  Yes,  sir,  one  order,  public  and  notorious 
for  his  releasement,  and  another  secret  order 
for  confinement,  of  the  same  date,  and  under 
the  same  royal  signature.  If  these  facts  be  true, 
the  case  stands  without  a  parallel  in  ancient  or 
modern  times.  Even  the  case  of  Czerney 
George  has  no  similitude ;  he  was  a  monster, 
executed  by  the  Turk,  because  he  had,  in  cold 
blood,  plunged  his  sabre  through  the  heart  of 
his  own  father.  Whereas  Mr.  Meade  is  ac- 
knowledged to  be  an  innocent  victim,  suffering 
under  royal  displeasure.  I  will  not  attempt, 
said  Mr.  T.,  to  paint  the  horrors  of  a  Spanish 
dungeon,  or  the  sickenings  of  hope  at  protract- 
ed confinement.  It  is  not  my  wish  to  excite 
public  feeling,  and  I  utterly  disclaim  all  inten- 
tion of  connecting  this  subject  with  other  ques- 
tions, now  under  discussion,  or  which  may  fall 
under  discussion,  between  this  Government  and 
Spain.  Mr.  T.  averred  also  that  he  had  entire 
confidence  in  the  Lite  and  present  Executive 
heads  of  the  Government,  and  had  no  doubt 
that  every  thing  which  could  be  done,  had  been 
done,  in  behalf  of  Mr.  Meade.  But  he  held  it 
the  duty  of  this  House  to  inquire  into  this  (he 
would  again  call  it)  extraordinary  case,  and,  if 
the  facts  and  circumstances  shall  require  it, 
make  such  expression  of  its  opinion  as  will  add 
weight  and  force  to  future  Executive  exertions. 
If  the  case  were  as  well-founded  as  rumor  told, 
he  for  one,  was  ready  to  volunteer  his  arm  in 
defence  of  Mr.  Meade,  and  breast  the  storm, 
unfearing  consequences.  For,  said  he,  while  I 
have  the  honor  of  a  seat  in  this  House,  no  law- 
less despot  shall  lay  an  angry  finger  on  a  fellow- 
citizen  of  mine,  without  the  hazard  of  bringing 
that  finger  to  the  block.  He  was  one  of  those, 
he  said,  who  were  willing  to  believe  that  we 
ought  not,  at  this  time,  uselessly  to  embroil  our- 
selves with  any  foreign  power;  and  he  was 
thoroughly  satisfied  that  it  is  our  best  and 
wisest  policy  to  husband  our  resources,  our 
men,  and  our  means,  to  meet  the  coming  con- 
flict with  the  only  nation  that  dare  strike  us 
upon  the  land  or  on  the  water — the  only  nation 
that  can  send  us  a  Hannibal,  or  whom  we  shall 


revisit  with  a  Scipio — that  nation  who  has  al- 
ready sacked  our  infant  Rome,  and  whose  proud 
Carthage  we  shall  one  day  humble  in  the  dust, 
and  sweep  with  the  besom  of  retributive  deso- 
lation. But,  said  he,  there  are  no  present  cir- 
cumstances, or  looked-for  events,  that  ought  to 
incline  us  to  harden  our  ears,  that  we  may  not 
hear  the  calls  of  a  suffering  citizen,  imploring 
our  protection.  Solon,  I  think  it  was,  upon 
being  asked,  "What  form  of  government  is 
best?  "  replied,  "That  form  in  which  the  small- 
est insult  offered  to  the  meanest  citizen  is  con- 
sidered an  injury  to  the  whole  community." 
Could  a  better  maxim  be  adopted  in  a  Govern- 
ment like  ours  ?  Is  there  any  thing  which  so 
exactly  accords  with  the  principles  of  our  con- 
stitution ?  This,  it  is  true,  is  but  a  single  in- 
stance of  individual  oppression;  but  the  out- 
rage done  to  the  personal  rights  of  the  victim ; 
the  infraction  of  national  law ;  and  the  affront, 
the  insult  offered  to  our  Government,  is  exactly 
the  same  as  if  half  a  million  had  been  incarcer- 
ated ;  for  he  held  that  our  system  of  Govern- 
ment is  the  true  poetic  chain,  which  links  us 
together  as  a  band  of  brothers — and 

"If  from  that  chain  a  single  link  you  strike, 
Ten,  or  ten  thousand,  break  the  chain  alike." 

We  are  bound,  sir,  said  Mr.  T.,  under  our 
constitution,  to  protect  the  life,  liberty,  and 
property,  of  every  citizen  of  our  country.  But 
where  may  he  claim  that  protection?  Or 
rather,  where  shall  his  right  to  claim  it  cease? 
Is  it  confined  to  the  limits  of  the  Union  ?  or 
does  it  not  extend  to  the  remotest  region  of  the 
globe,  which  is  visited  by  our  people?  May 
the  citizen  claim  it  against  the  savages  of  the 
Western  wilds,  and  is  he  not  entitled  to  it 
among  the  still  more  lawless  chieftains  of  a  de- 
caying, perishing,  and  ruined  monarchy  ?  It  is 
not  in  this  land  of  liberty  that  the  citizen  need 
call  for  protection ;  here  it  comes,  as  it  were, 
unbidden,  to  encompass  him  about ;  but  when 
oppression  falls  upon  him  in  a  foreign  land, 
among  strangers,  friendless,  and  unprotected, 
his  supplicating  voice  should  not  be  heard  in 
vain ;  for  every  thing  which  is  obligatory  in  the 
social  compact,  or  honorable  in  humanity,  calls 
for  and  commands  your  protection,  as  if  he 
stood  upon  the  sacred  soil  that  gave  him  birth. 
Who  of  us,  said  Mr.  T.,  in  the  condition  of 
Mr.  Meade,  would  not  ask  this  inquiry  of  this 
House  ?  Which  of  us  will  refuse  it  ?  For  the 
honor  of  my  country,  I  hope  there  is  not  one. 

The  motion  of  Mr.  T.  was  agreed  to  without 
opposition  or  further  debate. 

Revolutionary  Survivors. 

The  House  resolved  itself  into  a  Committee 
of  the  Whole  on  the  bill  concerning  the  sur- 
viving officers  and  soldiers  of  the  Revolutionary 

IT. 

The  debate  continued  on  the  main  subject 
and  on  the  proposed  amendment  of  Mr.  HAB- 
KISOX.  In  this  debate,  Messrs.  BLOOMFIELD,  S. 
SMITH,  HARRISON,  COLSTON,  BALDWIN,  CLAGETT, 


72 


ABRIDGMENT  OF  THE 


H.  OF  R] 


Commutation  Sill. 


[DECEMBER,  1817. 


HOPEINSON,  KHEA,  Boss,  and  INGHAM,  bore 
part. 

The  amendment  proposed  by  Mr.  HARRISON, 
was  ultimately  rejected ;  as  also  was  a  previous 
question  for  the  rising  of  the  committee,  in 
order  to  postpone  the  subject. 

The  committee  then  went  on  further  to 
amend  the  bill,  on  suggestion  of  various  mem- 
bers. In  the  proposition  and  discussion  of 
these  amendments,  Messrs.  PETER,  BLOOMFIELD, 
LIVERMORE,  PARRIS,  KHEA,  BENNETT,  BEEOHER, 
HARRISON,  TERRY,  FOBSYTH,  SMITH  of  North 
Carolina,  TAYLOR  of  New  York,  TALLMADGE, 
WHITMAN,  CLAGETT,  PALMER,  and  STORER,  took 
part. 

Among  the  successful  motions,  was  one  by 
Mr.  PARRIS,  to  include  the  "  officers  and  mari- 
ners who  served  in  the  navy  of  either  of  the 
States,  or  of  the  United  States,"  thus  placing 
the  Eevolutionary  officers  of  the  navy  on  the 
same  footing  as  those  of  the  army. 

The  Committee  of  the  Whole  rose,  about  four 
o'clock,  and  reported  the  bill  as  amended. 

The  House  took  up  the  amendments  reported 
by  the  committee ;  when  various  propositions 
were  successively  made  and  discussed,  to  disa- 
gree to  or  amend  many  of  them. 

The  House  having  at  length  gone  through 
the  amendments,  the  bill  was  ordered  to  be  en- 
grossed, as  amended,  nem.  con.,  and  read  a  third 
tune  to-morrow. 

WEDNESDAY,  December  24. 
Surviving  Revolutionary  Patriots. 

The  bill  providing  for  certain  surviving  offi- 
cers and  soldiers  of  the  Kevolutionary  Army  was 
read  a  third  time. 

A  motion  was  made  by  Mr.  LOWNDES  to  re- 
commit the  bill  to  a  Committee  of  the  Whole 
House,  with  instructions  "  to  limit  the  benefit 
of  the  act  to  soldiers  who  were  enlisted  for  a 
term  of  three  years,  or  for  the  war,  and  who 
did  not  desert ;  and  to  officers  who  continued 
in  the  service  of  the  United  States  to  the  con- 
clusion of  the  war  in  1783,  or  were  left  out  of 
the  service  in  consequence  of  disability,  or  in 
consequence  of  some  derangement  of  the  Army." 

The  question  being  stated  on  thus  recommit- 
ting the  bill,  Mr.  EDWARDS  moved  to  amend  the 
said  instructions  by  striking  out  the  words 
"  three  years"  and  to  insert  in  lieu  thereof  the 
words  "  one  year.'1'' 

And  the  question  being  taken  thereon,  it  was 
decided  in  the  affirmative.  . 

The  question  was  then  taken  on  the  final  pas- 
sage of  the  bill,  and  decided  in  the  affirmative 
without  a  division. 


MONDAY,  December  29. 
Appointment  of  Members  to  Office. 
The  following  Message  was  received  from  the 
PRESIDENT  OF  THE  UNITED  STATES  : 
To  the  House  of  Representatives  of  the  United  States  : 

In  compliance  with  a  resolution  of  the  House  of 
Representatives  of  the  12th  of  this  month,  request- 


ing to  be  informed  whether  any,  and  which  of  the 
Representatives,  in  a  list  thereto  annexed,  have  held 
offices  since  the  4th  of  March  last,  designating  the 
offices,  the  times  of  appointment  and  acceptance,  and 
whether  they  were  at  that  time  so  held,  or  when 
they  had  been  resigned,  I  now  transmit  a  report 
from  the  Secretary  of  State,  which  contains  the  in- 
formation desired. 

JAMES  MONROE. 
DECEMBER  29,  1817. 

DEPARTMENT  OP  STATE,  Dec.  26,  1817. 

The  resolution  of  the  House  of  Representatives  of 
the  12th  of  this  month,  requesting  the  President  to 
communicate  to  that  House  whether  any,  and  which 
of  the  Representatives  named  in  the  list  thereto  an- 
nexed, have  held  offices  since  the  4th  of  March  last, 
designating  the  offices,  the  times  of  appointment  and 
acceptance,  and  whether  they  were  at  that  time  so 
held,  or  when  they  had  been  resigned,  having  been 
referred  to  this  department,  the  Secretary  has  the 
honor  respectfully  to  report  to  the  President  as  follows: 

John  Holmes,  of  Massachusetts,  Commissioner  un- 
der the  4th  article  of  the  Treaty  of  Ghent,  appointed 
16th  February,  1816,  resigned  24th  November,  1817. 

Samuel  Herrick,  of  Ohio,  Attorney  of  the  United 
States,  appointed  19th  December,  1810,  resigned 
29th  November,  1817. 

Daniel  Cruger,  of  New  York,  postmaster  at  Bath, 
appointed  29th  June,  1815,  resigned  1st  December, 
1817. 

Ulias  Eark,  of  South  Carolina,  postmaster  at  Cen- 
treville,  appointed  in  April,  1815,  resigned  12th  June, 
1817. 

Thomas  H.  Hubbard,  of  New  York,  postmaster  at 
Hamilton,  appointed  llth  March,  1813,  resigned  23d 
October,  1817. 

Samuel  C.  Crafts,  of  Vermont,  principal  assessor  for 
the  sixth  Collection  district,  appointed  4th  January, 

1815,  resigned  5th  June,  1817. 

George  Robertson,  of  Kentucky,  principal  assessor 
for  the  seventh  Collection  district,  appointed  4th  Jan- 
uary, 1815,  resigned  5th  June,  1817. 

George  Mumford,  of  North  Carolina,  principal  as- 
sessor for  the  tenth  Collection  district.  No  resigna- 
tion has  been  received  from  Mr.  Mumford. 

Levi  Barber,  of  Ohio,  receiver  of  public  moneys 
at  Marietta,  appointed  3d  March,  1807,  resigned  1st 
December,  1817. 

John  F.  Parrott,  of  New  Hampshire,  naval  officer 
for  the  district  of  Portsmouth,  appointed  23d  April, 

1816,  resigned  15th  November,  1817. 

JOHN  QUINCY  ADAMS. 

Referred  to  the  Committee  of  Elections. 
Commutation  Bill. 

The  House,  on  motion  of  Mr.  JOHNSON,  of 
Kentucky,  resumed  the  consideration  of  the  bill 
to  commute  the  bounty  lands  of  the  soldiers  of 
the  late  army.  The  question  being  on  concur- 
ring in  the  amendments  reported  to  the  House 
by  the  Committee  of  the  Whole — 

Mr.  ROBERTSON,  of  Louisiana,  rose  for  the 
purpose  of  offering  an  amendment,  which  would 
essentially  change  the  features  of  the  bill ;  in 
doing  which,  he  entered  somewhat  into  an  ex- 
amination of  the  merits  of  the  principle  of  the 
commutation,  which  he  decidedly  approved. 
This  amendment,  in  substance,  authorizes  every 
soldier,  on  surrendering  his  warrant  at  the  land 


DEBATES  OF  CONGRESS. 


73 


DECEMBER,  1817.] 


Georgia  Militia  Claims. 


[H.  OF  P. 


office  to  be  i-mcdled,  to  receive  a  certificate  of 
the  quantity  of  land  surrendered ;  and  where 
patents  have  issued,  the  patentee  to  surrender 
his  patent  to  the  Commissioner  of  the  General 
Land  Office  within months  after  the  pas- 
sage of  this  act,  in  order  to  avail  himself  of  the 
provisions  thereof,  and  deposit  at  the  same  time 
an  affidavit  that  he  has  not  transferred  or  sold 
such  patent  to  any  person  whatever,  and  re- 
ceive a  certificate  therefor ;  and  for  these  certi- 
ficates such  soldier  or  his  agent  shall  receive 
certificates  of  stock  bearing  an  interest  of  six 
per  cent,  per  annum,  redeemable  at  the  pleas- 
ure of  the  Government,  or  within  five  years,  at 
the  rate  of  one  dollar  per  acre  for  the  land  for 
which  the  warrant  or  patent  has  been  surren- 
dered, &c.  Mr.  E.  thought  the  bill  important, 
both  as  it  regarded  the  soldier  and  the  United 
States,  but  infinitely  more  important  to  the  in- 
terest of  the  latter.  It  was  all-important,  he 
argued,  that  these  lands  should  be  taken  out  of 
the  hands  of  speculators,  and  be  redeemed  by 
the  nation.  His  amendment  offered  conditions 
to  the  soldier  much  more  liberal,  at  the  same 
time  that  it  would  be  more  convenient  to  the 
Government  than  the  provisions  of  the  present 
bill.  The  interest  of  both  parties  would  be 
preserved,  and  the  community  rescued  from 
that  speculation  which  would,  without  this  bill, 
certainly  take  place.  Mr.  R.  dwelt  some  tune 
on  the  policy  of  this  measure — the  expediency 
of  which  he  illustrated  by  several  arguments — 
and  on  the  advantages  of  the  change  which  he 
proposed  in  the  bill. 

The  amendment  offered  by  Mr.  K.  having 
been  read — 

On  motion  of  Mr.  JOHNSON,  of  Kentucky,  the 
proposed  amendment  was  ordered  to  be  printed, 
and  the  whole  subject  to  lie  on  the  table. 

Georgia  Militia  Claims. 

On  motion  of  Mr.  COBB,  of  Georgia,  the  House 
resolved  itself  into  a  Committee  of  the  Whole 
on  the  bill  providing  for  the  payment  of  the 
claims  of  certain  detachments  of  the  militia  of 
Georgia,  for  services  in  defence  of  that  State,  in 
the  years  1793  and  1794. 

Mr.  COBB  observed,  that  the  filling  the  blank 
necessarily  involved  the  merits  of  the  bill,  for 
that,  before  the  committee  could  be  required  to 
fill  the  blank  with  a  certain  sum,  they  should 
be  satisfied  whether  any  thing  was  due.  He 
hoped  he  should  be  able  satisfactorily  to  con- 
vince the  committee  of  the  justice  of  the  claim, 
and  that  the  sum  proposed  was  the  proper 
amount  to  be  appropriated. 

Mr.  C.  said,  that  the  pacification  of  the  Indian 
tribes,  which  was  anticipated  by  the  treaties 
made  with  them  between  the  years  1787  and 
1792,  was  not  accomplished.  In  the  year  1792, 
the  tribes  upon  the  Northwestern  frontiers  of 
the  United  States,  from  British  intrigues,  as 
was  then  and  yet  is  believed,  assumed  an  atti- 
tude of  widely  extended  hostility.  Nor  was  it 
long  before  their  threatenings  terminated  in  a 
war,  so  dreadful  in  its  character,  that  the  peo- 


ple of  the  Northwest  yet  have  cause  to  remem- 
ber it  with  grief  and  sorrow.  The  tribes  upon 
the  frontiers  of  the  State  of  Georgia,  as  savage 
in  their  character,  and  more  formidable  in 
point  of  numbers,  were  not  much  less  inclined 
to  hostility.  They  were  subject  to  the  same 
influence  which  had  been  exercised  upon 
their  Northern  brethren,  aided  by  that  of 
Spain,  with  which  power  the  United  States 
were  at  that  time  in  warm  dispute,  about 
the  navigation  of  the  Mississippi  River,  and  for 
other  causes.  The  intrigues  of  Spain  were  at 
that  time  well  known,  and  scarcely  denied,  as 
the  public  documents  of  the  day  amply  testify. 
Of  this,  any  gentleman  could  satisfy  himself  by 
consulting  the  volume  of  secret  documents,  late- 
ly published.  From  these  causes,  Mr.  C.  said, 
in  the  years  1792— '3,  the  situation  of  the  inhab- 
itants upon  the  Western  frontiers  of  Georgia, 
was  alarming  to  an  indescribable  degree.  Suf- 
fice it  to  say,  as  had  once  before  been  said  upon 
the  same  subject,  that  the  peaceable  citizen 
knew  not,  when  he  retired  to  repose,  that  he 
would  ever  awake ;  or,  if  he  did,  that  he  might 
not  be  roused  by  the  horrid  yells  of  the  savage 
warwhoop,  and  but  to  behold  his  helpless  fam- 
ily the  bleeding  victims  of  the  Indian  tomahawk 
and  scalping  knife. 

It  was  not  to  be  expected  that  the  Executive 
of  Georgia  would  calmly  behold  the  blood-chill- 
ing scenes  of  murder  and  depredation,  at  that 
time  but  commencing  upon  the  frontiers  of  the 
State.  Had  he  done  so,  he  would  have  merited 
and  received  the  curses  of  his  countrymen  and 
posterity.  Fortunately,  the  Executive  chair  of 
the  State  was  then  filled  by  one  who  was  ever 
feelingly  alive  to  the  sufferings  of  his  fellow- 
citizens.  He  now  reposes  in  the  grave !  But 
his  virtues  and  his  patriotism  are  yet  remem- 
bered, and  his  loss  deplored.  I  allude,  said  Mr. 
C.,  to  the  late  Governor  Telfair. 

Early  in  the  year  1792,  he  made  the  neces- 
sary communications  to  the  War  Department. 
On  the  27th  of  October  of  that  year,  the  Sec- 
retary at  War,  by  letter,  gave  him  a  most  am- 
ple discretionary  power,  as  the  extract  follow- 
ing will  show  :  "If  the  information  you  may 
receive,  shall  substantiate  clearly  any  hostile 
designs  of  the  Creeks  against  the  frontiers  of 
Georgia,  you  will  be  pleased  to  take  the  most 
effectual  measures  for  the  defence  thereof,  which 
may  be  in  your  power,  and  which  the  occasion 
may  require."  It  is  impossible  that  words  bet- 
ter suited  to  conferring  an  ample  discretionary 
power  could  have  been  used.  The  Governor  of 
Georgia  is  constituted  the  judge  of  the  danger 
and  of  the  amount  of  the  force.  The  state  of 
the  frontiers  required  that  such  a  power  should 
be  conferred,  at  that  particular  time,  and  it 
was  conferred.  It  was  necessary,  because  of 
the  uncertainty  of  the  extent  to  which  the  In- 
dians would  carry  their  hostility.  It  was  ne- 
cessary, because  of  the  difficulty,  and  trouble, 
and  expense,  of  bringing  a  militia  force  into 
action,  none  of  which  should  be  encountered,  if 
to  be  avoided  without  danger. 


74 


ABRIDGMENT  OF  THE 


H.  OP  R] 


Georgia  Militia  Claims. 


[DECEMBER,  1817. 


In  acting  under  this  power,  the  Executive  of 
Georgia  acted  with  caution,  and  prudence.  The 
power  was  conferred  in  October,  1792.  From 
that  time,  until  the  month  of  April,  1793,  the 
dangers  increased,  and  acts  of  depredation  and 
murder  multiplied  on  the  frontiers.  Longer  de- 
lay of  action  would  have  been  criminal.  On 
the  23d  of  April,  1793,  Governor  Telfair  ad- 
dressed the  following  letter  to  John  Habersham, 
then  the  agent  of  the  United  States  for  furnish- 
ing supplies  in  Georgia :  "  Sir,  the  very  criti- 
cal situation  to  which  the  frontier  settlers  are 
reduced,  from  the  late  murders  and  depreda- 
tions committed  by  the  Indians,  renders  it  in- 
dispensable that  means  be  taken  to  guard 
against  their  inroads.  I  have  made  the  commu- 
nications to  the  War  Department,  and,  in  the 
interim,  have  to  request  your  issuing  orders  to 
the  contractors  to  provide  rations  for  such  part 
or  parts  of  the  militia  of  this  State  as  may  be 
called  into  service,  to  be  furnished  at  the  sev- 
eral stations  and  places  of  rendezvous.  In  or- 
der that  you  may  be  informed  how  far  such  a 
measure  is  correspondent  with  the  system 
adopted  by  the  General  Government,  I  here- 
with furnish  a  certified  copy  of  a  clause  of  a 
letter  from  the  Secretary  of  "War,  dated  27th 
October,  1892,"  (the  one  already  read,)  "on 
the  subject  of  Indian  affairs."  Upon  the  re- 
ceipt of  this  letter,  with  the  extract  referred  to, 
the  agent,  Mr.  Habersham,  had  not  a  doubt  as 
to  the  powers  of  the  Governor.  He  conceived 
them  to  be  so  ample,  so  unbounded  indeed,  that 
he  did  not  hesitate  a  moment  to  give  to  the 
Governor  an  assurance,  that  his  requisition  for 
supplies  should  meet  with  prompt  attention. 
The  reply  of  Mr.  Habersham,  dated  on  the  same 
23d  of  April,  will  at  once  prove  this.  "  Being 
of  opinion,"  says  he,  "  that  I  shall  be  justified  by 
the  aforesaid  clause  in  doing  so,  I  shall  immedi- 
ately give  directions  to  the  contractor,  who  is 
now  here,  to  furnish  supplies  to  such  of  the  mili- 
tia as  may  be  drawn  out  under  the  sanction  of 
your  Excellency,  and  will  communicate  the 
same  to  the  Secretary  of  War,  and  the  com- 
manding officer  of  the  federal  troops  in  this 
State  without  delay."  Under  this  power,  and 
under  these  arrangements  with  the  officers  of 
the  United  States,  the  "Governor  of  Georgia 
proceeded  to  call  the  militia  into  service.  Need 
it  be  again  said,  how  properly? 

Mr.  C.  said  that  it  was  greatly  to  be  regret- 
ted that  the  pay-rolls,  which  only  would  afford 
evidence  of  the  precise  force  called  into  the 
field,  and  their  time  of  service,  had  been  de- 
stroyed in  the  conflagration  of  the  public  build- 
ings in  this  city  by  the'British  in  the  year  1814. 
He  was  happy,  however,  to  have  it  in  his  power 
to  assure  the  committee,  that,  from  information 
which  he  had  received,  and  which  he  was  dis- 
posed to  credit,  a  duplicate  of  the  pay-rolls  was 
yet  in  existence  in  the  State  of  Georgia.  For 
all  the  purposes  of  correct  legislation,  there  was 
sufficient  evidence  to  be  found  in  certain  esti- 
mates, which  have  not  been  destroyed,  and 
which  were  calculated  from  the  pay-rolls  be- 


fore their  destruction.  From  these  the  names 
of  most  of  the  officers,  with  the  number  (without 
the  names)  of  their  men,  and  the  length  of  their 
terms  of  service,  could  be  ascertained.  The  es- 
timates, together  with  a  letter  from  the  Secre- 
tary at  War  to  the  Governor  of  Georgia,  show 
that,  at  one  period,  there  were  from  eight  hun- 
dred to  one  thousand  two  hundred  mili tia  in  the 
field.  The  estimates  also  proved  the  fact,  that 
the  militia  were  mostly  detached  for  short 
terms  of  service,  and  were  discharged  when  the 
danger  of  the  frontiers  no  longer  required  their 
services. 

Even  upon  the  supposition,  that  the  full  num- 
ber of  twelve  hundred  men  had  been  kept  in 
service  from  April,  1793,  until  June,  1794,  (at 
which  day  they  were  disbanded,)  he  thought 
that  he  should  be  able  to  show  to  the  commit- 
tee, that  the  force  was  not  disproportioned  to 
the  danger  which  threatened.  The  frontiers  of 
the  State  of  Georgia  extended  along  the  borders 
of  two  nations  of  Indians,  at  that  time  equally 
hostile.  The  whole  extent  of  the  exposed 
frontier  was  upwards  of  four  hundred  miles, 
from  the  Tugeloo  Eiver  around  the  western 
parts  of  the  State,  to  the  mouth  of  the  St.  Mary's 
Eiver.  It  is  well  known,  that  all  that  British 
and  Spanish  intrigues  could  do,  was  done  to  ex- 
cite both  these  nations  to  a  war.  North  Caro- 
lina, South  Carolina,  and  the  territory  which 
has  since  been  created  into  the  State  of  Tennes- 
see, were  engaged  in  an  active  war,  as  well 
of  defence  as  invasion,  with  the  Cherokees  and 
Upper  Creeks,  to  whose  ravages  the  upper  parts 
of  the  State  of  Georgia  were  equally  as  much 
or  more  exposed.  On  the  southern  frontier 
were  the  Lower  Creeks,  who  had  already  com- 
menced the  work  of  death  and  slaughter.  The 
frontier,  in  its  whole  length,  was  but  thinly  in- 
habited. Add  to  ah1  these  considerations  the 
fact,  that  the  Governor  of  Georgia  was  con- 
fined to  defensive  operations  only,  and  was  re- 
stricted from  prosecuting  the  war  by  invading 
the  Creek  nation.  The  fact  will  be  learned 
from  the  letter  of  the  Secretary  of  War  to  the 
Governor  of  Georgia,  dated  the  30th  May, 
1793.  Had  the  wishes  of  Governor  Telfair 
been  attended  to,  upon  this  subject — had  he 
been  permitted  to  carry  the  war  into  the  heart 
of  the  enemies'  country,  as  he  one  time  prepared 
to  do,  and  by  which  only  can  an  Indian  war  be 
effectually  terminated,  this  application  for  so 
large  a  sum  would  not  now  be  made  at  the 
hands  of  Congress.  From  this  measure  he  was 
however  turned  by  the  positive  orders  of  the 
War  Department  in  September,  1793.  But, 
under  all  these  circumstances,  Mr.  C.  thought 
that  the  committee  would  be  convinced,  that  a 
less  force  than  the  one  employed,  would  have 
been  ineffectual  even  for  the  purpose  of  inva- 
sion ;  and  he  thought  that  any  one,  at  all 
acquainted  with  Indian  warfare,  would  be  con- 
vinced, that  it  would  be  less  effectual  for  de- 
fence. He  was  also  willing  to  submit  to  the 
committee,  whether  the  Governor  of  Georgia 
exercised  the  discretion  and  the  power  conferred 


DEBATES  OF  CONGRESS. 


75 


1817.] 


Georgia  Militia  Claims. 


[H.  OF  R. 


upon  him  in  an  incautious  or  imprudent  man- 
ner. 

Soon  after  the  militia  -was  called  into  service, 
the  power  of  the  Governor  of  Georgia  was  sus- 
pended, by  a  letter  addressed  to  him  from  the 
Secretary  of  War,  dated  on  the  30th  May,  1793. 
This  letter  is  of  the  most  extraordinary  char- 
acter. It  declared,  "that,  from  considerations 
of  policy,  at  this  critical  period,  relative  to 
foreign  powers,  and  the  pending  treaty  with 
the  northern  Indians,  it  is  deemed  advisable  to 
avoid,  for  the  present,  offensive  expeditions  into 
the  Creek  country.  But,  from  the  circum- 
stances of  the  late  depreciations  on  the  frontiers 
of  Georgia,  it  is  thought  expedient  to  increase 
the  force  in  that  quarter  for  defensive  purposes. 
The  President,  therefore,  authorizes  your  Excel- 
lency to  call  into  and  keep  in  service  in  addition 
to  the  regular  force  stationed  in  Georgia,  (which 
at  that  time  could  not  have  exceeded  one  hun- 
dred, and  were  of  no  use,)  one  hundred  horse 
and  one  hundred  foot,  to  be  employed  under 
the  orders  of  Colonel  Gaither,  in  repelling  in- 
roads, as  circumstances  shall  require."  One 
hundred  horse  and  one  hundred  foot  to  repel 
the  inroads  of  two  of  the  most  savage  and  war- 
like tribes  of  Indians  upon  the  whole  continent, 
on  a  frontier  extending  upwards  of  four  hun- 
dred miles !  Sir,  said  Mr.  C.,  the  destruction 
and  overthrow  of  such  a  force  would  have  been 
but  a  pastime  with  the  tribes.  But  it  is  not 
now  my  design  to  question  the  propriety  of  this 
policy.  Before,  however,  the  order  could  be 
executed,  and  the  troops  disbanded,  on  the  10th 
day  of  June,  1793,  only  ten  days  thereafter,  the 
Executive  of  the  United  States  seems  to  have 
been  sensible  of  its  impropriety,  and  according- 
ly, in  a  letter  to  the  Governor  of  Georgia,  he 
says — "The  State  of  Georgia  being  invaded, 
or  in  imminent  danger  thereof,  the  measures 
taken  by  your  Excellency  may  be  considered 
indispensable.  You  are  the  judge  of  the  dan- 
ger, and  will  undoubtedly  proportion  the  de- 
fence to  exigencies.  The  President,  however, 
expresses  his  confidence,  that  as  soon  as  the 
danger  which  has  induced  you  to  call  out  so 
large  a  body  of  troops,  shall  have  subsided,  that 
you  will  reduce  the  troops  to  the  existing  state 
of  tilings,  indeed  to  the  number  mentioned  in 
my  letter  of  the  30th  nltimo,  duplicates  of 
which  have  been  forwarded,  provided  the  safety 
of  the  frontiers  will  admit  the  measure."  If 
any  doubts  could  have  existed  of  the  power 
given  to  the  Governor  of  Georgia,  before  the 
receipt  of  this  letter,  they  were  put  to  rest 
thereafter.  By  this,  he  was  expressly  made  the 
judge  of  the  degree  of  danger,  and  of  the  num- 
ber and  extent  of  the  force.  It  contains  an  ac- 
knowledgment of  the  fact,  that  a  large  body 
of  troops  had  been  called  into  service,  but  con- 
siders the  measure  as  having  been  indispensa- 
ble. It  expresses  a  hope  that  the  force  will 
be  reduced,  yet  leaving  the  Governor  to  judge 
when  the  safety  of  the  frontiers  will  admit  the 
reduction  to  take  place. 

Alter  the  receipt  of  this  letter  the  Governor 


could  not  have  mistaken  his  powers.  To  afford 
complete  evidence,  however,  of  this  fact,  Mr. 
0.  called  the  attention  of  the  committee  to  a 
letter  of  the  same  date,  (10th  June,  1793,)  from 
the  War  Department  to  the  Governor  of  South 
Carolina,  in  which  he  is  requested,  "  that,  iu 
case  the  frontiers  of  Georgia  should  be  seriously 
invaded  by  large  bodies  of  Indians,  he  would, 
upon  the  request  of  the  Governor  of  Georgia, 
direct  such  parts  of  the  militia  of  South  Caro- 
lina to  march  to  the  assistance  of  Georgia,  as 
the  case  might  require;  for  the  expenses  of 
which  the  United  States  would  be  responsible." 
Here  again  is  the  Governor  of  Georgia  recog- 
nized, as  being  the  judge  of  the  necessity  of  the 
call,  and  clothed  with  power  of  making  the  re- 
quest of  the  Executive  of  South  Carolina.  But, 
it  also  contains  evidence  of  another  fact,  that  the 
detachment  of  the  force  by  the  order,  or  at  the 
request  of  the  Governor  of  Georgia,  was  at  the 
expense  of  the  United  States. 

The  report  of  the  committee  at  this  session, 
upon  the  claim,  says,  that  there  is  no  evidence 
that  this  power  was  conclusively  withdrawn 
from  the  Governor  of  Georgia,  until  February, 
1794.  There  is,  however,  a  letter  of  the  19th 
July,  1793,  which  Mr.  Dearborn,  Secretary  at 
War,  in  his  report,  seems  to  think  contained  in 
it  enough  to  amount  to  an  order,  withdrawing 
the  power.  This  letter  was  sent  by  Constant 
Freeman,  who  had  gone  to  the  State  of  Georgia 
as  agent  of  the  War  Department,  for  the  express 
purpose  of  superintending  all  matters  in  which 
that  department  was  concerned  on  that  frontier. 
This  letter  contains  an  express  order.  Al- 
though the  Secretary  at  "War  must  have  been 
apprised  of  the  Governor's  proceedings  to  a 
period  as  late  as  June,  18th,  of  which  date  he 
acknowledges  to  have  received  letters  from  the 
Governor,  yet  does  he  bestow  no  censure  for 
measures  already  adopted.  His  power  is  not 
Avithdrawn.  The  judgment  and  discretion  which 
he  had  previously  been  required  to  exercise, 
was  not  questioned.  On  the  contrary,  from 
the  month  of  September,  1793,  until  February, 
1794,  although  the  Department  must  have 
known  the  numbers  and  proceedings  of  the  mili- 
tia, no  order  was  sent  to  disband  the  men.  On 
the  22d  February,  1794,  a  positive  order  was 
sent,  and  before  1st  of  June  thereafter,  the 
whole  force  called  out,  except  certain  specified 
corps,  were  dismissed.  Even  this  order  con- 
tains an  expression,  significant  of  the  belief  of 
the  War  Department,  that  the  United  States 
were  liable  for  the  expenses  of  the  militia  in 
service  previous  to  that  tune.  For  it  declares, 
that  the  United  States  would  not,  thereafter, 
be  pledged  for  the  expenses.  This  can  mean 
nothing  else  than  that  the  United  States  held 
themselves  previously  pledged  ;  especially  as, 
until  that  period,  the  issue  of  supplies  of  pro- 
visions had  never  been  prohibited.  That  the 
Governor  of  Georgia  did  not  consider  his 
powers  withdrawn  is  evident.  The  militia  were 
retained  until  Governor  Telfair  went  out  of 
office,  and  for  some  months  after  Governor 


70 


ABRIDGMENT  OF  THE 


H.  OP  R.] 


Pensions  to  Wounded  Officers. 


[JANUARY,  1818. 


Matthews  came  into  it.  Even  if  the  letter  of 
19th  July,  1793,  should  be  considered  as  an  order 
to  discharge  the  force  called  out,  yet  another 
argument  in  favor  of  this  claim  is  to  be  derived 
from  these  facts.  The  claim  is  made  by  the  in- 
dividual persons  performing  the  services,  and 
not  by  the  State.  The  Governor  had  power 
from  the  General  Government  to  call  them  into 
service  in  the  first  instance.  It  was  the  duty 
of  the  militiaman  to  obey — it  did  not  belong  to 
him  to  call  for  the  orders  issued  to  his  superiors, 
that  he  might  judge  whether  his  superiors  had 
pursued  them ;  nor  ought  he  to  be  deprived  of 
his  pittance  of  pay,  if  his  superiors  have  either 
neglected  or  exceeded  their  orders.  If  the 
power  by  which  he  was  called  out  was,  in  the 
first  instance,  sufficient,  his  retention  in  ser- 
vices is  not  his  fault,  nor  should  he  be  the  loser. 


WEDNESDAY,  December  31. 
Another  member,  to  wit,  from  South  Caro- 
lina, JAMES  EBVIN,  appeared,  produced  his  cre- 
dentials, was  qualified,  and  took  his  seat. 

Titles  of  Nobility. 

Mr.  EDWAEDS  offered  the  following  resolu- 
tion: 

Resolved,  That  the  President  of  the  United  States 
be  requested  to  cause  to  be  laid  before  this  House  in- 
formation of  the  number  of  States  which  have  ratified 
the  13th  article  of  the  amendments  to  the  Constitu- 
tion of  the  United  States,  proposed  at  the  second  ses- 
sion of  the  llth  Congress,  [prohibiting  any  citizen 
of  the  United  States  from  accepting  or  retaining  any 
title  of  nobility,  pension,  office,  or  emolument,  with- 
out the  consent  of  Congress,  from  any  foreign  Prince 
or  Power,  <fec.] 

Mr.  EDWAEDS  stated  that  his  motion  was  in- 
duced by  some  doubts  whether  the  article  re- 
ferred to  had  been  ratified  by  a  sufficient  num- 
ber of  the  States  to  make  it  a  part  of  the 
constitution,  although  it  appeared  as  such,  he 
perceived,  in  the  copies  printed  for  the  use  of 
the  members  of  the  House;  and  it  was  de- 
sirable that  a  fact  so  important  should  be  placed 
beyond  question.  The  motion  was  agreed  to 
without  opposition. 

FEIDAT,  January  2,  1818. 
Another  member,   to  wit,  from  Massachu- 
setts, TIMOTHY  FULLEB,  appeared,  produced  his 
credentials,  was  qualified,  and  took  his  seat. 

Pensions  to  Wounded  Officers. 

The  following  resolution,  submitted  by  Mr. 
COMSTOCK,  was  read  and  committed  to  the 
Committee  of  the  Whole  to  which  is  com- 
mitted the  resolutions  submitted  by  Mr.  JOHN- 
BON,  of  Kentucky,  on  the  9th  of  December  last : 

Resolved,  That  it  is  expedient  to  provide,  by  law, 
for  placing  on  the  pension  list  the  officers  of  the 
Army  who  have  been  wounded  in  battle  during  the 
late  war  with  Great  Britain. 

Mr.  COMSTOCK  said  he  did  not  rise  to  say 
much  on  the  resolution  he  had  just  had  the 


honor  to  present.  He  did  not  think  the  occa- 
sion required  him  to  go  into  the  subject  at  any 
considerable  length.  But  he  deemed  some  ex- 
planation of  the  motives  which  had  induced 
him  to  this  measure,  due  to  the  subject,  to  the 
House,  and  to  himself.  He  hoped,  therefore,  to 
be  indulged  while  he  proceeded  to  make  a  few 
observations.  The  House,  he  said,  had  not  yet 
to  learn  that  wounded  officers  of  the  Army 
were  not  placed  on  the  pension  list  by  common 
usage  and  design.  If  a  contrary  practice  had, 
in  a  few  instances,  obtained,  as  he  was  inform- 
ed it  had,  and  some  wounded  officers  of  the 
Army  were  found  on  the  pension-roll,  the  fact 
could  be  accounted  for  only  in  this  way :  A 
few  wounded  officers  had  availed  themselves  of 
the  pension  laws  before  the  reduction  of  the 
Army,  shortly  after  the  close  of  the  war.  When 
this  reduction  was  made,  a  very  small  number 
of  these  were  retained  in  service ;  no  reference 
having,  he  presumed,  been  had,  on  this  occa- 
sion, to  the  list  of  pensioners.  Mr.  Speaker, 
said  Mr.  C.,  the  services  and  sufferings  of  the 
Revolutionary  officers  and  soldiers  have  ever 
been  duly  appreciated  by  the  people  and  by 
their  Representatives.  It  would  be  casting  a 
dishonorable  imputation  upon  the  virtuous  and 
enlightened  citizens  of  the  United  States,  to 
suppose  that  they  could  be  unconscious  of  the 
exalted  merit  of  those  who  have  endured  for 
them  nakedness,  starvation,  and  toil,  and  braved 
so  many  dangers  in  fighting  their  battles.  Nor 
did  they  brave  only  the  dangers  of  the  field ; 
they  subjected  themselves  to  the  fate  of  rebels, 
had  the  contest  been  disastrous.  Their  conduct 
must  have  called  down  upon  them  the  unmin- 
gled  fury  of  the  regal  Government  under  which 
they  were  held.  It  is  true,  indeed,  said  he, 
that  the  Revolutionary  officers  and  soldiers 
have  not,  in  all  cases,  been  sufficiently  reward- 
ed. This  has  been  owing  partly  to  the  want 
of  means  in  the  Government,  and  partly,  he 
feared,  to  an  improper  procrastination.  But  I 
rejoice,  said  Mr.  C.,  that  the  day  of  retribution 
has  at  length  arrived.  On  the  recommendation 
of  a  President  whose  blood  was  freely  shed  in 
the  arduous  contest  which  established  our  in- 
dependence, and  inspired  with  the  sentiments 
and  feelings  of  the  venerable  reporter  and  ad- 
vocate of  a  bill  to  reward  the  few  survivors  of 
that  contest,  we  are  about  to  accord  to  them 
that  assistance  which  they  need,  and  to  which 
they  are  entitled  by  every  principle  of  justice 
and  of  gratitude.  Mr.  0.  said  he  anxiously  im- 
proved this  auspicious  period  in  our  history,  to 
invite  the  House  to  the  subject  in  question. 
Mr.  Speaker,  continued  he,  it  will  be  recollect- 
ed that  a  proposition  was  made  a  few  sessions 
since,  to  bestow  a  gratuity  in  land  upon  the 
officers  of  the  late  army,  according  to  their  re- 
spective grades. 

^  Some  honorable  gentlemen  were,  at  that 
time,  unwilling  to  confer  this  gratuity,  without 
discrimination,  upon  those  officers  who  entered 
the  Army  just  before  the  termination  of  hos- 
tilities, and  who  had  been  constantly  employed 


DEBATES   OF  CONGRESS. 


77 


JASUAKT,  1818.] 


Pensions  to  Wounded  Officers. 


[H.  OF  R. 


in  the  recruiting  service,  as  well  as  upon  those 
who  had  endured  the  privations  and  perils  of 
the  field,  in  rendering  long  and  signal  service 
to  their  country.  None  were  found,  I  believe, 
said  Mr.  C.,  that  felt  disposed  to  withhold  the 
bounty  of  their  Government  from  the  latter 
class  of  officers;  all  were  ready  to  reward  ex- 
alted merit.  For  myself,  said  he,  it  would 
ever  gratify  the  finest  feelings  of  my  heart  to 
aid  the  passage  of  any  law  necessary  to  do 
them  justice.  This,  however,  said  he,  may  be 
considered  a  digression;  he  merely  suggested 
it  to  show  that  no  such  objection  could  be  sus- 
tained against  the  resolution,  or  against  a  bill 
of  which  it  might  be  the  foundation.  The 
wounded  officers  of  your  army  have  manifested 
the  physical  and  moral  qualities  necessary  in 
the  soldier.  They  have  largely  shared  the  suf- 
ferings and  dangers  incident  to  their  profession. 
They  have  not  wasted  their  time  in  the  pleas- 
ures of  the  ball-room,  and  in  the  amusements 
of  fashionable  circles,  remote  from  fatigue, 
alarm,  and  conflicts.  They  have  relinquished 
their  employments  and  professions,  sacrificed 
their  means  of  acquiring  wealth,  and,  foregoing 
the  endearments  of  domestic  life,  have  sought 
the  tented  field.  They  have  met  your  enemy, 
trodden  the  bloody  arena,  sustained  your  eagles, 
and  achieved  victory  in  the  jaws  of  death. 
They  have  borne  from  the  plain  of  battle  the 
laurels  of  conquest,  but  have  returned,  seamed 
with  scars,  disfigured  by  frightful  wounds,  or 
deprived  of  their  limbs.  In  these  consist  their 
pretensions  as  soldiers.  In  these  they  exhibit 
the  mournful,  yet  proud,  monuments  of  their 
valor  and  devotion  to  their  country.  When 
contemplating  this  subject,  said  Mr.  0.,  a  num- 
ber of  names  are  presented  to  my  view,  which 
I  will  beg  leave  to  pronounce  in  your  hearing. 
Among  the  wounded  officers  of  your  army,  I 
behold  the  names  of  Majors  Larabee,  Wetmore, 
and  Birdsall,  with  Lieutenants  Shaler  and  Wil- 
cox.  Major  Larabee  lost  his  left  arm  at  the 
battle  of  Brownstown,  under  the  command  of 
General  Miller.  This  General,  distinguished  in 
so  many  engagements,  I  leave,  said  Mr.  C.,  to 
the  pen  of  the  faithful  historian ;  suffice  it  to 
say  that  his  fame  is  more  imperishable  than  brass 
or  marble.  The  sensation  which  the  battle  of 
Brownstown  produced  throughout  the  Union 
can  never  be  forgotten.  Our  affairs,  at  that 
time,  wore  rather  an  unfavorable  aspect.  "When 
dangers  thickened  around  his  Spartan  band, 
their  unconquerable  spirit  rose  commensurate 
with  the  crisis.  They  manifested  a  contempt 
for  danger,  and  an  invincible  determination 
to  conquer  or  to  die.  They  attacked  and  rout- 
ed the  allied  forces  of  the  enemy,  drove  them 
from  their  lodgments,  and  left  the  field  in  tri- 
umph. Some  of  our  countrymen  were  slain ; 
but  with  the  loss  of  an  arm  Major  Larabee  sur- 
vived, and  has  ever  since  continued  in  the  ser- 
vice. The  amputation  of  his  limb  has  not  les- 
sened his  usefulness.  The  reports  of  the  Army 
sufficiently  evince  his  active  service.  Major 
Wetmore  lost  his  right  arm,  in  a  bold  and  dan- 


gerous enterprise,  on  the  Niagara  station,  in 
the  first  campaign,  under  the  command  of  an 
honorable  gentleman  of  this  House.  Though 
he  has  lost  a  most  useful  member,  he  has  lost 
none  of  that  proud  sensibility  which  character- 
izes the  American  soldier.  He  has  constantly 
served,  with  honorable  distinction,  in  various 
capacities  in  the  Army.  I  think,  said  Mr.  0., 
that  I  was  introduced  to  this  young  man  when 
he  could  reach  to  me  his  right  hand  in  the  salu- 
tation of  friendship;  but  this  he  can  do  no 
more  forever.  Major  Birdsall  was  dreadfully 
wounded  in  the  face  when  the  night  assault 
was  made  on  Fort  Erie.  It  had  become  his 
duty  to  dislodge  the  enemy  from  the  momen- 
tary possession  of  that  bastion  which  was  af- 
terwards blown  up.  A  few  moments  after  this 
awful  catastrophe,  when  he  was  standing  on  a 
twenty-four  pounder,  very  near  this  fatal  spot, 
dispensing  orders  to  his  troops,  and  cheering 
them  to  victory,  a  ball  entered  his  mouth,  car- 
ried off  almost  one-half  of  his  lower  jaw,  and 
lodged  in  the  lateral  and  hinder  part  of  the 
neck.  It  has,  very  recently,  been  extracted. 
Language  cannot  express  the  sufferings  he  had 
sustained.  Repeated  and  extensive  ulcerations 
had  supervened.  The  left  shoulder,  from  tho 
continuity  of  its  parts  with  those  wounded  and 
ulcerated,  had  fallen  below  its  natural  position. 
The  dressings  for  the  wound  must  be  removed 
and  renewed  several  times  a  day ;  certainly  as 
often  as  food  is  taken,  and  sometimes  more  fre- 
quently. The  constant  oozing  of  the  saliva, 
through  the  unclosed  wound,  soon  wets  not 
only  the  dressings,  but  also  the  collar  and 
cravat.  But,  sir,  said  Mr.  0.,  I  must  not  be  too 
technical  and  minute  in  description  upon  this 
occasion.  We  see,  however,  that  sufferings, 
expense,  and  trouble  have  not  driven  Major 
Birdsall  from  the  service.  He  continues,  with 
his  acknowledged  zeal  and  ability,  to  discharge 
its  duties  with  universal  approbation.  With 
Lieutenants  Shaler  and  Wilcox,  who  were 
wounded  in  the  campaign  of  1814, 1  have  not 
said  he,  the  pleasure  to  be  acquainted,  nor  do  I 
know  their  particular  history.  But  they  are 
in  the  Army ;  and  their  wounds  clearly  indi- 
cate that  they  have  sought  the  post  of  honor, 
and  challenged  the  esteem  and  reward  of  their 
country.  The  former  has  lost  his  left,  and  the 
latter  his  right  arm. 

But,  Mr.  Speaker,  the  allowing  of  an  officer 
pay  and  pension  at  the  same  time,  may  be  con- 
ceived inadmissible.  It  may  be  said,  that  an 
officer  entitled  to  a  full  pension  according  to  his 
rank,  must  be  totally  disabled,  and  by  conse- 
quence incompetent  to  afford  sufficient  service 
to  his  country.  Mr.  0.  said,  the  words  "  total 
disability,"  used  in  the  pension  laws,  are  indefi- 
nite in  their  meaning.  The  phrase,  he  said, 
was  obviously  relative.  If  the  words  were 
taken  in  their  most  extensive  and  unqualified 
sense,  they  would  import  death  itself,  or  some- 
thing approaching  near  that  state.  For,  if  a 
man  possessed  only  a  very  small  share  of  cor- 
poreal and  mental  power,  he  could  exercise  it 


ABRIDGMENT  OF  THE 


H.  OF  R.] 


Ohio  Contested  Election. 


[JANUARY,   1818. 


in  some  way  towards  procuring  a  livelihood. 
Nevertheless,  an  officer  deprived  of  an  arm,  leg, 
or  eye,  is  totally  disabled  in  the  view  of  the 
laws,  judging  from  the  interpretation  they  have 
received  in  practice,  and  is  therefore  entitled  to 
a  full  pension,  in  proportion  to  his  grade.  But 
will  it  be  contended  that  these  injuries,  essen- 
tial as  they  are,  disqualify  an  officer  to  dis- 
charge the  duties  devolved  upon  him  ?  I  trust 
not,  sir,  said  Mr.  0.  I  do  not  conceive  that 
the  being  able  to  shoulder  a  barrel  of  cider,  or 
to  chop  off  logs,  is  an  important  qualification  in 
an  officer.  Lord  Nelson  did  not  possess  the 
physical  ability  necessary  to  accomplish  such 
things  when  he  fought  those  battles  that  have 
ranked  him  among  the  most  illustrious  of 
naval  heroes,  and  gilded  the  pages  of  British 
history. 

Sir,  said  Mr.  0.,  would  a  pension  make  the 
condition  of  the  officers  I  have  named  more 
eligible  than  if  they  had  never  been  wounded  ? 
Surely  not.  What  value  shall  be  put  on  the 
wounds  of  these  officers  ?  "What  is  the  amount 
of  the  inconvenience,  expense,  and  torture, 
which  they  have  borne,  and  continue  to  sus- 
tain ?  "Would  they  have  bartered  their  active 
limbs  for  a  pension  ?  No,  sir ;  they  risked  more 
than  their  limbs,  when,  inspired  by  nobler  mo- 
tives, they  took  up  arms  and  fought  for  their 
country !  Their  talents  and  good  conduct  have 
continued  them  in  the  Army.  They  are  able 
to  serve  you  in  peace  or  in  war;  and,  should 
you  place  them  on  the  pension  roll,  how  can  it 
be  shown  that  this  act  of  sheer  justice  ought  to 
exclude  them  from  a  participation  in  military 
employment  and  promotion? 

Mr.  Speaker,  the  war  is  ended;  the  din  of 
arms  does  not  continue  to  salute  our  ears ;  our 
eyes  are  no  longer  pained  with  beholding  gar- 
ments rolled  in  blood.  "We  are  prone  to  forget 
these  things ;  but  the  wounded  soldier,  and 
those  who  depend  on  him  for  protection  and 
support,  have  much  reason  to  remember  them. 
Though  our  wounded  officers  of  the  Army  are 
not  disqualified  for  military  service,  their  habits, 
and  the  loss  of  former  business  and  employ- 
ments, have  disqualified  them  for  other  pur- 


Mr.  Speaker,  let  us  accord  honor  and  assist- 
ance to  the  brave ! 

"  All  things  are  common,  but  the  warrior's  fame: 
That  glows  eternal  in  the  mouths  of  men," 

In  anniversary  orations  and  songs  we  are 
called  "  a  band  of  brothers."  Let  us  evince  by 
our  conduct  the  sincerity  of  our  fraternal  affec- 
tion. I  am  unwilling  to  join  in  these  profes- 
sions, if  they  are  unmeaning.  It  is  not  enough 
to  say  to  a  naked  and  hungry  brother,  "Be 
thou  clothed  and  fed."  Tears  of  sympathy 
.  should  bedew  our  cheeks,  and  streams  of  muni- 
ficence should  issue  from  our  hands.  Sir,  said 
Mr.  C.,  it  is  not  among  the  least  blessings  of  a 
republican  Government,  that  its  burdens  are 
equally  borne,  and  its  advantages  equally  en- 


joyed. Let  us,  Mr.  Speaker,  do  equal  and  ex- 
act justice  to  every  class  of  citizens.  Then  our 
free  institutions,  based  in  the  affections  of  the 
people,  shall  manifest  to  the  latest  ages  the  me- 
morials of  Columbian  wisdom  and  valor.  I 
hope,  said  Mr.  C.,  that  the  resolution  will  be 
referred,  and  that  something  may  result  from 
it  beneficial  to  the  wounded  officers  of  the 
Army,  and  honorable  to  the  nation.  I  hope 
that  Government  will  at  least  place  them  above 
embarrassment,  and  enable  them  to  support 
themselves,  and  those  whom  Providence  rnay 
have  committed  to  their  care  and  protection. 
It  mnst  gratify  every  benevolent  heart  to  see 
the  children  of  the  wounded  defenders  of  their 
country's  rights  enjoying  those  social  advan- 
tages which  the  gallantry  of  their  fathers  has 
nobly  contributed  to  secure  and  perpetuate. 


MONDAY,  January  5. 
Ohio  Contested  Election. 

Mr.  TATLOE,  of  New  York,  from  the  Com- 
mittee on  Elections,  to  whom  was  referred  the 
petition  of  C.  Hammond,  contesting  the  election 
of  Mr.  HERBICK,  a  member  of  this  House  from 
the  State  of  Ohio,  on  the  ground  of  his  having 
held  an  office  under  the  United  States,  subse- 
quent to  the  fourth  day  of  March  last,  made  a 
report;  which  was  read,  and  referred  to  a 
Committee  of  the  Whole.  The  report  is  as  fol- 
lows: 

That  on  the  19th  December,  1810,  Mr.  Herrick 
was  appointed  Attorney  of  the  United  States  for  the 
district  of  Ohio,  which  office  he  accepted,  and  held 
until  his  resignation  thereof,  on  the  29th  November, 
1817.  In  October,  1816,  he  was  elected  one  of  the 
Representatives  of  the  State  of  Ohio  for  the  Fifteenth 
Congress.  The  result  of  the  election  was  publicly 
announced  on  the  7th  January,  1817,  in  the  presence 
of  the  Senate  of  that  State.  On  the  15th  September, 
1817,  the  Governor  executed  a  certificate  of  Mr. 
Herrick's  election,  according  to  the  law  of  Ohio, 
which  was  received  by  him  on  or  about  the  30th  day 
of  the  same  month.  Mr.  Herrick,  therefore,  con- 
tinued in  office  almost  nine  months  after  the  fourth 
of  March  last,  and  two  months  after  receiving  the 
certificate  of  his  election.  It  does  not  appear,  on  the 
part  of  the  memorialist,  and  it  is  denied,  on  the  part 
of  Mr.  Herrick,  that  he  performed  any  act  as  Attor- 
ney of  the  United  States,  after  the  said  30th  Septem- 
ber. He,  however,  continued  in  office,  was  liable  to 
perform  its  duties,  and  was  entitled  to  its  salary,  un- 
til his  resignation.  Congress  met  December  1, 1817, 
and  Mr.  Herrick  took  his  seat  on  that  day  in  the 
House  of  Representatives. 

The  6th  section  of  the  first  article  of  the  constitu- 
tion provides  that  "  no  person  holding  any  office  un- 
der the  United  States  shall  be  a  member  of  either 
House,  during  his  continuance  in  office."  The  in- 
compatibility is  not  limited  to  exercising  an  office, 
and  at  the  same  time,  being  a  member  of  either 
House  of  Congress ;  but  it  is  equally  extended  to  the 
case  of  holding ;  that  is,  having,  keeping,  possessing, 
or  retaining  an  office  under  such  circumstances.  If 
the  membership  of  Mr.  Herrick  commenced  either 
on  the  4th  of  March  or  the  30th  of  September,  1817, 


DEBATES  OF  CONGKESS. 


79 


JAXCAKY,  1818.] 


Ohio  Contested  Election. 


[H.  OF  R. 


he  has  vacated  that  membership  hy  holding  an  office 
incompatible  therewith. 

We  do  not  find  that  the  question  of  incompatibility 
has  been  agitated  in  the  Honse  of  Representatives  on 
more  than  two  occasions.  The  first  case  was  that  of 
John  P.  Van  Xess,  which  occurred  during  the  second 
session  of  the  Seventh  Congress.  The  Committee  of 
Elections  were  then  instructed  to  inquire  whether 
Mr.  Van  Xess,  one  of  the  Representatives  from  the 
State  of  New  York,  had  not,  after  his  election,  and 
after  he  had  occupied  a  seat  of  a  member,  accepted 
and  exercised  the  office  of  a  major  of  militia,  under 
the  authority  of  the  United  States,  within  the  Terri- 
tory of  Columbia.  Mr.  Van  Ness  freely  admitted 
the  fact,  as  alleged,  and  thereupon  the  House  unani- 
mously resolved  that  he  had  thereby  forfeited  his 
right  to  a  seat  as  a  member  of  the  House. 

The  other  case  was  that  of  Philip  Barton  Key,  de- 
cided at  the  first  session  of  the  Tenth  Congress.  Mr. 
Key's  seat  was  impeached,  among  other  grounds, 
upon  this  :  that,  at  the  tune  of  his  election,  and  until 
a  few  days,  either  before  or  after  he  took  his  seat,  he 
held,  from  the  British  Government,  in  his  own  right 
and  name,  the  half-pay  pension  of  a  captain  of  in- 
fantry. The  facts  were  briefly  these :  Mr.  Key  served 
as  an  officer  in  the  British  army,  without  the  limits 
of  the  United  States,  from  1778  until  1783,  when  the 
corps  to  which  he  belonged  was  disbanded,  and  the 
officers  placed  on  half-pay.  The  pension  was  paid, 
either  for  the  benefit  of  himself  or  his  assignee,  until 
the  month  of  December,  1805,  when  he  received  six 
months'  half-pay :  in  January,  1806,  he  wrote  to  his 
agent  in  London,  directing  him  to  resign  his  claim  to 
half-pay,  and  also  to  rank,  if  any  could  be  supposed 
to  exist ;  but  it  did  not  appear  that  any  thing  had 
been  done  in  pursuance  of  that  letter,  nor  indeed  that 
it  ever  had  been  received  by  his  agent. 

On  the  6th  of  October,  1806,  Mr.  Key  was  elected 
a  Representative  of  the  State  of  Maryland,  for  two 

S;ars,  commencing  on  the  fourth  of  March,  1807. 
n  the  24th  of  October  following,  he  addressed  a  let- 
ter to  Mr.  Erskine,  then  His  Britannic  Majesty's 
Ambassador  at  Washington,  referring  to  the  letter 
written  to  his  agent,  and  repeating  his  resignation  in 
a  formal  manner.  This  letter  was  not  delivered  to 
Mr.  Erskinc  until  the  28th  or  29th  of  October,  which 
was  two  or  three  days  after  the  meeting  of  Congress, 
and  after  Mr.  Key  had  taken  his  seat  in  the  House 
oc  Representatives.  Upon  these  facts  the  House  de- 
cided that  Mr.  Key  was  entitled  to  his  seat. 

In  regard  to  the  several  cases  of  Messrs.  Turner, 
Dawson,  and  others,  mentioned  in  the  answer  marked 
C,  filed  by  Mr.  Holmes,  on  the  part  of  Mr.  Herrick, 
we  think  a  single  remark  sufficient.  It  does  not  ap- 
pear that  the  House  of  Representatives  was  made 
acquainted  with  the  existence  of  these  cases.  It 
cannot,  therefore,  be  considered  to  have  acquiesced 
in  that  of  which  it  was  ignorant. 

The  decisions  of  the  House  of  Commons,  under  the 
statutes  5  William  and  Mary,  chap.  7;  11  William 
IIJ.,  chap.  2 ;  and  12  and  13  William  III.,  chap.  10, 
may  serve  to  shed  some  light  upon  the  subject  under 
consideration.  The  first  of  these  statutes  enacts  that 
no  member  of  the  Honse  of  Commons  shall,  at  any 
time,  be  concerned,  directly  or  indirectly,  or  any 
other  in  trust  for  him,  in  the  framing,  collecting,  or 
managing  any  of  the  duties  granted  by  that  or  any 
future  act  of  Parliament,  except  the  commissioners  of 
the  Treasury,  and  the  officers  and  commissioners  for 
managing  the  customs  and  excise.  The  second  act 


extends  the  disqualification  to  officers  of  the  excise, 
declaring  them  incapable  of  sitting,  voting,  or  acting 
as  members ;  and  the  last  mentioned  act  applies  the 
same  provisions  to  all  officers  of  the  customs. 

Many  members  of  the  House  of  Commons  were,  at 
different  times,  expelled  for  violations  of  these  stat- 
utes ;  but  the  facts  are  reported  in  terms  so  general, 
that  it  is  impossible  in  most  cases  to  determine 
whether  the  offence  was  committed  before  or  after 
the  member  took  his  seat  in  the  House.  We  find, 
however,  two  cases  where  the  particulars  are  stated. 
The  first  case  was  decided  on  the  13th  February, 
1698,  under  the  act  above  mentioned  of  the  5  Wil- 
liam and  Mary.  It  is  the  case  of  Mr.  Montagu ;  and 
it  is  stated  as  follows  by  Hatsell,  in  his  precedents  of 
proceedings  in  the  Honse  of  Commons.  The  new 
Parliament  was  made  returnable  on  the  24th  of  Au- 
gust, 1698,  and  was  directed  to  sit  for  the  despatch 
of  business  on  the  29th  of  November.  Mr.  Montagu 
had  been  a  commissioner  of  stamp  duties,  but,  in  the 
commission  which  passed  in  September,  1698,  he  was 
left  out ;  it  appeared  that  he  had  acted  under  the 
former  commission  till  the  4th  of  October,  1698. 
But,  having  informed  the  House  that  he  did  not 
qualify  himself  as  a  member  till  the  29th  of  Novem- 
ber, and  so  conceived  himself  not  to  be  within  the 
law,  he  is,  upon  the  question,  called  in  to  take  his 
place,  and  a  committee  is  appointed  to  draw  up  and 
state  the  matter  of  fact  It  does  not  appear  that  the 
committee  ever  made  report. 

The  other  case  is  reported  as  follows  :  On  the  5th 
of  February,  1708,  Sir  Richard  Alien  was,  on  the 
hearing  of  his  petition,  declared  to  be  duly  elected  for 
Dunwich.  On  the  7th  of  February  he  surrenders  an 
office  in  the  customs  for  life,  to  which  he  had  been 
appointed  in  May,  1678.  On  the  8th  of  February 
this  surrender  is  enrolled,  and  on  the  9th  of  February 
he  desires  the  sense  of  the  House,  before  he  takes  his 
seat,  on  the  clause  of  the  12  and  13  of  William  IH, 
chap.  10,  which  relates  to  the  officers  of  the  customs; 
and,  upon  reading  the  letters  patent  and  surrender, 
he  is  permitted  to  take  his  seat. 

Persons  elected  to  the  House  of  Commons  become 
at  one  time  members  for  certain  purposes,  and  at  an- 
other time  for  other  purposes.  Thus,  immediately 
upon  executing  the  indenture  of  return  by  the  sheriff 
or  other  returning  officer,  the  person  elected  becomes 
entitled  to  the  privilege  of  franking,  although  the 
day  at  which  the  Parliament  is  made  returnable  may 
not  have  arrived.  Yet  he  is  not  a  member,  for  he 
may  thereafter  be  a  candidate  for  election  in  another 
district,  at  any  time  before  the  Parliament  is  made 
returnable,  and  the  return  actually  filed  in  the 
Crown  Office.  From  the  time  last  mentioned,  he 
becomes  a  member  so  far  that  he  cannot  be  a  can- 
didate for  another  district,  but  yet  may  thereafter 
hold  an  office  incompatible  with  membership,  and 
upon  resigning  his  office,  he  may  immediately  qualify 
and  take  his  seat  in  the  House.  It  has  often  been 
decided  by  their  Committee  of  Elections,  that  a  per- 
son holding  an  office  incompatible  with  membership 
is,  nevertheless,  capable  of  prosecuting  his  claim  to 
a  seat.  After  examination  of  all  the  Parliamentary 
registers,  histories,  and  journals  within  our  reach, 
we  have  found  no  case  where  a  person  elected  to  the 
House  of  Commons  was  brought  in  on  a  call  of  the 
House,  before  he  had  voluntarily  appeared,  qualified, 
and  taken  his  seat,  nor  do  we  find  any  instance  of  a 
person  having  been  expelled  until  after  such  time. 

A  very  particular  case  occurred   on  the  10th  of 


SO 


ABKIDGMENT  OF  THE 


H.  OF  R.] 


Ohio  Contested  Election. 


1818. 


February,  1220 :  Sir  John  Leech  having  been  duly 
elected  a  member  of  the  House  of  Commons,  and 
appearing  to  take  the  oaths  of  allegiance  and  su- 
premacy, was  asked  whether  he  had  not  already  sat 
in  the  House  of  that  Parliament  in  violation  of  the 
statute.  He  confessed  that,  on  the  Wednesday  morn- 
ing previous,  he  did  sit  in  the  House  a  quarter  of  an 
hour  being  unsworn.  For  this  offence  Sir  John  was 
not  expelled,  but  it  was  resolved  that  he  was  disa- 
bled to  serve  in  the  House ;  and  a  new  writ  of  election 
was  issued  to  supply  the  vacancy,  in  the  same  man- 
ner as  if  no  election  and  return  had  taken  place. 
The  same  course  of  proceeding  has  been  pursued 
when  a  person,  duly  elected  and  returned,  comes  into 
the  House  and  refuses  to  be  sworn.  Such  was  the 
case  of  Mr.  Archdale,  in  the  year  1698,  who,  being 
elected  and  returned,  came  into  the  House  of  Com- 
mons and  said  he  was  ready  to  serve,  if  his  affirma- 
tion of  allegiance  could  be  accepted  instead  of  his 
oath.  The  House  resolved  that  it  could  not.  Mr. 
Archdale,  still  declining  to  take  the  oath,  was  re- 
fused admittance  to  a  seat,  and  a  new  writ  was  is- 
sued to  supply  his  place.  This  case  is  more  pecu- 
liar, because  a  person  elected  to  the  House  of 
Commons  cannot  relinquish  his  right  to  a  seat  either 
before  or  after  qualification,  otherwise  than  by  ac- 
cepting an  incompatible  office.  But  by  refusing  to 
be  sworn,  he  may  do  that  indirectly  which  he  is  not 
permitted  to  do  directly.  We  have  seen  several 
similar  cases  which  occurred  in  the  Colonial  Assem- 
bly of  New  York,  but  not  now  having  access  to  the 
journals,  we  are  unable  to  report  the  particulars. 

Persons  elected  and  returned  to  the  House  of  Com- 
mons may  be  chosen  members  of  committees  before 
they  appear  and  qualify.  But  it  is  allowed  for  a 
reason  similar  to  that  which,  in  courts  of  law,  per- 
mits a  declaration  to  be  filed  de  bene  esse  before  the 
defendant  appears  in  court.  In  both  cases  the  act 
is  conditional ;  and  it  is  ineffectual,  unless  the  condi- 
tion of  appearance  be  performed. 

The  practice  of  this  House,  which  does  not  allow 
the  appointment  of  persons  to  be  members  of  com- 
mittees, until  they  shall  have  taken  their  seats,  is 
obviously  more  reasonable  and  convenient  than  the 
other.  It  was  decided,  as  early  as  the  first  session  of 
the  Second  Congress,  in  the  case  of  John  F.  Mercer, 
who  was  chosen  to  supply  a  vacancy  in  the  represen- 
tation of  the  State  of  Maryland,  occasioned  by  the 
resignation  of  William  Pinkney,  that  a  representative 
elect  might  decline  his  election  before  taking  a  seat, 
and  before  the  first  session  of  the  Congress  to  which 
he  was  elected.  We  do  not  find  that  the  question 
has  since  been  agitated,  although  similar  cases  have 
often  occurred.  Our  rule  in  this  particular  is  differ- 
ent from  that  of  the  House  of  Commons ;  it  is  also 
better,  for  it  makes  our  theory  conform  to  what  is 
fact  in  both  countries,  that  the  act  of  becoming  in 
reality  a  member  of  the  House  depends  wholly  upon 
the  person  elected  and  returned.  Election  does  not 
of  itself  constitute  membership,  although  the  period 
may  have  arrived  at  which  the  Congressional  term 
commences.  This  is  evident  from  the  consideration 
that  all  the  votes  given  at  an  election  may  not  be 
received  by  the  returning  officer  in  season  to  be 
counted,  whereby  a  person  not  elected  may  be  re- 
turned, and  take  the  seat  of  one  who  was  duly  elect- 
ed. Neither  does  a  return  necessarily  confer  mem- 
bership, for  if  he  in  whose  favor  it  be  made  should 
be  prevented  taking  a  seat  at  the  organization  of  a 
House  of  Representatives,  he  might  find,  upon  pre- 


senting himself  to  qualify,  that  his  return  had  been 
superseded  by  the  admission  of  another  person  into 
the  seat  for  which  he  was  returned. 

At  an  election,  held  in  the  State  of  Georgia,  in 
October,  1804,  Thomas  Spalding  was  duly  chosen  a 
Representative  to  the  Ninth  Congress ;  but  because 
the  votes  of  three  counties  were  not  returned  to  the 
Governor  within  twenty  days  after  the  election, 
Cowles  Mead  received  a  certificate,  and  took  his 
seat.  Mr.  Spalding  afterwards  presented  his  petition. 
The  House  vacated  Mr.  Mead's  seat,  and  admitted 
Mr.  Spalding. 

In  April,  1814,  Doctor  Willoughby  was  elected  a 
Representative  of  the  State  of  New  York  to  the  Four- 
teenth Congress ;  but  by  reason  of  a  clerical  error,  of 
certain  inspectors,  in  returning  certificates  of  votes  to 
the  office  of  the  county  clerk,  General  Smith  was  de- 
clared duly  elected,  and  a  certificate  of  election  wag 
accordingly  delivered  to  him ;  but  he  having  omitted 
to  take  a  seat  at  the  commencement  of  the  session, 
was,  on  the  ninth  day  thereafter,  declared  not  enti- 
tled, and  thereupon  Doctor  Willoughby  was  admitted 
in  his  stead. 

Several  other  cases  might  be  cited  where  persons 
were  returned,  who  never  in  fact  became  members, 
and  where  others  became  members  who  were  not  re- 
turned. Neither  do  election  and  return  create  mem- 
bership. These  acts  are  nothing  more  than  the  de- 
signation of  the  individual,  who,  when  called  upon 
in  the  manner  prescribed  by  law,  shall  be  authorized 
to  claim  title  to  a  seat.  This  designation,  however, 
does  not  confer  a  perfect  right,  for  a  person  may  be 
selected  by  the  people  destitute  of  certain  qualifica- 
tions, without  which  he  cannot  be  admitted  to  a  seat. 
He  is,  nevertheless,  so  far  the  representative  of  those 
who  elect  him,  that  no  vacancy  can  exist  until  his 
disqualification  be  adjudged  by  the  House.  Yet  it 
would  be  easy  to  state  cases  where  he  would  not  be 
permitted  for  a  moment  to  occupy  a  seat,  notwith- 
standing the  regularity  of  his  election  and  return. 
To  no  practical  purpose  could  he  ever  have  been  a 
member.  So  also  if  a  person  duly  qualified  be  elected 
and  returned,  and  die  before  the  organization  of  a 
House  of  Representatives,  we  do  not  think  he  could 
be  said  to  have  been  a  member  of  that  body,  which 
had  no  existence  until  after  his  death.  We  say 
which  had  no  existence ;  for  we  consider  that  con- 
ceit altogether  fanciful  which  represents  one  Congress 
succeeding  to  another  as  members  of  the  same  corpo- 
ration. It  has  no  foundation  either  in  fact  or  in  the 
theory  of  our  Government.  Each  House  of  Repre- 
sentatives is  a  distinct  legislative  body,  having  no 
connection  with  any  preceding  one.  It  commences 
its  existence  unrestrained  by  any  rules  or  regulations 
for  the  conducting  of  business,  which  were  estab- 
lished by  former  Houses,  and  which  were  binding 
upon  them.  It  prescribes  its  own  course  of  proceed- 
ing, elects  its  officers,  and  designates  their  duties. 
Even  joint  rules  for  the  government  of  both  Houses 
of  Congress  are  not  binding  upon  a  new  House  of 
Representatives,  unless  expressly  established  by  it. 
Although  the  Fourteenth  Congress  had  never  assem- 
bled, the  Fifteenth  would  have  met  under  the  consti- 
tution, clothed  with  every  legislative  power,  as  amply 
as  it  was  enjoyed  by  the  Thirteenth.  The  constitu- 
tion does  not  define  the  time  for  which  Representa- 
tives shall  be  chosen.  It  is  satisfied,  provided  the 
choice  take  place  at  any  time  in  every  second  year. 
The  rest  is  left  to  the  discretion  of  each  State.  Ac- 
cordingly, in  some  States  Representatives  are  usually 


DEBATES  OF  CONGRESS. 


81 


JAXTARY,  1818.] 


National  Flag. 


[H.  OF  R 


chosen  for  one  year  and  seven  months,  and  in  other 
States  for  a  longer  time. 

The  privilege  of  exemption  from  arrest,  granted  by 
the  constitution  to  Representatives  before  a  meeting 
of  the  House  and  after  its  adjournment,  furnishes  no 
argument  in  favor  of  their  membership  at  such  times. 
Exemption  from  arrest  is  a  privilege  as  old  as  the 
Parliament  of  England.  There  it  is  extended  not 
only  to  members,  but  to  their  servants,  horses,  and 
carriages.  Our  constitution  adopts  the  very  words 
of  the  common  law,  but  restricts  the  privilege  to 
members.  In  both  countries  the  object  is  the  same, 
iiot  the  benefit  of  the  member,  but  of  the  public  ser- 
vice. It  is  an  essential  incident  to  the  right  of  being 
represented,  and  a  consequence  of  that  right.  But 
that  membership  is  not  coextensive  with  the  enjoy- 
ment of  that  privilege  is  manifest,  from  the  consider- 
ation that  such  a  construction  might  make  the  mem- 
bers of  one  Congress  continue  in  office,  not  only  after 
the  Congress  had  expired,  but  also  after  the  next 
Congress  was  actually  in  session.  This  construction, 
therefore,  is  not  only  absurd,  but  it  serves  to  illustrate 
the  fallacy  of  that  suggestion  which  fancies  the  Rep- 
resentatives of  one  Congress  succeeding  to  the  seats 
of  their  predecessors  as  members  of  the  same  corpo- 
rate body. 

The  privileges  of  franking  letters  and  exemption 
from  militia  duty  are  not  granted  by  the  constitution. 
They  are  established  by  law,  and  liable  to  be  changed 
at  the  will  of  the  Government.  They  have  been  ex- 
tended, and  may  be  restricted  as  public  convenience 
shall  require.  Previous  to  the  last  Congress,  the  privi- 
lege of  franking  was  not  enjoyed  until  after  the  com- 
mencement of  each  session.  But  as  that  does  not 
prove  negatively  that  persons  elected  to  the  House  of 
Representatives  were  not  members  before  that  time, 
so  the  existing  law  does  not  prove  affirmatively  that 
they  are.  It  is  true  that  the  words,  "  members  of  the 
House  of  Representatives,"  are  used  as  descriptive  of 
the  persons  to  whom  the  privilege  is  granted,  but  it 
certainly  was  used  without  intending  thereby  to  ex- 
press an  opinion,  much  less  to  decide,  when  member- 
ship commences,  and  probably  without  in  anywise 
adverting  to  that  inquiry.  The  late  war  had  created 
claims  in  every  part  of  the  country,  which  it  was 
found  convenient  to  send  by  mail  to  those  who  were 
elected  to  Congress  in  the  several  districts,  previous 
to  their  leaving  home.  The  law  was  passed  with  a 
view  to  the  convenience  of  these  public  claimants,  as 
well  as  to  that  of  the  Representatives  elected.  We 
have  seen  that  in  England  this  privilege  is  enjoyed 
before  the  commencement  of  membership,  and  proba- 
bly for  a  reason  similar  to  that  above  mentioned. 

It  is  not  now  necessary  to  inquire  what  construc- 
tion ought  to  be  given  to  the  act  which  exempts 
'•  members  of  both  Houses  of  Congress"  from  the 
performance  of  militia  duty.  We  do  not  know  that 
it  has  ever  received  a  judicial  exposition,  and  we  pre- 
sume that  the  practice  under  it,  by  the  officers  of  the 
militia,  furnishes  no  very  high  authority  on  the  con- 
stitutional question  before  us. 

In  ng&rd  to  the  danger  apprehended  from  Execu- 
tive influence  in  the  concerns  of  legislation,  we  might 
rest  satisfied  with  the  remark  that  the  business  of 
forming  ;i  constitution  is  not  confided  to  us ;  ours  is 
a  more  humble  duty,  it  is  to  expound  the  text  by  a 
fair  interpretation  ;  we  can  neither  add  nor  diminish  ; 
the  object  of  our  inquiry  is,  not  what  ought  to  be,  but 
what  is. 

Whoever  looks  into  the  constitution  will  find  pro- 
VOL.  VI.— 6 


visions  to  guard  the  entrance  of  the  legislative  hall 
against  those  whose  personal  and  immediate  interest 
would  be  advanced,  by  perpetuating  offices  and  in- 
creasing salaries ;  but  he  will  find  none  for  the  pur- 
pose of  excluding  the  influence  of  Executive  patron- 
age. The  framers  of  the  constitution  either  did  not 
apprehend  danger  from  that  source,  or  they  thought 
it  impracticable  to  prevent  it  without  hazarding  still 
greater  mischief.  The  great  offices  of  the  Union  are 
objects  of  high  and  honorable  ambition ;  they  are 
left  as  open  to  the  members  of  this  House  as  to 
others,  and  they  can  only  be  obtained  through  Exec- 
utive favor.  Nay,  laws  may  be  passed  on  the  last 
day  of  a  Congress  creating  offices  and  fixing  their 
salaries,  and  on  the  next  day  the  members,  by  whose 
votes  they  were  created,  may  be  appointed  to  fill 
them.  The  only  antidote  provided  against  an  abuse 
of  this  pervading  influence  is  the  elective  franchise. 
No  dependant  on  the  Executive  can  take  a  seat  in 
this  House.  If  any  member  become  such,  his  seat  is 
vacated,  his  power  returns  to  the  people.  By  a  faith- 
ful and  intelligent  exercise  of  it,  they  may  correct 
errors  and  punish  delinquency.  This  is  the  regener- 
ating principle  of  the  constitution.  If  this  remedy 
fail,  it  will  be  in  vain  to  look  for  another.  The  con- 
stitution was  provided  for  a  brave,  wise,  and  virtuous 
people.  If  the  citizens  of  the  United  States  ever 
cease  to  deserve  this  character,  our  present  political 
institutions  will  be  found  unsuited  to  their  condition. 
This  is  the  only  constitutional  answer  we  can  give  to 
the  suggestion  of  possible  danger  from  Executive  in- 
fluence. 

In  fine,  we  have  examined  the  memorial  of  Mr. 
Hammond  with  deliberate  attention,  and  are  of  opin- 
ion that  Mr.  Herrick  has  not  rendered  himself  inca- 
pable of  being  a  member  of  this  House,  by  reason 
of  having  held  the  office  of  Attorney  of  the  United 
States  after  the  4th  of  March  and  until  the  29th  of 
November  last,  and  respectfully  submit  the  following 
resolution : 

Resolved,  That  Samuel  Herrick  is  entitled  to  n 
seat  in  this  House, 


TUESDAY,  January  6. 
National  Flag. 

Mr.  WEXDOVEB,  from  the  committee  appoint- 
ed to  inquire  into  the  expediency  of  altering 
the  flag  of  the  United  States,  made  a  report, 
which  was  read ;  when  Mr.  W.  reported  a  hill 
to  alter  the  flag  of  the  United  States ;  which 
was  read  twice,  and  committed  to  a  Committee 
of  the  Whole. 

The  report  is  as  follows : 

That  they  have  maturely  considered  the  subject 
referred  to  them,  and  have  adopted,  substantially, 
the  report  of  the  committee  to  whom  was  referred 
the  same  subject  at  the  hist  session  of  Congress,  as 
forming  a  part  of  this  report.  The  committee  are 
fully  persuaded  that  the  form  selected  for  the  Ameri- 
can flag  was  truly  emblematical  of  our  origin  and 
existence  as  an  independent  nation,  and  that  as  such, 
it  having  met  the  approbation  and  received  the  sup- 
port of  the  citizens  of  the  Union,  it  ought  to  under- 
go no  change  that  would  decrease  its  conspicuity,  or 
tend  to  deprive  it  of  its  representative  character. 
The  committee,  however,  believe  that  an  increase  in 
the  number  of  States  in  the  Union  since  the  flag  was 
altered  by  law,  sufficiently  indicates  the  propriety  of 


82 


ABRIDGMENT  OF  THE 


H.  OF  R.] 


Contempt  of  the  House. 


[JANUARY,  1818. 


such  a  change  in  the  arrangement  of  the  flag  as 
shall  best  accord  with  the  reasons  that  led  to  its 
original  adoption,  and  sufficiently  point  to  important 
periods  of  our  national  history. 

The  original  flag  of  the  United  States  was  com- 
posed of  thirteen  stripes  and  thirteen  stars,  and  was 
adopted  by  a  resolution  of  the  Continental  Congress 
on  the  14th  of  June,  1777.  On  the  13th  of  January, 
1794,  after  two  new  States  had  been  admitted  into 
the  Union,  the  National  Legislature  passed  an  act 
that  the  stripes  and  stars  should,  on  a  day  fixed,  be 
increased  to  fifteen  each,  to  comport  with  the  then 
number  of  independent  States.  The  accession  of 
new  States  since  that  alteration,  and  the  certain 
prospect  that  at  no  distant  period  the  number  of 
States  will  be  considerably  multiplied,  render  it,  in 
the  opinion  of  the  committee,  highly  expedient  to  in- 
crease the  number  of  stripes,  as  every  flag  must,  in 
some  measure,  be  limited  in  its  size,  from  the  circum- 
stance of  convenience  to  the  place  on  which  it  is  to 
be  displayed ;  while  an  increase  would  necessarily 
decrease  their  magnitude,  and  render  them  propor- 
tionably  less  distinct  to  distant  observation ;  this 
consideration  has  induced  many  to  retain  only  the 
general  form  of  the  flag,  while  there  actually  exists 
a  great  want  of  uniformity  in  its  adjustment,  parti- 
cularly when  used  on  small  private  vessels. 

The  national  flag  being  in  general  use  by  vessels 
of  almost  every  description,  it  appears  to  the  com- 
mittee of  considerable  importance  to  adopt  some  ar- 
rangement calculated  to  prevent  in  future  great  or 
expensive  alterations.  Under  those  impressions, 
they  are  led  to  believe  no  alteration  could  be  made 
more  emblematical  of  our  origin  and  present  exist- 
ence, as  composed  of  a  number  of  independent  and 
united  States,  than  to  reduce  the  stripes  in  the  flag 
to  the  original  number  of  thirteen,  to  represent  the 
number  of  States  then  contending  for  and  happily 
achieving  their  independence,  and  to  increase  the 
stars  to  correspond  with  the  number  of  States  now 
in  the  Union,  and  hereafter  to  add  one  star  to  the 
flag  whenever  a  new  State  shall  be  fully  admitted. 

These  slight  alterations  will,  in  the  opinion  of  the 
committee,  meet  the  general  approbation,  as  well  of 
those  who  may  have  regretted  a  former  departure 
from  the  original  flag,  as  of  such  as  are  solicitous  to 
see  in  it  a  representation  of  every  State  in  the  Union. 

The  committee  cannot  believe  that  in  retaining 
only  thirteen  stripes  it  necessarily  follows  they  should 
be  distinctly  considered  in  reference  to  certain  indi- 
vidual States,  inasmuch  as  nearly  all  the  new  States 
were  a  component  part  of,  and  represented  in,  the 
original  States ;  and  inasmuch,  also,  as  the  flag  is 
intended  to  signify  numbers,  and  not  local  and  par- 
ticular sections  of  the  Union ;  nor  can  the  committee 
view  the  proposed  inconsiderable  addition  to  be  made 
on  the  admission  of  a  new  State  in  the  light  of  a  de- 
parture from  that  permanency  of  form  which  ought 
to  characterize  the  flag  of  the  nation.  The  committee 
respectfully  report  a  bill. 

Compensation  to  Members,  &c. 

On  motion  of  Mr.  HOLMES,  of  Massachusetts, 
the  several  orders  of  the  day  preceding  the  bill 
to  fix  the  compensation  of  the  members  of  the 
Senate  and  House  of  Representatives,  were  post- 
poned, and  the  House  resolved  itself  into  a 
Committee  of  the  Whole  on  the  said  bill. 

[The  bill  provides  that  the  daily  compensa- 
tion of  the  members,  during  their  attendance 


on  Congress,  shall  be  nine  dollars,  and  the  al- 
lowance for  travelling  to  and  from  the  seat  ot 
Congress,  at  the  rate  of  nine  dollars  for  every . 
twenty  miles  of  the  distance.] 

Mr.  Eoss,  of  Pennsylvania,  by  way  of  trying 
the  sense  of  the  committee  on  the  subject, 
moved  to  strike  out  the  word  nine  and  insert  the 
word  six,  as  the  amount  of  daily  compensation. 

The  question  on  this  motion  was  loudly  called 
for,  indicating  a  disposition  to  take  the  sense  of 
the  House  without  debate. 

Mr.  DESHA  said  he  should  support  the  mo- 
tion made  by  the  gentleman  from  Pennsylvania, 
however  unfashionable  it  might  be,  which  was 
to  strike  out  the  word  nine  and  insert  six,  and, 
he  suspected,  should  be  found  in  a  small  minor- 
ity ;  but  that  should  not  prevent  him  from  dis- 
charging his  duty.  It  is  a  little  mortifying, 
said  he,  to  see  such  extreme  anxiety  manifested 
on  the  occasion.  Does  it  look  dignified  in  this 
body,  because  they  are  immediately  interested 
in  this  measure,  to  see  them  urge  it  forward  to 
the  exclusion  of  all  other  business  that  is  en- 
titled to  precedence  under  the  rules  of  the 
House  ?  I  sincerely  wish  that  we  may  not  have 
the  same  scene  acted  over  again,  that  Vas  acted 
the  first  session  of  last  Congress,  when  the  com- 
pensation bill,  of  famous  memory,  was  on  the 
carpet.  This  bill  contemplates  giving  the  mem- 
bers nine  dollars  per  day,  and  nine  dollars  for 
every  twenty  miles  in  travelling  to  and  return- 
ing from  the  Seat  of  Government.  Do  the 
gentlemen  seriously  believe  that  the  people  will 
submit  to  this  without  a  murmur  ?  If  they  do, 
I  suspect  they  will  be  most  egregiously  mistaken. 

Xine  dollars  per  day !  We  commence  our 
sessions  at  twelve  o'clock,  and  have  generally 
terminated  them  this  session  at  about  three, 
amounting  to  about  three  dollars  per  hour. 
Would  not  the  honest  and  industrious  farmer 
or  mechanic,  who  rises  early  and  works  late, 
and,  by  his  greatest  exertions  from  one  end  of 
the  year  to  the  other,  considers  he  is  doing  a 
good  business,  if,  not  getting  rich,  he  con  save  at 
the  end  of  the  year,  clear  of  all  expenses,  be- 
tween fifty  and  a  hundred  dollars ;  I  say,  would 
not  such  men  think  three  dollars  per  hour  high 
pay,  and  ought  not  the  opinions  of  such  men  to 
be  respected  ?  They  certainly  ought. 

Mr.  LITTLE,  of  Maryland,  then  moved  to  strike 
out  "  nine"  and  insert  in  lieu  thereof  "  eight" 
dollars  as  the  daily  pay. 

The  question  on  reducing  the  daily  pay  from 
nine  to  eight  dollars,  was  decided  in  the  affirm- 
ative— yeas  99,  nays  79. 

So  the  daily  pay  was  fixed  at  eight  dollars. 


WEDNESDAY,  January  7. 
Contempt  of  the  House. 
Mr.  WILLIAMS,  of  North  Carolina,  rose,  and 
addressed  the  House  in  the  following  words  : 

Mr.  Speaker,  I  lay  before  the  House  a  letter 
addressed  and  delivered  to  me  by  a  person  call- 
ed Colonel  John  Anderson.  That  man  has  mis- 
taken me  much.  Wherever  I  am  known,  at 


DEBATES  OF  CONGKESS. 


JANUARY,  1818.] 


Contempt  of  the  House. 


[H.  OP  R. 


this  place  and  in  the  country  from  whence  I 
came,  no  attempt  of  the  kind  would  have  been 
made.  I  feel  it  a  duty  to  lay  the  letter  and  the 
statement  thereon,  made  by  myself,  before  the 
House.  My  feelings  are  too  much  excited,  nor 
would  it  be  my  duty,  to  make  any  remarks  on 
the  subject.  It  is  for  the  House  to  determine 
what  shall  be  done. 

The  papers  handed  by  Mr.  WILLIAMS  to  the 
clerk  were  then  read,  as  follows : 

WASHINGTON,  Jan.  6,  1818. 

HONORED  Sra :  I  return  you  thanks  for  the  atten- 
tion I  received  on  my  claims  to  pass  so  soon.  Mr. 
Lee  will  hand  you  some  claims  from  the  River  Raisin, 
which  will  pass  through  your  honorable  committee  ; 
and  I  have  a  wish  that  the  conduct  of  the  British  in 
that  country  may  be  related  in  full  on  the  floor  of 
Congress ;  which  will  give  you  some  trouble  in  mak- 
ing out  the  report  and  supporting  the  same.  I  have 
now  to  request  that  you  will  accept  of  the  small  sum 
of  five  hundred  dollars,  as  part  pay,  for  the  extra 
trouble  I  give  you  ;  I  will  present  it  to  you  so  soon 
as  I  receive  some  from  Government.  This  is  confi- 
dential, that  only  you  and  me  may  know  any  thing 
about  it ;  or,  in  other  words,  I  give  it  to  you  as  a  man 
and  a  mason,  and  hope  you  belong  to  that  society. 
Sir,  should  it  happen  that  you  will  not  accept  of  this 
small  sum,  I  request  you  will  excuse  me  ;  if  you  do 
not  accept,  I  wish  yon  to  drop  me  a  few  lines  ;  if  you 
accept,  I  wish  no  answer.  I  hope  you  will  see  my 
view  on  this  subject — that  it  is  for  extra  trouble. 

I  will  make  out  a  statement,  and  present  the  same 
to  the  committee,  which  will  be  supported  by  Gen- 
eral Harrison,  Colonel  Johnson,  Mr.  Hulbard,  Mr. 
Meigs,  Postmaster  General,  Governor  Cass's  report 
as  commissioner,  and  others.  Relying  on  your  honor 
as  to  keeping  this  a  secret,  and  your  exertions  in 
passing  those  claims  as  soon  as  possible,  I  need  not 
inform  you  that  we  are  as  poor  unfortunate  orphan 
children,  having  no  representation  in  Congress — so 
must  look  on  your  honorable  body  as  our  guardians. 
Pardon  this  liberty  from  a  stranger. 

I  am,  with  high  esteem,  your  most  obedient  and 
humble  servant, 

JOHN  ANDERSON. 

The  Hon.  LEWIS  WILLIAMS. 

After  breakfast  this  morning,  George,  a  servant, 
came  into  tbe  dining  room,  and  told  me  that  a  gen- 
tleman was  in  my  room  waiting  to  see  me.  I  stepped 
into  my  room,  and  Colonel  John  Anderson  was  there. 
He  handed  me  a  letter,  observing  at  the  same  time, 
that  be  had  prepared  that  letter  for  me,  and  that, 
perhaps,  it  would  require  some  explanation.  I  read 
over  tbe  letter  with  attention  ;  and,  having  done  so, 
observed  to  Colonel  Anderson  it  was  a  very  surpris- 
ing communication.  I  then  started,  to  Mr.  Wilson's 
room,  immediately  adjoining  my  own.  When  in  the 
act  of  opening  my  own  door,  he  begged  I  would  not 
show  the  letter.  I  made  no  reply  to  this,  but  step- 
ped into  Mr  Wilson's  room,  and  asked  him  to  do  me 
the  favor  to  walk  into  my  room.  This  Mr.  Wilson 
did,  following  on  immediately  behind  me.  After  we 
had  got  into  my  room,  in  the  presence  of  Colonel 
Anderson,  I  handed  the  letter  to  Mr.  Wilson,  and,  ob- 
serving that  it  was  a  very  extraordinary  communica- 
tion, requested  him  to  read  it.  When  Mr.  Wilson  had 
read,  or  was  nearly  done  reading  the  letter,  I  told 
Colonel  Anderson  that  I  repelled  with  indignation  and 
contempt  the  offer  he  had  made  to  me  in  the  letter. 


Colonel  Anderson  said  he  asked  my  pardon ;  that 
it  was  designed  only  as  a  small  compensation  for 
the  extra  trouble  he  expected  to  give  the  Commit- 
tee of  Claims  in  examining  the  claims  from  the 
Michigan  territory,  and  exposing  the  conduct  of 
the  British  during  the  war;  that  it  was  foreign 
to  his  intention  to  attempt  any  thing  like  a  bribe, 
and  requested  me  to  burn  the  letter,  or  to  give 
it  to  him.  I  told  him  I  should  do  neither;  that  his 
offence  was  unpardonable,  such  as  I  could  not  forgive, 
and  ordered  him  to  leave  the  room  instantly.  CoL 
Anderson  then  begged  pardon,  and  asked  forgiveness 
with  excessive  earnestness.  I  told  him  I  would  lis- 
ten to  none  of  his  apologies ;  that  his  offence  was  an 
attack  upon  the  integrity  of  Congress  generally,  and 
upon  mine  personally  and  particularly ;  that  no  one 
should  ever  have  my  pardon,  or  expect  my  forgive- 
ness, who  should  suppose  me  capable  of  such  an  influ- 
ence as  he  had  attempted  to  practise  upon  me.  Again 
I  told  Colonel  Anderson  to  leave  my  room.  He  ad- 
vanced to  the  door,  where  he  stood  for  some  time, 
endeavoring  to  obtain  my  pardon,  as  he  said.  I  told 
him  it  was  in  vain  to  ask  it ;  that,  as  a  member  of 
Congress  and  of  tbe  Committee  of  Claims,  it  was  my 
duty  to  examine  his  claims,  and,  if  just,  support 
tljem ;  if  unjust,  oppose  them ;  that  his  offer  was  an 
attempt  to  influence  my  mind  in  opposition  to  my 
duty,  and,  as  such,  could  not  be  forgiven.  He  then 
desired  me  either  to  burn  the  letter  or  give  it  to  him. 
I  replied  that  I  should  do  neither,  and  again  ordered 
hini  to  leave  my  room.  Whereupon,  he  did  leave  the 
room.  Mr.  Wilson,  after  talking  on  the  subject  of 
the  letter  for  some  tune,  suggested  to  me  the  propri- 
ety of  calling  hi  Mr.  William  P.  Maclay.  I  stepped 
to  his  room ;  bub,  as  Mr.  William  P.  Maclay  was  not 
in,  I  asked  Mr.  William  Maclay,  a  room-mate  of  Mr. 
William  P.  Maclay,  to  come  to  my  room.  He  com- 
plied with  my  request ;  and,  shortly  after  he  arrived 
in  my  room,  Mr.  William  P.  Maclay  also  stepped  in, 
These  gentlemen,  Messrs.  Wilson,  William  Maclay, 
and  William  P.  Maclay,  were  in  my  room  at  the  time 
the  servant  called  to  Mr.  Wilson,  and  said  a  gentle- 
man was  below  wishing  to  see  him.  Mr.  Wilson 
walked  out  of  the  room,  and  was  gone  a  few  minutes. 
After  he  returned,  he  observed  that  Colonel  Anderson 
was  the  person  who  had  sent  for  Mm ;  that  Colonel 
Anderson's  business  was  to  obtain  his  interference  to 
put  a  stop  to  further  proceedings  on  the  subject  of  his 
letter  to  me.  The  precise  conversation  between  ]\Ir. 
Wilson  and  Colonel  Anderson  can  be  related  by  the 
former  with  minuteness. 

LEWIS  WILLIAMS. 

JANUABY  7,  1818. 

The  papers  having  been  read  through,  Mr.  W. 
WILSON,  of  Pennsylvania,  referred  to  in  the 
above  narrative,  handed  in  a  statement  of  the 
facts  which  fell  under  his  observation,  entirely 
corroborating  those  stated  by  Mr.  WILLIAHS,  as 
far  as  they  came  under  the  observation  of  the 
former. 

Mr.  FOESTTH,  of  Georgia,  moved  that  the 
House  do  come  to  the  following  resolution  : 

Resolved,  That  the  Speaker  do  issue  his  warrant, 
directed  to  the  Sergeant-at-Arms  attending  the 
House,  commanding  him  to  take  into  custody,  wher- 
ever to  be  found,  the  body  of  John  Anderson,  and 
the  same  in  his  custody  to  keep,  subject  to  the  further 
order  and  direction  of  this  House. 

Mr.  HABEISOX,  of  Ohio,  rose  in  consequence 


84 


ABRIDGMENT  OF  THE 


H.  OF  R.] 


Case  of  John  Anderson. 


[JANUARY,    1818. 


of  his  name  having  been  referred  to  in  Colonel 
Anderson's  letter.  He  had  met  with  Colonel 
Anderson,  he  said,  in  the  coarse  of  his  military 
service,  and  had  always  heard  him  regarded  as 
a  highly  respectable  man ;  and  well  knowing 
his  services,  and  the  sufferings  of  his  family, 
during  the  war,  he  had  felt  a  warm  interest  in 
his  favor.  In  the  course  of  this  morning,  Col. 
Anderson  had  sent  for  him  and  his  friend, 
Colonel  Johnson,  out  of  the  House,  and,  with 
all  the  agitation  belonging  to  terror  or  to  con- 
scious guilt,  had  informed  them  of  his  having 
done  an  act  which  he  feared  would  be  regarded, 
as  Mr.  H.  was  sure  it  would  by  every  member, 
as  calling  for  the  severest  animadversion.  They 
had  informed  him,  Mr.  H.  said,  that  they  would 
not  justify  his  conduct;  nor,  were  it  brought 
before  the  House,  could  they  say  any  thing  in 
extenuation  of  it. 

Mr.  JOHNSON,  of  Kentucky,  expressed  his  sin- 
cere regret  on  account  of  the  occurrence  which 
had  just  taken  place,  not  on  account  of  the  indi- 
vidual implicated — though,  surely,  he  was  to  be 
pitied — but  on  account  of  the  gentleman  from 
North  Carolina,  who,  on  this  occasion,  had  taken 
that  course  dictated  by  a  just  sense  of  his  own 
honor  and  the  dignity  of  his  official  station ;  and 
on  account  of  the  suffering  inhabitants  of  De- 
troit and  Michigan,  generally,  that  they  should 
have  misplaced  their  confidence  in  one  whom, 
until  this  day,  Mr.  J.  said,  he  had  himself  held 
in  the  highest  estimation.  It  must  have  been 
infamy  of  motive,  or  the  grossest  ignorance  of 
the  nature  of  the  Representative  character,  that 
could  have  produced  this  unwarrantable  con- 
duct. 

Mr.  TKEET,  of  Connecticut,  inquired  whether, 
according  to  our  forms  of  proceedings,  and  to 
our  constitutional  provisions,  a  general  warrant, 
as  proposed,  could  be  issued  ?  Was  it  not  op- 
posed, in  itself,  in  its  nature,  to  the  principles 
of  civil  liberty? 

The  SPEAKEE  observed  that,  in  the  practice 
of  the  House,  happily,  instances  were  extremely 
rare  where  such  a  warrant  became  necessary ; 
no  such  case  had  occurred  within  his  observa- 
tion. But  there  could  be  no  doubt,  when  an 
offence  was  committed  against  the  privileges  or 
dignity  of  the  House,  it  was  perfectly  in  its 
power  to  issue  a  warrant  to  apprehend  the  par- 
ty offending. 

Mr.  FOESYTH  turned  to  a  case  on  record — and 
he  was  sorry  there  was  such  a  case  on  record — 
where  this  proceeding  had  taken  place,  in  the 
year  1795,  in  which  a  bribe  in  land  had  been  of- 
fered to  one  or  more  members.  Mr.  F.  then 
conformed  his  motion  to  the  terms  of  that  pre- 
cedent, as  above  stated,  from  which  it  had  before 
a  little  A-aried. 

Mr.  LIVERMOBE,  of  Few  Hampshire,  asked,  for 
information  merely,  whether  the  facts  on  which 
the  warrant  was  to  be  issued,  should  not  first  be 
substantiated  by  oath.  The  statement  came,  he 
knew,  from  a  most  respectable  source ;  but  was 
not  an  oath  necessary  to  justify  such  a  war- 
rant? 


The  SPBAKEB  said — Certainly  not. 

The  question  on  Mr.  FOESTTH'S  motion  was 
then  taken,  decided  in  the  affirmative,  and  or- 
dered to  be  entered  unanimously. 

The  warrant  was  forthwith  issued. 

Compensation  to  Members. 
The  question  on  the  passage  of  the  bill  was 
decided  in  the  affirmative — yeas  109,  nays  60  ; 
so  the  bill  was  passed,  (at  eight  dollars  per 
day,  and  eight  dollars  mileage,)  and  sent  to  the 
Senate  for  concurrence. 


THURSDAY,  January  8. 

Another  member,  to  wit,  from  New  York, 
DAVID  A.  OGDEN,  appeared,  produced  his  cre- 
dentials, was  qualified,  and  took  his  seat. 

Case  of  John  Anderson. 
The  SPEAKER  having  apprised  the  House  that 
the  Sergeant-at-Arms  had  taken  the  body  of 
John  Anderson,  pursuant  to  the  warrant  to  him 
directed,  and  held  him  in  custody,  Mr.  FOESTTIJ, 
of  Georgia,  submitted  for  consideration  the  fol- 
lowing resolution : 

Resolved,  That  a  Committee  of  Privileges,  to  con- 
sist of  seven  members,  be  appointed,  and  that  the  said 
committee  be  instructed  to  report  a  mode  of  proceed- 
ing in  the  case  of  John  Anderson,  who  was  taken  into 
custody  yesterday  by  order  of  the  House  ;  and  that 
the  same  committee  have  leave  to  sit  immediately. 

Mr.  BEEOHEE,  of  Ohio,  rose  in  opposition  to 
this  proceeding.  The  offence  of  this  man,  in 
every  sense  but  a  legal  one,  he  was  not  dispose 
to  deny.  But  it  was  another  question,  whether 
the  House  was  justified  in  the  course  it  was 
about  to  pursue.  "Was  any  authority  therefor 
given  in  the  constitution?  None.  Was  any 
law  to  be  found  on  the  statute-book  giving  it  ? 
None.  The  mode  of  punishing  bribery  was,  to 
resort  to  a  court  of  justice,  and  there  only 
could  it  be  punished.  In  this  House,  he  said  it 
was  impossible  to  proceed  correctly  in  a  trial 
for  an  offence  of  this  character ;  and  the  trouble 
proceedings  of  this  kind  would  impose  on  the 
House,  and  the  evil  of  delay  they  would  cause 
in  their  ordinary  legislative  business,  afforded 
strong  reasons,  if  others  were  wanting,  to  con- 
sult their  authority,  and  see  whether  in  fact  the 
House  possessed  any  authority  to  act  on  the 
case.  The  fifth  section  of  the  first  article  of  the 
constitution,  he  said,  provided  that  each  House 
might  determine  the  rules  of  its  own  proceed- 
ings; but  no  part  of  the  constitution  gave  to 
the  House  authority  to  arrest  and  bring  forward 
any  individual  for  improper  conduct  to  any 
member  of  this  House.  The  courts  of  the  coun- 
try had  made,  in  their  practice,  what  is  called 
a  common  law ;  but  Mr.  B.  said,  if  there  existed 
any  common  law  to  justify  these  proceedings  of 
the  House,  it  was  unknown  to  him.  The  great 
powers  assumed  by  the  Parliament  of  Great 
Britain  in  this  respect,  had  been  a  matter  of 
great  complaint  in  that  country ;  and  he  pre- 
sumed it  would  not  be  contended  that  the  prac- 


DEBATES  OF  CONGRESS. 


85 


JANUARY,  1818.] 


Case  of  John  Anderson. 


[H.  OF  R. 


tice  of  that  body  was  to  form  a  rule  of  conduct 
for  this  House.  Neither,  Mr.  B.  said,  did  he 
think  it  essential  that  this  House  should  pos- 
sess the  power  of  arresting  and  bringing  indi- 
viduals to  trial  before  us ;  the  courts  of  justice 
being  open  to  prosecution  and  redress  for  any 
injury  of  this  sort.  The  House,  as  any  other 
legislative  body,  possessed  inherently  the  power 
to  protect  itself  from  indecorum  and  insult ;  but 
it  had  no  power  to  confine  and  commit  individ- 
uals for  acts  done  elsewhere.  He  did  not  be- 
lieve the  House  possessed  authority  to  arrest  an 
individual  in  this  case,  any  more  than  for  an 
assault  and  battery  on  a  member  at  any  distance 
from  the  Seat  of  Government — a  power  which, 
he  contended,  the  House  did  not  possess.  In 
another  part  of  the  constitution,  he  said,  par- 
ticular privileges  were  accorded  to  members; 
and  the  enumeration  of  particular  powers,  in 
any  instrument  of  that  character,  was  an  exclu- 
sion of  all  others.  For  other  injuries  received, 
than  those  in  violation  of  that  clause  of  the  con- 
stitution, Mr.  B.  said,  members  have  the  same 
redress  as  any  other  individuals.  Mr.  B.  said 
he  did  not  believe  the  House  ought  to  have  the 
power  it  was  about  to  exercise ;  the  constitu- 
tion had  not  given  the  House  any  such  power, 
nor  had  it  been  conferred  upon  them  by  any 
law. 

Mr.  FORSYTE  said,  if  the  position  of  the  gen- 
tleman was  correct,  the  House  had  already  vio- 
lated the  constitution.  The  object  of  the  pro- 
posed appointment  of  a  committee  was  to  in- 
quire how  the  House  ought  now  to  proceed.  If 
the  committee  concur  with  the  gentleman  from 
Ohio,  they  would  report  that  the  individual 
now  in  custody  ought  to  be  discharged;  if 
otherwise,  they  would  report  what  further 
course  the  House  ought  to  pursue.  But,  Mr.  F. 
said,  admitting  that  all  the  gentleman  had  said 
was  true,  it  was  no  reason  why  this  committee 
should  not  be  appointed.  Mr.  F.  did  not  wish 
to  be  understood  as  doubting  the  power  of  the 
House,  because  he  believed  it  had  full  power  to 
proceed ;  and  he  knew  that  this  House  and  the 
other  branch  of  the  Legislature  had,  in  other 
cases,  exercised  similar  powers.  Until  he  was 
convinced,  by  solemn  investigation,  that  the 
House  did  not  possess  the  power,  he  would  not, 
for  one,  consent  to  refrain  from  its  exercise  in 
the  present  case. 

Mr.  LIVEEMOBE,  of  New  Hampshire,  hoped, 
he  said,  that  but  one  resolution  would  pass  the 
House  on  this  occasion,  and  that  this  one  should 
be,  that  John  Anderson  be  discharged.  First, 
he  said,  on  account  of  the  irregularity  of  the 
proceeding  in  the  first  instance.  Our  ideas, 
said  he,  of  Congressional  privileges,  appear  to 
rest  on  our  knowledge  of  British  Parliamentary 
privileges,  which,  he  conceived,  were  widely 
distinct  in  their  natures.  In  Great  Britain  the 
Legislature  possesses  all  power;  and  almost 
every  act  of  the  Parliament  becomes  a  part  of 
the  constitution  of  the  land.  That  is  an  un- 
limited Legislature.  The  Congress  of  the  United 
States,  he  said,  was  differently  constituted.  In 


a  case  of  this  kind  occurring  in  Great  Britain, 
an  oath  would  not  be  required ;  but,  said  Mr. 
L.,  we  are,  in  this  respect,  restricted  in  our 
power,  by  the  express  declaration  in  the  consti- 
tution, that  no  warrant  shall  issue  except  sus- 
tained by  oath.  This  provision,  he  said,  being 
contained  in  the  fourth  article  of  the  amend- 
ments to  the  constitution,  had  more  weight 
with  him  than  if  contained  in  the  original  instru- 
ment, having  been  the  result  of  the  after-thought 
and  mature  deliberation  of  the  nation.  Far  be 
it  from  him,  Mr.  L.  said,  to  suggest  that  full 
faith  should  not  be  given  to  any  thing  advanced 
by  the  honorable  member  from  North  Carolina ; 
as  a  man  he  believed  him  implicitly,  but  as  a 
member  not  at  all — no  more  than,  as  a  judge, 
he  would  believe  a  man  in  court  without  an 
oath.  The  word  of  the  Chief  Justice  of  the 
United  States  himself  would  not  be  taken  in 
court  except  on  oath.  Mr.  L.  said  he  greatly 
respected  the  gentleman  he  had  referred  to, 
but  he  did  not  consider  the  House  at  liberty  to 
take  a  step  which  would  compromit  the  meanest 
man  in  the  United  States,  except  on  the  oath  of 
Kis  accuser.  Besides,  said  Mr.  L.,  we  have  no 
authority  over  John  Anderson,  admitting  the 
charge  against  him  to  be  substantiated.  There 
is  no  statute  of  the  United  States,  though  there 
are  in  most  of  the  individual  States,  declaring 
bribery  an  offence.  Far  be  it  from  me  to  con- 
tend that  this  body  cannot  protect  itself ;  that 
we  can  do  by  our  own  rules  and  regulations, 
but  we  cannot  extend  them  beyond  the  verge 
of  this  House.  The  Sergeant-at-Arms  might 
command  the  whole  military  force  of  the  United 
States,  could  it  possibly  become  necessary,  to 
put  out  of  this  House  a  man  disturbing  its  peace. 
Mr.  L.  said  he  knew  very  well  there  was  a 
precedent  on  record  of  a  course  similar  to  that 
new  proposed ;  and  he  also  knew  that  the  most 
eminent  men  of  the  United  States  deprecated 
that  decision  when  it  took  place.  When  the 
subject  was  before  the  Congress,  in  1800,  he 
believed  those  who  favored  the  proceeding  sus- 
tained themselves  on  the  authority  of  the  prac- 
tice of  the  British  Parliament;  they  were  a 
high-handed  party  majority,  full  of  British  no- 
tions and  fond  of  British  precedents.  Those 
who  were  opposed  to  that  course  were  the 
whole  body  of  the  Republican  members,  with 
the  great  Jefferson  at  their  head.  Mr.  L.  hoped, 
he  repeated,  that  but  one  resolution  would  pass 
on  this  occasion ;  and  that  it  should  be,  that  the 
warrant  for  the  apprehension  of  John  Ander- 
son had  been  irregularly  and  improperly  issued, 
and  that  he  be  therefore  forthwith  discharged. 
Mr.  TUCKER,  of  Virginia,  said  he  should  not 
do  his  duty,  if  he  did  not,  on  the  present  ques- 
tion, give  the  gentleman  from  Georgia  his 
hearty  support;  not  that  he  was  certain  he 
should  give  him  the  same  support  in  all  hia 
views  of  this  subject.  The  proper  course,  in 
the  opinion  of  Mr.  T.  would  be,  to  provide  by 
a  general  law  for  the  punishment  of  contempts 
against  either  House  of  Congress;  but,  he  asked, 
was  it  not  the  duty  of  the  House  on  this,  and 


ABRIDGMENT  OF  THE 


H.  OP  R.] 


Case  of  John  Anderson. 


[JANUARY,  1818 


on  every  other  occasion,  to  deliberate  in  that 
manner  which  afforded  the  best  lights  on  any 
subject,  and  which  it  became  the  dignity  of  the 
House  to  pursue  ?  No  matter  how  light  the 
subject  might  be  that  was  proposed  to  the  con- 
sideration of  the  House,  he  should  not  choose 
to  act  on  it,  without  calling  on  some  committee 
of  the  House  to  take  it  into  their  particular  con- 
sideration, and  to  produce  a  clear  and  connected 
view  of  it.  And  was  this  an  occasion  on  which, 
by  a  hasty  procedure,  to  depart  from  that 
course?  Would  the  House  at  once  declare 
that  its  members  might  be  approached  by  the 
vilest  miscreants  on  the  face  of  the  globe,  and 
that  it  could  take  no  steps  to  protect  their 
rights?  Is  any  member  prepared  to  say,  that 
there  exists  in  this  House  no  power  to  repel 
the  approaches  of  bribery  and  corruption  ?  The 
constitution  creating  this  body  is  a  dead  letter 
— is  mere  waste  paper — said  Mr.  T.,  if  we  have 
no  power  to  protect  ourselves  from  violence  of 
this  description  in  the  exercise  of  our  duties. 
That  part  of  the  constitution  giving  to  Congress 
all  power  necessary  to  carry  into  effect  the 
delegated  powers,  has  no  value  if  it  does  not 
apply  to  the  present  case.  For  his  part,  Mr.  T. 
said,  he  had  no  manner  of  doubt  as  to  the 
power  of  this  House  to  protect  itself,  and  none 
of  the  expediency  of  the  course  now  proposed. 
But,  at  the  same  time,  he  doubted  the  propriety 
of  suffering  the  laws  to  remain  in  their  present 
situation,  so  as  to  compel  the  House  to  act  in 
this  way.  Until  a  general  law  should  pass,  Mr. 
T.  said,  he  had  no  doubt  the  House  had  the 
power  within  itself  to  punish  any  person  who 
should  attempt  to  bribe  one  of  its  members. 
The  proper  course,  he  conceived,  would  be, 
warned  by  this  incident,  to  appoint  a  committee 
to  report  a  bill  to  punish  such  offences,  &c.  He 
should  not  commit  himself  at  present  as  to  the 
final  course  for  the  House ;  but  it  appeared  to 
him,  that  every  member,  from  the  necessity  the 
House  was  under  of  protecting  itself,  would 
wish  to  see  that  course  pursued  which  would 
best  promote  a  due  consideration  of  the  subject 
— which  was  the  usual  process  of  referring  the 
subject  to  a  committee. 

Mr.  HOPKINSON,  of  Pennsylvania,  rose  in  sup- 
port of  the  proposition  before  the  House.  This 
question,  he  said,  was  not  a  new  one ;  it  had 
been  heretofore  solemnly  debated  and  adjudged ; 
and  all  the  objections  now  expressed  had  been 
brought  forward  in  their  greatest  force,  without 
effect ;  and  the  precedent  then  established  was 
entitled  to  respect.  In  that  case  to  which  he 
referred,  it  was  well  known  a  full  opportunity 
was  given  for  the  freest  discussion ;  the  parties 
arraigned  at  the  bar  having  been  heard  by  their 
counsel  on  this  question.  But,  Mr.  H.  said,  the 
weight  of  that  precedent  was  attempted  to  be 
destroyed  in  a  most  extraordinary  manner  by 
the  honorable  gentleman  from  New  Hampshire, 
who  had  intimated  that  the  House  at  that  day 
did  not  decide  the  question  on  a  knowledge  of 
the  provisions  of  the  constitution,  but  on  party 
principles.  Mr.  H.  begged  the  gentleman  from 


New  Hampshire  to  tell  the  House  how  he 
knew  the  motives  of  the  members  of  that  Con- 
gress ;  how  he  acquired  the  power  to  enter 
their  hearts,  and  see  that  they  did  not  decide 
this  question  on  our  own  laws,  but  on  those  of 
a  foreign  country  ?  Why  did  he  seek  to  con- 
demn them  and  their  decision,  by  a  sort  of  allu- 
sion, which,  Mr.  H.  said,  as  an  argument,  would 
not  be  listend  to  on  this  floor?  That  respectable 
and  enlightened  Congress,  Mr.  H.  said,  had  de- 
cided the  question  before  them  on  the  principles 
of  our  own  constitution  and  law ;  if  their  deci- 
sion was  corroborated  by  the  practice  of  the  Leg- 
islature of  any  other  country,  there  was  nothing 
in  that  circumstance  to  weaken  the  force  of  the 
precedent.  But  the  Republican  members  opposed 
that  decision !  Are  questions  of  this  sort,  Mr.  H. 
asked,  to  be  decided  by  the  particular  political 
denominations  of  those  who  voted  pro  or  con? 
Is  that  to  be  the  rule  by  which  decisions  on 
such  questions  are  to  be  received  or  regarded  as 
precedents  ?  If  so,  as  gentlemen  took  the  liberty 
sometimes  of  exchanging  sides  in  politics,  that 
which  was  law  to-day  might  not  be  to-morrow ; 
and  the  question  would  be  forever  unsettled. 
The  question  now  raised,  Mr.  H.  considered  as 
having  been  decided  by  an  authority  which, 
though  not  decisive,  was  yet  entitled  to  the 
highest  respect,  and  ought  to  be  respected.  The 
observations  of  the  gentleman  from  New  Hamp- 
shire having  been  disposed  of,  which  ought  never 
to  have  been  made,  Mr.  H.  proceeded  to  notice 
some  other  views  which  had  been  thrown  out. 
It  had  been  objected  to  the  legality  of  the  pro- 
cedure, that  the  statement  on  which  the  war- 
rant was  founded,  was  not  on  oath.  Was  not 
the  representation  of  a  member  of  this  House, 
he  asked,  a  sufficient  ground  of  proceeding? 
The  character  of  this  House  must  be  sunk  to  a 
low  ebb,  if  the  representations  of  its  members 
were  not  to  be  received  as  true.  In  the  case  of 
Randall  and  Whitney,  the  proceedings  of  the 
House  had  been  similar  to  those  of  this  day ;  in- 
formation of  the  facts  was  given  by  members 
in  their  places,  and  the  House  proceeded,  as  in 
the  present  case,  without  calling  on  the  mem- 
bers to  take  the  book  and  testify  that  what 
they  had  stated  was  true.  In  such  cases,  said 
Mr.  H.,  we  have  ever  been  guided  by  precedent, 
and  we  have  done  right.  But,  it  was  said  by 
the  gentleman  from  Ohio,  that  there  was  noth- 
ing to  be  found  in  the  constitution  to  justify 
this  proceeding.  When,  Mr.  H.  said,  the  con- 
stitution gave  being  to  this  body,  it  gave  to  it. 
every  attribute  necessary  to  its  security  and  to  its 
purity.  The  courts  of  justice,  which  had  been 
mentioned,  do  exercise  similar  power ;  any  at- 
tempt to  obstruct  the  due  course  of  justice,  or 
to  corrupt  its  source,  is  an  offence  punishable 
in  a  summary  manner.  It  was  equally  neces- 
sary such  a  power  should  reside  in  this  House ; 
because,  if  persons  hanging  about  this  hall,  with 
their  private  claims,  and  besetting  the  paths  of 
the  members,  offering  them  bribes  for  their 
votes  and  influence,  were  to  be  referred  to  the 
courts  of  justice  for  their  punishment,  there  was 


DEBATES  OF  CONGRESS. 


87 


JAXCARY,  1818.] 


Case  of  John  Anderson. 


[H.  OF  B. 


no  protection  for  the  independence,  none  for 
the  feelings,  none  for  the  character  of  this  House. 
If  we  are  careful  that  the  laws  be  purely  admin- 
istered, ought  we  not  to  be  equally  so  that  they 
are  purely  made  ?  Is  the  juror  who  administers 
the  law  to  have  protection,  and  the  legislator 
who  makes  the  law  to  have  none  ?  That  the 
courts,  have  the  power  to  punish  contempts,  is 
a  matter,  said  Mr.  H.,  which  could  not  be  doubted 
here ;  and  that  the  Legislature  possesses  the 
same  power  was  to  him  clear,  and  for  the  same 
reason.  Adverting  to  the  provision  of  the  con- 
stitution, which  privileged  members  of  Con- 
gress from  arrest  during  their  attendance  at  the 
session  of  their  respective  Houses,  and  on  going 
to  and  returning  from  the  same ;  if  the  gentle- 
man will  tie  us  down  to  the  letter  of  the  consti- 
tution, said  Mr.  H.,  how  would  he  punish  a 
man  who  should  arrest  a  member  contrary  to 
this  provision  ?  Would  he  sue  him  at  law  ? 
and  where  do  you  find  in  the  constitution  any 
thing  by  which  you  shall  know  Tww  to  proceed 
to  punish  him  ?  Would  not  the  gentleman  do 
it  in  the  way  in  which  we  are  going  on  ?  And 
why  ?  Because,  said  he,  we  possess  the  power 
to  protect  ourselves  in  the  exercise  of  our  duties. 
How  would  the  gentleman  proceed  in  the  case 
of  the  arrest  of  himself  and  half  a  dozen  of 
members,  whose  votes  would  turn  the  scale  on 
a  pending  question  of  the  highest  moment? 
Discharge  the  members,  and  they  might  be  ar- 
rested again,  if  there  was  no  summary  process 
against  the  offender.  If  there  was  no  redress 
in  such  a  case,  but  to  turn  the  person  offending 
over  to  suit  or  indictment  in  the  courts,  the 
constitutional  provision  was  a  mere  illusion. 
But  gentlemen  themselves  did  not  agree.  One, 
said  he,  refers  the  House  for  redress  of  their 
complaint,  in  the  present  case,  to  the  courts  of 
justice  ;  the  other  says  that  bribery  is  no  offence, 
there  being  no  law  to  punish  it ;  of  course  the 
courts  are  not  open  to  the  complainant  So 
that,  between  them,  Congress  is  in  a  strange 
predicament.  We  are,  without  remedy,  at  the 
mercy  of  every  infamous  man,  who  is  disposed, 
either  for  the  purpose  of  private  malice  or  per- 
sonal emolument,  to  play  off  his  arts  against 
the  Representatives  of  the  people.  Mr.  H.  con- 
cluded by  saying,  that  he  hoped  the  House 
would  decide  that  it  had  the  power,  not  only  to 
protect  its  existence,  but  to  preserve  its  char- 
acter so  pure  and  unsullied  as  to  be  exempted 
even  from  suspicion. 

Mr.  FOKSTTH  rose  to  correct  an  extraordinary 
mistake  which  the  gentleman  from  New  Hamp- 
shire had  fallen  into  in  regard  to  the  precedent 
to  which  he  had  referred.  That  precedent  was 
found  in  the  Journal  of  the  year  1795,  before 
the  division  of  parties,  which  has  since  existed, 
had  taken  place.  It  was  not,  therefore,  a  party 
question,  but  a  great  constitutional  point,  which 
was  then  decided.  On  referring  to  the  Journal 
for  the  final  vote,  it  appeared  that  seventy-eight 
members  had  voted  in  the  affirmative,  and  but 
seventeen  against  it.  For  another  fact  he  was 
indebted  to  the  information  of  a  gentleman 


who  was  in  a  situation  to  have  known  it,  that, 
of  those  seventy-eight,  thirty-nine  were  subse- 
quently on  the  Republican  side  of  the  question, 
and  known  as  Republicans  in  the  great  parties 
into  which  the  country  soon  after  divided. 
Among  these  were  some  of  the  names  most  dear 
to  the  Republican  party,  and  by  this  he  meant 
no  reflection  on  those  who  differed  from  them 
on  that  question.  He  need  only  refer  to  the 
names  of  Gallatin,  Giles,  Baldwin,  Findlay,  and 
many  others  of  the  same  grade — and  were  not 
these  Republicans?  They  were;  and  each 
would  bear  a  comparison  with  any  man  who 
had  ever  since  called  himself  a  Republican. 
They  were  the  master  spirits  who  headed  the 
Republican  party  when  it  became  one,  and 
guided  it  in  all  its  movements.  But,  Mr.  F. 
said,  he  should  be  glad  to  find  out  how  the 
gentleman  discovered  the  great  name  of  Jeffer- 
son to  support  him  in  his  doctrine  ?  That  great 
man  was  not  then  a  member  of  Congress ;  nor, 
Mr.  F.  said,  did  he  know  that  he  had  expressed 
any  opinion  on.the  question.  He  did  not  find 
in  the  Manual  composed  by  him  any  expression 
of  an  opinion  that  the  constitution  had  been 
violated  by  that  decision.  There  was  a  state- 
ment of  the  arguments  on  both  sides  of  that 
question ;  but  so  far  from  expressing  the  opinion 
that  the  constitution  had  been  violated,  the 
Manual  considered  the  question  as  unsettled.  It 
was  settled,  then,  on  the  ground  that  this  body, 
and  all  others,  corporate  as  well  as  individual, 
had  the  right  to  protect  themselves  from  insult 
and  violence.  How,  Mr.  F.  asked,  would  gen- 
tlemen proceed  to  punish  an  individual  in  the 
gallery  of  this  House,  who  should  consider  it  a 
great  theatre,  and  exercise  the  privilege  which 
insolent  persons  use  in  the  gallery  of  a  theatre, 
of  disturbing  the  audience  and  annoying  the 
performers?  Suppose  some  person  who  was 
unfriendly  to  a  member  speaking,  or  who  did 
not  like  the  monotonous  tone  of  his  voice,  should 
amuse  himself  by  throwing  nuts  or  apples  at 
his  head ;  by  hissing  on  the  one  hand,  or  applaud- 
ing on  the  other;  by  what  authority  would 
the  House  exercise  the  power  of  driving  him 
away,  or  taking  him  into  custody  ?  Could  any 
one  doubt  the  power  ?  But  was  it  to  be  found, 
in  so  many  words,  in  the  constitution  ?  Gen- 
tlemen might  say,  this  would  be  within  our  own 
walls,  and  therefore  a  different  case  from  that 
now  under  consideration.  Mr.  F.  regarded  them 
as  standing  on  the  same  footing;  within  and 
without,  here  or  in  any  part  of  the  city,  if  a 
member  was  insulted  in  the  discharge  of  his 
duty,  this  House  had,  in  his  opinion,  the  right 
and  the  power  to  punish  the  offender.  He 
hoped,  at  all  events,  the  House  would  make  the 
inquiry,  and  not  stay  its  proceedings  in  this 
case,  until  something  stronger  had  been  alleged 
against  them  than  any  thing  he  had  heard. 

Mr.  PITKIN,  of  Connecticut,  said  he  did  not 
rise  to  debate  the  power  of  this  House ;  for,  he 
said,  unless  the  House  had  some  power  to  pro- 
tect itself  and  its  members  in  their  persons  and 
integrity,  from  violence  or  insult,  they  might  as 


ABRIDGMENT  OF  THE 


H.  OF  R.] 


Case  of  John  Anderson. 


[JANUARY,  1818. 


well  adjourn  and  go  home.  But  he  rose  to 
refer  to  one  or  two  cases  which  had  occurred 
subsequently  to  that  which  had  been  particu- 
larly referred  to,  to  see  how  far  the  House  had 
proceeded.  A  case  had  occurred,  in  1810,  of 
an  assault  and  battery  on  a  member  of  this 
House,  not  within  the  walls  of  the  House,  not 
during  its  sitting,  and  originating  in  circum- 
stances having  no  relation  to  his  duty  as  a  mem- 
ber of  the  House ;  but,  while  here  attending  his 
public  duty,  that  gentleman  had  been  considered 
as  under  the  protection  of  the  authority  of  the 
House,  and  the  House  had  accordingly  taken 
cognizance  of  the  assault;  and  justly — for,  if 
the  House  had  not  power  to  protect  its  mem- 
bers while  going  and  coming  therefrom,  it  was 
in  vain  for  them  to  attend  here.  In  another 
case,  a  committee  had  been  appointed  to  in- 
quire into  the  promulgation  of  certain  secret 
proceedings  of  the  House.  The  individual 
promulgating  them  was  brought  to  the  bar  of 
the  House,  and  compelled  to  answer  the  ques- 
tions propounded  to  him.  If  he  had  refused  to 
answer  the  questions  put  to  him,  undoubtedly 
he  would  have  been  committed  to  prison  for 
that  contempt.  Having  no  doubt  of  the  power 
of  the  House  in  this  respect,  he  hoped  the 
House  would  act  as  proposed. 

Mr.  LIVERMOEK  again  rose.  He  said  he  should 
suppose  that  no  one  had  understood  him  to  say 
that  the  Kcpublicans  were  right  or  wrong,  or 
that  the  Federalists  were  right  or  wrong,  or  to 
draw  any  distinction  between  the  parties  into 
which  the  country  had  been  divided.  He  re- 
spected good  men  of  all  parties,  and  none  other 
but  good  men  of  any  party.  He  had  said  that 
an  oath  was  necessary  to  support  a  warrant,  and 
produced  the  constitutional  provision,  "  that  no 
warrants  shall  issue,  but  upon  probable  cause, 
supported  by  oath  or  affirmation.1'  How  am  I 
answered?  Why,  that  every  member  of  this 
House  is  entitled  to  such  high  credit,  that  his 
word  is  as  good  as  any  other  man's  oath.  The 
Chief  Justice  of  the  United  States  is  sworn  to 
support  the  constitution,  and  to  administer  jus- 
tice ;  but,  he  is  not  therefore  sworn  to  every 
thing,  and  his  mere  word  would  not  be  taken  in 
this  matter  in  controversy  in  any  court.  But,  it 
seemed,  that  the  rights  of  individuals  Were  to  be 
uprooted,  and  an  express  provision  of  the  con- 
stitution disregarded,  on  the  word  of  a  mem- 
ber, because  he  was  sworn  to  support  the  con- 
stitution. Mr.  L.  said  he  had  as  high  an  opin- 
ion of  the  credit  to  which  members  of  this 
House  were  entitled,  as  any  man  could  have, 
but  he  could  not,  in  such  a  case  as  this,  believe 
them,  except  on  oath,  considering  himself  bound 
to  protect  the  rights  of  every  individual  in  the 
United  States,  &c.  The  gentleman  from  Penn- 
sylvania, Mr.  L.  continued,  had  found  fault  with 
some  of  his  expressions.  A  man  cannot  take 
his  words  out  of  his  mouth,  look  at  them,  put 
them  in  again,  and  speak  as  he  could  wish ;  and 
Mr.  L.  said  he  might  have  gone  further  than  he 
intended.  "Whether  those  who  established  the 
precedent  of  1795  were  Republicans,  or  be  they 


whom  they  might,  they  had  acted  on  prece- 
dents drawn  from  the  British  Parliament,  a 
body  whose  powers  in  this  respect  were  not 
analogous  to  those  of  the  Congress  of  the  Unit- 
ed States.  The  Parliament  of  Great  Britain  is 
a  perpetual  convention,  of  which  every  law  and 
practice  becomes  apart  of  the  constitution.  But 
we  are  a  limited  Legislature,  and  the  constitu- 
tion controls  us.  And  when  such  a  question  as 
this  is  presented,  how  shall  we  get  over  it? 
Mr.  L.  disclaimed  any  intention  to  accuse  those 
who  established  the  precedent  in  the  case  of 
Whitney  and  Randall  of  having  acted  wrongly, 
against  conviction.  God  forbid  he  should  have 
said  so ;  but,  if  he  had  been  a  little  warm  on 
the  subject  when  up  before,  perhaps  the  gentle- 
man from  Pennsylvania  (whom  no  man  re- 
spected more  than  he)  had  warmed  himself  as 
well  as  the  gentleman  from  New  Hampshire. 
Let  that  gentleman,  however,  reconcile  the 
proceedings  of  Congress  to  that  provision  which 
he  had  referred  to.  It  was  no  way  to  put  a 
man  down  to  say,  that  one  man's  word  is  as 
good  as  another  man's  oath.  It  was  saying 
what  the  constitution  had  not  left  the  House  at 
liberty  to  say.  But,  it  was  asked,  could  Con- 
gress do  nothing  to  protect  themselves  ?  Must 
they  be  trampled  on,  and  spit  upon,  without 
remedy  ?  Mr.  L.  said  he  had  admitted  before, 
and  he  now  repeated,  that  the  Sergeant-at-Arms, 
within  the  House,  might  command  the  whole 
force  of  the  country,  the  Army  and  Militia,  and, 
supposing  such  a  case  possible,  might  bring  a 
seventy-four  up  the  Eastern  Branch  to  fire  upon 
the  Capitol ;  but  the  House  had  not  the  exten- 
sive power  for  which  gentlemen  now  contended. 
Suppose  he  were  to  rise  and  say,  that,  as  he 
was  coming  here,  the  Governor  or  Chief  Justice 
of  New  Hampshire  had  offered  him  a  bribe ; 
would  this  House  send  out  its  warrant  and 
bring  him  here  ?  Would  this  be  constitutional  ? 
He  hoped  not.  If  the  procedure  would  not  be 
warrantable  as  to  such  men,  neither  would  it  to 
the  meanest  man  in  the  State,  for  no  man  there 
was  a  slave ;  and  Mr.  L.  would  not  stretch  the 
power  of  the  Government  to  oppress  the  meanest 
or  the  greatest. 

Mr.  SERGEANT,  of  Pennsylvania,  said,  as  the 
motion  now  before  the  House,  was  merely  for 
the  appointment  of  a  committee  of  inquiry,  he 
could  see  no  reasonable  objection  to  it.  The 
matter  proposed  to  be  inquired  into  was  not,  he 
said,  a  question  merely  between  the  individual 
accused  and  the  House ;  but  it  was  one  in 
which  the  nation  was  interested ;  and  the  House 
would  commit  as  great  an  error  if  they  neglect- 
ed to  inflict  a  proper  punishment  on  the  offender 
in  such  a  case,  as  if  they  were  to  inflict  punish- 
ment where  no  offence  had  been  committed. 
The  immediate  question  was  not,  whether  the 
members  of  the  House  were  assailable  by  bribes ; 
whether  their  feelings  were  to  be  wounded  with 
impunity ;  whether  they  were  liable  to  the  arts 
of  seduction ;  but  it  was  a  general  question 
whether  the  House  would  or  would  not  inquire 
what  authority  it  had  to  punish  those  offend- 


DEBATES  OF  CONGRESS. 


JANUARY,  1818.] 


Case  of  John  Anderson. 


[H.  OP  R. 


ing  in  this  respect.  If  we  have  the  authority, 
said  Mr.  S.,  we  are  bound  to  inflict  punishment 
in  the  case  before  us ;  for  if  the  offence  sup- 
posed to  Lave  been  committed  shall  be  proved, 
can  any  case  occur  hereafter  more  requiring 
the  exercise  of  the  powers  of  this  House.  If 
you  will  not  exercise  what  power  you  possess 
now,  there  is  no  species  of  attempt  which  may 
not  be  made  with  impunity  on  the  honor  or  on 
the  feelings  of  this  House;  there  is  no  practice, 
however  corrupt,  which  may  not  be  attempted. 
For  upon  whom  was  this  attempt  made  ?  Upon 
a  member  who  is  at  the  head  of  the  Committee 
of  Claims,  that  committee  whose  business  it  is 
to  determine  between  the  claims  of  individuals 
and  the  interest  of  the  United  States,  coming 
in  conflict  before  them;  in  doing  which  the 
chairman  of  that  committee  has  to  contend,  on 
the  part  of  the  United  States,  against  the  in- 
terest, urged  in  every  possible  shape,  of  the  in- 
dividuals whose  claims  are  preferred  to  this 
House.  And  would  the  House  allow  the  mem- 
ber who  occupies  that  station  of  sentinel  at  the 
door  of  the  Treasury,  to  be  placed  in  a  situation 
to  be  exposed  to  all  the  gross  and  corrupt  at- 
tempts which  may  be  made  on  him,  if  they  are 
permitted  to  be  made  with  impunity  ?  Surely 
not.  If,  then,  Mr.  S.  repeated,  the  House  would 
not,  in  the  present  case,  exercise  the  power  of 
punishing  for  contempt,  there  never  would  oc- 
cur one  in  which  it  would. 

There  were,  Mr.  S.  said,  in  the  present,  as 
there  must  be  in  all  similar  cases,  two  offences 
committed ;  the  one,  a  crime  for  which  the  in- 
dividual might  be  handed  over  to  the  courts  of 
justice  for  the  punishment ;  the  other  an  offence 
against  this  House,  for  which  the  individual 
might  be  proceeded  against  and  punished  in  a 
summary  manner.  He  did  not  say  that  both 
these  courses  might  not  be  pursued.  But  he  did 
admit  that  the  question  whether  the  House 
should  or  should  not  interfere,  was  at  all  times 
a  question  on  which  a  sound  discretion  must 
be  exercised  when  the  case  arises.  In  this  way 
he  would  answer  the  gentleman  from  New 
Hampshire,  who  had  supposed  extreme  cases. 
This  House,  said  Mr.  S.,  may  certainly  in  such 
cases  rely  on  its  own  discretion,  that  it  will  not 
be  impelled  into  a  course  which  is  unjust.  The 
case  now  before  the  House  was  not  such  a  case, 
however,  but  one  of  a  totally  different  character. 
If  the  House  proceeded  no  further  now,  the 
privilege's  of  the  House  were  surrendered  in 
every  case,  unless  for  what  should  be  done  hi 
the  face  of  the  House.  If  the  doctrine  of  the 
gentlemen  from  Ohio  and  New  Hampshire  pre- 
vail, said  Mr.  S.,  we  shall  be  assailable  at  our 
door,  on  the  staircase,  everywhere  until  we 
come  into  this  House,  and  this  House  is  organ- 
ized. Was  this  possible?  And  yet,  he  said, 
he  did  not  suppose  cases  as  extreme  as  those 
put  on  the  other  side. 

Mr.  BALL,  of  Virginia  said,  if  this  proposi- 
tion to  appoint  a  committee  had  been  made  in 
the  first  instance,  he  should  have  had  no  objec- 
tion to  the  proposed  inquiry.  But  ho  was 


under  the  impression  that  this  inquiry  into 
their  power  ought  to  have  been  had  before  the 
warrant  was  issued.  Suppose  this  person  had 
been  in  a  distant  part  of  this  country,  in  the 
District  of  Maine,  for  example:  would  this 
House  arrest  him,  bring  him  here,  and  then  in- 
quire whether  they  had  power  to  do  so  or  not? 
AVould  not  this  be  a  grievance  of  the  highest 
character  against  the  laws  of  the  land,  and 
against  the  constitution  itself?  Supposing,  after 
putting  a  person,  accused  of  contempt,  to  all 
this  inconvenience,  and  holding  him  in  durance, 
it  should  appear  that  he  was  not  amenable  to 
the  authority  of  this  House ;  would  not  this 
proceeding  have  been  manifestly  wrong,  and 
an  oppression  of  the  citizen?  Had  we  not 
better,  said  Mr.  B.,  suffer  a  thousand  insults, 
than  trample  on  the  personal  liberty  of  the 
citizen?  The  liberty  of  the  citizen  was  guard- 
ed by  the  express  provisions  of  the  constitu- 
tion ;  and  he  would  not,  he  said,  exercise  any 
authority  restraining  it,  unless  unsupported  by 
the  constitution.  That  was  his  guide ;  he  had 
taken  an  oath  to  support  it,  and  that  instru- 
ment provided  that  no  warrant  shall  issue,  un- 
less supported  by  oath.  The  warrant  against 
John  Anderson  had,  therefore,  issued  in  con- 
tradiction to  the  constitution.  The  proper 
course  would  be  to  discharge  him  from  the 
warrant  Avhich  had  been  illegally  issued ;  to 
investigate  the  subject;  and,  if  it  should  be 
decided  that  he  was  amenable  to  the  House, 
then  to  arrest  him  and  punish  him,  but  not, 
otherwise,  to  proceed  further  in  the  busiia-ss. 

Mr.  TEEET  said  that,  on  this  occasion,  it  ap- 
peared to  him,  to  use  a  vulgar  adage,  gentlemen 
leapt  before  they  came  to  the  stile.  With  re- 
spect to  the  constitutional  provision  for  the 
protection  of  individuals,  if  a  warrant  contrary 
to  law  was  before  a  court  of  justice,  where 
strict  law  prevails,  the  court  would  not  ex 
ojficio  quash  it,  if  the  party  concerned  sub- 
mitted to  it.  It  was  proper,  Mr.  T.  said,  that 
Colonel  Anderson  should  have  the  opportunity 
of  objecting  to  it.  If  he  did  so.  Mr.  T.  reserved 
to  himself  the  right  to  decide  whether  the  war- 
rant had  been  issued  constitutionally  or  not. 
In  the  present  state  of  the  proceedings,  he  said, 
the  House  ought  not  to  decide :  if  conscious  of 
his  offence,  the  individual  might  not  think  it 
advisable  to  object  to  the  authority  of  the 
House. 

Mr.  COMSTOCK,  of  New  York,  said  he  did  not 
rise  to  detain  the  House,  but  to  say  that  he 
thought,  unless  this  or  a  similar  resolution  pass- 
ed, (for  appointing  a  committee,)  the  patience 
of  the  House  would  be  put  to  a  severer  test 
than  it  had  yet  been,  by  the  protraction  of  a 
debate  arising  from  the  want  of  a  definite  pro- 
position before  the  House,  which  it  would  be 
the  business  of  a  committee  to  present.  Many 
observations,  it  appeared  to  Mr.  C.,  had  escaped 
gentlemen  in  the  course  of  the  debate  that  had 
already  taken  place,  which  might  have  been 
offered  with  more  propriety  when  this  man 
should  be  brought  before  the  House,  and  ex- 


90 


ABRIDGMENT  OF  THE 


H.  OF  R.] 


Case  of  John  Anderson. 


[JANCABY,  1818. 


hibit  the  evidence,  if  he  has  any,  to  extenuate 
his  guilt.  It  would  then  be  more  proper  than 
it  was  now  to  comment  on  his  character  and  on 
all  the  circumstances  of  the  transaction.  At 
present,  Mr.  0.  said,  he  would  forbear  any  re- 
marks on  that  head ;  he  thought  that  enough 
had  been  disclosed  to  justify  what  had  been  al- 
ready done. 

The  resolution  was  finally  agreed  to,  and 
Messrs.  FORSYTE,  HOPKINSON,  TUCKER,  SER- 
GEANT, JOHNSON,  of  Kentucky,  PITKIN,  and 
TAYLOR,  were  appointed  a  committee  accord- 
ingly- 

John  Anderson's  Case. 

Mr.  FORSYTH,  from  the  committee  appointed 
to-day,  made  a  report  recommending  that  the 
House  do  come  to  the  following  resolution: 

Resolved,  That  John  Anderson  be  brought  to  the 
bar  of  the  House,  and  interrogated  by  the  Speaker, 
on  written  interrogatories,  touching  the  charge  of 
writing  and  delivering  a  letter  to  a  member  of  the 
House,  offering  Mm  a  bribe,  which,  with  his  an- 
swers thereto,  shall  be  entered  on  the  minutes  of  the 
House.  And  that  every  question  proposed  by  a 
member  be  reduced  to  writing,  and  a  motion  made 
that  the  same  be  put  by  the  Speaker,  and  the  ques- 
tion and  answer  shall  be  entered  on  the  minutes  of 
the  House.  That  after  such  interrogatories  are  an- 
swered, if  the  House  deem  it  necessary  to  mako  fur- 
ther inquiry  on  the  subject,  the  same  be  conducted 
by  a  committee  to  be  appointed  for  that  purpose. 

Mr.  TTJCKKE  read  a  resolution  that  the  Speak- 
er be  authorized  to  inform  the  accused  that 
that  he  might  ask  counsel.  &c. 

"Which  was  superseded  by  an  intimation  from 
the  Speaker,  that  he  should  consider  it  a  duty, 
if  no  objection  was  made,  to  give  the  accused 
information  on  this  head. 

The  Sergeant-at-Arms  was  then  directed  to 
bring  his  prisoner  to  the  bar  of  the  House. 

On  his  appearance,  the  SPEAKER  directed  a 
chair  to  be  given  to  him,  and  addressed  him  to 
this  eftect : 

"  John  Anderson,  you  are  no  doubt  aware  that 
you  are  brought  before  this  House  in  consequence 
of  having  written  and  delivered  to  a  gentleman,  who  is 
a  member  and  chairman  of  a  committee  of  this  House, 
a  letter,  of  the  contents  of  which  you  are  apprised. 
Before  I  proceed  to  propound  to  you  any  interroga- 
tories on  this  subject,  I  will  apprise  you  that,  if  you 
have  any  request  to  make  of  the  House ;  if  you  wish 
for  counsel,  for  reasonable  time,  for  witnesses,  for 
any  of  those  privileges  belonging  to  persons  in  simi- 
lar situations,  the  House  is  disposed  to  grant  it  If 
you  do  not  wish  for  time,  for  counsel,  or  for  wit- 
nesses, the  Speaker  will  proceed  to  put  to  you  such 
interrogatories  as  may  seem  proper." 

To  this  the  prisoner  at  the  bar  replied  in 
substance,  although  indistinctly,  that,  in  his 
peculiar  situation,  he  desired  the  assistance  of 
counsel ;  he  desired  time  until  to-morrow,  and 
the  opportunity  of  summoning  witnesses  to  testi- 
fy to  the  character  he  had  sustained  through 
life. 


Whereupon  the  Sergeant-at-Arms  was  di- 
rected to  take  the  prisoner  from  the  bar. 

Some  conversation  took  place  as  to  the  pre- 
cise mode  of  proceeding,  which  resulted  in 
drawing  up  a  resolution  that  the  Speaker  be 
authorized  to  inform  the  accused  that  the  House 
comply  with  his  requests. 

Aiid  then  the  Sergeant-at-Arms  withdrew 
from  the  bar  with  his  prisoner. 

The  House  adjourned  at  a  late  hour. 


FRIDAY,  January  9. 

Another  member,  to  wit.  from  Rhode  Island, 
JAMES  B.  MASON,  appeared,  produced  his  cre- 
dentials, was  qualified,  and  took  his  seat. 

Case  of  John  Anderson. 

Mr.  SPENCER  offered  for  consideration  the  fol- 
lowing preamble  and  resolutions : 

The  House  of  Representatives,  entertaining  great 
doubts  of  its  possessing  the  competent  power  to  punish 
John  Anderson  for  his  contempt  of  the  House,  and 
his  outrage  upon  one  of  its  members : 

Resolved,  That  all  further  proceedings  in  this 
House  against  the  said  John  Anderson  do  cease,  and 
that  he  be  discharged  from  the  custody  of  the  Ser- 
geant-at-Arms. 

Resolved,  That  the  Attorney-General  of  the  United 
States  be  directed  to  institute  such  proceedings  against 
the  said  John  Anderson  for  his  said  offence  as  may 
be  agreeable  to  the  laws  of  the  United  States  and  of 
the  District  of  Columbia. 

Resolved,  That  the  Committee  on  the  Judiciary  be 
instructed  to  inquire  into  the  expediency  of  providing 
by  law  for  the  punishment  of  any  contempt  of  the 
Senate  or  House  of  Representatives  of  the  United 
States,  and  of  any  breach  of  th§  privileges  of  either 
House. 

Mr.  SPENCER,  of  New  York,  observed,  that 
in  submitting  the  resolutions  which  had  been 
read,  his  object  was  to  procure  a  decision  of  the 
House  on  the  abstract  question  of  its  right  to 
proceed  in  the  case  of  Colonel  Anderson.  He 
had  offered  them  in  this  stage  of  the  proceed- 
ings, because  no  opportunity  had  yet  been  given 
to  take  the  sense  of  the  House,  and  with  a  view 
also  of  preventing  the  influence  of  those  feel- 
ings, which  the  demerits  of  the  case  might  ex- 
cite, in  producing  a  decision  that  calm  and  de- 
liberate reason  might  not  sanction.  It  was 
more  consistent,  also,  with  the  dignity  of  the 
House,  that  we  should  retrace  its  proceedings, 
if  they  were  wrong,  from  our  own  impulse, 
rather  than  be  compelled  to  do  so  on  the  motion 
of  the  accused  or  his  counsel. 

Mr.  S.  unequivocally  condemned  the  conduct 
of  the  accused ;  and  his  indignation  at  the  enor- 
mity of  the  offence  had,  he  confessed,  carried 
him  too  far,  in  endeavoring  to  punish  it.  The 
only  apology  I  have  to  offer,  said  Mr.  S.,  is  to 
be  found  in  that  universal  burst  of  feeling  which 
spread  through  the  House  on  the  disclosure  of 
the  base  transaction.  But  time  for  reflection 
has  succeeded  to  the  impetuosity  of  feeling; 
and,  being  perfectly  convinced  that  we  were 
wrong,  I  take  the  first  opportunity  to  acknowl- 


DEBATES  OF  CONGRESS. 


91 


JAJTCARY,  1818.] 


Case  of  John  Anderson. 


[H.  OF  R. 


edge  my  error,  and  to  expiate  it,  by  submitting 
the  resolutions  on  your  table. 

In  deciding  tbis  question,  we  act  as  judges, 
and  we  must  demand  tbe  very  letter  of  the  law 
to  authorize  our  decision.  With  the  propriety, 
or  expediency,  or  necessity  of  having  some  law 
on  the  subject,  we,  as  judges,  have  nothing  to 
do.  We  act  not  as  legislators,  but  in  a  judicial 
capacity,  in  a  cause  between  us  and  the  accus- 
ed ;  and  we  are  as  strictly  bound  by  the  law  of 
the  land  as  any  court  of  justice  can  be.  Let  us, 
then,  search  for  that  law.  If  it  is  to  be  found 
at  all,  it  is  either  in  the  constitution,  in  the 
laws  of  the  United  States,  or  in  the  law  of  Par- 
liament. The  friends  of  the  procedure  have 
been  in  vain  called  upon  to  point  out  the  ex- 
press power  given  by  the  constitution.  So  far 
from  doing  so,  they  have  not,  as  yet,  answered 
the  objections  which  the  constitution  itself  in- 
terposes. The  4th  article  of  the  amendments 
provides,  "  that  no  warrant  shall  issue  but  upon 
probable  cause,  supported  by  oat h  or  affirma- 
tion,'1'' and  that  it  shall  describe  the  person  to 
be  seized.  In  the  present  case,  a  warrant  has 
been  issued,  directing  a  person  to  be  seized, 
without  being  supported  by  oath  or  affirma- 
tion. But  we  have  been  told,  that  the  clause 
is  only  intended  to  regulate  courts  of  justice. 
There  is  no  such  limitation  in  the  amendment ; 
but,  admit  it,  and  what  is  gained  ?  The  is- 
suing of  process  to  bring  in  a  party  to  answer 
is  in  itself  a  judicial  act ;  all  our  proceedings  in 
the  case  are  founded  upon  the  idea  of  our  being 
a  court  for  this  purpose.  By  the  5th  amend- 
ment it  is  provided  that  no  person  shall  be  held 
to  answer  for  an  infamous  crime  unless  on  in- 
dictment of  a  grand  jury,  except  in  cases  arising 
in  the  land  or  naval  forces,  or  in  the  militia 
when  in  service.  If  any  doubt  should  exist  as 
to  the  universality  of  the  prohibition,  the  ex- 
cepted  cases  which  it  mentions  shows  conclu- 
sively that  it  was  intended  to  apply  to  all 
others.  Here  there  is  no  presentment,  and  no 
one  will  contend  that  it  is  one  of  the  excepted 
cases.  The  same  amendment  provides  that  no 
person  shall  be  compelled  to  be  a  witness 
against  himself  in  a  criminal  case.  We  are 
about  to  propound  interrogatories  to  this  man ; 
if  he  refuse  to  answer  them,  what  are  you  next 
to  do  ?  Will  you  treat  the  refusal  as"  another 
contempt,  and  punish  him  for  it ;  and  thus  com- 
pel him  to  bear  witness  against  himself?  Or 
will  you  persist  in  making  a  vain  effort  at  pow- 
er, when  you  know  you  must  retire  discomfited 
and  disgraced?  The  6th  amendment  provides 
for  the  trial  by  jury.  In  no  sense  of  the  word 
can  this  House  be  deemed  a  jury ;  we  are  not 
returned  by  an  Executive  officer;  we  possess 
not  the  qualifications  of  jurors,  and  the  right  of 
challenge  of  course  could  not  be  allowed. 

From  this  examination,  it  results,  then,  that 
if  we  proceed  against  this  man  for  a  crime,  as 
some  have  contended,  our  measures  are  wholly 
unconstitutional,  illegal,  and  void.  If  we  pro- 
ceed against  him  at  all,  it  must  be  for  a  con- 
tempt amounting  to  a  breach  of  the  privileges  of 


the  House.  The  most  diligent  research  has  not 
enabled  me  to  discover  either  the  word  or  the 
idea  of  a  contempt  as  applied  to  Congress,  in 
either  the  constitution  or  laws  of  the  United 
States,  and  I  venture  to  affirm  that  neither  of 
them  is  to  be  found  there. 

Mr.  AKDEBSOX,  of  Kentucky,  declared  that  he 
should  support  the  resolutions  offered  to  the 
House.  His  only  objection  was  to  the  expres- 
sion of  doubt  contained  in  the  preamble;  he 
felt  no  doubt,  and  thought  the  prisoner  should 
be  instantly  discharged.  It  might  indeed  pro- 
duce some  mortification  for  the  House  now  to 
retrace  its  steps,  and  to  make  a  pubh'c  acknowl- 
edgment of  its  imbecility,  but  he  thought  this 
course  much  preferable  to  an  assumption  of  the 
constitutional  powers  now  contended  for.  He 
himself  participated  in  the  mortification,  but 
felt  the  necessity  of  giving  the  most  prompt 
correction  to  the  error  which  had  been  com- 
mitted in  issuing  the  warrant.  It  was  much 
better  now  to  arrest  the  proceedings,  than  to 
conduct  the  case  through  an  examination,  and 
be  compelled  to  adopt  that  course ;  an  idea  then 
might  justifiably  arise,  that  the  discharge  was 
produced  by  a  belief  that  the  man  was  inno- 
cent, or  that  the  case  did  not  merit  punish- 
ment. It  should  be  placed  on  its  true  ground ; 
the  prisoner  should  be  immediately  discharged 
from  a  want  of  power  in  this  House  to  punish. 
If  this  power  be  possessed,  it  is  indeed  most 
novel  and  extraordinary.  In  every  other  case, 
an  act  which  is  punishable,  must,  by  a  previous 
law,  have  been  declared  an  offence.  In  this, 
the  guilt  of  the  individual  does  not  rest  on  any 
statute  previously  passed  and  promulgated,  but 
on  the  feelings  and  passions  of  this  House.  In 
vain  do  we  demand  the  law,  which  has  declared 
the  act  an  offence  at  the  tune  of  its  commission. 
In  vain  may  the  citizen  look  for  the  rule  of  his 
conduct  in  the  statute  book  of  his  country. 
There  is  no  law  declaring  the  act  we  are  about 
to  punish,  a  contempt  or  an  offence  of  any  kind; 
our  opinion  of  its  criminality  has  been  locked 
within  our  own  breasts,  and  never  can  be  con- 
stitutionally declared  except  by  a  law  of  Con- 
gress. No  other  tribunal  has  ever  yet  dared  to 
assume  such  a  power,  and  if  it  be  exercised,  no 
citizen  in  this  country  can  be  safe.  But  if  the 
doctrine  is  recognized  that  we  can  declare  an 
act  after  it  is  committed  an  offence,  according 
to  our  views  of  the  privileges  of  the  House,  or 
the  nature  of  contempts,  we  are  at  once  plung- 
ed into  a  sea  of  perplexity.  There  is  no  subject 
on  which  the  varying  minds  of  men  can  differ 
more.  That  act  which  one  will  declare  the 
grossest  contempt,  will,  by  another,  be  thought 
perfectly  harmless.  We  shall  have  no  previous 
standard  by  which  we  can  measure  the  act ; 
the  fact  of  its  being  an  offence  will  depend  on 
the  wide  and  differing  views  of  members  of  this 
House.  If  we  reserve  to  ourselves  the  power 
of  declaring  every  paragraph  in  the  newspa- 
pers defamatory  or  libellous,  as  our  feelings  may 
direct,  and  which  no  law  has  forbidden,  we  are 
indeed  possessed  of  powers  of  which  the  people 


92 


ABRIDGMENT  OF  THE 


H.  OF  R.] 


of  this  country  have  little  thought,  and  which, 
by  reading  the  constitution,  they  can  never 
find. 

If,  however,  it  should  be  conceded  that  this 
was  an  offence,  unless  there  has  been  a  punish- 
ment previously  affixed  by  law,  we  are  still 
powerless,  and  must  arrest  these  proceedings. 
By  what  authority  can  we  award  any  punish- 
ment, or  imprisonment,  in  preference  to  any 
other?  There  is  none  in  the  constitution,  and 
there  is  no  law  on  the  subject.  What  necessa- 
ry connection  is  there  between  contempt  and 
imprisonment  ?  They  seem  to  be  spoken  of  as 
if  one  was  a  necessary  consequence  of  the  other. 
It  arises,  Mr.  Speaker,  from  the  provisions  of 
the  common  law,  and  the  usages  of  the  British 
Parliament,  which  are  fastened  about  our  re- 
collections, and  are  difficult  to  be  shaken  off. 
We  forget  that  the  powers  of  the  House  of  Com- 
mons depend  on  precedents  formed  by  their 
own  decisions,  and  ours  only  on  special  grants 
in  the  constitution.  This  House  alone  cannot 
create  a  punishment  which  has  not  been  affixed 
by  law;  by  both  branches  of  the  legislature. 
An  apt  illustration  of  the  idea  is  found  in  the 
provisions  of  the  constitution,  which  define 
treason,  and  empower  Congress  to  prescribe  the 
punishment.  If  this  power  had  never  been  ex- 
ercised, and  no  statute  had  been  enacted  to  de- 
clare the  punishment,  no  court  in  this  country 
could  have  created  one.  No  judge  would  have 
dared  to  pass  a  sentence  of  death,  or  imprison 
for  a  day.  The  vilest  traitor  that  ever  lived, 
can  be  punished  only  according  to  law  in  this 
land.  The  same  observations  apply  to  piracy, 
and  felonies,  committed  on  the  high  seas.  Until 
Congress  shall  exercise  the  powers  given  by  the 
constitution,  and  define  the  crimes  and  declare 
the  punishment,  no  tribunal  in  this  country  can 
supply  the  defect,  and  dare  to  punish  according 
to  the  common  law,  or  in  any  other  way.  If 
we  can  impose  a  penalty,  which  has  not  been 
assigned  to  a  specific  crime,  there  is  then  no 
boundary  to  our  powers.  When  we  determine 
that  this  House  possess  the  power  of  punish- 
ment, then  the  species  or  degree  is  only  matter 
of  selection.  Who  can  prescribe  the  limit? 
We  have  no  standard  to  regulate  or  bind  our 
power,  but  our  own  feeling.  We  can  range 
through  every  gradation  of  punishment,  from  a 
simple  reprimand  to  death.  And  when  the 
principle  of  punishment  is  decided,  we  may  to- 
morrow be  boldly  debating  whether  we  shall 
reprimand,  imprison,  brand,  or  gibbet  this  man. 
If  this  resolution  be  rejected,  we  shall,  in  effect, 
decide  that  the  House  of  Kepresentatives  pos- 
sess the  power  not  only  of  declaring  any  act  an 
offence,  but  of  selecting  and  inflicting  a  punish- 
ment heretofore  unknown  to  the  laws,  and  even 
to  ourselves.  These  are  indeed  tremendous 
powers,  and  such  as  I  believe  have  never  been 
granted. 

Mr.  FOKSTTH,  of  Georgia,  said,  it  is  admit- 
ted that  we  have  power  to  suppress  disorder  in 
the  gallery,  to  remove  the  ofi'ender  from  the 
hall.  Is  not  this  removal  of  a  citizen  of  the 


Case  of  John  Anderson. 


[JANUARY,  1818. 


United  States,  of  a  freeman,  from  your  gallery, 
in  which,  while  it  continues  open,  he  has  as 
much  right  to  sit  there  as  we  have  to  sit  here, 
a  punishment  for  a  crime  or  contempt  which  he 
has  committed  ?  Is  it  not,  if  not  justified  by 
law,  an  assault,  and  false  imprisonment,  for 
which  the  officer  acting  under  your  orders  is 
answerable,  by  suit  and  by  indictment  ?  Whence 
arises  the  power  ?  Will  gentlemen  point  to  the 
clause  of  the  constitution  which  confers  it? 
Here  then  is  a  case  in  which,  from  the  necessity 
of  the  case,  no  gentleman  will  venture  to  deny 
the  existence  of  the  authority  to  punish,  and  the 
propriety  of  its  exercise.  But  does  it  stop  here  ? 

beyond  the  walls  of  this  room.  Extends  it  no 
farther  ?  Cannot  our  deliberations  be  interrupt- 
ed at  the  door,  and  on  the  staircase  ?  The  same 
reasoning  will  apply  to  all  portions  of  the  House 
and  to  the  street.  Does  it  stop  here  ?  Will  you 
permit  the  beating  of  drums  and  the  firing  of 
cannon  under  your  windows,  in  the  street,  in 
front  of  this  hall  ?  Can  we  not  remove  such 
nuisances,  and  prevent  their  recurrence,  by  the 
punishment  of  those  who  caused  them,  for  their 
contempt  to  this  body  ?  Certainly  no  one  can 
deny  it.  We  have,  therefore,  by  admission,  the 
power  within  and  without  these  walls.  Where 
is  the  limit,  Mr.  F.  said?  It  was  limited  only 
by  the  jurisdiction  of  the  United  States,  because 
to  the  extent  of  the  jurisdiction  was  the  necessity 
of  the  legitimate  exercise  of  the  power. 

Mr.  F.  did  not  conceive  those  clauses  of  the 
constitution,  quoted  by  the  gentleman  from  New 
York,  applicable  to  the  present  case.  The  per- 
son in  custody  is  charged  with  a  contempt,  pun- 
ished summarily  in  all  cases — not  for  an  offence 
indictable  and  punishable  by  the  ordinary  course 
of  judicial  proceedings.  Every  gentleman,  whe- 
ther of  the  profession  of  the  law  or  not,  will 
know  the  distinction,  and  that  these  clauses  of 
the  constitution  were  framed  without  any  view 
to  the  exercise  of  this  power  to  punish  con- 
tempts, and  without  any  intention  to  prevent  its 
exercise. 

But  we  are  told,  that  this  miserable  man  is 
called  here  to  answer  to  some  unknown  law. 
He  was  somewhat  at  loss  to  understand  the  force 
of  the  remark ;  if  it  was  meant  to  convey  the 
idea,  that  there  is  no  law  of  Congress  defining 
the  bribery  of  a  member  of  Congress  as  a  crime, 
and  affixing  an  appropriate  punishment,  it  was 
true.  But  if  it  meant,  what  it  can  only  mean,  if 
used  with  an  application  to  this  case,  that  we 
propose  to  make  an  action,  in  itself  innocent, 
criminal,  and  punishable,  Mr.  T.  said,  he  must 
express  his  astonishment  at  the  declaration. 
Ignorant  indeed  must  be  that  man,  who  does  not 
know  that  this  action  was  not  criminal  in  the 
highest  degree.  Every  man  carries  in  his  own 
bosom  a  faithful  monitor,  instructing  him  how 
enormous  is  such  an  offence.  He  has  committed 
an  offence  against  a  law  known  to  him  and  to 
all  mankind,  for  which,  Mr.  F.  trusted,  he  would 
be  punished  as  far  as  the  power  of  the  House 
would  permit. 


DEBATES  OF  CONGRESS. 


93 


JANUARY,  1818.] 


Case  of  John  Anderson. 


[H.  OF  R. 


Mr.  F.  said,  the  gentleman  from  New  York 
acknowledged  the  force  of  percedents  in  judicial 
proceedings  ;  there  they  are  highly  useful  land- 
marks, not  to  he  departed  from  without  danger ; 
hut  in  legislative  proceedings  they  are  danger- 
ous things.  Mr.  F.  could  not  perceive  the  pro- 
priety of  the  distinction.  A  precedent  in  one 
place  is  omnipotent;  in  another  a  succession  of 
precedents  are  to  bo  disregarded.  The  judg- 
ments pronounced  in  similar  cases,  by  the  House 
of  Representatives,  were  assailed,  on  the  ground 
that  they  were  established  under  the  influence 
of  passion.  The  gentleman,  Mr.  F.  apprehended, 
had  not  examined  the  history  of  the  cases  to 
which  he  referred ;  he  would  find  that  they 
were  established  on  due  deliberation.  If  he  would 
compare  the  conduct  of  this  House,  and  that  of 
the  House  of  Representatives  in  '96,  in  the  case 
of  Randall  and  Whitney,  he  would  find  that  suf- 
ficient cooling  time  had  been  furnished  the  House 
of  Representatives  before  the  commission  of  the 
fact.  This  House,  yesterday,  under  the  influ- 
ence of  violent  indignation,  adopted  unanimously 
the  proposition  to  arrest  the  offender.  To-day 
we  are  cool  enough  to  examine  with  critical  ac- 
curacy and  scrutinizing  care,  into  the  extent  of 
our  constitutional  authority  to  protect  ourselves 
from  the  approaches  of  corruption,  or  the  as- 
saults of  violence,  while  in  the  performance  of 
our  public  duties.  In  the  case  of  Randall,  the 
offender  was  brought  day  after  day  before  the 
House ;  he  had  counsel  who  defended  his  cause, 
and  urged  all  the  suggestions  in  his  favor  which 
his  case  would  justify.  He  was,  by  a  majority  of 
four  to  one,  deliberately  condemned  and  delib- 
erately punished,  by  a  confinement  of  three 
weeks,  for  the  contempt  he  had  committed. 

Mr.  BAEBOUB,  of  Virginia,  said,  that  he  was 
induced  to  ask  the  indulgence  of  the  House 
whilst  he  submitted  his  view  of  this  subject,  not 
only  because  there  was  a  great  constitutional 
question  involved,  but  because  he  had  acquies- 
ced in  the  issue  of  the  warrant,  upon  which  he 
was  now  decidedly  of  opinion  that  the  House 
ought  no  further  to  proceed. 

We  are  called  upon,  said  he,  to  decide  this 
question :  whether  the  House  of  Representatives 
have  the  power  to  punish  the  person  at  its  bar, 
for  an  attempt  to  bribe  the  chairman  of  one  of 
its  committees.  After  the  most  mature  delibera- 
tion which  he  had  been  able  to  bestow  upon  the 
subject,  he  said  he  was  satisfied  that  the  House 
had  not  that  power ;  that  he  would  endeavor  to 
state,  as  succinctly  as  he  could,  the  reasons  upon 
which  that  opinion  was  founded. 

The  attempt  imputed  to  the  person  at  the  bar 
of  the  House,  and  about  which  there  was  no 
doubt,  in  point  of  fact,  seemed  to  him  to  present 
itself  in  these  two  points  of  view :  First,  as  a 
crime,  to  be  punished  because  of  its  own  enor- 
mity ;  secondly,  as  a  breach  of  the  privileges  of 
a  member  of  this  House.  As  to  the  first  propo- 
sition there  could  be  but  one  opinion.  The  act 
complained  of  is  one  of  the  most  abhorrent  kind ; 
but  the  word  crime,  ex  vi  termini,  imported  a 
violation  of  some  law,  either  in  the  omission  of 


some  act  enjoined  by  it,  or  in  the  commission  of 
some  act  forbidden  by  it.  That  law  must  have 
been  enacted  by  the  legislative  power — that  is, 
by  the  consent  of  the  two  Houses  of  Congress. 
Now,  as  it  was  conceded  on  all  hands  that  no 
such  law  had  passed,  as  it  was  clear  that  no  such 
law  could  now  pass,  so  as  by  an  ex  post  facto 
operation  to  relate  back,  and  embrace  this  case ; 
as,  too,  the  execution  of  a  law,  by  the  infliction 
of  punishment,  belonged  to  judicial  cognizance, 
the  conclusion  followed,  too  clearly  to  require 
further  comment,  that  the  act  committed,  or  at- 
tempted to  be  committed,  could  not  be  punish- 
ed by  this  House  as  a  crime  within  itself.  He 
spoke  not  here  of  the  common  law,  which  pun- 
ishes crimes  against  the  laws  of  morality — that 
law  did  not  exist  in  relation  to  the  United 
States ;  and  if  it  did,  this  was  not  the  tribunal 
to  enforce  it.  "We  come  now,  said  Mr.  B.,  to 
the  great  question  in  this  case,  it  is  this :  Was 
the  attempt  complained  of  a  breach  of  the  priv- 
ileges of  a  member  of  this  House?  He  said  he 
would  attempt  to  show  that  it  was  not. 

If,  indeed,  this  question  was  to  be  decided 
by  the  Lex  Parliamentaria  of  Great  Britain, 
he  would  not  undertake  to  say  what  might  be 
the  decision ;  but,  said  he,  we  have  a  much  bet- 
ter and  surer  guide — we  have  the  Constitution 
of  the  United  States  to  point  out  the  course 
which  we  ought  to  pursue.  It  was  that  instru- 
ment, he  said,  which  called  into  existence  every 
department  of  the  Federal  Government,  and 
which  created  this  House  as  a  branch  of  one  of 
those  departments ;  it  was  that  which  marked 
out  the  powers  of  the  Legislature  as  a  whole, 
and  the  powers  of  this  House  as  a  constituent 
part,  as  well  as  the  privileges  of  its  members. 

By  reference  to  the  constitution,  it  would  be 
found  that  the  matter  of  privilege  was  not  left 
to  construction.  The  framers  of  that  instrument 
were  deeply  versed  in  the  nature  and  history 
of  Parliamentary  privileges.  They  knew  that, 
though  they  were  undefined,  because  they  had 
been  said  to  be  undefinable,  they  were  marked 
with  one  strong  characteristic  feature — that 
they  had  perpetually  advanced,  that  they  had 
never  retrograded.  They,  therefore,  in  the  sixth 
section  of  the  first  article  of  the  constitution, 
had  accurately  defined  the  privileges  of  mem- 
bers ;  they  made  them  to  consist,  first,  in  a 
qualified  exemption  "from  arrest  during  their 
attendance  at  the  session  of  their  respective 
Houses,  and  in  going  to,  and  returning  from, 
the  same ; "  and,  secondly,  "  that  for  any  speech 
or  debate  in  either  House,  they  shall  not  be 
questioned  in  any  other  place."  Here,  then, 


He  thought  that,  according  to  this  universal 
principle  of  construction,  that  the  mention  of 
one  thing  was  the  exclusion  of  another,  it  was 
obvious  that  the  constitution  had  intended  to 
restrain  privilege,  and  tie  it  down  to  the  par- 
ticular cases  stated  in  the  section  which  he  had 
just  cited.  But  to  put  this  subject  in  a  point 
of  view,  if  possible,  still  stronger,  he  begged 
leave  to  refer  the  House  to  the  third  section  of 


04 


ABRIDGMENT  OF  THE 


H.  OF  R.] 


Case  of  John  Anderson. 


[JANUARY,  1818. 


Jefferson's  Manual,  in  which  will  be  found  an 
enumeration  of  the  privileges  claimed  by  the 
British  Parliament.  That  enumeration  em- 
braced, besides  many  others,  the  two  cases 
mentioned  in  the  constitution.  Hence  it  must 
be  most  obvious,  that  the  constitution  did  not 
intend  to  adopt  the  Parliamentary  law  upon 
the  subject  of  privilege ;  because,  as  that  cov- 
ered a  much  larger  ground,  if  it  had  been  in- 
tended to  have  given  the  whole,  it  is  difficult, 
if  not  impossible,  to  assign  a  reason  why  it 
should  have  been  thought  necessary,  by  special 
enumeration,  to  have  given  a  part. 

There  was  no  man  in  the  House,  he  said,  who 
could  hold  the  attempt  which  had  been  made 
in  greater  abhorrence  than  himself;  but  whilst 
he  considered  it  a  daring  attempt  at  wickedness, 
an  outrageous  insult  to  the  feelings  of  the  mem- 
ber, and  as  calculated  to  excite  the  detestation 
of  all  good  men,  yet  it  was  not,  as  he  thought 
he  had  proven,  a  breach  of  privilege.  If  it 
were  not,  then  there  could  be  no  principle  on 
which  the  House  could  pretend  to  take  cogni- 
zance of  it.  There  were  many  insults  which 
might  be  offered  to  the  members  of  this  House, 
for  which  they  had  no  remedy  but  those  which 
were  open  to  every  other  citizen.  And,  indeed, 
he  referred  the  House  to  the  same  section  of 
the  parliamentary  manual,  to  which  he  had 
before  called  their  attention,  to  show,  that,  in 
a  case  of  acknowledged  breach  of  privilege,  as, 
for  example,  the  arrest  of  a  member,  the  effect 
of  such  unauthorized  ai'rest  is,  that  the  member 
is  entitled  to  be  discharged,  and  the  persons 
concerned  in  the  arrest,  are  liable  to  action  or 
indictment  for  their  injurious  violation  of  the 
member's  privilege ;  but  he  did  not  believe  that 
even  in  that  case,  the  House  could  inflict  any 
punishment  on  the  persons  concerned  for  a  con- 
tempt itself.  But  gentlemen  had  taken  another 
ground  in  debating  this  subject ;  they  had  said 
that  the  mere  creation  of  a  legislative  body, 
ipso  facto,  imparted  to  that  body  certain  rights, 
and,  amongst  others,  the  right  of  self-defence ; 
that  as  they  had  the  power,  so  it  was  their  duty 
to  keep  themselves  pure ;  and  for  that  purpose, 
to  punish  any  attempt  upon  the  integrity  of  its 
members.  This  reasoning,  said  Mr.  B.,  is  too 
broad.  Congress  is  the  creature  of  the  consti- 
tution ;  it  has,  therefore,  as  he  had  observed  in 
a  former  part  of  his  argument,  just  those  pow- 
ers, and  those  only,  which  the  constitution  had 
given  it ;  and  whatever  powers  are  not  given, 
we  must  be  content  to  think  were  not  thought 
necessary.  To  Congress,  composed  of  the  two 
Houses,  it  had  given  the  legislative  power 
which  it  granted.  But  this  was  clearly  no  act 
of  legislation ;  first,  because  it  was  a  proceeding 
proposed  to  be  carried  on  by  one  branch  of 
Congress;  and,  secondly,  because  it  did  not 
propose  to  provide  a  punishment  for  future 
cases,  but  to  inflict  it  upon  one  which  had  al- 
ready occurred.  But,  besides  the  legislative 
power  granted  to  Congress,  as  composed  of  the 
two  Houses,  there  were  certain  powers  granted 
to  each  of  the  Houses  respectively.  Let  us 


then  see  what  are  given  to  the  House  of  Rep- 
resentatives. They  are  all  to  be  found  in  the 
second  and  fifth  sections  of  the  first  article. 
He  said  there  was  no  power  given  the  House 
affirmatively  to  inflict  punishment  upon  persons 
not  members  for  any  offence  either  against  the 
House  or  its  members.  Was  it  to  be  inferred  from 
the  powers  which  were  given?  So  far  from 
it,  he  said,  that  he  thought  the  inference  dedu- 
cible  from  the  nature  of  the  powers  given  al- 
most irresistible,  that  such  power  was  not  in- 
tended. The  great  argument  had  been  that  the 
creation  of  the  Legislature  imparted  to  it  certain 
inherent  powers  as  a  part  of  its  nature  and  exist- 
ence. Now,  sir,  said  he,  let  me  ask,  what  power 
could  be  more  inherent,  in  a  legislative  body,  than 
that  of  appointing  their  own  Speaker  ?  And 
yet  this  power  is  expressly  given.  What  could 
t>e  more  inherent  than  the  power  to  determine 
their  own  rules  of  proceeding  ?  And  yet  this 
was  expressly  given.  What  could  be  more  in- 
herent than  the  right  of  punishing  one  of  its 
own  members  for  disorderly  behavior  ?  And 
yet  this  was  expressly  given.  He  asked  whether 
the  giving  powers  like  these,  which,  if  there  be 
any  such  thing  as  inherent  powers,  would  have 
been  so  considered,  did  not  incontestable'  prove 
that  the  constitution  meant  not  to  leave  this 
subject  to  doubtful  construction,  but,  on  the 
contrary,  to  give  to  the  whole  of  the  legislative 
body  which  it  created,  as  well  as  to  its  several 
parts,  the  laws  of  its  and  their  existence,  and 
to  impart  to  them,  by  grant,  the  powers  neces- 
sary to  the  performance  of  their  several  func- 
tiona  Sir,  the  framers  of  the  constitution 
meant  to  guard  as  carefully  against  the  latitn- 
dinous  construction  which  might  be  given  to 
indefinite  powers,  as  they  did  against  indefinite 
privileges ;  they  therefore  determined  to  bring 
down  both  power  and  privilege  to  a  constitu- 
tional standard,  so  that  they  might  be  easily 
measured.  It  would  have  been  a  vain  thing  to 
have  circumscribed  Congress  in  its  legislative 
power,  if  the  two  Houses  which  compose  it  had 
been  left,  like  the  British  Parliament,  to  range 
at  large,  in  the  wide  field  of  inherent  powers, 
and  indefinite  privileges.  If,  said  Mr.  B.,  the 
House  had  power  to  take  cognizance  of  this 
case,  and  to  punish  it,  where  would  they  stop  ? 
This  insult  or  this  attempt  upon  one  of  the 
members  was  committed,  not  in  this  House,  but 
in  the  District  of  Columbia.  Suppose  it  had 
been  committed  in  an  extreme  part  of  the 
United  States,  would  our  jurisdiction  have 
reached  the  offender  there,  and  should  our 
Sergeant-at-Arms  have  been  sent  to  arrest  him  ? 
The  consequences  to  which  this  doctrine  would 
lead,  seemed  to  him  to  show  that  it  could  not 
be  sustained.  Nor,  said  he,  is  there  so  much 
danger  to  be  apprehended  from  the  contrary 
doctrine,  as  gentlemen  seem  to  suppose ;  he 
thanked  God  the  attempts  which  had  been 
made  were  but  few,  and  in  each  instance  had 
failed ;  if  they  should  hereafter  be  repeated,  he 
hoped  and  believed  there  was  a  long,  very 
long,  tract  of  future  time  between  us  and  that 


DEBATES  OF  CONGRESS. 


95 


JAXTART,  1818.] 


Case  of  John  Anderson. 


[H.  OP  R. 


period  when  they  should  prevail;  if  any  at- 
tempt of  this  kind  fail,  the  man  who  makes  it 
is  foiled  in  his  wicked  effort,  and  covered  with 
disgrace ;  if  unhappily  it  should  ever  succeed, 
we  have  a  constitutional  remedy  at  hand :  by 
expulsion,  we  may  drive  from  us  the  unworthy 
member,  and,  having  cut  off  the  gangrenous 
limb,  the  rest  of  the  political  body  will  be  re- 
stored to  health.  True,  sir,  the  expulsion  of  a 
member  requires  the  concurrence  of  two-thirds ; 
but  does  any  gentleman  doubt  for  a  moment, 
but  that  if  the  acceptance  of  a  bribe  were 
proven,  two-thirds,  aye,  three-thirds,  would  in- 
stantly unite  in  a  vote  for  the  expulsion  of  him 
who  should  have  accepted? 

Mr.  TrcKER,  of  Virginia,  said  there  was  one 
thing,  at  least,  in  which  he  would  most  heartily 
concur  with  the  gentleman  from  New  York, 
who  had  offered  these  resolutions  to  the  House ; 
that,  the  exercise  of  the  power  of  committing 
for  a  contempt  of  this  body,  was  of  so  embar- 
rassing a  character ;  and  was,  in  some  respects, 
so  little  consonant  with  the  general  principles 
to  which  we  yield  our  assent,  that  it  was  desira- 
ble another  mode  should  be  adopted  of  punish- 
ing offences  of  so  deep  a  dye,  without  bringing 
the  offender  for  his  trial  and  punishment  before 
the  body  whose  privileges  had  been  infringed, 
and  whose  dignity  had  been  insulted.  It  was 
for  this  reason,  that,  on  a  former  day,  he  had 
intimated  an  intention  of  submitting  to  the  con- 
sideration of  the  House  a  resolution  similar  to 
one  of  those  now  under  consideration,  directing 
a  bill  to  be  reported  for  the  punishment  of  the 
offence  of  bribing,  or  attempting  to  corrupt  a 
member  of  Congress.  It  was  for  this  reason 
also,  that,  however  heinous  the  offence  of  the 
party  whose  case  was  now  before  the  House, 
he  was,  on  the  present  occasion,  disposed  to 
manifest  towards  him  the  greatest  moderation 
and  forbearance.  He  was  so  averse  to  the  ex- 
ercise of  a  power  to  punish,  where  the  offence 
and  the  punishment  are  so  undefined,  and  where 
the  tribunal  which  judges  cannot  fail  to  be  ani- 
mated with  indignation  against  the  offender, 
that  he  was  inclined,  on  the  present  occasion, 
to  dismiss  the  party,  after  the  offence  had  been 
inquired  into,  without  farther  punishment  than 
the  reprimand  of  the  Speaker ;  and  to  provide 
for  any  future  case  by  the  enaction  of  a  law 
imposing  penalties  adequate  to  the  offence. 

But,  while  he  was  disposed  to  this  course,  he 
could  not  assent  to  the  proposition  of  the  gen- 
tleman from  New  York,  which  disavows  any 
authority  in  this  House  to  punish  the  offence, 
as  a  contempt.  It  appeared  to  him  essential 
that  this  power  should  exist  in  the  House  of 
Representatives,  though  it  might  be  wise  in 
them  to  relieve  themselves  for  the  future  from 
the  embarrassment  of  exercising  the  privilege 
themselves,  by  providing  for  its  punishment  by 
law.  While  he  could  not  doubt  of  the  consti- 
tutional powers  of  the  House  on  this  occasion, 
he  would  ask  gentlemen  what  would  be  our 
situation,  if  we  were  without  such  powers? 
What  would  be  the  effect  of  promulgating  to 


the  world  that  the  House  of  Representatives 
was,  at  all  times,  to  be  approached  with  im- 
punity by  the  vilest  corruption  ?  That  bribes 
might  be  offered,  without  hazard,  by  the  most 
infamous  of  mankind,  and  that  the  constitution 
had  left  this  body  without  the  means  of  pre- 
serving pure  the  fountains  of  legislation,  and 
of  protecting  itself  from  so  vile  a  contamination  ! 
He  should  hesitate  much  before  he  should  adopt 
a  proposition  which  might  lead  to  such  dan- 
gerous results;  and  he  should  be  diligent  in  ex- 
amining the  principles  of  the  constitution  before 
he  could  give  his  assent  to  a  doctrine  which 
would  sap  the  purity  of  this  body,  for  the  pres- 
ervation of  which  that  constitution  was  so  so- 
licitous. 

Nor  was  he  disposed  to  coincide  in  the  opin- 
ion of  the  gentleman  from  Virginia,  (Mr.  BAE- 
BOTJE,)  that,  as  it  is  at  least  doubtful  whether 
we  possess  the  power  asserted,  we  should  de- 
cline the  exercise  of  it.  He  was  not  satisfied 
that  there  was  a  reasonable  doubt  of  our  pow- 
ers. Ingenuity  may  throw  obscurity  and  dif- 
ficulty around  every  proposition.  Nor  did  he 
perceive  what  part  of  the  constitution  prescrib- 
ed to  us  as  a  rule,  to  reject  the  exercise  of  every 
power  where  doubt  could  be  thrown  around  it. 
On  the  contrary,  in  taking  the  solemn  oath  to 
support  the  constitution,  to  which  another  gen- 
tleman had  so  emphatically  alluded,  he  felt  him- 
self equally  bound  to  preserve  to  the  Federal 
Government,  and  to  this  body,  their  just  pow- 
ers, as  to  guard  against  encroachment  on  the 
rights  of  the  State,  or  an  extension  of  the  pow- 
ers of  the  Union.  It  was  equally  the  duty  of 
every  member  of  this  body  to  prevent  the  most 
vigorous  and  useful  branches  from  being  lopped 
off,  as  to  array  himself  in  opposition  to  every 
assertion  of  unconstitutional  powers.  Upon  all 
occasions  of  this  kind,  however  doubtful  and 
embarrassed  might  be  the  question,  it  was  the 
solemn  duty  of  every  member  to  examine  it  ac- 
cording to  the  best  lights  which  Heaven  has 
given  him,  and  to  pronounce  fearlessly  the  re- 
sult. It  was  this  course  he  should  endeavor  to 
pursue  in  presenting  a  very  few  remarks  on  tho 
constitutional  powers  of  this  House. 

There  were,  he  observed,  two  kinds  of  pow- 
ers granted  by  this  constitution:  enumerated 
powers,  and  incidental  or  accessory  powers; 
the  first  expressly  specified  in  the  constitution, 
the  latter  falling  under  the  general  grant  of  all 
"  necessary  and  proper  powers ; "  which  ter- 
minates the  enumeration  of  the  powers  con- 
ferred on  the  General  Government.  The  latter, 
indeed,  would  have  existed  independent  of  that 
clause,  since,  according  to  the  principles  of  com- 
mon reason,  when  a  power  is  given  to  do  an 
act,  a  power  of  employing  the  means  necessary 
to  its  execution  is  also  given,  by  implication. 

While,  therefore,  it  is  readily  admitted,  in  re- 
lation to  these  two  classes  of  powers,  that  the 
power  now  asserted  is  not  expressly  given,  it  is 
confidently  alleged  to  be  fairly  incidental  to  th« 
power  of  legislation ;  and  it  will  be  contended 
— That  the  power  to  punish  bribery  of  a  mem 


96 


ABRIDGMENT  OF  THE 


H.  OF  R] 


Case  of  John  Anderson. 


[JANUARY,  1818. 


ber  of  this  House,  is  vested  somewhere  in  the 
Federal  Government ;  and,  that  this  power  of 
punishing  belongs  to  the  House  of  Representa- 
tives, independent  of  the  other  branches  of 
Government. 

That  a  legislative  body  should  exist  without 
any  power  to  punish  the  offence  of  bribing  its 
members,  is  a  proposition  -which  seems  too  mon- 
strous to  be  alleged.  Hence  it  is  that  gentlemen 
seem  disposed  to  acknowledge  a  power  in  the 
Legislature  to  pass  a  law  which  shall  prescribe  a 
punishment  for  the  offence,  though  they  deny 
the  power  of  this  House  to  proceed  to  consider 
and  treat  it  as  a  contempt.  And  where,  let  me 
ask,  can  gentlemen  who  are  so  technically  accu- 
rate in  the  construction  of  the  constitution,  dis- 
cover that  clause  of  the  instrument  which  ex- 
pressly grants  the  power  to  enact  such  a  law  ? 
There  is  none.  The  boundaries  of  the  consti- 
tution cannot  be  laid  down  with  mathematical 
precision,  by  the  square  and  compass.  They 
must  be  ascertained  by  the  principles  of  sound 
reason  and  common  sense,  and  by  the  exercise  of 
a  just  discretion.  While,  therefore,  we  cannot 
discover  the  power  even  to  legislate  on  this  sub- 
ject, in  the  express  provision  of  the  instrument, 
it  is  doubtless  fairly  incidental  to  the  power  of 
legislation.  It  is  inconceivable  that  the  conven- 
tion which  framed  the  constitution  should  have 
intended  the  creation  of  a  legislative  body,  which 
should  be  without  the  power  of  self-protection ; 
without  the  right  to  assume  to  itself  freedom 
from  disturbance ;  without  the  means  of  secur- 
ing order  in  its  deliberations ;  and  without  the 
privilege  of  preserving  itself  entirely  free  from 
the  influence  of  fear,  or  the  corruptions  of  gold. 
Some  of  these  incidents  to  legislation,  gentlemen 
have  been  compelled  to  admit.  In  what  a  situa- 
tion should  we  be,  if  our  deliberations  were  to 
be  affected  by  the  hisses  or  the  applause  of  the 
gallery;  if  an  obnoxious  member  were  to  be 
put  down  by  the  threats  or  tumult  of  the  audi- 
ence, and  a  favorite  speaker  cheered  on  a  favor- 
ite subject  by  shouts  of  approbation  ?  Can  gen- 
tlemen deny  that  we  have  power  to  prevent 
these  things?  The  gentleman  from  Virginia 
appears  to  confine  us,  even  under  these  circum- 
stances, to  the  remedy  of  excluding  those  who 
are  riotous.  Within  the  walls  alone  have  we 
power  to  act,  and  then  only  power  to  exclude 
— not  to  punish.  Suppose,  then,  the  rioter  re- 
turns, or  betakes  .himself  to  the  street,  and 
throws  stones  at  your  windows.  He  is  without 
your  doors.  Have  you  no  power  over  him? 
Have  you  not  accessarily  even  those  powers 
which  every  court  of  justice  possesses,  without 
the  express  provisions  of  law  ?  If  you  have  not, 
the  situation  of  this  body  is  deplorable  indeed. 
If  you  have,  where  will  you  draw  the  line  of 
distinction  ?  What  is  more  important,  even  in 
the  order  and  decorum  of  the  House,  than  the 
preserving  the  mind  of  every  member  free  from 
the  suggestions  of  fear — the  seductions  of  profit 
— the  grovelling  desire  of  gain — the  influence  of 
corruption  ?  What  shall  we  say  if  an  attempt 
be  made  to  control,  by  threats  or  by  a  challenge, 


the  free  and  deliberate  exercise  of  his  judgment, 
by  the  representative  of  the  people  ?  Though 
the  challenge  be  given  without  the  walls,  is  not 
its  effect  to  be  felt  within ;  and  is  it  not  this  (and 
not  the  place  where  the  act  is  done)  which  must 
be  considered  as  determining  the  powers  of  Con- 
gress? The  principle  on  which  it  can  interfere 
in  any  case,  is  the  right  to  prevent  its  delibera- 
tions from  being  disturbed ;  and  whether  this 
disturbance  be  produced  by  an  act  in  the  gallery, 
in  the  street,  in  the  highway,  or  in  the  closet, 
the  body  must  equally  have  the  power  to  secure 
to  itself  the  exercise  of  free  will  in  the  discharge 
of  its  legislative  functions.  And  if  these  prin- 
ciples be  correct — if  they  justify  a  right  to  pun- 
ish occasional  disorder,  how  much  more  im- 
portant the  privilege  of  preventing  the  inroads 
of  corruption,  at  the  same  time  so  insidious  and 
so  fatal  ? 

Mr.  MEBCEE  rose  immediately  after  Mr. 
TUCKER,  and  addressed  the  House  in  substance 
as  follows : 

The  resolutions  on  your  table,  Mr.  Speaker, 
involve  the  decision  of  three  distinct  proposi- 
tions. Has  this  House  the  power  to  punish 
contempt  ?  Is  the  act  charged  upon  the  pris- 
oner a  contempt  ?  Have  the  proceedings  of  the 
House  been  such  as  to  warrant  his  further 
prosecution  ? 

Does  this  house  derive  from  the  constitution 
the  power  of  punishing  a  contempt  ?  My  hon- 
orable colleague,  who  just  preceded  me,  in  a 
spirit  of  accommodation,  I  have  no  doubt,  has 
proposed  to  introduce  a  bill  to  punish  by  law  an 
attempt  to  bribe  a  member  of  Congress.  If  the 
power  of  punishing  such  an  act  is  comprehended 
among  the  privileges  of  this  House,  the  wisdom 
of  any  such  law  may  well  be  questioned.  Were 
the  contemplated  law  restricted  to  a  description 
of  that  particular  species  of  contempt  to  which 
our  consideration  is  now  turned,  it  would  not 
lead  to  the  inference  that  this  House  recognized 
no  other.  And  if,  to  obviate  this  difficulty,  a 
complete  enumeration  were  attempted  of  every 
possible  insult  to  the  privileges,  rights,  and  dig- 
nity of  this  House,  the  proposed  law  would  be 
swelled  to  the  size  of  the  largest  volume  on 
your  table.  It  may  also  be  doubted  whether  a 
right  which  this  House  does  not  derive  from 
the  constitution  can  be  created  or  protected  by 
an  act  of  ordinary  legislation.  Those  gentle- 
men who  are  desirous  for  a  law  to  define  the 
privileges  of  this  House,  and  to  provide  for  pun- 
ishing the  contempt  of  them,  admit  their  exist- 
ence, as  well  as  the  power  of  this  House  to 
punish  their  violation,  by  the  mode  of  reasoning 
which  they  have  adopted. 


Before  I  inquire  into  the  origin  of  this  power, 
me  to  disavow  every  feeling  which  could 


allow 


militate  against  the  most  deliberate  and  impar- 
tial exercise  of  my  judgment.  I  cannot  but  de- 
plore the  unhappy  situation  of  the  prisoner, 
whose  head  is  bleached  by  the  snows  of  many 
winters,  and  who,  if  really  guilty  of  the  atro- 
cious act  imputed  to  him,  is  an  object  of  sti-D 
greater  commiseration,  as  his  turpitude  is 


DEBATES  OF  CONGRESS. 


97 


JANUARY,  1818.] 


Case  of  John  Anderson. 


[H.  OF  R. 


without  the  extenuation  of  youth  or  inexperi- 
ence. 

Sir,  said  Mr.  M.,  I  never  beheld  a  criminal  ar- 
raigned at  the  bar  of  justice  without  this  feel- 
ing, nor  have  I  found  it  difficult  to  obey  the  le- 
gal injunction  to  believe  the  innocence  of  the 
accused  until  he  has  been  heard  in  his  defence 
and  judicially  convicted.  This  maxim  of  Chris- 
tian charity  it  comprehended  in  that  admirable 
system  of  practical  wisdom  which  has  been  re- 
p'eatedly  referred  to  in  this  discussion ;  a  sys- 
tem matured  by  the  experience  of  ages,  adopt- 
ed by  the  universal  assent  of  the  people  of  the 
United  States,  and  denominated  the  common 
law. 

It  is  to  this  system  that  I  resort  for  the  au- 
thority of  this  House  to  punish  a  contempt ;  to 
define  the  act  to  be  punished ;  to  determine  the 
mode  of  proceeding  against  the  accused ;  and, 
if  guilty,  to  ascertain  the  quality,  and  measure 
the  extent  of  his  punishment. 

And  I  do  so,  not  because  the  common  law 
confers  these  powers  on  this  House,  but  because 
it  defines  that  written  constitution  from  which 
we  derive  them. 

Sir,  there  is  not  an  entire  article,  not  a  soli- 
tary section,  scarcely  a  line  of  that  instrument, 
which  can  be  correctly  understood  or  practi- 
cally enforced,  without  a  recurrence  to  this 
law. 

If  you  desire  to  know  the  import  of  an  English 
word,  you  turn  to  the  lexicographer  of  England ; 
for  a  phrase  of  statutory  law  you  consult  the 
statute  which  contains  it,  and  the  precedents  by 
which  it  has  been  expounded.  The  terms  of  the 
common  law  must  be  also  defined  by  a  recur- 
rence to  the  law  itself,  comprised  in  the  treatises 
and  illustrated  by  the  history  of  the  nation  from 
whom  we  derive  it. 

The  constitution  not  only  uses  the  terms  and 
phrases  of  this  law,  but  expressly  recognizes  its 
existence.  The  seventh  article  of  the  amend- 
ments provides,  that  "  in  suits  at  common  law, 
when  the  value  of  the  controversy  shall  exceed 
twenty  dollars,  the  right  of  trial  by  jury  shall 
be  preserved :  and  no  fact  tried  by  a  jury  shall 
be  otherwise  re-examined  in  any  court  of  the 
United  States  than  according  to  the  rules  of  the 
common  law ;"  of  that  law  which  gentlemen 
have  asserted  to  have  no  existence  under  this 
Government,  and  against  which  the  honorable 
member  from  New  York  would  inspire  us  with 
apprehension  and  alarm. 

I  appeal  to  my  colleagues,  if  this  constitution 
had  been  formed  contemporaneously  with  that 
of  Virginia,  would  not  the  same  power  to  pun- 
ish contempts  attach  to  the  House  of  Repre- 
sentatives and  Senate  of  the  United  States,  as 
unquestionably  belongs  to  the  corresponding 
brandies  oT  the  General  Assembly,  the  House 
of  Delegates  and  Senate  of  Virginia?  From 
the  form  of  the  Speaker's  chair  to  the  power  of 
expelling  a  member,  the  character  and  author- 
ity of  the  House  of  Delegates  is  derived,  with- 
out any  express  constitutional  provision,  from 
the  House  of  Commons,  the  archetype  of  the 
VOL.  VL— 7 


popular  branch  of  every  State  Legislature,  as  it 
is  of  this  House. 

The  force  of  the  argument  which  this  analogy 
furnishes,  is  not  impaired  by  the  consideration 
that  the  Federal  Constitution  is  of  more  recent 
structure.  It  is  the  act  of  the  people  of  the 
United  States,  as  itself  proclaims;  and,  refer- 
ring expressly  to  the  common  law,  in  one  of  its 
articles,  unintelligible  throughout,  except  by 
the  aid  of  that  law,  we  have  a  right  to  resort  to 
its  maxims  in  the  present  inquiry.  If  this  pow- 
er is  essential  to  the  House  of  Commons,  so  it 
must  be  presumed  that  the  people  of  these  States 
regarded  it  to  be,  and  so  must  we  consider  it  in 
relation  to  the  two  Houses  of  this  Legislature. 

It  has  been  urged  that  many  extravagant  doc- 
trines would  arise  from  this  source  of  construct- 
ive authority.  Where,  it  is  asked,  shall  this 
House  stop  in  its  use  ?  The  Revolution  of  1776 
answers  this  question.  It  necessarily  lopped  off 
the  regal  and  aristocratical  branches  of  this  law. 
This  limitation  of  the  common  law  relieves  the 
rule  of  construction,  for  which  I  contend,  from 
all  that  could  alarm  pur  fears.  It  is  founded,  I 
am  inclined  to  believe,  in  judicial  decisions 
throughout  the  United  States.  By  the  unani- 
mous judgment  of  the  General  Court,  the  highest 
criminal  tribunal  of  Virginia,  the  principle  has 
been  extended  so  far  as  to  authorize  a  defend- 
ant, indicted  for  a  libel  at  common  law,  to  give 
the  truth  in  evidence.  This  House  derives, 
therefore,  from  the  common  law,  no  privileges 
which  it  ought  not  to  possess. 

One  of  my  colleagues  has  contended  that  all 
the  privileges  of  this  House  are  expressly  enu- 
merated by  the  sixth  section  of  the  first  article 
of  the  constitution,  and  restricted  to  exemption 
from  arrest,  in  certain  specified  cases ;  and  from 
responsibility  elsewhere  for  any  speech  or  de- 
bate in  the  House.  And  hence,  with  great  ap- 
parent plausibility,  he  infers  that  the  House  pos- 
sesses no  other  privilege,  and  has  authority  to 
punish  no  other  contempts,  except  such  as  are 
committed  in  violation  of  these.  I  answer  to  this 
argument,  it  has  already  been  contended  by  the 
honorable  member  who  last  addressed  the  House, 
that  this  clause  of  the  constitution  may  be  justly 
regarded  as  the  result  of  that  extreme  caution 
which  induced  the  convention  to  insert  hi  it 
what  might  otherwise  have  been  inferred;  a 
caution  which  is  discernible  in  other  parts  of 
this  instrument.  To  the  illustration  which  he 
has  furnished,  many  others  may  be  added ;  as, 
for  example,  the  very  first  article  of  the  amend- 
ments. The  greater  part  of  these  are  designed 
to  serve  the  purpose  of  a  bill  of  rights,  for  which 
so  many  opponents  of  the  constitution  had  most 
zealously  contended.  It  cannot  be  presumed 
that  if  this  amendment  had  not  been  made  a 
part  of  the  constitution,  Congress  would  have 
prohibited  the  free  exercise  of  religion,  have 
abridged  the  freedom  of  speech,  or  obstructed 
the  right  of  the  people  peaceably  to  assemble 
and  to  petition  for  a  redress  of  grievances.  I 
am,  however,  led  involuntarily  to  another  ex- 
planation of  the  expediency  of  expressly  incor- 


98 


ABRIDGMENT  OF  THE 


H.  OF  R.] 


Case  of  John  Anderson. 


[JANUARY.  1818. 


porating  in  the  constitution  the  two  privileges 
to  which  my  colleague  has  referred ;  an  expla- 
nation, which  is  in  strict  harmony  with  all  the 
views  that  I  have  taken  of  the  general  power 
of  this  House  to  punish  contempts  of  its  privi- 
leges. Every  other  privilege  of  this  House,  ex- 
cept those  which  are  enumerated,  will  be  found 
to  be  consistent  with  the  obvious  and  equal 
rights  of  the  people.  The  enumerated  privi- 
leges are  limitations  of  those  rights,  and,  but  for 
the  express  grant  of  them  by  the  people,  it 
might  have  been  doubted  whether  the  charac- 
ter of  our  republican  institutions  did  not  forbid 
their  exercise.  In  fine  these  enumerated  priv- 
ileges protect  the  members  of  this  House, 
against  the  common  and  dearest  rights  of  the 
citizen — the  rights  of  property  and  reputation. 
The  privileges  for  which  I  contend  would  pro- 
tect the  House  from  their  injuries,  from  fraud, 
violence,  and  injustice. 

Mr.  KOBBRTSON  supported  the  resolutions. 

Mr.  EBVIN,  of  South  Carolina,  next  rose,  and 
said, 

I  beg  leave  now,  sir,  to  call  your  attention 
to  what  I  conceive  to  be  the  privileges  of  the 
House,  and  the  powers  of  the  House  to  punish 
for  a  breach  of  those  privileges.  The  first  great 
power  which  it  possesses  is  an  inherent  power  of 
self-defence,  analogous  to  the  fundamental  nat- 
ural right  which  every  man  possesses  of  defend- 
ing himself.  It  is  in  both  cases  merely  defen- 
sive. The  natural  right  results  from  man's 
relative  situation  in  this  state  of  existence.  The 
duties  which  he  owes  to  his  God,  his  neighbor, 
and  himself,  beget,  rather  let  me  say,  impose  on 
him  this  power ;  nay,  the  obligation  of  self- 
defence  is  necessary  to  a  complete  discharge  of 
those  great  duties.  In  like  manner,  every  ar- 
ticle in  your  constitution  which  confides  a  trust 
or  imposes  an  obligation  to  perform  for  the 
good  of  the  people  acts  of  legislation,  creates 
and  gives  this  power  to  enable  you  to  perform 
those  acts,  and  discharge,  with  due  faith,  the 
high  trust  which  has  been  confided  to  you ;  and 
as,  in  the  exercise  of  the  natural  right,  a  man  is 
justified  to  make  use  of  any  force  necessary  to 
repel  a  personal  injury,  so,  likewise,  in  the  ex- 
ercise of  your  inherent  power,  this  House  is  jus- 
tified to  prevent  or  remove  any  annoyance  with- 
in or  without  the  walls  of  this  House,  which 
would  tend  to  disturb  its  deliberations,  or  pre- 
vent it  from  the  due  performance  of  any  of  its 
duties.  But,  sir,  you  would  not  in  either  case 
be  justified  to  make  use  of  any  force  or  restraint 
by  way  of  punishment ;  for,  in  the  case  of  the 
natural  right,  the  use  of  any  force,  other  than 
that  which  is  necessary  to  overcome  the  offend- 
ing force,  would  constitute  an  act  of  aggression. 
So,  the  exercise  of  force  by  the  House,  in  the 
way  of  punishment,  would  not  be  justified  by 
the  inherent  power,  it  being  merely  defensive. 
The  exemption  from  arrest,  and  the  privilege  of 
not  being  questioned  in  any  other  place  for  any 
speech  or  debate  in  either  House,  constitute 
more  of  your  privileges;  for,  although  they 
tend  to  promote  the  immediate  benefit  of  mem- 


bers in  their  individual  capacity,  they  are  yet 
the  privileges  of  the  House ;  and  the  House  can, 
in  both  cases,  punish  any  member  who  should 
waive  his  privilege  without  their  consent. 

These,  sir,  are,  in  my  estimation,  the  legiti- 
mate and  constitutional  privileges  of  Congress ; 
and  yet,  sir,  for  the  want  of  legal  provision, 
they  may  with  impunity  be  trampled  on  and 
set  at  defiance,  not  only  by  the  defendant  at 
your  bar,  but  by  any  man  in  this  great  com- 
munity. Is  it  correct,  sir,  to  say  that  this  in- 
herent right  extends  beyond  the  limits  which  I 
have  assigned  it?  That,  by  virtue  of  our  elec- 
tion, we  are  politically  amalgamated,  and  that 
the  reception  of  an  insult  on  the  shores  of  the 
Atlantic  would  tremble  along  the  sympathetic 
line,  and  agonize  your  feelings  beyond  the 
mountains?  No,  sir;  I  contend  that  out  of 
the  boundaries  of  this  District  we  have  no  pro- 
tection, no  privilege,  except  those  granted  by 
the  first  article  of  the  sixth  section  of  the  con- 
stitution, other  than  the  protection  of  other  great 
and  good  men — that  of  virtue,  and  the  privi- 
lege of  convicting  falsehood  with  truth,  and 
confounding  guilt  by  innocence.  Mr.  Speaker, 
behold  the  delicacy  of  our  situation  !  A  man 
arraigned  at  your  bar  for  a  most  atrocious  in- 
sult, and  yet  we  have  not  the  power  to  punish 
him.  Although  armed  with  plenary  sover- 
eignty, and  the  exclusive  powers  of  legislation 
in  all  cases  whatever  in  this  District ;  although 
invested  with  authority  to  make  all  laws  which 
may  be  necessary  and  proper  to  carry  into  ex- 
ecution all  our  powers,  and  to  punish  the  breach 
of  any  of  our  privileges,  yet  we  suffer  these 
powers  to  slumber  hi  criminal  repose.  As  we 
pass  along  the  streets,  scorn  may  point  the 
finger  of  contempt  at  us,  defamations  may  teem 
from  the  press,  arraigning  the  correctness  of 
our  conduct,  and  impeaching  the  purity  of  our 
intentions ;  nay,  impudence  and  insolence  may 
beard  us  at  the  very  threshold  of  the  great 
council  of  the  nation,  and  without  the  provi- 
sions of  law  we  cannot  punish.  Much  has  been 
said,  sir,  about  State  Legislatures,  the  judges  of 
the  United  States,  and  State  judges,  possessing 
the  power  of  punishing  for  contempt.  I  can 
speak  with  confidence  in  relation  to  this  power 
in  the  State  which  I  have  the  honor  of  repre- 
senting. There,  the  Legislature,  the  judges,  and 
even  the  justices  of  the  peace,  possess  this  pow- 
er, not  by  arbitrary  assumption,  but  by  the  pro- 
visions of  the  constitution  and  the  principles 
of  the  common  law,  made  of  force  in  that  State 
by  an  act  of  the  colonial  government,  and  which 
act  is  recognized  and  continued  in  force  by  a 
provision  in  the  constitution  of  that  State.  In 
relation  to  the  judges  of  the  courts  of  the  Unit- 
ed States,  we  all  know  that  they  derive  their 
power  from  an  act  of  Congress  which  recognizes 
the  principles  of  the  common  law.  And  I  think, 
upon  inquiry,  it  will  be  ascertained  that  the 
Legislatures  and  judges  of  the  several  States 
possess  this  power  by  some  provision  in  their 
laws  or  constitutions.  Numerous  precedents 
have  been  appealed  to.  I  shall  not  suffer  my 


DEBATES  OF  CONGKESS. 


99 


JANUARY,  1818.] 


Case  of  John  Anderson. 


[H.  OF  R. 


mind,  sir,  to  be  governed,  nay,  influenced,  by 
any  precedents  which,  in  my  judgment,  sanc- 
tion error.  It  is,  moreover,  contended  that, 
admitting  there  is  no  express  provision  in  .the 
constitution  which  gives,  without  the  aid  of  le- 
gislation, a  power  to  punish  in  case  of  a  breach 
of  privilege,  yet  that  this  House,  on  account  of 
the  difficulty  of  annexing  a  punishment  ade- 
quate to  every  breach  of  privilege,  does  possess 
a  discretionary  power  ex  necessitate  rei.  Mr. 
Speaker,  it  is  no  compliment  to  say  that  I 
would  as  lief  trust  this  dangerous  power  in  the 
possession  of  this  honorable  body  as  in  any 
other  known  to  our  institutions ;  for  in  every 
case  in  which  corruption  has  dared  to  approach 
you  with  its  impurity,  or  raise  its  detestable 
glance  to  the  elevation  of  your  virtues,  you  have 
uniformly  repelled  it  with  indignant  contempt. 
But,  sir,  I  am  unwilling  to  trust  this  power 
with  any  man  or  body  of  men.  The  time  may 
come  when  our  political  virtue  may  have  pass- 
ed away;  when  corruption  may  have  sapped 
the  foundation  of  our  boasted  institutions; 
when  the  independence  of  this  House  may  be 
lost,  and  seen  bowing,  with  sycophantic  smiles, 
at  the  shrine  of  Executive  favor ;  nay,  sir,  when 
the  very  exertion  of  the  physical  force  of  the 
people  will  but  operate  to  their  own  destruc- 
tion. It  is  on  these  accounts  that  I  wish  all  our 
proceedings  may  be  sanctioned  by  law  and  con- 
stitution. I  feel  a  desire  that  gentlemen  who 
advocate  this  power  would  pause  a  moment, 
and  analyze  its  character.  It  is  plenary  sover- 
eignty, armed  with  powers,  legislative,  judicial, 
and  executive.  It  is  a  power  capable  of  passing 
laws  ex  post  facto  ;  of  declaring  that  act  crimi- 
nal, ex  re  nata,  which  before  was  innocent.  It 
is  a  power  unknown  and  undefined,  which  lies 
dormant  until,  in  a  moment  of  angry  feeling,  it 
proclaims  its  laws,  which  are  carried  into  exe- 
cution by  infuriated  justice.  Odious  tyranny  I 
Most  frightful  despotism !  More  terrible  than 
the  laws  of  Caligula,  or  the  rescript  of  the  Ro- 
man Emperors. 


SATURDAY,  January  10. 
John  Anderson's   Case. 
The  SPEAKEE  laid  before  the  House  the  follow- 
ing letter  and  enclosure,  yesterday  received  by 
him  from  John  Anderson  : 

JANUARY  9,  1818. 

SIR  :  Unwilling  to  be  deprived,  by  any  circum- 
stances whatever,  of  an  opportunity  to  explain  to  the 
honorable  House  of  Representatives  the  motives  which 
have  actuated  my  recent  conduct,  I  beg  leave  to  an- 
nounce my  wish  to  waive,  with  that  object,  any  con- 
stitutional or  other  question  which  may  have  arisen. 

I  enclose  a  letter  which  I  had  the  honor  this  mom- 
ing  to  prepare  for  the  consideration  of  the  House. 
I  am,  sir,  with  profound  respect, 

JOHN  ANDERSON. 
Hon.  HENRY  CLAY, 

Speaker  of  the  House  of  Reps. 

WASHINGTON,  Jan.  9,  1818. 
SIR  :    Considering  the  honorable  body  before  whose 


bar  I  am  shortly  to  appear  as  the  guardian  of  those 
rights  which,  as  a  citizen,  I  possess,  and  relying 
upon  the  generous  feelings  of  its  members,  I  have 
been  induced  to  forego  the  privilege  extended  to  me 
of  employing  counsel,  lest  it  might  be  supposed  that 
I  was  inclined  to  shelter  myself  by  legal  exceptions. 
As  the  novelty  of  my  situation  may,  however,  tend 
to  surround  me  with  embarrassment,  it  is  my  wish, 
should  the  rule  of  proceeding  adopted  by  the  House 
not  oppose  the  course,  that  such  questions  as  I  have 
reduced  to  writing,  be  propounded  to  the  respective 
witnesses  by  the  Clerk,  and  that  he  should  read  the 
explanation  and  apology  which  I  have  to  make. 

JOHN  ANDERSON. 

Hon.  HENRY  CLAY, 

Speaker  of  the  House  of  Reps. 

The  letter  having  been  read — 

Mr.  FOESYTH  rose  to  move  that  these  resolu- 
tions be  laid  on  the  table.  "We  owe  it,  said  Mr. 
F.,  to  our  own  dignity,  to  the  dignity  of  the  mem- 
bers of  this  House,  that  the  investigation  of 
the  offence  of  John  Anderson  should  proceed. 
The  inquiry  which  has  arisen  into  the  extent  of 
the  privileges  and  powers  of  the  House  may 
be  resumed  afterwards,  and  decided.  But  let 
us  see,  said  he,  what  will  be  the  consequence  of 
our  proceeding  in  the  present  course,  and  being 
diverted  by  this  inquiry  from  the  examination 
of  the  accused.  A  person  offers  a  bribe  to  a 
member  of  this  House,  the  House  orders  the 
offender  into  custody — the  letter  of  the  accused, 
which  is  the  foundation  and  the  evidence  of  the 
charge,  refers  to  certain  officers  of  the  Govern- 
ment, and  members  of  this  House,  as  prepared 
to  support  the  claims  to  which  he  alludes.  In- 
stead of  calling  this  person  before  us,  and  seeing 
how  far  we  can  substantiate  the  charge,  the  pro- 
ceeding is  stopped,  by  the  resolutions  before 
us,  and  the  protracted  debate  which  follows. 
May  not  this  course,  said  Mr.  F.,  put  a  strange 
construction  on  the  matter  ?  Malicious  persons 
may  say,  and  there  are  many  such,  it  is  the 
intention  of  the  House  to  stifle  a  dangerous 
inquiry,  not  to  settle  an  important  constitutional 
question.  To  avoid  any  possibility  of  such  an 
imputation,  let  us,  said  Mr.  F.,  suspend  the  con- 
sideration of  these  resolutions,  and  proceed  in 
the  examination  of  the  accused. 

Mr.  PITKIN  observed,  that  the  object  of  the 
resolutions  was,  to  turn  the  accused  over  to  the 
Executive  officers;  if  they  pass,  the  United 
States  Attorney  would  be  directed  to  prose- 
cute him.  But  why  not,  before  this,  said  Mr. 
P.,  bring  the  accused  before  us,  and  hear  his 
explanation  on  the  subject?  An  additional 
reason  for  this  course,  Mr.  P.  thought,  was  the 
request  of  the  accused  to  come  before  the  House. 
After  examining  and  hearing  him,  Mr.  P.  said, 
the  House  could  decide  whether  they  ought  to 
pass  the  resolutions,  and  turn  him  over  to  an- 
other tribunal. 

Mr.  SPENCER  said,  the  remarks  of  Mr.  PrrmN 
applied  only  to  the  second  resolution,  and  not 
to  the  first ;  and  he  hoped  the  motion  would 
not  be  agreed  to.  He  did  not,  he  said,  possess 
such  a  feeling  of  dignity  as  to  do,  or  persevere 
in  any  thing  which  he  thought  improper ;  and 


100 


ABRIDGMENT  OF  THE 


H.  OF  R.] 


Case  of  John  Anderson. 


[JANUARY,  1818. 


in  the  conscientious  discharge  of  his  duty  he 
should  never  look  beyond  the  walls  of  the  House 
for  his  motives.  In  this  case,  however,  said  he, 
malice  itself  could  not  impeach  the  motives  oJ 
the  House ;  for  a  proposition  to  direct  the  offi- 
cers of  the  United  States  to  proceed  against  the 
accused,  could  not,  by  any  ingenuity,  be  con- 
strued into  a  disposition  to  stifle  the  inquiry. 
He  therefore  hoped  the  House  would  proceed 
and  determine  the  abstract  principle,  without 
any  reference  to  the  merits  of  the  case,  and 
without  considering  whether  John  Anderson 
can  make  an  acceptable  apology  or  not. 

Mr.  HABRISON  was  in  favor  of  laying  the  res- 
olutions on  the  table,  and  proceeding  immedi- 
ately to  the  examination  of  the  accused.  It 
was  not  to  be  supposed  that,  because  he  was  one 
of  those  referred  to  by  John  Anderson,  as  willing 
to  support  his  claims,  that  he  felt  the  slightest 
wish  to  avoid  an  examination  of  that  individual. 
Mr.  H.  said,  so  far  from  disclaiming  a  readiness 
to  support  the  claims  of  which  Anderson  is 
the  agent,  he  felt  bound  in  the  strongest  manner 
to  aid  them.  Independently  of  a  conviction 
of  their  justice,  Mr.  H.  said,  those  claims  came 
from  a  people  and  a  Territory  for  which  he 
felt  a  peculiar  interest.  He  was  therefore  un- 
conscious of  any  appearance  of  impropriety  in 
being  included  among  those  whom  the  accused 
named  as  disposed  to  aid  in  his  suit  before  the 


Mr.  FOESTTH  replied  to  Mr.  SPENCER,  that 
all  must  know  the  extent  of  human  malignity. 
Every  one  acquainted  with  our  political  history 
must,  he  said,  be  sensible  how  far  the  motives 
and  the  conduct  of  this  House  may  be  question- 
ed and  misrepresented  ;  and  he  knew  that  the 
ingenuity  of  malice  was  such  that  it  could, 
and  probably  would,  impute  false  and  impure 
motives  to  the  course  which  the  House  was  pur- 
suing ;  and  his  object  was,  by  going  at  once 
into  an  investigation  of  the  matter,  to  leave  no 
pretext  whatever  for  a  misconstruction  of  the 
conduct  of  the  House.  The  gentleman  admit- 
ted there  was  no  law  under  which  the  person 
accused  could  be  indicted ;  to  refer  him  to  the 
Attorney-General  or  District  Attorney  then 
was  idle;  we  know  no  investigation  can  take 
place. 

Mr.  HOPKINSON  was  unfriendly  to  the  motion 
to  lay  the  resolutions  on  the  table.  After  all, 
it  was  a  mere  question  of  order  in  the  proceed- 
ing;  but,  he  said,  as  the  question  had  already 
been  discussed  much  at  large,  and  as  it  must  be 
decided  in  the  end,  he  thought  it  was  better  to 
do  so  now,  after  having  gone  so  far  into  it,  than 
afterwards  to  have  all  that  has  been  done  to  go 
over  again.  At  any  rate,  Mr.  H.  hoped  the 
House  would  not  abandon  the  question  without 
bringing  it  to  a  decision.  A  strong  reason  for 
prosecuting  the  inquiry  now  before  the  House 
•was,  Mr.  H.  said,  that  a  majority  of  the  gentle- 
men who  delivered  their  sentiments  were  on 
one  side ;  and  those  on  the  other  side,  he  said, 
ought  to  have  an  opportunity  of  submitting 
also  their  views  of  it  He  had  no  idea  that 


the  House  wished  to  shrink  from  an  investiga- 
tion of  the  latter,  whatever  appearance  it  might 
have,  or  might  be  given  to  it. 

Mr.  POINDEXTEH  said,  that  although  he  denied 
the  power  of  the  House  to  punish  the  individual 
who  had  been  arrested  under  the  warrant  of 
the  Speaker,  and  whose  case  was  under  con- 
sideration, he  should  vote  to  lay  the  resolutions 
offered  by  Mr.  SPEKOEE  on  the  table.  The  let- 
ter addressed  by  the  accused  to  the  Speaker, 
which  had- been  read  for  the  information  of  the 
House,  proposes,  on  his  part,  submission  to  the 
authority  of  the  House,  with  a  view  to  explana- 
tions and  apologies,  which  he  says  he  is  prepared 
to  make.  I  am  willing,  said  Mr.  P.,  to  afford 
him  this  opportunity.  If  the  House  should  bo 
satisfied,  after  hearing  the  excuse  which  may  bo 
made  by  the  accused,  for  his  extraordinary  con- 
duct, or  the  apology  which  he  may  offer  in 
mitigation  of  the  offence,  we  shall  be  enabled 
to  waive  for  the  present  a  decision  of  the  great 
constitutional  question  which  has  been  raised 
on  this  occasion,  and  which  is  calculated  to  em- 
barrass the  proceedings,  and  occupy  much  of 
the  time  of  this  body.  "With  a  hope  that  this 
might  be  the  result  of  the  proposed  explanation, 
and  that  suitable  provision  may  be  made  by  law 
for  similar  cases,  should  they  hereafter  occur, 
and  thereby  remove  the  embarrassment  which 
we  experience  in  the  case  now  under  considera- 
tion, Mr.  P.  said  he  should  support  the  motion 
to  lay  the  resolutions  on  the  table. 

Mr.  DESHA  was  in  favor  of  laying  the  resolu- 
tions on  the  table.  John  Anderson  prayed  to 
be  heard;  and  if  we  find,  said  Mr.  D.,  that  he 
can  exonerate  himself  from  the  offence,  I  wish 
it  to  be  done ;  because  this  debate  may  continue 
yet  many  days,  all  which  time  the  accused  must 
remain  in  custody,  if  not  heard  before.  After 
his  examination  the  discussion  can  be  resumed, 
and  the  question  settled. 

Mr.  EICH  inquired  whether  the  accused  had 
expressed  a  wish  to  be  heard  at  once.  If  so,  Mr. 
E.  was  willing  to  lay  the  resolutions  <9ti  the 
table,  and  hear  him ;  but,  if  not,  he  was  opposed 
to  the  motion. 

Mr.  BEEOHEE  remarked,  that  one  reason  with 
him  for  not  wishing  to  lay  the  resolutions  on  the 
table  was,  that  ho  had  no  idea  of  receiving  a 
petition  from  a  man  who  was  held  in  custody. 
Mr.  B.  was  not  disposed  to  hold  the  accused  in 
custody  a  moment  longer  than  he  had  the  right ; 
but  he  was  in  favor  of  first  trying  if  the  House 
possess  that  right  or  not.  I  am  not  willing,  said 
Mr.  B.,  to  get  rid  of  this  question  by  permitting 
the  party  to  come  in  here,  and  give  evidence 
igainst  himself,  or  by  allowing  him  to  come 
forward  and  admit  our  jurisdiction  in  the  case. 

Mr.  PINDALL  made  a  few  remarks  in  coinci- 
dence with  those  of  Mr.  POIXDEXTEB,  of  which 
le  expressed  his  approbation. 

The  motion  to  lay  the  resolutions  on  the  table 
was  decided  in  the  negative — ayes  about  30. 


DEBATES  OF  CONGKESS. 


101 


JANTJABY,  1818.] 


Case  of  John  Anderson. 


[H.  OF  R. 


MONDAY,  January  12. 
Case  of  John  Anderson. 

The  following  resolutions  moved  by  Mr.  RHEA, 
by  way  of  amendment,  being  yet  under  consid- 
eration : 

"  Resolved,  That  this  House  possesseth  competent 
power  to  punish  for  contempts  of  its  authority. 

"  Therefore,  Resolved,  That  the  Sergeant-at-Arms 
be  directed  to  conduct  John  Anderson  to  the  bar  of 
the  House." 

Mr.  RHEA,  with  a  view  to  put  his  amendment 
in  a  shape  more  acceptable  to  gentlemen,  modi- 
fied his  motion  for  amendment,  so  as  to  make 
the  first  resolution  read  as  follows : 

"  Resolved,  That  this  House  possess  adequate  power 
to  punish  for  contempts  against  it." 

Mr.  PITKIX  assigned  the  reasons  why  he 
wished  to  avoid  placing  on  the  Journal  any 
thing  affirming  the  authority  of  the  House  on 
the  one  hand,  or  denying  it  on  the  other :  and, 
to  escape  the  alternative  presented  to  the  House 
by  the  proposed  resolution  and  amendment,  he 
moved  to  postpone  indefinitely  the  consideration 
of  the  main  question  and  the  amendment  pro- 
posed thereto. 

After  some  questions  to  the  Chair  and  expla- 
nations therefrom,  respecting  the  effect  of  such  a 
postponement,  that  effect  was  pronounced  from 
the  Chair  to  be,  to  place  the  question  in  the 
state  in' which  it  was  when  the  motion  of  Mr. 
SPEXCEB  was  first  made ;  and,  if  this  course  was 
pursued,  that  the  House  would  be  at  full  liberty 
to  take  any  course  in  respect  to  John  Anderson, 
•which,  in  its  opinion,  was  within  the  scope  of 
its  constitutional  powers. 

Mr.  RICH,  of  Vermont,  said  he  hoped  that 
the  motion  of  the  gentleman  from  Connecticut 
would  not  prevail ;  for,  after  the  very  able  and 
long  discussion  which  this  subject  had  under- 
gone, it  was  due  to  this  House  and  the  nation 
that  the  sense  of  the  House  should  be  taken  on 
some  proposition  distinct  from  the  case  of  John 
Anderson,  in  order  (if  he  might  be  allowed  the 
expression)  that  the  law  may  be  settled  in  rela- 
tion to  the  principle,  so  far  as  it  could  be  done, 
by  a  solemn  decision  of  the  House.  "With  a 
view  to  that  object,  said  he,  it  was  my  intention, 
could  I  have  obtained  the  floor,  to  have  moved 
an  amendment  to  the  amendment  offered  yes- 
terday by  the  gentleman  from  Tennessee.  I 
therefore  hope  the  motion  for  a  postponement 
will  be  rejected,  that  I  may  still  have  an  oppor- 
tunity to  submit  an  amendment,  having  for  its 
object  a  disavowal  of  the  right  to  try  and  punish 
for  offences,  and  a  declaration  that  the  House 
will  abstain  from  no  measures  which  may  be 
necessary  to  preserve  its  deliberations  free  from 
interruption,  and  its  members  and  officers  from 
insult  or  injury.  In  order,  then,  that  the  House 
may  be  informed  of  the  amendment  I  propose 
to  offer,  should  an  opportunity  be  afforded  me, 
I  will  read  in  my  place  the  one  I  had  prepared. 

[Here  Mr.  R.  read  the  proposed  amendment, 
and  concluded  by  saying] — 

I  hope,  sir,  the  subject  will  not  be  passed  by 


without  a  distinct  decision  of  the  House  upon 
the  principle,  aside  from  all  considerations  of 
the  guilt  or  innocence  of  John  Anderson. 

After  explai'atpry.remarks  frpm  various  mem- 
bers, among  ^.saa'Wsr'e  Messrs:  BHEA,  TAIX- 


postponement  117 ;  against  it,  42. 

The  propositions  before  the  House  were  in- 
definitely postponed. 

Whereupon,  Mr.  TAIXMADGE  offered  the  fol- 
lowing resolution  for  consideration : 

"  Resolved,  That  John  Anderson  be  forthwith 
brought  to  the  bar  of  this  House." 

The  question  was  then  taken  on  the  motion 
that  "  John  Anderson  be  forthwith  brought  to 
the  bar  of  tnis  House,"  and  decided  in  the  af- 
firmative, by  yeas  and  nays — 118  to  45. 

Whereupon  the  Sergeant-at-Arms  brought  the 
prisoner  to  the  bar,  and  the  SPEAKER  propounded 
to  him  the  following  interrogatories,  to  which  he 
made  the  replies  thereto : 

1.  Do  you  acknowledge  yourself  to  be  John  Ander- 
son?    Answer.  Yes. 

2.  Did  you  write  and  deliver  to  Lewis  Williams,  a 
member  of  this  House,  the  letter  of  which  a  copy  has 
been  furnished  to  you  by  the  Clerk  ?     Ans.  I  did. 

3.  From  what  part  of  the  city  did  you  write  the 
letter?    Ans.   I  wrote  it  at  Mr.  Bestor's,  where  I 
board. 

4.  What  is  the  amount  of  your  own  claims,  which 
you  are  attempting  to  liquidate  ?  Ans.  About  $9,000. 

5.  What  is  the  amount  of  others  which  you  are  so- 
liciting?    Ans.  About  $21,000. 

6.  Have  you   any  interest  in  the  latter?     Ans. 
None  of  a  pecuniary  kind,  but  am  influenced  in  their 
pursuit  by  motives  of  charity. 

7.  Had  you  any  authority  from  the  persons  yon 
represent  to  make  the  offer  contained  in  your  letter  ? 
Ans.  I  have  a  general  power-of-attorney  to  do  for 
them  as  I  would  do  for  myself,  but  had  no  instruc- 
tions to  make  that  or  any  other  offer. 

8.  Are  you  acquainted  with  any  persons  now  in  the 
city  soliciting  the  claims  of  others?     If  so,  name 
them.    Ans.  I  am.     There  is  a  Mr.  Pomeroy,  who  la 
soliciting  his  own  claim,  and  CoL  Watson,  who  is  a 
general  agent. 

9.  Have  you  made  any  other  offer  to  any  person  ? 
Ans.  No. 

10.  Did  you  consult  or  advise  with  any  person  be- 
fore you  wrote  and  delivered  the  letter.     Ans.   I  did 
not. 

11.  Who  is  the  Mr.  Halbard  you  mention  in  the 
letter  ?     Ans.  He  is  a  gentleman  I  became  partially 
acquainted  with  during  the  troubles  at  the  River  Rai- 
sin.  I  have  not  seen  him  since  that  time  till  I  arrived 

n  this  city  at  the  commencement  of  the  session  of 
Congress,  and  did  not  recognize  him  until  he  made 
himself  known  to  me. 

12.  Has  he  any  claim  to  solicit  ?    Ans.  None  to 
my  knowledge. 

13.  Have  you  any  witnesses  to  examine,  or  defence 
to  make,  in  justification  or  explanation  of  your  con- 
duct ?     If  you  have,  the  House  is  now  ready  to  hear 
you. 

The  prisoner  at  the  bar  then  called  upon  his 
witnesses,  viz:  Gen.  Harrison,  Col.  Johnson, 


102 


ABRIDGMENT  OF  THE 


H.  OF  R.j 


Case  of  John  Anderson. 


[JANUARY,    1818. 


members  of  the  House ;  Mr.  R.  J.  Meigs,  Post- 
master General;  Oapt.  Gray,  Mr.  Cyrus  Hal- 
bard,  Capt.  Larrabee,  Col.  Joseph  Watson,  Mr. 
John  H.  Piatt,  Capt.  S.  D.  Eichardson,  Mr. 
Pomeroy,  XfenuComvar  ;:who,.ali  being  pre- 
viously swoi'nj  delivered  in  their -testimony. 

The  testimony,  was  .uniform,  as  far  as  the 
knowle4£e-o;f  the;  -witnesses  extenjied,  jn  giving 
the  accused  a  high  character  'for  probity,  correct 
deportment,  and  patriotic  conduct.  It  is  too 
diffuse  for  publication. 


SATUBDAY,  January  17. 
John  Anderson's  Case. 

John  Anderson  was  then  remanded  to  the 
bar  of  the  House,  and  proceeded  in  the  further 
examination  of  his  witnesses. 

General  P.  B.  Porter,  William  O'Neale,  and 
W.  P.  Bathbone,  were  then  examined  as  wit- 
nesses in  behalf  of  the  accused,  whose  testimony 
was  to  the  same  effect  as  that  given  yesterday. 

Mr.  WILLIAMS,  of  North  Carolina,  was  then 
called  upon  by  the  accused,  who  put  to  him 
this  question : 

Question.  Did  I  ever  directly  or  indirectly,  by  any 
verbal  communication,  offer  you  any  reward  or  in- 
ducement, to  influence  your  good  opinion  in  favor  of 
my  claim,  or  of  any  other  claims  ? 

Answer.  You  never  made  me  any  verbal  offer  of 
the  kind. 

John  Anderson.  That  is  all  I  wished  the  House  to 
know  from  your  testimony. 

Mr.  Williams.  I  presume,  if  you  had  made  me 
any  such  offer,  the  House  would  have  known  it,  with- 
out your  asking  it. 

On  further  questions  by  the  SPEAKER  to 
John  Anderson,  it  appears  that  the  accused  is  a 
native  of  Scotland,  came  to  this  country  at 
three  years  old,  and  is  a  naturalized  citizen. 

The  SPEAKER  then  said,  he  had  been  instruct- 
ed to  propound  to  the  prisoner  the  following 
interrogatory,  to  which  John  Anderson  made 
the  reply  subjoined : 

Question.  In  writing  the  letter  to  Lewis  Williams, 
a  member  of  this  House  from  North  Carolina,  in 
which  you  offer  to  him  the  sum  of  five  hundred  dol- 
lars, for  services  to  be  performed  by  him  in  relation 
to  claims  for  losses  sustained  during  the  late  war, 
had  yon  or  had  you  not  any  intention  to  induce  him 
to  support  your  claims  against  his  own  convictions  of 
their  justice,  or  to  interfere  with  the  discharge  of 
his  legislative  duties,  or  to  offer  any  contempt  or  in- 
dignity to  the  House  of  Representatives  ? 

Answer.  No,  sir — I  call  God  to  witness  to  that, 
which  is  the  most  sacred  appeal  I  can  make.  I  re- 
peatedly assured  Mm,  that  the  offer  was  made  with- 
out any  wish  to  influence  his  opinion  in  any  degree. 

The  accused  was  then  questioned  whether  he 
had  other  witnesses  to  examine ;  he  replied  in 
the  negative.  The  SPEAKER  then  called  upon 
him  for  the  defence  which  he  had  intimated  it 
was  his  intention  to  offer. 

The  prisoner,  then  addressing  the  Chair,  with 
much  earnestness,  in  a  brief  manner,  stated  the 
same  palliations  of  the  offence  with  which  he 
stood  charged,  as  are  explained  more  at  large 


in  the  following  address,  which  he  concluded 
by  delivering  to  the  Clerk,  by  whom  it  was  read : 

"  Arraigned  at  the  bar  of  the  highest  tribunal  of 
the  nation,  for  an  alleged  infringement  of  its  privi- 
leges, an  attack  upon  its  dignity,  and  the  honorable 
feelings  of  one  of  its  members,  to  express  the  sincere 
regret  I  experience,  and  to  apologize  for  the  error  I 
have  committed,  ought  not  to  suffice.  To  that  body 
and  to  myself,  I  owe  an  explanation  of  the  motives 
which  governed  my  conduct.  That  I  have  been 
found  in  the  ranks  of  our  country's  defenders,  is 
known  to  many ;  and  that  I  have  sustained  a  charac- 
ter unblemished  by  any  act  which  should  crimson 
my  withered  cheeks,  has  been  amply  proven  to  you, 
by  men,  whose  good  opinions  are  the  greatest  boon 
of  merit.  The  commencement  of  the  late  war  found 
me  environed  by  all  the  comforts  of  life ;  blessed 
with  a  sufficiency  of  property  to  enable  me  to  wipe 
from  the  face  of  distress  the  falling  tear,  and  to  flatter 
myself  that  want  was  not  to  salute  me  before  the 
return  of  peace.  The  fallacy  of  my  hopes  has  been 
too  clearly  demonstrated,  by  the  ravages  of  the  war 
on  the  borders  of  Raisin,  (my  residence,)  and  the 
destruction  of  all  the  property  which  my  industry 
had  amassed.  After  having  seen  the  streets  of 
Frenchtown  overgrown  with  grass ;  sighed  unavail- 
ingly  over  the  ashes  of  my  own  and  my  neighbors' 
houses,  and  witnessed  their  necessities ;  reduced  to 
sustain  life  by  means  of  wild  animals,  (muskrats,) 
whose  very  smell  is  repulsive  to  the  stomach ;  I 
gladly  hailed  the  beneficence  of  my  Government  in 
the  enactment  of  the  law,  usually  called  the  property 
act,  and,  in  the  month  of  January,  1817,  I  took 
leave  of  my  friends  and  fellow-sufferers,  and  repaired 
to  this  city  to  manage  their  claims ;  on  my  arrival, 
I  found  that  the  act  under  which  they  expected  re- 
lief had  been  suspended,  and  I  was  forced  to  return 
with  this  unwelcome  information ;  tears  of  disap- 
pointment suffused  the  countenances  of  every  one — 
my  heart  sympathized  with  theirs,  and  I  then  deter- 
mined to  prosecute  their  claims  to  a  result.  With 
this  view,  I  had  been  in  this  city  more  than  a  month ; 
over-anxious  to  accomplish  my  object,  exalted  witt 
the  success  which  had  attended  some  of  the  claims, 
and  convinced  that  the  Committee  of  Claims  was 
overwhelmed  with  business,  my  inexperience  in  re- 
ference to  legislative  proceedings  induced  me  to  sup- 
pose that,  to  insure  despatch,  I  might  without  im- 
propriety approach  the  chairman  of  the  committee 
with  a  proposal  to  compensate  him  for  extra  trouble. 
That  I  have  erred,  grossly  erred,  I  am  convinced, 
and  my  only  consolation  is,  that  error  is  no  crime, 
when  it  is  of  the  head,  not  of  the  heart.  Had  I 
acted  with  less  precipitation,  and  consulted  the  views 
of  others,  I  should  not  at  this  time  find  myself  in 
the  disagreeable  dilemma  that  I  am.  I  should  have 
acted  more  consistent  with  myself.  Whatever  sem- 
blance my  request  of  secrecy  may  assume,  I  can 
with  truth  aver  that  its  basis  in  my  mind  was  a  desire 
that  those  for  whom  I  act  should  have  to  acknowl- 
edge their  increased  gratitude  for  the  promptitude 
with  which  their  claims  should  have  been  acted  upon. 

It  cannot  be  denied,  that,  after  being  assured  that 
my  own  claims  would  be  allowed,  I  had  less  cause  to 
think  of  obtaining  by  corruption  the  payment  of 
claims  which  I  almost  knew  the  justice  of  Congress 
could  not  refuse  in  the  sequel.  Despatch,  then,  was 
all  I  wished  for—  all  I  could  gam ;— and  I  think  that 
the  world  and  this  honorable  body  will  admit  that 
the  benefit  of  the  relief  would  be  in  proportion  to  the 


DEBATES  OF  CONGRESS. 


103 


JAXTARY,  1818.] 


General  Kosciusko. 


[H.  OF  R. 


time  which  should  elapse  in  affording  it ;  at  least, 
that  in  this  view  it  would  be  appreciated  by  those 
who  have  yet  i'resh  in  their  recollection  that  a  hus- 
band, a  wife,  a  father,  a  child,  a  brother,  or  sister, 
was  tomahawked,  shot,  or  burned  alive,  by  the  savage 
enemy,  their  hearts  inhumanly  torn  from  their  bodies, 
and  whilst  yet  smoking  with  the  vital  heat,  were  tri- 
umphantly exhibited  to  their  weeping  eyes.  Let  it  be 
recollected  that  they  have  witnessed,  whilst  wander- 
ing without  shelter,  and  almost  unclothed,  the  heart- 
rending scene — dead  bodies  exposed  to  the  voracious 
appetites  of  the  swine,  and  these  animals  eagerly 
contending  for  a  leg  or  an  arm  !  Lest  this  picture 
may  be  supposed  to  be  exaggerated,  I  annex  the  cor- 
respondence which  took  place  between  the  Hon.  A. 
B.  Woodward  and  General  Proctor,  in  the  year  1813, 
and  shortly  after  the  event  occurred.  Let  it  be  known 
that  most  "if  not  all  the  articles  they  could  collect 
from  the  ruins  of  their  houses  were  generously — 
most  generously — appropriated  in  the  purchase  of 
prisoners  of  war,  for  the  purpose  of  screening  them 
from  the  bloody  tomahawk ;  that  these  purchases 
were  made  under  such  circumstances  as  not  to  entitle 
them  to  reimbursement  under  the  "  Act  relating  to 
the  ransom  of  American  captives  of  the  late  war." 
And  let  it  also  be  known  that  such  are  the  sufferings, 
such  the  merits  of  the  claimants  I  represent.  And  I 
feel  confident  that  the  clouds  of  indignation  which 
for  a  -moment  threatened  to  burst  over  my  frosty  head 
will  be  dispelled  by  the  benign  influence  of  philan- 
thropy—an influence  which  has  ever,  and  I  trust  ever 
will,  characterize  my  conduct. 

"That  I  should  be  anxious  to  afford  a  prompt 
solace  to  the  sufferings  of  my  fellow-citizens  will  not 
be  wondered  at,  when  it  is  known  that  they  extended 
every  kindness  and  protection  to  my  family,  (from 
whom  I  was  separated  during  the  most  of  the  war,) 
and  at  a  time  when  the  Indians  were  accustomed  to 
dance  before  the  door  of  my  house,  calling  upon  my 
wife  to  come  out  and  select  her  husband's  scalp. 

'•  Relying  upon  the  maxim,  that  '  To  err  is  hu- 
man, to  forgive  divine,'  I  throw  myself  upon  the  in- 
dulgence of  this  honorable  body,  and  the  magnanim- 
ity of  the  honorable  gentleman  whose  feelings  I  have 
had  the  misfortune  to  wound.  If  my  services  form 
no  claim  to  indulgence,  perhaps  my  sufferings  and 
those  of  my  family  may.  I  stand  here  to  meet  all 
the  consequences  of  an  error  committed  without  any 
sinister  intention. 

"  In  conclusion,  I  must  be  permitted  to  remark, 
that,  during  my  confinement,  from  which  I  have  for- 
borne to  adopt  any  legal  measures  to  extricate  my- 
self, the  qnly  feelings  of  pain  which  have  had  access 
to  my  breast  were  those  produced  by  the  knowledge 
that  an  opinion  was  prevalent,  that,  presuming  on 
the  misfortunes  of  my  fellow-sufferers,  I  had  bought 
op  their  claims  at  a  very  reduced  price.  If  this  hon- 
orable body  would  permit,  I  would,  under  the  solem- 
nity of  an  oath,  call  upon  God  to  bear  testimony 
that  this  opinion  is  without  basis. 

"JOHN  ANDERSON. 

"  JANUARY,  1818." 

The  prisoner  being  asked  if  he  had  anything 
farther  to  say,  and  answering  in  the  negative, 
was  taken  from  the  bar,  and  the  House  pro- 
ceeded to  deliberate  on  the  course  now  proper 
to  be  pursued. 

One  motion,  on  which  the  yeas  and  nays 
•were  taken,  is  worthy  of  particular  notice.  It 
was  made  by  Mr.  POIXDEXTEE,  to  strike  out  of 


that  passage  which  charged  John  Anderson 
with  being  guilty  of  a  contempt  against  the 
privileges  of  the  House,  the  words  the  privileges 
of;  thus  denying  the  House  to  have  any  privi- 
leges not  conferred  on  them  by  the  constitution. 
This  motion  was  negatived — 108  to  54. 

The  will  of  the  House  was  ultimately  consum- 
mated by  the  passage  of  a  resolution,  in  the 
following  words : 

'  Resolved,  That  John  Anderson  has  been  guilty 
of  a  contempt  and  a  violation  of  the  privileges  of  the 
House,  and  that  he  bo  brought  to  the  bar  of  the 
House  this  day,  and  be  there  reprimanded  by  the 
Speaker  for  the  outrage  he  has  committed,  and  then 
discharged  from  the  custody  of  the  Sergeant-at- 
Arms." 

"Whereupon,  John  Anderson  was  brought  to 
the  bar  of  the  House,  and  addressed  by  the 
SPEAKER,  as  follows : 

"  John  Anderson :  Yon  have  been  brought  before 
this  House  upon  a  charge  of  having  committed  a 
breach  of  its  privileges,  in  attempting  to  bribe  one 
of  its  members,  filling  a  high  and  responsible  situa- 
tion. The  House  has  patiently  heard  you  in  your 
defence,  and,  in  proportion  to  the  pleasure  which  it 
has  derived  from  the  concurrent  testimonies  in  sup- 
port of  your  character  and  good  conduct  heretofore, 
is  its  deep  regret  that  you  have  deliberately  attempt- 
ed to  commit  a  crime  so  entirely  incompatible  with 
the  high  standing  yon  have  heretofore  maintained. 
You  have  the  less  apology  for  the  attempt  which  you 
made,  because  you  had  yourself  experienced  the  jus- 
tice of  this  House  but  a  few  days  before,  by  the  pas- 
sage of  two  bills  in  your  favor,  founded  on  petitions 
presented  to  the  House.  Your  attempt  to  corrupt 
the  fountain  of  legislation — to  undermine  the  integ- 
rity of  a  branch  of  the  National  Legislature — is  a 
crime  of  so  deep  a  dye  that  even  you  must  acknowl- 
edge and  be  sensible  of  it  And  if,  John  Anderson, 
you  could  have  been  successful  in  such  an  attempt — 
if  it  were  possible  that  Representatives  of  the  people 
could  have  been  found  so  lost  to  their  duty  as  to  ac- 
cept your  offer — you  must  yourself  see  the  dreadful 
consequences  of  such  a  deplorable  state  of  things: 
In  your  turn  you  might  fall  a  victim ;  for  your 
rights,  your  liberty,  and  your  property,  might  in  the 
end  equally  suffer  with  those  of  others.  The  House 
has  seen  with  pleasure,  that,  at  a  very  early  period 
after  making  your  base  offer,  yon  disclaimed,  with 
symptoms  of  apparent  repentance  and  contrition,  any 
intention  to  corrupt  the  integrity  of  a  member ;  and, 
in  directing  me  to  pronounce  your  discharge,  the 
House  indulges  the  hope  that,  on  your  return  home, 
you  will  be  more  fully  convinced  of  the  magnitude 
of  your  offence,  and  by  the  future  tenor  of  your  life 
endeavor  to  obliterate,  as  far  as  it  may  be  possible, 
the  stain  your  conduct  on  this  occasion  has  impressed 
on  the  high  and  honorable  character  yon  appear  to 
have  previously  sustained.  You  are  discharged  from 
the  custody  of  the  Sergeant-at-Arms." 

"Whereupon,  John  Anderson  -was  discharged 
from  custody,  and  the  House  adjourned  to 

Monday.  

TUESDAY,  January  20. 

General  Kosciusko. 

Mr.  HARRISON  submitted  the  following  reso- 
lution ;  which  was  read,  and  ordered  to  lie  on 
the  table : 


104 


ABRIDGMENT  OF  THE 


H.  OF  R.] 


General  Koscimko. 


[JANUARY,  1818. 


Resolved,  That  a  committee  be  appointed,  jointly 
with  such  committee  as  may  be  appointed  on  the  part 
of  the  Senate,  to  consider  and  report  what  measures 
it  may  be  proper  to  adopt  to  manifest  the  public  re- 
spect for  the  memory  of  General  Thaddeus  Koscius- 
ko,  formerly  on  officer  in  the  service  of  the  United 
States,  and  the  uniform  and  distinguished  friend  of 
liberty  and  the  rights  of  man. 

Mr.  HARBISON  accompanied  his  motion  with 
the  following  observations : 

The  public  papers  have  announced  an  event 
which  is  well  calculated  to  excite  the  sympathy 
of  every  American  bosom !  Kosciusko,  the  mar- 
tyr of  liberty,  is  no  more !  We  are  informed  that 
he  died  at  Soleure,  in  France,  some  time  in  Oc- 
tober last. 

In  tracing  the  events  of  this  great  man's  life, 
we  find  in  him  that  consistency  of  conduct  which 
is  the  more  to  be  admired  as*  it  is  so  rarely  to  be 
met  with.  He  was  not  at  one  time  the  friend  of 
mankind,  and  at  another  the  instrument  of  their 
oppression ; — but  he  preserved  throughout  his 
whole  career  those  noble  principles  which  dis- 
tinguished him  in  its  commencement — which 
influenced  him  at  an  early  period  of  his  life  to 
leave  his  country  and  his  friends,  and  in  an- 
other hemisphere  to  fight  for  the  rights  of  hu- 
manity. 

Kosciusko  was  born  and  educated  in  Poland, 
of  a  noble  and  distinguished  family — a  country 
where  the  distinctions  in  society  are  perhaps 
carried  to  greater  lengths  than  in  any  other. 
His  Creator  had,  however,  endowed  him  with 
a  soul  capable  of  rising  above  the  narrow  pre- 
judices of  a  caste,  and  breaking  the  shackles 
which  a  vicious  education  had  imposed  on  his 
mind. 

"When  very  young,  he  was  informed  by  the 
voice  of  fame  that  the  standard  of  liberty  had 
been  erected  in  America — that  an  insulted  and 
oppressed  people  had  determined  to  be  free,  or 
perish  in  the  attempt.  His  ardent  and  generous 
mind  caught,  with  enthusiasm,  the  holy  flame, 
and  from  that  moment  he  became  the  devoted 
soldier  of  liberty. 

His  rank  in  the  American  army  afforded  him 
no  opportunity  greatly  to  distinguish  himself. 
But  he  was  remarked,  throughout  his  service, 
for  all  the  qualities  which  adorn  the  human 
character.  His  heroic  valor  in  the  field  could 
only  be  equalled  by  his  moderation  and  affa- 
bility in  the  walks  of  private  life.  He  was 
idolized  by  the  soldiers  for  his  bravery,  and  be- 
loved and  respected  by  the  officers  for  the  good- 
ness of  his  heart,  and  the  great  qualities  of  his 
mind. 

Contributing  greatly,  by  his  exertions,  to 
the  establishment  of  the  independence  of  Amer- 
ica, he  might  have  remained,  and  shared  the 
blessings  it  dispensed,  under  the  protection 
of  a  chief  who  loved  and  honored  him,  and 
in  the  bosom  of  a  grateful  and  affectionate  peo- 
ple. 

Kosciusko  had,  however,  other  views.  It  is 
not  known  that,  until  the  period  I  am  speaking 
of,  he  had  formed  any  distinct  idea  of  what 


could,  or  indeed  what  ought,  to  be  done  for  his 
own.  But  in  the  Revolutionary  war  he  drank 
deeply  of  the  principles  which  produced  it.  In 
his  conversations  with  the  intelligent  men  of 
our  country,  he  acquired  new  views  of  the  sci- 
ence of  government  and  the  rights  of  man.  He 
had  seen,  too,  that  to  be  free  it  was  only  neces- 
sary that  a  nation  should  will  it,  and  to  be  hap- 
py it  was  only  necessary  that  a  nation  should  be 
free.  And  was  it  not  possible  to  procure  these 
blessings  for  Poland  ?  For  Poland,  the  country 
of  his  birth,  which  had  a  claim  to  all  his  efforts, 
to  all  his  services  ?  That  unhappy  nation  groan- 
ed under  a  complication  of  evils  which  has 
scarcely  a  parallel  in  history.  The  mass  of  the 
people  were  the  abject  slaves  of  the  nobles ;  the 
nobles,  torn  into  factions,  were  alternately  the 
instruments  and  the  victims  of  their  powerful 
and  ambitious  neighbors.  By  intrigue,  corrup- 
tion, and  force,  some  of  its  fairest  provinces  had 
been  separated  from  the  Republic,  and  the  peo- 
ple, like  beasts,  transferred  to  foreign  despots, 
who  were  again  watching  for  a  favorable  mo- 
ment for  a  second  dismemberment.  To  regen- 
erate a  people  thus  debased — to  obtain  for  a 
country  thus  circumstanced  the  blessings  of 
liberty  and  independence,  was  a  work  of  as 
much  difficulty  as  danger.  But,  to  a  mind 
like  Kosciusko's,  the  difficulty  and  danger  of 
an  enterprise  served  as  stimulants  to  under- 
take it. 

The  annals  of  these  times  give  us  no  detailed 
account  of  the  progress  of  Kosciusko  in  accom- 
plishing his  great  work,  from  the  period  of  his 
return  from  America  to  the  adoption  of  the  new 
constitution  of  Poland,  in  1791.  This  interval, 
however,  of  apparent  inaction,  was  most  useful- 
ly employed  to  illumine  the  mental  darkness 
which  enveloped  his  countrymen.  To  stimulate 
th,e  ignorant  and  bigoted  peasantry  with  the 
hope  of  future  emancipation — to  teach  a  proud 
but  gallant  nobility  that  true  glory  is  only  to  be 
found  in  the  paths  of  duty  and  patriotism — in- 
terests the  most  opposed,  prejudices  the  most 
stubborn,  and  habits  the  most  inveterate,  were 
reconciled,  dissipated,  and  broken,  by  the  as- 
cendency of  his  virtues  and  example.  The  storm 
which  he  had  foreseen,  and  for  which  he  had 
been  preparing,  at  length  burst  upon  Poland. 
A  feeble  and  unpopular  Government  bent  before 
its  fury,  and  submitted  itself  to  the  Russian  yoke 
of  the  invader.  But  the  nation  disdained  to  fol- 
low its  example ;  in  their  extremity  every  eye 
was  turned  on  the  hero  who  had  already  fought 
their  battles — the  sage  who  had  enlightened 
them,  and  the  patriot  who  had  set  the  example 
of  personal  sacrifices  to  accomplish  the  emanci- 
pation of  the  people. 

Kosciusko  was  unanimously  appointed  Gen- 
eralissimo of  Poland,  with  unlimited  powers, 
until  the  enemy  should  be  driven  from  the  coun- 
try. On  his  virtue  the  nation  reposed  with  the 
utmost  confidence ;  and  it  is  some  consolation 
to  reflect,  amidst  the  general  depravity  of  man- 
kind, that  two  instances,  in  the  same  age,  have 
occurred  where  powers  of  this  kind  were  em- 


DEBATES  OF  CONGKESS. 


105 


JANUARY,  1818.] 


General  Kosciusko. 


[H.  OF  R. 


ployed  solely  for  the  purposes  for  which  thej 
were  given. 

It  is  not  my  intention,  sir,  to  follow  the  Polish 
chief  throughout  the  career  of  victory  which 
for  a  considerable  time,  crowned  his  efforts 
Guided  hy  his  talents,  and  led  by  his  valor 
his  undisciplined,  illy-armed  militia  chargec 
with  effect  the  veteran  Russian  and  Prussian 
the  mailed  cuirassiers  of  the  great  Frederick,  fo 
the  first  time,  broke  and  fled  before  the  lighter 
and  appropriate  cavalry  of  Poland.  Hope  fille< 
the  breasts  of  the  patriots.  After  a  long  night 
the  dawn  of  an  apparently  glorious  day  brok< 
upon  Poland.  But,  to  the  discerning  eye  o 
Kosciusko,  the  light  which  it  shed  was  of  thai 
sickly  and  portentous  appearance,  indicating 
storm  more  dreadful  than  that  which  he  had  re- 
sisted. 

He  prepared  to  meet  it  with  firmness,  but  with 
means  entirely  inadequate.  To  the  advantages 
of  numbers,  of  tactics,  of  discipline,  and  inex- 
haustible resources,  the  combined  despots  had 
secured  a  faction  in  the  heart  of  Poland.  And, 
if  that  country  can  boast  of  a  WASHINGTON,  it 
is  disgraced  also  by  giving  birth  to  a  second 
Arnold.  The  day  at  length  came  which  was 
to  decide  the  fate  of  a  nation  and  a  hero. 
Heaven,  for  wise  purposes,  determined  that  it 
should  be  the  last  of  Polish  liberty.  It  was 
decided,  indeed,  before  the  battle  commenced. 
The  traitor  Poniski,  who  covered  with  a  de- 
tachment the  advance  of  the  Polish  army, 
abandoned  his  position  to  the  enemy  and  re- 
treated. 

Kosciusko  was  astonished,  but  not  dismayed. 
The  disposition  of  his  army  would  have  done 
honor  to  Hannibal.  The  succeeding  conflict 
was  terrible.  "When  the  talents  of  the  General 
could  no  longer  direct  the  mingled  mass  of 
combatants,  the  arm  of  the  warrior  was  brought 
to  the  aid  of  his  soldiers.  He  performed 
prodigies  of  valor.  The  fabled  prowess  of 
Ajax,  in  defending  the  Grecian  ships,  was  re- 
alized by  the  Polish  hero.  Nor  was  he  badly 
seconded  by  his  troops.  As  long  as  his  voice 
could  guide,  or  his  example  fired  their  valor, 
they  were  irresistible.  In  this  unequal  contest 
Kosciusko  was  long  seen,  and  finally  lost  to  their 
view. 

"  Hope  for  a  season  bade  the  world  farewell, 
And  Freedom  shriek'd  when  Kosciusko  fell." 

He  fell  covered  with  wounds,  but  still  sur- 
vived. A  Cossack  would  have  pierced  his 
breast,  when  an  officer  interposed.  "  Suffer 
him  to  execute  his  purpose,"  said  the  bleeding 
hero;  "lam  the  devoted  soldier  of  my  coun- 
try, and  will  not  survive  its  liberties."  The 
name  of  Kosciusko  struck  to  the  heart  of  the 
Tartar,  like  that  of  Marius  upon  the  Cimbrian 
warrior.  The  uplifted  weapon  dropped  from 
his  hand. 

Kosciusko  was  conveyed  to  the  dungeons  of 
Petersburg ;  and,  to  the  eternal  disgrace  of  the 
Empress  Catharine,  she  made  him  the  object  of 
her  vengeance,  when  he  could  be  no  longer  the 


object  of  her  fears.  Her  more  generous  son 
restored  him  to  liberty.  The  remainder  of  his 
life  has  been  spent  in  virtuous  retirement. 
Whilst  in  this  situation  in  France,  an  anecdote 
is  related  of  him  which  strongly  illustrates  the 
command  which  his  virtues  and  his  services 
had  obtained  over  the  minds  of  his  country- 
men. 

In  the  late  invasion  of  France,  some  Polish 
regiments  in  the  service  of  Russia  passed 
through  the  village  in  which  he  lived.  Some 
pillaging  of  the  inhabitants  brought  Kosciusko 
from  his  cottage.  "  When  I  was  a  Polish  sol- 
dier," said  he,  addressing  the  plunderers,  "  the 
property  of  the  peaceful  citizen  was  respected." 
"  And  who  art  thou,"  said  an  officer,  u  who  ad- 
dresses us  with  this  tone  of  authority  ?"  "  I  am 
Kosciusko!"  There  was  magic  in  the  word. 
It  ran  from  corps  to  corps.  The  march  was 
suspended.  They  gathered  round  him,  and 
gazed,  with  astonishment  and  awe, -upon  the 
mighty  ruin  he  presented.  "  Could  it  indeed 
be  their  hero,"  whose  fame  was  identified  with 
that  of  their  country  ?  A  thousand  interesting 
reflections  burst  upon  their  minds;  they  re- 
membered his  patriotism,  his  devotion  to  liber- 
ty, his  triumphs,  and  his  glorious  fall.  Their 
ii"on  hearts  were  softened,  and  the  tear  of  sensi- 
bility trickled  down  their  weather-beaten  faces. 
We  can  easily  conceive,  sir,  what  would  be  the 
feelings  of  the  hero  himself  in  such  a  scene.  His 
great  heart  must  have  heaved  with  emotion,  to 
find  himself  once  more  surrounded  by  the  com- 
panions of  his  glory ;  and  that  he  would  have 
t>een  upon  the  point  of  saying  to  them — 

"  Behold  your  General !  come  once  more 
To  lead  you  on  to  laurel'd  victory, 
To  fame,  to  freedom." 

The  delusion  could  have  lasted  but  for  a  mo- 
ment. He  was  himself,  alas !  a  miserable  crip- 
ple ;  and,  for  them !  they  were  no  longer  the 
soldiers  of  liberty,  but  the  instruments  of  am- 
bition and  tyranny.  Overwhelmed  with  grief 
at  the  reflection,  he  would  retire  to  his  cot- 
tage, to  mourn  afresh  over  the  miseries  of  his 
country. 

Such  was  the  man,  sir,  for  whose  memory  I 
ask  from  an  American  Congress  a  slight  tribute 
)f  respect.  Not,  sir,  to  perpetuate  his  fame — 
)ut  our  gratitude.  His  fame  will  last  as  long  as 
iberty  remains  upon  the  earth ;  as  long  as  a  vo- 
ary  offers  incense  upon  her  altar,  the  name  of 
Kosciusko  will  be  invoked.  And  if,  by  the 
sommon  consent  of  the  world,  a  temple  shall 
>e  erected  to  those  who  have  rendered  most 
service  to  mankind,  if  the  statue  of  our  great 
:ountryman  shall  occupy  the  place  of  the  "  Most 
Worthy,"  that  of  Kosciusko  will  be  found  by 
is  side,  and  the  wreath  of  laurel  will  be  en- 
wined  with  the  palm  of  virtue  to  adorn  his 
)row. 


WEDNESDAY,  January  21. 
Another   member,  to  wit,  from  Massachu- 


106 


ABRIDGMENT  OF  THE 


H.  OF  R.] 


Indian  Affairs. 


[JANUARY,  1818. 


setts,  THOMAS  RICK,  appeared,  produced  his  cre- 
dentials, and  took  his  seat. 

THURSDAY,  January  22. 

The  resolution  from  the  Senate,  directing 
"  the  publication  and  distribution  of  the  journal, 
and  proceedings  of  the  convention  which  form- 
ed the  present  Constitution  of  the  United  States," 
was  read  twice,  and  committed  to  the  commit- 
tee appointed  by  this  House  on  the  7th  instant, 
upon  that  subject. 

General  Roscimlco. 

Mr.  HARRISON,  of  Ohio,  having  withdrawn 
the  resolution  he  offered  for  consideration  yes- 
terday, to  which  he  understood  there  was  con- 
siderable objection,  on  the  ground  of  its  being 
in  a  joint  form,  moved,  in  lieu  thereof,  a  resolve 
to  the  following  effect,  with  a  view  to  ex- 
pressing the  sense  of  this  House  alone  on  the 
subject : 

Resolved,  That  this  House,  entertaining  the  high- 
est  respect  for  the  memory  of  General  Kosciusko,  his 
services,  <fec.,  the  members  thereof  will  testify  the 
same  by  wearing  crape  on  the  left  arm  for  one 
month. 

After  some  debate,  in  which  this  motion  was 
supported  by  Mr.  HARBISON,  and  opposed  by 
Messrs.  REED,  FORSYTH,  and  DESHA — 

Mr.  HARRISON  withdrew  his  resolution  alto- 
gether, seeing  it  was  opposed,  and  that  the  want 
of  unanimity  would  destroy  its  value — satisfied 
that,  in  moving  and  supporting  it,  he  had  ac- 
quitted his  conscience. 

[In  the  short  debate  on  this  question,  the 
merits  of  Kosciusko,  the  advocate  of  freedom, 
and  the  friend  of  man,  were  fully  admitted ;  but, 
it  was  shown  that  no  such  respect  as  was  now 
proposed  had  been  paid  to  any  of  the  departed 
worthies,  native  or  foreign,  who  had  aided  in 
the  achievement  of  our  independence,  except  in 
the  single  case  of  General  WASHINGTON,  which 
was  admitted  to  be  an  exception  to  all  general 
rules.  Having  as  recently  as  1810  refused  a 
like  tribute  to  the  memory  of  Colonel  William 
Washington,  on  his  decease,  it  was  too  late  now, 
it  was  deemed,  to  commence  a  new  system  in 
this  respect.] 

Indian  Affairs. 

Mr.  SOUTHARD,  from  the  committee  appoint- 
ed on  so  much  of  the  President's  Message  as  re- 
lates to  Indian  Affairs,  made  a  report  upon  the 
subject,  which  was  read;  when,  Mr.  S.  reported 
a  bill,  for  establishing  trading-houses  with  the 
Indian  tribes,  and  for  the  organization  and  en- 
couragement of  schools  for  their  instruction  and 
civilization ;  which  was  read  twice  and  com- 
mitted to  a  Committee  of  the  Whole.  The  re- 
port is  as  follows : 

The  committee  to  whom  was  referred  so  mnch  of 
the  President's  Message  as  relates  to  Indian  Affairs, 
report :  That  the  capital  appropriated  for  prosecution 
of  Indian  trade  was,  in  1809,  augmented  from  8200,- 
000  to  $300,000 ;  which  sum,  by  succeeding  acts,  has 
been  continued  down  to  this  period.  Of  the  capital 


thus  appropriated,  $290,000  have  been  drawn  from 
the  Treasury,  and  actively  employed  under  direction 
of  the  Superintendent  of  Indian  Supplies.  Under  the 
various  laws  enacted  for  the  support  and  encourage- 
ment of  Indian  trade,  eight  factories  or  trading  posts 
have  been  established  at  the  following  points : 

1.  Fort  Mitchell,  Georgia. 

2.  Chickasaw  Bluffs,  Mississippi  Territory. 

3.  Fort  ConfederatioTi,  on  the  Tombigbee  river. 

4.  Fort  Osage,  on   the    Missouri  river,  near  the 
mouth  of  the  Osage. 

5.  Prairie  du  Chien,  on  the  Mississippi,  near  the 
mouth  of  the  Wisconsin  river. 

6.  Ordered  to  Sulphur  Fork,  on  Red  river,  for- 
merly at  Natchitoch.es. 

7.  Green  Bay,  on  the  Green  Bay  of  Lake  Michi- 
gan, Illinois  Territory. 

8.  Chicago,  Lake  Michigan. 

The  committee  deem  it  unnecessary  to  present  a 
detailed  view  of  the  profits  and  loss  of  each  particu- 
lar agency,  and  submit,  in  relation  to  the  general 
establishment,  that  it  has  been  a  losing  institution, 
owing,  it  is  presumable,  to  adventitious  circumstan- 
ces, originating  in  our  late  belligerent  state,  and  not 
growing  out  of  any  defect  in  the  organization  or 
government  of  the  trade.  From  the  first  operation 
of  this  traffic  up  to  December,  1809,  it  sustained  a 
loss  of  $44,538  36.  Since  that  period  the  trade  has 
been  more  successful,  it  having  yielded  a  profit,  on 
the  capital  actually  vested  in  the  merchandise,  of 
about  $15,000  annually,  after  covering  a  loss  of 
$13,369,  which  accrued  in  consequence  of  the  cap- 
ture of  several  trading  posts  by  the  enemy  during 
the  late  war. 

In  this  view  of  the  subject  the  committee  have  not 
embraced  an  item  of  820,000,  annually  disbursed  at 
the  Treasury  for  the  Superintendent  and  his  clerks, 
the  factories,  &c.,  and  which,  when  applied  to  the 
concern,  as  necessarily  it  must  be  in  making  an  es- 
timate of  profit  and  loss,  will  absorb  the  profits  arising 
from  the  funds  employed  in  trade,  and  fnmish  an 
annual  charge  against  the  establishment  of  £5,000. 
This  annual  loss  being  sustained  by  the  Treasury, 
pursuant  to  appropriations  for  the  pay  of  the  Super- 
intendent and  his  assistants,  is  a  loss  to  the  Govern- 
ment but  not  to  the  concern,  in  the  diminution  of 
its  capital,  which,  under  all  circumstances,  remains 
stationary. 

The  act  passed  29th  of  April,  1816,  giving  to  tho 
President  the  discretionary  power  of  licensing  foreign- 
ers to  a  participation  in  the  Indian  trade,  is  less  ex- 
ceptionable in  theory  than  -in  practice.  With  all  the 
guards  of  the  act  and  precautions  of  the  Executive, 
it  has  been  found  impracticable,  under  dispensing 
power,  to  avoid  the  admission  of  men  of  vicious  hab- 
its, whose  conduct  tends  to  interrupt  the  peace  and 
harmony  of  the  United  States  and  the  Indian  tribes ; 
nor  can  such  be  introduced  while  the  door  is  left  open 
to  foreign  traders;  either  admit  or  exclude  all.  A 
system  partial  in  its  character  will,  by  inhibiting  a 
worthy  applicant,  do  him  injustice ;  and,  by  permit- 
ting the  fraudulent  speculator,  the  savage  for  whom 
the  provision  is  made  and  the  country  are  wronged. 
The  Executive  must  rely  on  recommendations  in  tho 
exercise  of  the  power  deposited  with  him,  and,  no 
doubt,  is  often  deceived  in  the  character  of  persona 
recommended  to  Presidential  patronage. 

MONDAY,  January  26. 
Two  other  members,  to  wit :  from  Massachu- 


DEBATES  OF  CONGRESS. 


107 


JASUAKT,    1818.] 


Fugitives  from  Justice  and  Service. 


[H.  OF  R. 


setts,  Jonx  WILSOX,  and  from  North  Carolina, 
JAMES  STEWART,  appeared,  produced  their  cre- 
dentials, were  qualified,  and  took  their  seats. 


TUESDAY,  January  27. 

Mr.  WILLIAMS,  of  Connecticut,  presented  the 
petition  of  Elizabeth  Eaton,  the  widow  of  the 
late  General  William  Eaton,  stating  the  services 
and  sacrifices  of  her  late  husband  in  the  public 
service,  the  poverty  in  which  he  left  her  and 
her  children,  the  loss  of  two  of  her  sons,  one  in 
the  naval  and  the  other  in  the  military  service 
of  the  United  States,  and  praying  that  some 
provision  may  be  made  for  her  maintenance, 
and  for  the  support  and  education  of  the  chil- 
dren of  the  said  General  Eaton. — Referred  to 
the  Committee  on  Military  Affairs. 

Mr.  CLAIBORNE  presented  a  remonstrance  of 
Andrew  Jackson,  in  behalf  of  himself  and  in 
right  of  his  wife,  and  as  agent  for  the  heirs  and 
representatives  of  Colonel  John  Donelson,  de- 
ceased, stating,  that  by  the  act  of  the  State  of 
Georgia,  of  the  20th  February,  1784,  the  said 
Donelson  was  appointed  one  of  the  commission- 
ers for  laying  out  a  new  county,  in  the  Big 
Bend  of  the  Tennessee  river,  for  which  services 
he  became  entitled  to  a  large  tract  of  land  lying 
in  said  county,  which  they  have  been  unable  to 
obtain,  for  reasons  set  forth  in  the  petition,  and 
soliciting  a  conveyance  thereof  to  him,  and  the 
rest  of  the  heirs  of  said  Donelson ;  which  was 
referred  to  a  select  committee ;  and  Mr.  CLAI- 
BORXE,  Mr.  COBB,  Mr.  HOGG,  Mr.  SETTLE,  and 
Mr.  CRAWFORD,  were  appointed  the  committee. 

Mr.  CLAIBORNE  also  presented  a  similar  peti- 
tion of  George  W.  Sevier,  for  and  in  behalf  of 
himself  and  the  other  heirs  and  representatives 
of  the  late  General  John  Sevier,  deceased; 
which  was  referred  to  the  committee  last  ap- 
pointed. 

Fugitives  from  Justice  and  Service. 

The  order  of  the  day  on  the  bill  "  respecting 
fugitives  from  justice,  and  persons  escaping 
from  the  service  of  their  masters,"  having  been 
announced — 

Mr.  RICH  moved  to  commit  the  bill  to  a  dif- 
ferent committee,  with  a  view  of  considering 
the  propriety  of  certain  amendments.  After 
some  little  discussion,  the  motion  was  negatived. 

The  House  then  resolved  itself  into  a  Com- 
mittee of  the  Whole  on  the  bill. 

The  question  was  on  an  amendment  proposed 
by  Mr.  RICH  to  the  bill,  which  has  for  its  object 
the  preventing  the  transportation,  in  any  man 
ner,  of  any  negro,  mulatto,  or  person  of  color, 
without  having  previously  carried  the  same  be- 
fore some  judge  or  justice  of  a  court  of  record, 
and  giving  sufficient  proof  of  their  being  slaves, 
and  the  property  of  the  person  by  whose  au- 
thority they  are  so  removed,  under  the  penalty 
of  a  sum  not  exceeding  ten  thousand  dollars. 

This  amendment  Mr.  STORES  had  proposed  to 
amend,  by  substituting  in  lieu  thereof  a  new 
section,  in  the  following  words: 


"That,  if  any  person  -without  colorable  claim, 
shall  knowingly  and  wilfully  procure  or  cause  to  be 
procured  any  such  certificate  or  warrant,  [of  his 
property  in  any  particular  individual,]  with  intention, 
under  color  or  pretence  thereof,  or  the  provisions  of 
this  act,  to  arrest,  detain,  or  transport,  or  cause  to  bo 
arrested,  detained,  or  transported,  any  person  what- 
soever, not  held  to  labor  or  service  as  aforesaid,  he 
or  she,  on  conviction  thereof,  shall  suffer  imprison- 
ment, not  exceeding  fifteen  years,  or  fined  not  exceed- 
ing five  thousand  dollars,  or  both,  in  the  discretion 
of  the  court  before  whom  such  conviction  shall  be 


Messrs.  STORES  and  PFKDALL  advocated  the 
amendment  to  the  amendment,  on  the  ground 
of  the  difficulty  of  the  subject,  the  very  magni- 
tude of  which  was  a  sufficient  reason,  it  was 
said,  why  it  should  not  be  appended  to  this  bill, 
but  ought  to  be  made  the  subject  of  a  separate 
act. 

Mr.  RICH  vindicated  his  own  amendment,  on 
the  ground  of  the  enormity  of  the  crime  of  kid- 
napping, repeated  cases  of  which  had  occurred, 
and  which  appeared  to  him  to  require  the  in- 
terposition of  the  Legislature. 

The  amendment  to  the  amendment  was 
agreed  to,  and  then  incorporated  in  the  bill,  by 
a  considerable  majority. 

Mr.  CLAGETT  said  he  should  make  but  few 
remarks  upon  this  occasion.  Since  this  bill  has 
been  under  discussion,  said  he,  I  have  given  it 
due  attention,  but  have  not  been  able  to  per- 
ceive a  satisfactory  reason  for  its  passage ;  nor 
am  I  without  surprise  that  it  should  have  so 
many  advocates.  The  law  of  1793,  in  pursu- 
ance of  the  2d  sect.  4th  art.  of  the  constitution, 
enacts,  "  that  when  a  person,  held  to  labor  or 
service  in  any  of  the  United  States,  or  in  either 
of  the  Territories,  under  the  laws  thereof,  shall 
escape  into  any  other  of  the  said  States  or  Ter- 
ritories, the  person  to  whom  such  labor  or  ser- 
vice may  be  due,  his  agent  or  attorney,  shall 
have  power  to  seize  or  arrest  such  fugitive,  and 
take  him  or  her  before  any  judge  of  a  circuit  or 
district  court  of  the  United  States,  residing  or 
being  within  the  State,  or  before  any  magistrate 
of  a  county,  city,  or  town  corporate,  wherein 
such  seizure  or  arrest  shall  have  been  made, 
and  upon  proof,  to  the  satisfaction  of  such  judge 
or  magistrate,  that  the  person  so  seized,  doth, 
under  the  haws  of  the  State  from  whence  he 
fled,  owe  service  or  labor  to  the  person  claiming 
him,  it  shall  be  the  duty  of  such  judge  or  magis- 
trate to  give  a  certificate  thereof  to  such  claim- 
ant, which  shall  be  a  sufficient  warrant  for  re- 
moving such  fugitive  to  the  State  from  whence 
he  fled."  And,  by  the  same  law,  any  person 
who  shall  obstruct  such  claimant  in  seizing  a 
fugitive,  or  rescue  him  after  seizure,  or  harbor 
or  conceal  him,  knowing  him  to  be  a  fugitive, 
shall  incur  a  penalty  of  five  hundred  dollars  to 
the  use  of  such  claimant,  and  be  also  liable  to 
the  party  for  all  other  damages  by  him  sus- 
tained. Sir,  however  I  may  differ  in  opinion 
from  some  honorable  gentlemen  upon  the  ques- 
tion of  right  to  this  service,  abstractly  cousid- 


108 


ABRIDGMENT  OF  THE 


H.  OF  R.] 


Fugitives  from  Justice  and  Service. 


[JANUARY,  1818. 


ered,  I  do  not  hesitate  to  say,  that  the  clause  of 
the  constitution,  under  which  we  legislate,  is 
imperative — that  it  is  a  part  of  a  solemn  com- 
pact between  the  several  States  in  the  Union, 
and  we  are  bound  to  carry  it  into  complete  ef- 
fect. But  does  not  the  law  cited  secure  to  the 
claimants  all  the  rights  which  the  constitution 
guaranteed  to  them?  Certainly  it  does.  By 
the  law  now  in  force,  the  claimant  may,  in  the 
first  instance,  without  a  warrant,  arrest  the  fu- 
gitive, and  carry  him  before  a  tribunal  for  ex- 
amination. This  is  a  great  latitude,  and  there  is 
danger  of  an  abuse  of  this  power  to  the  injury 
of  the  free  citizen,  who  may  never  appear  be- 
fore such  tribunal  1  If  any  amendment  of  this 
law  be  necessary,  it  is  to  restrain  the  claimant 
from  an  abuse  of  power ;  but  no  such  amend- 
ment has  been  proposed.  The  courts  of  the 
United  States  are  the  only  proper  tribunals  to 
take  cognizance  of  the  subject;  and  magistrates 
of  a  State,  as  such,  are  not  bound  by  your  law. 
Why,  then,  make  this  amendment  ? 

But,  sir,  while  we  are  scrupulously  guarding 
from  encroachments  one  clause  of  our  constitu- 
tion, let  us  be  cautious  lest  we  infract  another, 
equally  important.  It  is  not  only  my  duty,  but 
my  sincere  desire,  to  preserve  every  part  of  this 
sacred  instrument,  upon  which  our  national 
happiness  depends.  And  now,  sir,  let  me  so- 
licit your  attention  to  the  9th  sect,  of  the  1st 
art.  of  this  constitution,  in  these  words:  "The 
privilege  of  the  writ  of  habeas  corpus  shall  not 
be  suspended,  unless  when,  in  cases  of  rebellion 
or  invasion,  the  public  safety  may  require  it." 
Will  not  this  bill,  if  it  pass  into  a  law,  virtually 
suspend  the  writ  of  habeas  corpus — at  least  its 
efiect  ?  In  my  opinion  it  will :  for  this  bill  pro- 
vides, if  sxich  writ  issue,  and  it  shall  appear, 
upon  its  return,  that  the  supposed  fugitive  was 
arrested  under  this  law,  (and  it  may  be  by  or- 
der of  a  justice  of  the  peace,)  such  fugitive  shall 
be  remanded  into  the  custody  of  the  officer  who 
arrested  him. 

For  these  reasons,  sir,  I  shall  give  a  negative 
vote  to  the  bill  on  your  table. 

Mr.  PINDALL  said,  the  bill  professes  to  impose 
a  duty,  to  be  performed  by  stated  judges,  in  re- 
lation to  the  recovery  of  runaway  slaves.  The 
enactment  of  the  bill  does  not,  it  is  said,  imply 
what  the  opinion  of  the  House  or  the  friends  of 
the  bill  may  be  on  the  question  of  the  power  of 
Congress  to  impose  any  other  duties  on  the 
State  courts. 

A  gentleman  mentioned,  during  the  debate, 
as  an  objection  to  the  bill,  that  it  imposed  du- 
ties upon  State  judges  and  officers,  to  which 
Mr.  PIXDAXL  (the  chairman  of  the  committee 
that  reported  the  bill)  replied,  that  those  who 
believed  this  subject  involved  the  broad  ques- 
tion, whether  Congress  had  the  right  in  all 
cases  to  require  the  execution  of  its  laws 
through  the  instrumentality  of  State  officers, 
would,  if  so  disposed,  be  able  to  say  much  in 
favor  of  the  power.  Indeed,  some  might  con- 
tend, with  plausibility,  that  the  question  ought 
to  be  considered  as  settled ;  or  an  argument  tho 


same  or  similar  to  that  derived  from  what  has 
been  called  contemporaneous  practice,  might  be 
deduced  from  the  earliest  acts  of  this  Govern- 
ment. Congress  had  repeatedly  passed  laws 
depending  for  their  execution  on  State  courts. 
This  consideration  might,  in  the  estimation  of 
some  gentlemen,  weigh  against  the  objection  of 
the  member  from  Massachusetts,  but  he  (Mr. 
P.)  did  not  rely  upon  it. 

He  said  it  was  possible  that  the  framers  of 
the  constitution  did  not  wish  that  the  right  of 
Congress  to  impose  duties  upon  State  officers 
should  be  coextensive  with  the  powers  of  legis- 
lation granted  by  that  instrument,  and  yet  may 
have  intended  that  such  a  power  should  exist 
in  some  cases,  or  under  some  circumstances. 
Although  he  would  not  intermeddle  with  the 
abstract  inquiry,  whether  Congress  could,  in  all 
its  legislative  province,  impose  upon  a  judicial 
or  ministerial  State  officer  an  obligation  to  exe- 
cute the  laws  of  the  Union,  he  would  insist  on 
his  right  to  exercise  the  power  in  the  instance 
contemplated  by  the  bill.  The  clause  of  the 
constitution  on  which  the  bill  rested,  declared 
that  no  person,  held  to  service  or  labor  in  one 
State,  under  the  laws  thereof,  escaping  into 
another,  shall,  in  consequence  of  any  law  or 
regulation  therein,  be  discharged  from  such 
service  or  labor,  but  shall  be  delivered  up  on 
the  claim  of  the  party  to  whom  such  service  or 
labor  may  be  due.  This  clause,  he  said,  was  a 
regulation  between  the  respective  States,  con- 
ferring rights  on  some  States  and  obligations  on 
others;  but  the  right,  when  exerted  for  the 
benefit  of  the  slaveholder,  manifests  itself  by 
means  of  the  laws  of  his  State ;  for  the  clause 
just  quoted  speaks  of  persons  held  to  labor  in 
one  State,  under  the  laws  thereof.  The  laws  of 
the  State  are  made  known,  interpreted,  and  ex- 
pounded by  the  official  acts  and  decisions  of 
State  judges  and  officers. 

Again :  the  slave,  taking  refuge  in  another 
State,  shall  le  delivered  up.  This  duty  of  de- 
livering up  the  slave  is  not  imposed  on  private 
men  or  individuals,  as  in  a  state  of  nature,  or  it 
might  never  be  performed ;  besides,  private 
men  are  not  necessarily  supposed  to  have  the 
slave  in  their  possession  or  power.  The  duty 
of  delivering  up  the  slave  is  imposed  on  the 
State,  and  the  State,  as  all  other  civil  or  social 
political  powers,  necessarily,  or  at  least  usually, 
acts  by  the  intervention  of  its  officers. 

It  being  thus  shown,  in  regard  to  this  clause 
of  the  constitution,  that  a  right  and  correspond- 
ing obligation  are  established  between  different 
States,  which,  by  ordinary  interpretation,  de- 
pend for  their  development  and  exercise  upon 
the  proper  officers  of  each  State  ;  and  it  being 
admitted  on  all  sides  that  Congress  has  the 
power  to  regulate  the  due  exercise  of  that  right, 

it  follows  that  Congress  can  make  a  law  to 
regulate  the  conduct  of  these  State  officers  in 
the  performance  of  their  duty. 

Further  debate  took  place  on  the  bill,  and  on 
an  amendment  proposed  by  Mr.  BALDWIN. 


DEBATES  OF  CONGRESS. 


109 


JANUARY,  1818.] 


Fugitives  from  Justice  and  Service. 


[H.  OF  R. 


Mr.  FULLER  then,  after  an  ingenious  speech 
of  considerable  length,  moved  to  strike  out  the 
first  section  of  the  bill,  with  a  view  to  destroy 
it  entirely,  on  the  ground  that  it  transcended 
the  constitutional  provisions  on  the  subject. 
He  also  took  exceptions  to  various  features  of 
the  bill. 

Mr.  STRONG,  in  a  more  decided  manner,  ex- 
pre^t-d  his  opposition  to  the  bill,  on  the  ground 
that  the  act  already  in  existence  on  that  subject 
had  gone  full  far  enough  in  carrying  into  exe- 
cution the  constitutional  provision  on  that  sub- 
ject, which  he  regarded  as  a  compact,  the  mode 
of  executing  which  the  non-slaveholding  States 
had  reserved,  and  were  at  liberty  to  judge  of 
when  proposed  to  them,  &c. 

Mr.  COBB  replied  to  the  two  gentlemen  from 
Massachusetts,  vindicating  the  rights  of  the 
holders  of  that  description  of  property,  as  se- 
cured by  the  constitution,  as  inalienable,  and  as 
inviolable  on  any  pretext  by  those  who  were 
averse  to  the  toleration  of  slavery,  &c. 

Mr.  STRONG  rejoined. 

Mr.  HOPKIXSOS  stated  certain  objections  to 
the  form  of  this  bill,  under  which  he  thought  it 
possible  that  freemen  might  be  apprehended  as 
slaves,  without  the  necessary  means  of  redress. 

Mr.  HOLMES,  of  Massachusetts,  made  some 
remarks,  of  a  nature  conciliatory  to  the  preju- 
dices existing  on  both  sides  of  this  question,  and 
intimated  that,  though  he  was  not  in  favor  of 
all  the  provisions  of  this  bill,  he  should  vote 
against  striking  out  the  first  section,  because  he 
thought  that  the  bill  might  be  so  moulded  as  to 
be  unobjectionable  to  any. 

Mr.  CLAY  (Speaker)  then  engaged  in  the  de- 
bate, being  called  up  by  the  peculiar  interest 
which  the  State  of  which  he  is  a  representative 
has  in  the  passage  of  the  bill.  The  nature  of 
slave  property,  its  evils,  and  the  rights  of  its 
possessors,  were  illustrated  with  great  force, 
and  the  necessity  for  the  passage  of  an  act  of 
this  sort  sustained  by  many  arguments,  in  a 
speech  of  considerable  length. 

Mr.  BALDWIN  rose  on  the  question  of  con- 
struction which  had  been  given  by  some  gentle- 
men to  the  constitutional  provision ;  which,  he 
contended,  conferred  on  Congress  full  power  to 
legislate  on  the  subject,  so  as  to  give  the  strong- 
est security  to  the  holders  of  slave  property. 

The  motion  to  strike  out  the  first  section  was 
negatived  by  a  large  majority. 

Some  further  amendments  having  been  made 
to  the  bill,  the  committee  rose,  and  reported  the 
bill  as  amended,  and  the  House  adjourned. 


THURSDAY,  January  29. 
Fugitives  from  Justice  and  Service. 
The  House  having  resumed  the  consideration 
of  the  bill  to  amend  the  act,  entitled  "  An  act  re- 
specting fugitives  from  justice,  and  persons  es- 
caping from  the  service  of  their  masters" — 

Mr.  RICH  moved  to  recommit  the  bill  to  the 
committee  to  whom  has  been  referred  the  me- 
morial of  the  annual  meeting  of  the  Society  of 


Friends  at  Baltimore,  with  a  view  of  so  amend- 
ing the  bill  as  to  guard  more  effectually  the 
rights  of  free  persons  of  color.  This  motion  he 
enforced  by  urging  the  oppressions  to  which 
these  people  were  now  subjected,  and  the  neces- 
sity of  some  regulation  on  the  subject,  which  he 
thought  might  be  very  properly  connected  with 
this  bill. 

Mr.  PINDALL  objected  to  the  recommitment, 
especially  as  the  House  had  already  once  de- 
cided against  doing  so,  on  the  same  ground  of 
the  want  of  necessary  connection  of  the  proposed 
amendment  with  the  bill. 

Mr.  SMITH,  of  Maryland,  suggested  that  the 
subject  of  the  protection  of  free  people  of  color, 
being  of  a  distinct  nature  from  this,  was  already 
before  a  committee,  who  would  without  doubt 
make  a  special  report  on  the  subject.  Under 
this  impression,  Mr.  8.  said  he  should  vote 
against  the  motion  for  recommitment. 

Mr.  RHEA  was  also  opposed  to  the  recommit- 
ment, and  made  some  general  remarks  respect- 
ing slavery,  in  the  course  of  which  he  intimated 
his  opinion  that  the  Government  had  shown  its 
aversion  to  slavery  in  every  manner  in  its 
power,  and  could  not  do  more,  unless  by  an  ar- 
bitrary abolition  of  slavery,  which  no  one 
would  propose.  If  slavery  must  exist,  as  guar- 
anteed by  the  constitution,  he  was  surprised 
at  the  opposition  made  to  ridding  it  of  some  of 
ita  evils,  by  preventing  escapes,  &c. 

Mr.  LIVEBMOBE  said,  although  not  favorable 
to  the  bill,  he  should  vote  against  a  recommit- 
ment, because  he  wished  that  those  who  were 
friendly  to  the  bill  might  have  the  opportunity, 
by  amendment,  to  make  it  as-  perfect  as  pos- 
sible. 

Mr.  "W.  P.  MAOLAY  was  in  favor  of  recom- 
mitment. Admitting  the  force  of  the  constitu- 
tional provision,  which  secured  the  right  of 
proprietors  to  reclaim  their  runaway  slaves, 
he  was  not  for  going  further  than  necessary ; 
and  appeared  moreover  to  be  highly  impressed 
with  the  importance  of  connecting  with  this 
bill  a  provision  to  prevent  the  apprehension  of 
free  persons  of  color,  under  pretence  of  their 
being  slaves. 

The  question  on  recommitment  of  the  bffl 
was  decided  in  the  negative,  without  a  divi- 
sion. 

Further  debate  took  place  on  the  question 
of  concurrence  in  some  of  the  amendments 
made  to  the  bill  in  the  Committee  of  the  Whole, 
and  on  several  other  amendments  proposed,  in 
the  course  of  which  Messrs.  PINDALL,  SERGEANT, 
SPENCER,  BALDWIN,  RICH,  TERBY,  BEECHEB, 
and  others,  actively  exerted  themselves. 

Mr.  SERGEANT  made  a  proposition,  having  in 
view  to  materially  change  the  nature  of  the 
bill  by  making  judges  of  the  State  in  which  the 
apprentices,  slaves,  &c.,  are  seized,  the  tribunal 
to  decide  the  fact  of  slavery,  instead  of  the 
judges  of  the  States  whence  the  fugitives  have 
escaped.  This  was  negatived  by  a  large  ma- 
jority. 

Mr.  RICH  made  several  successive  attempts 


110 


ABRIDGMENT  OF  THE 


H.  OF  R.] 


Fugitives  from  Justice  and  Service. 


[JANUARY,  1818. 


to  procure  amendments  to  the  bill,  relaxing 
some  of  its  provisions,  which  were  successively 
negatived. 

The  debate,  though  not  very  interesting,  was 
zealously  persisted  in  to  a  late  hour. 

The  question  being  on  ordering  the  bill  to  a 
third  reading — 

A  motion  was  made  by  Mr.  "W.  P.  MAOLAT 
to  postpone  the  bill  to  Monday  next;  which 
motion  was  negatived — 79  to  62. 

After  two  or  three  ineffectual  motions  to  pro- 
cure an  adjournment,  and  to  further  amend 
the  bill— 

The  question  was  at  length  taken,  "  Shall  the 
bill  be  engrossed,  and  read  a  third  time  ?"  and 
deckled,  by  yeas  and  nays : — For  the  bill  86, 
against  it  55,  as  follows: 

YEAS. — Messrs.  Abbott,  Anderson  of  Kentucky, 
Austin,  Baldwin,  Ball,  Bassett,  Bayley,  Beecher, 
Bellinger,  Bloomfield,  Blount,  Bryan,  Harwell,  Camp- 
bell, Claiborne,  Cobb,  Cook,  Crawford,  Cruger,  De- 
sha,  Drake,  Earle,  Edwards,  Ellicott,  Ervin  of  South 
Carolina,  Floyd,  Forney,  Forsyth,  Garnett,  Hall  of 
Delaware,  Hall  of  North  Carolina,  Harrison,  Hogg, 
Holmes  of  Massachusetts,  Hubbard,  Johnson  of  Vir- 
ginia, Johnson  of  Kentucky,  Lewis,  Linn,  Little, 
Lowndes,'McLane,  McCoy,  Marchand,  Marr,  Mason 
of  Massachusetts,  Middleton,  Moore,  Mumford,  H. 
Nelson,  Nesbitt,  Newton,  Owen,  Palmer,  Patterson, 
Peter,  Pindall,  Pleasants,  Poindexter,  Porter,  Quarles, 
Reed,  Rhea,  Ringgold,  Robertson  of  Kentucky,  Rug- 
gles,  Sampson,  Sawyer,  Settle,  Slocumb,  S.  Smith, 
Ballard  Smith,  Alexander  Smyth,  Southard,  Speed, 
Spencer,  Stewart  of  North  Carolina,  Storrs,  Strother, 
Stuart,  Tompkins,  Trimble,  Tucker  of  South  Caro- 
lina, Walker  of  North  Carolina,  Williams  of  North 
Carolina,  and  Wilson  of  Massachusetts. 

NAYS.— Messrs.  Adams,  Allen  of  Massachusetts, 
Allen  of  Vermont,  Bateman,  Bennett,  Boss,  Butler, 
Clagett,  Crafts,  Culbreth,  Folger,  Hale,  Hendricks, 
Herrick,  Hitchcock,  Holmes  of  Connecticut,  Hopkin- 
son,  Hunter,  Huntington,  Ingham,  Irving  of  New 
York,  Kinsey,  Lawyer,  Livermore,  W.  Maclay,  W. 
P.  Maclay,  Merrill,  Morton,  Murray,  Jeremiah  Nel- 
son, Orr,  Parrott,  Pawling,  Rice,  Rich,  Richards, 
Savage,  Scudder,  Sergeant,  Seybert,  Sherwood,  Sils- 
bee,  Spangler,  Strong,  Tarr,  Taylor,  Terry,  Upham, 
Wallace,  Wendover,  Williams  of  Connecticut,  Williams 
of  New  York,  Wilkin,  and  Wilson  of  Pennsylvania. 

The  bill  was  then  ordered  to  be  read  the  third 
time  to-morrow. 

FRIDAY,  January  80. 
Fugitives  from  Justice  and  Service. 

The  House  having  resumed  the  consideration 
of  the  bill  providing  for  the  recovery  of  fugitive 
slaves,  and  the  question  having  been  announced 
to  be  on  the  passage  of  the  bill — 

Mr.  ADAMS,  of  Massachusetts,  opposed  the  bill 
at  much  length ;  on  the  ground  principally  that, 
in  guaranteeing  the  possession  of  skve  property 
to  those  States  holding  it,  the  constitution 
did  not  authorize  or  require  the  General  Gov- 
ernment to  go  as  far  as  this  bill  proposed,  to 
render  the  constitutional  provision  effectual; 
that  the  bill  contained  provisions  dangerous  to 
the  liberty  and  safety  of  the  free  people  of  color 


in  other  sections  in  the  Union ;  and  that,  in  se- 
curing the  rights  of  one  portion  of  the  commu- 
nity, he  could  not  consent  to  jeopardize  those  of 
another. 

Mr.  ANDERSON,  of  Kentucky,  spoke  some  time 
very  earnestly  in  support  of  the  bill,  and  in  re- 
ply to  the  objections  urged  by  the  gentlemen 
who  had  at  different  times  opposed  it. 

Mr.  LIVERMORE,  of  New  Hampshire,  submit- 
ted the  reasons  for  his  intention  to  vote  against 
the  bill.  He  was  willing  to  go  to  the  necessary 
extent  in  securing  to  the  owners  of  this  species 
of  property,  permitted  as  it  was  by  the  consti- 
tution; but  the  bill  contained  no  sufficient 
guard  to  the  safety  of  those  colored  people  who 
resided  in  the  States  where  slavery  was  known 
only  by  name.  The  bill  provided  that  alleged 
fugitives  were  not  to  be  identified  and  proven 
until  they  reached  the  State  in  which  the  per- 
son seizing  them  resided ;  and  this  would  ex- 
pose the  free  men  of  other  parts  to  the  hazard 
of  being  dragged  from  one  extreme  of  the  coun- 
try to  the  other — though  this  fear  was  not 
strengthened  by  any  want  of  respect  for  the 
wisdom  and  justice  of  the  Southern  judiciaries, 
to  which  he  paid  the  highest  compliment ;  but 
the  feelings  entertained  on  the  subject  in  the 
South,  he  feared,  would  make  less  secure  the 
liberty  of  any  colored  man  carried  there,  and 
charged  with  being  a  fugitive. 

Mr.  MASON,  of  Massachusetts,  delivered  at 
length  his  motives  for  approving  the  bill.  The 
constitution,  formed  in  the  spirit  of  compro- 
mise, had  guaranteed  this  kind  of  property  to 
the  Southern  States,  and  as  it  appeared  from 
the  insufficiency  of  the  existing  laws,  that  the 
proposed  bill  was  necessary  to  secure  this  right, 
he  was  willing  to  adopt  the  measure,  as  he  was 
always  willing  to  approve  any  measure  to  effect 
what  the  constitution  sanctioned.  The  possible 
abuse  of  any  thing  was  no  argument  against  it, 
if  otherwise  expedient,  and  on  this  ground  he 
was  not  prepared  to  reject  the  feature  of  the 
bill  so  much  opposed.  The  judicial  tribunals 
of  the  South,  he  had  no  doubt,  would  decide 
on  the  cases  as  correctly  as  those  of  the  North, 
and  on  this  subject  perhaps  more  so,  as,  he  be- 
lieved, so  strong  was  the  feeling  on  this  subject 
in  the  latter  section  of  the  country,  and  so  great 
a  leaning  was  there  against  slavery,  that  the 
juries  of  Massachusetts  would,  in  ninety-nine 
cases  in  a  hundred,  decide  in  favor  of  the  fugi- 
tive. His  feelings  on  this  bill  were  also  some- 
what interested ;  as  he  wished  not,  by  denying 
just  facilities  for  the  recovery  of  fugitive  slaves, 
to  have  the  town  where  he  lived  (Boston)  in- 
fested, as  it  would  be,  without  an  effectual  re- 
straint, with  a  great  portion  of  the  runaways 
from  the  South. 

Mr.  HOLMES,  of  Massachusetts,  followed  his 
colleague  in  submitting  his  reasons  for  approv- 
ing the  bill,  and  to  reconcile  the  apparent  con- 
tradiction in  a  gentleman  from  his  part  of  the 
country  appearing  as  the  supporter  of  this  bill. 
Eis  course  on  this,  as  on  other  measures,  was 
based  on  his  duty  as  a  Eepresontative  for  the 


DEBATES  OF  CONGRESS. 


Ill 


JANUARY,  1818.] 


Fugitives  from  Justice  and  Service, 


[H.  OF  R. 


whole  Union,  instead  of  local  interests.  This 
measure,  it  appeared,  was  necessary  to  secure 
the  constitutional  rights  of  a  large  portion  of  the 
States ;  and,  as  to  the  provision  so  strongly  ob- 
jected to  by  some  gentlemen,  he  did  not  think 
it  competent  in  Massachusetts  to  try  a  question 
between  a  Southern  master  and  his  slave;  it 
was  a  kind  of  question,  with  which  his  constit- 
uents, to  their  honor,  were  not  familiar,  and 
he  wished  them  to  remain  so.  He  did  not  be- 
lieve the  freedom  of  a  single  man  in  the  North 
would  be  endangered  by  this  provision  of  the 
bill ;  the  habeas  corpus  would  prevent  it ;  and 
he  went  into  various  arguments  to  prove  that 
the  bill  was  expedient,  and  free  from  the  evils 
apprehended  by  other  gentlemen. 

Mr.  RHEA  made  some  observations  in  support 
of  the  bill,  and  in  reply  to  the  arguments  against 
it.  So  long  as  this  property  was  authorized, 
there  could  be  no  doubt  of  the  right  of  the 
holder  to  pursue  it,  and  carry  it  back  without 
hindrance  to  the  place  from  whence  it  escapes. 
He  thanked  Heaven  this  nation  was  not  charge- 
able with  the  odium  of  introducing  this  species 
of  property ;  it  was  an  evil  entailed  on  it ;  and 
this  bUl  was  in  conformity  with  the  principles 
of  the  compact  which  guaranteed  this  property 
to  its  holders.  There  was  little  danger  of  per- 
sons going  from  the  South  to  claim  free  men  as 
their  property ;  such  a  fear  was  without  founda- 
tion. He  always  felt  pain  in  hearing  distinc- 
tions made  between  the  slaveholding  States 
and  others ;  nearly  all  the  old  original  thirteen 
States  had  held  slaves,  and,  if  circumstances 
had  enabled  some  of  them  to  get  rid  of  the 
evil,  the  only  feeling  they  ought  to  entertain 
towards  the  others,  is  compassion  that  they  are 
not  so  fortunate. 

Mr.  STORES,  of  New  York,  entered  into  a 
number  of  arguments  in  support  of  the  bill. 
He  referred  to  and  reasoned  on  the  words  of 
the  constitution,  to  show  that  the  bill  was  con- 
sonant to  its  provisions,  and  did  not  exceed  the 
limits  within  which  Congress  were  authorized 
to  legislate  on  the  subject.  He  expressed  his 
pleasure  at  the  liberality  which  had  been  mani- 
fested by  some  hi  its  discussion,  but  should  like 
to  see  a  little  more  displayed  by  gentlemen  from 
the  North,  as  an  evidence  they  were  willing  to 
sacrifice  some  of  their  old  prejudices  to  the 
spirit  of  harmony  and  mutual  benefit 

Mr.  WHITMAN,  of  Massachusetts,  admitted  the 
necessity  of  some  additional  regulations  on  this 
subject,  as  the  existing  law  appeared  inadequate ; 
but  he  could  not  vote  for  this  bill  in  its  present 
shape.  He  objected  to  that  provision,  which 
makes  it  penal  hi  a  State  officer  to  refuse  his 
assistance  in  executing  the  act.  This  feature, 
if  retained,  would  prevent  his  voting  for  the 
bill,  as  its  penalties  would  refaire  the  State 
officers  either  to  resign  or  perform  an  act  which 
might  be  repugnant  to  their  feelings,  and  ren- 
der their  official  stations  frequently  disagree- 
able. Furthermore,  he  did  not  believe  Congress 
had  the  right  to  compel  the  State  officers  to 
perform  this  duty — they  could  only  authorize 


it ;  and,  as  he  believed  the  bill  might  be  made 
effectual  without  this  objectionable  provision, 
he  hoped  it  would  be  recommitted,  and  receive 
the  necessary  modification.  In  reference  to  a 
remark  of  his  colleague,  (Mr.  MASON,)  he  had 
no  doubt  that  justice  would  be  administered 
under  this  act  by  the  tribunals  of  Massachusetts, 
if  the  duty  were  devolved  on  them,  as  impar- 
tially as  in  any  other  part  of  the  Union,  not- 
withstanding the  prejudices  they  felt  on  the  sub- 
ject ;  yet  he  did  not  doubt  that  exact  justice 
would  also  be  rendered  by  the  tribunals  of  the 
South,  where  prejudices  were  felt  of  an  oppo- 
site character. 

Mr.  WILLIAMS,  of  Connecticut,  was  called  up 
by  the  remark  of  Mr;  STORES,  and  admitted 
that  if  he  could  not  and  had  not  banished  all 
his  local  prejudices,  he  ought  to  have  done  so. 
Mr.  W.  then  entered,  at  large,  into  an  examina- 
tion of  the  bill,  into  his  reasons  for  opposing  it 
unless  it  was  altered  in  some  of  its  features,  and 
to  show  that  in  its  present  shape  it  was  calcu- 
lated to  excite  angry  feelings,  and  rouse  strong 
prejudices  hi  those  parts  of  the  country  where 
shivery  was  not  tolerated.  This  effect  would 
be  produced  by  that  provision  under  which  a 
free  man  of  color  might  be  unjustly  seized  and 
dragged  to  a  remote  part  of  the  country,  and 
his  liberty  endangered,  if  not  destroyed.  In 
attempting,  properly,  he  admitted,  to  secure  the 
right  of  property  to  one  class  of  citizens,  it  was 
unjust  that  the  rights  of  another  class  should  be 
put  in  jeopardy,  when,  too,  as  he  contended, 
the  danger  might  be  avoided,  hi  one  case,  with- 
out impairing  the  benefit  hi  the  other.  Al- 
though he  wished  not  to  interfere  between  a 
slave  and  his  master,  yet  he  argued  that  the 
right  ought  to  be  tried  in  the  State  in  which 
the  fugitive  should  be  arrested ;  and  compared 
the  case  to  that  of  a  runaway  apprentice,  who 
could  not  be  seized  and  carried  away  by  the 
ex  parte  testimony  of  the  person  claiming 
turn. 

The  question  on  the  passage  of  the  bill  was 
:hen  taken,  and  decided  hi  the  affirmative — 
yeas  84,  nays  69,  as  follows: 

YEAS.— Messrs.  Abbott,  Anderson  of  Kentucky, 
Austin,  Baldwin,  Bassett,  Bayley,  Bellinger,  Bloom- 
field,  Bryan,  Burwell,  Campbell,  Cobb,  Colston,  Cook, 
Crawford,  Desha,  Drake,  Earle,  Edwards,  Ervin  of 
South  Carolina,  Floyd,  Forney,  Forsyth,  Garnett, 
Hall  of  Delaware,  Hall  of  North  Carolina,  Hasbrouck, 
Herbert,  Herkimer,  Hogg,  Holmes  of  Massachusetts, 
Hubbard,  Johnson  of  Virginia,  Johnson  of  Kentucky, 
Lewis,  Little,  Lowndes,  McLane,  McCoy,  Marchand, 
Marr,  Mason  of  Massachusetts,  Mercer,  Middleton, 
Moore,  Mumford,  H.  Nelson,  Nesbitt,  New,  Newton, 
Ogden,  Owen,  Palmer,  Patterson,  Peter,  Pindall, 
Pleasants,  Poindexter,  Quarles,  Reed,  Rhea,  Ring- 

13  Robertson  of  Kentucky,  Robertson  of  Louisiana, 
,  Sampson,  Settle,  Slocumb,  S.  Smith,  B. 
J.  S.  Smith,  Speed,  Spencer,  Stewart  or 
North 'Carolina,  Storrs,  Strother,  Stuart  of  Marland, 
Tompkins,  Trimble,  Tucker  of  South  Carolina,  Ty- 
ler, Walker  of  North  Carolina,  Williams  of  North 
Carolina,  and  Wilson  of  Massachusetts. 

NATS.— Messrs.  Adams,  Allen  of  Massachusetts, 


112 


ABRIDGMENT  OF  THE 


H.  OF  R.] 


General  St.  Glair. 


[FEBRUARY,  1818. 


Allen  of  Vermont,  Anderson  of  Pennsylvania,  Ball, 
Barber  of  Ohio,  Bateman,  Beecher,  Bennett,  Boden, 
Boss,  Clagett,  Comstock,  Crafts,  Culbreth,  Cushman, 
Folger,  Fuller,  Gage,  Hale,  Hondricks,  Herrick, 
Heister,  Hitchcock,  Hopkinson,  Hunter,  Huntington, 
Ingham,  Irving  of  New  Nork,  Kinsey,  Kirtland,  Law- 
yer, Livermore,  W.  Maclay,  W.  P.  Maclay,  Merrill, 
Morton,  Murray,  Ogle,  Orr,  Parrott,  Pawling,  Pit- 
kin,  Rice,  Rich,  Richards,  Savage,  Scudder,  Ser- 
geant, Seybert,  Shaw,  Sherwood,  Silsbee,  Spangler, 
Strong,  Tallmadge,  Tarr,  Taylor,  Terry,  Townsend, 
Upham,  Wallace,  Wendover,  Whiteside,  Whitman, 
Williams  of  Connecticut,  Williams  of  New  York, 
Wilkin,  and  Wilson  of  Pennsylvania. 

Ordered,  That  the  title  be,  "An  act  to  pro- 
vide for  delivering  up  persons  held  to  labor  or 
service  in  any  of  the  States  or  Territories,  who 
shall  escape  into  any  other  State  or  Territory." 

The  House  adjourned  to  Monday. 


MONDAY,  February  2. 
General  St.  Glair. 

The  House  then,  by  a  small  majority,  re- 
solved itself  into  a  Committee  of  the  "Whole  on 
the  bill  for  the  relief  of  General  Arthur  St. 
Clair. 

This  bill  gave  rise  to  a  discussion  which  oc- 
cupied the  committee  until  sunset,  in  the 
course  of  which  the  motives  of  the  act  of  1810, 
for  the  relief  of  General  St.  Clair,  the  act  of 
limitations,  the  merits  of  the  petitioner,  the 
justice  of  his  claim,  &c.,  were  all  brought  into 
view,  as  well  as  the  propriety  of  various  amend- 
ments offered  to  the  bill. 

Mr.  ERVIN,  of  South  Carolina,  spoke  as  fol- 
lows : — At  the  commencement  of  this  debate, 
I  had  no  idea  of  intruding  any  observations  of 
mine  upon  the  attention  of  this  committee ;  but, 
in  justice  to  my  feelings,  I  cannot  now  be  silent. 
The  integrity  of  the  petitioner  has  been  ques- 
tioned, and  his  account  denounced  as  incorrect. 
It  is  a  case,  now,  not  so  much  of  calculation,  as 
of  feeling,  and  I  address  you  with  mingled  sen- 
sations of  pity  and  regret ;  pity,  for  the  character 
of  this  venerable  Revolutionary  officer,  and  re- 
gret, that  his  claim  should  have  met,  in  this 
House,  with  a  solitary  opponent.  I,  therefore, 
rise,  not  merely  to  defend  the  correctness  of  his 
claim,  but  to  endeavor  to  shield  from  the  tarnish 
of  dishonor  that  fame  which  is  no  longer  his, 
but  the  inheritance  of  his  country.  Send  not, 
I  beseech  you,  his  claim  to  the  Treasury  Depart- 
ment. Many  of  the  vouchers,  which  might 
have  tended  to  evidence  their  correctness,  may 
have  been  lost  through  the  lapse  of  years,  or  the 
casualties  of  war.  Again,  sir,  his  demand  is  for 
the  interest  of  eighteen  hundred  dollars.  In  the 
Treasury  Department  they  allow  no  interest. 
To  send  it  there,  then,  is  tantamount  to  a  rejec- 
tion. But  in  this  House,  which  is,  or  ought  to 
be,  the  fountain  of  general  justice,  the  principle 
to  pay  interest  has  been  adopted,  and  precedents 
are  already  established.  Here,  then,  let  us  de- 
cide upon  their  correctness  or  incorrectness. 
But,  I  am  told,  adopt  the  amendment  proposed 


by  an  honorable  member  from  Georgia,  and  my 
objections  will  be  removed — that  the  proposed 
amendment  gives  to  the  head  of  the  Treasury 
Department  equitable  powers.  Specify  and  de- 
fine those  powers,  that  I  may  judge  of  their 
propriety ;  for,  if  the  powers  thereby  intended 
to  be  given  are  calculated  to  arm  the  head  of 
that  Department  with  discretionary  powers,  to 
admit  or  reject  the  claim,  as  to  him  may  appear 
right  and  proper,  without  being  governed  by  the 
rules  of  office  or  regulations  of  law,  I  am  in  duty 
bound  to  oppose  it.  Not,  sir,  that  I  doubt  the 
talent  or  integrity  of  the  officer  who  presides 
over,  and  confers  honor  upon  that  department, 
but,  because  powers  of  that  description,  in  a 
free  Government,  ought  never  to  be  resorted 
to,  unless  in  cases  of  imperative  necessity. 

I  now  call  your  attention  to  General  St» 
Olair's  claim : — It  is  for  the  interest  of  eighteen 
hundred  dollars,  which,  he  alleges,  he  advanced, 
during  the  Revolutionary  war,  to  Major  Butler 
for  the  United  States,  and  which  sum  was  ex- 
pended for  their  benefit,  and  produces  to  yon 
the  receipt  given  to  him  by  Major  Butler  for 
that  sum.  Duly  to  appreciate  the  value  of  this 
loan,  it  is  only  necessary  to  advert  to  the  time 
when  it  was  made.  It  was  at  the  dawn  of  our 
Revolution,  when  the  liberties  of  our  country 
were  struggling  into  existence.  At  this  inter- 
esting moment,  he  early  and  generously  stepped 
forward  in  their  defence  against  the  unrivalled 
power,  whose  legions  had  humbled  Spain  and 
France,  and  whose  flag  waved  in  proud  triumph 
round  the  universe.  Under  these  appalling  cir- 
cumstances, his  country  sought  him  beyond  the 
mountains,  and  demanded  his  services — he  left 
the  endearment  of  his  family,  and  the  security 
of  private  life,  to  encounter,  for  this  very  coui> 
try,  whose  Government  now  repels  his  claim, 
the  dangers  and  destruction  of  war.  It  is,  how- 
ever, contended,  by  the  honorable  the  Speaker, 
that  this  receipt  admits  of  two  constructions. 
I  admit  the  fact :  but  will  we  consult  the  dig- 
nity, or  even  the  interest  of  our  country,  by 
adopting  a  construction,  which,  whilst  it  debases 
the  individual,  degrades  the  country?  But  I 
contend  that  the  construction  given  to  the  re- 
ceipt, by  the  honorable  the  Speaker,  is  contrary 
to  every  rule  of  construction  with  which  I  am 
acquainted.  He  contends,  with  zeal  and  much 
eloquence,  that  the  money  which  was  advanced, 
and  from  which  the  receipt  was  given,  may 
have  been  public  money  which  had  been  placed 
in  his  hands  by  the  then  Government.  Where 
is  the  evidence  to  prove  that  fact  ?  It  is  very 
material ;  if  such  evidence  does  exist,  the  House 
is  entitled  to  it ;  and  if  none  is  produced,  we 
are  at  liberty  to  presume  that  none  exists. 
Again,  sir,  every  circumstance,  connected  with 
this  interesting  (distressed  Revolutionary  soldier, 
repels  such  an  idea.  He  fought  with  Amherst 
in  the  West,  and  conquered  with  Wolfe  on  thp 
plains  of  Abraham ;  at  Ticonderoga  he  merited, 
if  he  did  not  obtain,  victory ;  he  rose  superior 
to  the  weakness  of  humanity,  and  yielded  hinv 
self  a  sacrifice  to  his  integrity :  he  there  could 


DEBATES  OF  CONGKESS. 


113 


FEBRUARY,  1818.] 


General  St.  Clear. 


[H.  OF  R. 


liave  reaped  bloody  honors,  and,  perhaps,  death- 
less renown,  by  the  destruction  of  a  gallant 
army,  which  afterwards  contributed  to  the  tri- 
umph at  Saratoga;  the" adoption  of  his  advice 
eaved  your  army  at  Trenton ;  he  was  one  of 
your  Major  Generals  during  the  Revolutionary 
war;  he  presided  over  the  former  delibera- 
tions of  your  Congress;  he  was  a  friend  of 
WASHINOTOH,  and  shared  the  confidence  of  that 
great  man  to  the  day  of  his  death.  And  can  it 
be  possible,  that  a  man  thus  elevated,  by  those 
circumstances  which  usually  tend  to  ennoble 
human  character,  can  submit  to  the  degradation 
of  presenting  to  the  Government  of  his  country 
a  false  account  for  the  pitiful  sum  of  four  or  five 
thousand  dollars,  and  he  trembling  on  the  brink 
of  the  grave  ?  The  idea  is  too  debasing,  it  is 
ungenerous — it  ought  not  to  be  entertained  for 
a  moment.  Seven  long  years  he  has  literally 
begged  at  your  doors ;  committees  after  com- 
mittees have  said  his  accounts  ought  to  be  paid. 
If  you  think  otherwise,  reject  them ;  but  why 
win  you  debase  him — why  will  you  add  insult 
to  injury?  Recollect  his  services,  and  0!  let 
his  gray  hairs  pass  in  peace  to  the  grave !  But 
again,  I  have  always  been  taught  to  believe, 
that  it  is  a  correct  rule  of  construction,  when 
an  instrument  of  writing  is  presented  to  you, 
susceptible  of  two  constructions,  you  are  bound 
to  permit  that  construction  to  prevail  which 
will  operate  most  strongly  against  the  obligor, 
and  most  in  favor  of  the  payee  or  obligee. 
Apply  this  rule  of  construction  to  the  case  now 
before  you,  and  further  comment  is  unneces- 
sary, the  conclusion  is  irresistible. 

The  opponents  of  the  claim  tell  us,  if  it  is  re- 
jected, they  will  join  and  vote  him  so  many 
hundred  dollars  a  year.  Mr.  Chairman,  I  have 
no  idea  of  introducing  under  the  garb  of  public 
sympathy,  a  pensioned  corps,  other  than  that 
already  established,  composed  of  unfortunate 
individuals  disabled  in  the  military  or  naval 
service  of  my  country.  Let  us  first  be  just,, 
and,  with  the  public  money,  generous  only  in 
case  of  necessity. 

The  acts  of  limitation  have  been  appealed  to 
as  barring  the  claim  of  the  petitioner.  Sir,  let 
them  bar,  and  prevent  fraud  and  injustice,  but 
not  right,  nor  the  claims  of  Revolutionary  merit 
in  distress.  Let  them  prevail  in  the  depart- 
ments of  the  Government ;  enforce  them,  if  you 
please,  in  the  courts  of  law,  but  in  this  temple 
of  justice  they  are  inoperative — they  vanish  be- 
fore legislative  discretion.  An  honorable  gen- 
tleman from  Pennsylvania,  (Mr.  HOPKIXSOX,) 
whom  I  have  always  listened  to  with  pleasure 
and  edification,  has  anticipated  me  in  one  idea 
in  relation  to  the  act  of  limitation.  He  has 
very  properly  remarked,  that  your  committees 
have  not  only  acknowledged  the  correctness  of 
the  claim,  but  recommended  its  payment,  and 
that  the  House,  acting  upon  that  recommenda- 
tion, have  not  only  sanctioned  their  reports, 
but  have  paid  the  principal  of  the  claim,  which, 
in  legal  contemplation,  takes  the  claim  out  of 
the  act  of  limitation.  It  does  more;  it  not 
VOL.  VI— 8 


only  takes  it  out  of  the  act  of  limitation,  but 
proves  one  of  two  things,  either  that  the  claim 
is  correct,  and  that  the  interest  ought  to  be  paid, 
or  that  the  committees  who  recommended  pay- 
ment, and  the  Congress  which  paid,  paid  an  il- 
legal and  improper  account.  But  I  contend, 
and  hope  I  shall  be  able  to  prove  to  the  satis- 
faction of  this  committee,  that  this  claim  has 
never  been  embraced  by  your  acts  of  limitation. 
Acts  of  limitation  commence  their  operation, 
not  from  the  time  of  making  a  contract,  or  the 
time  of  its  execution,  but  from  the  day  assigned 
for  payment ;  for  example,  a  note  dated  1st  of 
January,  1817,  payable  the  1st  of  January,  1818, 
when  will  an  act  of  limitation  commence  its 
operation  ?  Every  mind  anticipates  the  answer 
— from  the  day  of  payment;  this  principle 
being  established,  let  us  inquire  into  the  nature 
of  General  St.  Clair's  claim :  it  is  of  the  nature 
of  a  debt  payable  on  demand,  which  excludes 
the  idea  of  any  particular  day  of  payment ;  in 
such  cases  a  discretionary  power  is  left  with 
the  payee  or  obligee  to  make  the  demand,  which 
is  evidenced  by  proof  of  a  formal  demand,  or, 
what  is  the  more  usual  way,  by  the  entry  of 
mesne  process  in  the  hands  of  the  sheriff;  in 
either  way  the  act  begins  to  run  only  from  the 
time  of  the  demand.  General  St.  Clair's  claim, 
if  I  am  correctly  informed,  was  presented  in 
1810,  and  has  been  preferred  from  that  time  to 
the  present;  your  acts  of  limitation  therefore 
cannot  affect  it.  The  correctness  of  the  claim 
being  established,  as  his  advocate  in  my  official 
capacity,  I  demand  for  him  the  payment.  And 
how  is  he  paid  ?  Injustice  still  presents  these 
acts  of  limitation — as  a  payment  for  what? 
The  claim?  Yea,  more;  for  sleepless  days  and 
nights ;  for  services  the  most  eminent,  rendered 
at  a  time  which  emphatically  tried  men's  souls; 
when  patriotism  was  denounced  as  treason,  and 
defeat  was  slavery  or  death.  Mr.  Chairman,  if 
the  claim  is  doubtful,  and  if  I  shall  stand  here 
alone,  I  shall  vote  to  relieve  the  distresses  of  the 
Revolutionary  soldier.  Lamented  ingratitude  I 
Thus  have  your  soldiers  been  paid ;  they  who 
fought  for  your  liberties  and  independence. 
After  the  Revolutionary  war,  they  looked  up  to 
their  Government  for  justice;  wounded  and 
disabled  they  performed  an  annual  pilgrimage 
to  your  House ;  year  after  year,  they  petitioned 
for  their  wages ;  at  last,  tired  with  their  com- 
plaints, acts  of  limitation  were  passed ;  just  or 
unjust,  their  claims  were  forever  barred.  Hope, 
the  last  consolation  of  the  miserable,  being  tips 
cut  off,  numbers  retired  beyond  the  mountains 
and  pined  out  a  miserable  existence.  This  ses- 
sion, the  glorious  few  whom  death  had  not  re- 
lieved, driven  by  want,  once  more  approached 
you;  they  dropped  the  tone  of  remonstrance; 
they  assumed  the  accents  of  humanity  and  dis- 
tress, and  begged  for  bread ;  you  felt  the  appeal, 
and,  with  a  promptitude  honorable  to  yourselves 
and  grateful  to  the  people,  you  voted  a  partial 
relief.  Ol  that  they  had  been  made  partakers 
of  the  thousands  that  are  expended  in  which 
the  heart  would  have  united  with  the  judgment 


114 


ABKIDGMENT  OF  THE 


H.  OF  R] 


Death  of  Mr.  Goodwyn. 


[FEBRUARY,  1818. 


in  approving  the  expenditure.  Mr.  Chairman, 
we  have  listened  to  the  prayers  of  the  subaltern, 
let  us  not  discard  the  claim  of  the  chieftain ; 
pay  him  his  account ;  fill  his  heart  with  grati- 
tude; send  comfort  to  the  humble  mansion 
which  now  shelters  him  from  the  rude  storm 
of  the  mountain ;  he  will  thank  you,  and  in  his 
last  moments  will  give  to  his  country  all  that 
he  has  to  give — his  blessing. 

A  motion,  made  by  Mr.  FORSYTH,  to  amend 
the  bill  by  directing  the  accounting  officers  of 
the  Treasury  to  adjust  the  claim  of  General  St. 
Clair,  and  allow  him  the  principal  and  interest 
of  whatever  amount  may  appear  to  be  due,  any 
law  to  the  contrary  notwithstanding,  was  un- 
der consideration,  when  the  committee  rose, 
and  obtained  leave  to  sit  again. 

TUESDAY,  February  3. 

Another  member,  to  wit,  from  Massachu- 
setts, ELIJAH  H.  MILLS,  appeared,  produced  his 
credentials,  and  took  his  seat. 

FRIDAY,  February  6. 
Case  of  George  Mumford. 

Mr.  TAYLOB,  from  the  Committee  of  Elec- 
tions, made  a  report,  accompanied  by  sundry 
documents,  amongst  which  is  a  letter  from  Mr. 
Mumford  to  the  committee  on  the  case  of 
George  Mumford,  a  member  of  this  House 
from  North  Carolina,  whose  right  to  a  seat  has 
been  questioned,  because  he  had  not,  previously 
to  attending  the  House,  resigned  the  office  of 
Principal  Assessor  in  his  district.  The  report 
concludes,  on  the  ground  that  the  duties  and 
compensation  of  the  office  (and  of  course  the 
office  itself)  had  expired,  that  George  Mumford 
is  entitled  to  a  seat  in  the  House. 

The  report  was  read,  and  committed.  It  is 
as  follows : 

The  Committee  of  Elections,  to  which  was  referred 
a  resolution  of  the  House  of  Representatives  of  the 
10th  of  December,  1817,  and  a  Message  of  the  Presi- 
dent of  the  United  States,  of  the  29th  of  the  same 
month,  report : 

That  in  the  year  1813,  subsequent  to  the  passage 
of  the  act  for  the  assessment  and  collection  of  direct 
taxes  and  internal  duties,  George  Mumford  was  ap- 
pointed principal  assessor  of  the  tenth  collection  dis- 
trict of  North  Carolina ;  that  he  accepted  the  said 
office,  and  executed  the  duties  appertaining  thereto, 
tinder  the  several  acts  afterwards  passed,  laying  di- 
rect taxes  upon  the  United  States ;  and  that  he  has 
jiot  resigned  the  said  office. 

In  the  month  of  August,  1817,  he  was  elected  a 
Representative  of  the  said  State ;  and  on  the  first 
day  of  the  present  session  he  was  qualified,  and  took 
his  seat  in  this  House. 

Tbe  act  of  July  22, 1813,  under  which  Mr.  Mum- 
ford  held  his  appointment,  was  prospective  and  with- 
out limitation.  No  law  then  existed  laying  a  direct 
tax.  But  as  Congress  intended  resorting  to  that 
system  of  revenue,  it  was  enacted  "  that,  for  the  pur- 
pose of  assessing  and  collecting  direct  taxes,"  the 
United  States  should  be  divided  into  collection  dis- 
tricts, and  a  principal  assessor  appointed  to  each  dis- 


trict. If  this  act  has  neither  expired  nor  been  re- 
pealed, Mr.  Mumford  is  still  in  office,  and  cannot 
rightfully  be  a  member  of  this  House.  But,  by  the 
second  section  of  the  act,  to  provide  additional  reve- 
nues for  defraying-  the  expenses  of  the  Government, 
and  maintaining  the  public  credit,  by  laying  a  direcf 
tax  upon  the  United  States,  and  to  provide  for  as 
sessing  and  collecting  the  same,  approved  January 
9,  1815,  the  said  act  was  repealed,  except  so  far  as 
the  same  respected  collection  districts,  internal  duties, 
and  the  appointment  and  qualification  of  collectors 
and  assessors ;  in  all  which  respects  it  was  enacted 
that  the  said  act  should  be,  and  continue  in  force  for 
the  purposes  of  the  last-mentioned  act.  The  act  of 
22d  July,  1813,  so  far  as  the  same  was  not  repealed, 
was  thereby  limited  to  the  duration  of  that  act,  and 
was  continued  in  force  only  for  its  purposes.  By 
'that  act  a  direct  tax  of  six  millions  of  dollars  was  an- 
nually laid  upon  the  United  States,  and  apportioned 
agreeably  to  the  provisions  of  the  constitution.  At 
the  first  session  of  the  Fourteenth  Congress  that  act 
was  modified,  by  repealing  so  much  thereof  as  laid 
an  nnnual  tax  of  six  millions,  by  reducing  the  same 
to  three  millions,  and  by  limiting  its  continuance  to 
one  year ;  and  it  was  expressly  enacted  that  all  the 
provisions  of  the  act  of  January  9,  1815,  except  so 
far  as  the  same  had  been  varied  by  subsequent  acts, 
and  except  the  first  section  thereof,  (which  related  to 
the  apportionment  of  the  tax,)  should  be  held  to  ap- 
ply to  the  tax  of  three  millions  thereby  laid.  Thus 
the  act  of  July,  1813,  was  again  limited,  and  con- 
tinued in  force  for  the  purpose  of  the  three  million 
tax,  laid  March  5,  1816.  Whenever  those  purposes 
were  fulfilled,  that  act  expired,  and  of  course  all  of- 
fices created  by  it  ceased  to  exist. 

By  the  letter  of  the  Secretary  of  the  Treasury, 
hereto  annexed,  enclosing  a  report  of  the  Commis- 
sioner of  the  Revenue,  it  appears  that  the  entire  tax 
assessed  in  the  tenth  collection  district  of  North  Car- 
olina, was  accounted  for  previous  to  the  1st  of  De- 
cember, 1817,  and  that  no  official  duty  then  remain- 
ed to  be  performed  by  Mr.  Mumford,  the  principal 
assessor  of  that  district  His  said  office,  therefore, 
expired  previous  to  his  taking  a  seat  in  this  House. 
The  committee,  therefore,  respectfully  submit  the 
following  resolution : 

Resolved,  That  George  Mumford  is  entitled  to  a 
seat  in  this  House. 


MONDAY,  February  9. 

Another  member,  to  wit,  from  the  State  of 
South  Carolina,  ELDRED  SIMKINS,  appeared,  pro- 
duced his  credentials,  was  qualified,  and  took 
his  seat. 


MONDAY,  February  23. 
Death  of  Mr.  Goodwyn. 

After  the  usual  form  of  reading  the  journal 
of  the  preceding  day's  sitting,  Mr.  NEWTON, 
of  Virginia,  rose  to  announce  to  the  House 
the  death  of  his  colleague,  Colonel  PETERSON 
GOODWYN. 

On  me  (said  Mr.  NEWTON)  devolves  the  mel- 
ancholy duty  of  informing  the  House  of  the 
death  of  our  late  worthy  associate,  Mr.  PETER- 
SOX  GOODWYK,  of  Virginia.  Mr.  Goodwyn 
died  at  his  seat  in  Virginia  on  the  21st  of  this 


DEBATES  OF  CONGRESS. 


115 


FEBRUARY,  1818.] 


The  Expatriation  Bill. 


[H.  OF  R. 


month.  He  has  performed  and  finished  his 
duties  here,  and  with  a  clear  conscience,  and 
in  the  full  expectation  of  the  reward  of  his  vir- 
tues, he  has  gone  for  a  time  to  repose  with  his 
ancestors  in  the  tomb.  In  amiableness  of  dis- 
position, in  suavity  of  manners,  in  acts  of  be- 
nevolence and  charity,  in  steadiness  of  friend- 
ship, and  in  love  and  devotion  to  the  repub- 
lican institutions  of  his  country,  he  was  surpass- 
ed by  no  man. 

Mr.  XEWTON  offered  the  following  resolution, 
which  was  unanimously  agreed  to  : 

Resolved,  That  the  members  of  this  House  will  tes- 
tify their  respect  for  the  memory  of  PETERSON  Goo»- 
WTX,  deceased,  late  a  member  of  this  body  from  the 
State  of  Virginia,  by  wearing  crape  on  the  left  arm 
for  one  month. 

Mr.  NEWTON  then  submitted  the  following 
resolution,  which  was  also  unanimously  agreed 
to: 

Resolved,  That  a  message  be  sent  to  the  Senate,  in- 
forming them  that  this  House,  in  testimony  of  their 
respect  for  the  late  Colonel  PETERSON  GOODWYN,  one 
of  their  body  from  the  State  of  Virginia,  have  unani- 
mously resolved  to  wear  crape  on  the  left  arm  for  one 
month. 

And  then,  on  motion  of  Mr.  FOBSYTH,  the 
House  adjourned. 


"WEDNESDAY,  February  25. 
Bankrupt  Bill 

The  House  proceeded  to  the  consideration  of 
the  Bankrupt  biU. 

The  question  being  on  Mr.  EDWAEDS'S  motion, 
to  discharge  the  Committee  of  the  whole  House 
from  the  further  consideration  of  the  bill,  and 
to  postpone  it  indefinitely. 

The  House  having  refused  to  agree  to  a  mo- 
tion for  adjournment,  the  question  on  the  mo- 
tion to  postpone  the  bill  indefinitely  was  taken 
by  yeas  and  nays — yeas  82,  nays  70. 

So  the  House  determined  that  the  bill  be  in- 
definitely postponed,  that  is,  rejected. 


SATUEDAY,  February  28. 
The  Expatriation  Bill. 

The  House  being  thin,  a  motion  was  made  to 
adjourn ;  which  was  lost — ayes  41,  noes  67 — 
and  the  House  then  again  resolved  itself  into  a 
Committee  of  the  "Whole  on  the  Expatriation 
bill. 

The  question  under  consideration  being  the 
motion  to  strike  out  the  first  section  of  the  bill, 
which  was  as  follows  : 

Be  it  enacted,  &c ,  That,  whensoever  any  citizen  of 
the  United  States  shall,  by  a  declaration  in  writing, 
made  and  executed  in  the  district  court  of  the  United 
States,  within  the  State  where  he  resides,  in  open 
court,  to  be  by  said  court  entered  of  record,  declare 
that  he  relinquishes  the  character  of  a  citizen,  and 
shall  depart  out  of  the  United  States,  such  person 
shall,  from  the  time  of  his  departure,  be  considered 
as  haviug  exercised  his  right  of  expatriation,  and 
ehall  thenceforth  be  considered  no  citizen : 


The  debate  on  the  bill,  and  on  topics  incident- 
ally introduced  by  some  of  the  speakers,  occu- 
pied the  remainder  of  the  day.  Messrs.  COBB, 
McLANE,  FOBSYTH,  CLAY,  JOHNSON  of  Virginia, 
and  EOBEETSON  of  Louisiana,  engaged  in  the 
discussion. 

Mr.  McLANE,  of  Delaware,  said,  that  after  the 
observations  which  had  been  made  by  the  other 
gentlemen  who  had  preceded  him  in  debate,  he 
would  not  have  intruded  himself  upon  the  time 
of  the  committee,  but  for  the  purpose  of  sub- 
mitting some  views  of  the  subject  which  did  not 
appear  to  him  to  have  been  yet  given,  and  par- 
ticularly in  relation  to  our  treaty  with  Spain, 
which  had  been  rendered  important  in  this  dis- 
cussion. He  would  therefore  ask  the  indulgence 
of  the  committee  for  a  few  minutes,  while  he 
urged  those  reasons  which  would  induce  him  to 
oppose  the  bill,  and  support  the  motion  to  strike 
out  the  first  section.  He  was  aware  that  this 
was  a  very  favorite  bill  with  the  honorable 
mover,  who,  no  doubt,  anticipated  much  good 
from  a  law  of  the  kind  proposed.  But,  sir,  said 
Mr.  McL.,  if  I  can  succeed  in  convincing  that 
honorable  gentleman  that  Congress  have  not 
the  constitutional  power  to  pass  such  a  law,  and 
that,  if  they  had,  it  would  be  inadequate  to  one 
very  principal  object  anticipated  from  it,  he  will, 
it  is  to  be  presumed,  not  feel  very  anxious  about 
its  fate. 

Mr.  McL.  said  he  would  not,  upon  the  pres- 
ent occasion,  either  affirm  or  deny  the  right  of 
a  citizen  to  expatriate  himself,  because  he  did 
not  conceive  it  to  be  necessary  to  the  argument 
of  the  particular  subject  before  the  committee. 
He  would  content  himself  with  inviting  the  at- 
tention of  gentlemen  generally  to  the  origin  and 
principles  of  the  right,  as  it  had  been  assumed, 
and  upon  which  alone  it  could  exist.  This,  he 
said,  would  be  absolutely  necessary,  in  order  to 
ascertain  the  power  by  which  the  exercise 
of  the  right  could  either  be  controlled  or  reg- 
ulated. 

The  right  of  expatriation,  if  it  exist  at  all,  is  a 
civil  right,  commensurate  with  civil  society  and 
civil  institutions.  In  a  state  of  nature  such  a 
right  could  not  be  known,  because,  in  such  a 
state,  the  relation  of  citizen  and  country  did  not 
exist.  Then  the  inhabitants  of  the  State  were 
not  restricted  to  any  particular  spot,  or  subject- 
ed to  the  control  of  any  community ;  the  wide 
world  was  before  them,  and  they  were  at  liberty 
to  roam  wheresoever  they  pleased,  and  select 
the  place  best  calculated  to  supply  their  wants 
and  comforts,  and  to  change  it  again  whensoever 
they  should  think  proper,  either  from  interest 
or  caprice.  It  was  not  until  they  united  them- 
selves into  societies  and  communities,  in  which 
their  own  self-government  was  merged  in  civil 
institutions,  that  any  restraint  would  be  impos- 
ed upon  this  general  freedom.  In  giving  up 
the  liberties  of  a  state  of  nature,  and  entering 
into  civil  society,  they  necessarily  contracted 
certain  mutual  obligations,  by  which  the  exer- 
cise of  their  natural  rights  would  be  regulated. 
The  individual  contracted  obligations  to  his  com- 


116 


ABKIDGMENT  OF  THE 


H.  OF  R.] 


The  Expatriation  Bill. 


[FEBRUAKY,  1818. 


inanity  or  country,  and  the  community  to  him, 
upon  which  the  safety  of  all  materially  depend- 
ed, and  which  neither  could  disregard  without 
Jeopardizing  that  safety.  He  admitted  that  the 
happiness  of  the  individual  and  the  community 
constitute  the  objects  of  the  association. 

It  is  only  necessary,  therefore,  said  he,  for  the 
present  argument,  for  me  to  insist,  and  to  ask 
gentlemen  to  concede,  what  I  apprehend  will 
not  be  denied,  that  the  exercise  of  this  right 
must  be  consistent  with  these  obligations :  that 
a  citizen  should  not  abandon  his  country  with- 
out good  cause,  or  in  the  necessary  and  lawful 
pursuit  of  happiness ;  that  he  cannot  divest  him- 
self of  his  duties  to  his  country  in  the  hour  of 
her  peril,  nor  sacrifice  all  his  obligations  to  her 
imminent  injury  and  ruin,  and  therefore  that 
the  exercise  of  the  right  should  be  regulated  by- 
rules  resulting  from  the  nature  and  force  of  civil 
obligations.  The  bill  now  before  the  committee 
would  seem  to  imply  the  recognition  of  these 
principles.  It  proposes  to  make  the  Govern- 
ment a  party  to  the  act,  dissolving  the  tie  be- 
tween the  citizen  and  his  country,  and  to  pre- 
scribe the  terms  upon  which  it  will  consent  to 
the  dissolution.  Such  a  right  cannot  be  a  bar- 
ren one.  The  power  to  prescribe  rules  upon 
any  subject  necessarily  implies  the  power  of 
judging  of  the  propriety  and  extent  of  the  rules. 

If,  then,  Mr.  Chairman,  said  Mr.  MoL.,  the 
exercise  of  the  right  of  expatriation  should  be 
consistent  with  the  essential  and  fundamental 
principles  of  civil  obligations,  and  if  any  regula- 
tion of  its  exercise  is  to  emanate  from  the  civil 
power,  it  should  proceed  from  that  power  to 
whom  the  obligation  is  due ;  from  the  supreme 
or  sovereign  power  of  the  state  or  community 
of  which  the  citizen  is  a  member,  and  to  whom 
he  owes  his  allegiance.  It  is  to  such  a  power 
alone  that  these  obligations  have  any  relation. 
The  question  then  presents  itself,  Is  the  Gov- 
ernment of  the  United  States  such  a  power, 
and  can  Congress  exercise  it  ?  I  apprehend  not. 

The  powers  of  the  General  Government  are 
not  absolute,  but  limited  ;  they  are  confined  to 
certain  specified,  enumerated 'objects,  raised  for 
especial  purposes.  The  supreme  sovereign 
power  is  in  the  people  of  the  United  States, 
acting  through  the  different  State  governments. 
Prior  to  the  organization  of  the  Federal  Gov- 
ernment, the  sovereignty  of  the  States  was  ab- 
solute and  complete,  and  the  natural  and  civil 
allegiance  of  the  citizen  was  exclusively  due  to 
the  particular  State  of  which  he  was  a  member. 
By  that  State  alone  could  the  right  of  expatria- 
tion have  been  regulated. 

In  its  organization,  the  General  Government 
was  Federal,  and  not  National,  and,  in  the  ex- 
tent of  its  powers,  it  is  Federal  and  not  Na- 
tional ;  and  the  natural  allegiance  of  the  citizen 
to  his  State  is  neither  absolved  nor  infringed  by 
his  connection  with  the  Government  of  the 
United  States.  He  simply  contracts  certain  du- 
ties to  the  General  Government,  in  no  degree 
inconsistent  witli  his  allegiance  to  the  State 
sovereignty.  This  is  perfectly  clear,  from  the 


nature  of  the  Government.  It  was  formed  not 
by  the  citizens  of  the  United  States,  but  by  the 
citizens  of  the  respective  States,  acting  as  mem- 
bers of  their  several  political  communities,  and 
designed  for  the  protection  of  State  rights.  A 
civil  relation  thus  created  to  the  General  Gov- 
ernment, never  can  be  construed  to  abrogate 
the  natural  relation  between  the  citizen  and 
his  State ;  on  the  contrary,  we  find  that  this 
relation  is  in  full  force  in  all  essential  points. 
The  right  of  the  State  to  require  of  its  citizens 
militia  services,  and  subject  them  to  trials  by 
court-martials;  to  inflict  punishment  for  the 
commission  of  crimes ;  to  regulate  the  acquisition 
of  property,  and  the  rules  and  principles  of 
descent,  and,  in  short,  to  exercise,  almost  with- 
out limit,  an  authority  over  the  persons  and 
rights  of  their  citizens ;  but,  above  all,  to  re- 
gulate and  punish  treason  against  the  State. 
The  second  section  of  the  fourth  article  of  the 
Constitution  of  the  United  States  recognized  the 
crime  of  treason  against  a  State,  by  provid- 
ing for  the  apprehension  of  the  criminal,  though 
I  apprehend  such  a  recognition  would  not  be 
required  to  render  it  entirely  clear.  The  ca- 
pacity to  commit  treason  against  the  State,  re- 
sults from  natural  relation  between  the  citizen 
and  its  sovereignty,  and,  though  treason  may  also 
be  committed  against  the  United  States,  it  re- 
sults more  from  the  express  provision  of  the 
Constitution,  than  from  any  natural  relation  sub- 
sisting between  the  citizen  and  the  Govern- 
ment. If,  therefore,  said  Mr.  McL.,  a  citizen  of 
the  United  States  could  be  released  from  his 
duties  to  the  General  Government,  he  would 
nevertheless  continue  a  citizen  of  the  State,  and 
his  relation  to  the  State  government  would  be 
even  more  absolute  than  it  was  before.  But, 
sir,  as  the  States  have  an  interest  in  preserving 
the  obligation  of  the  citizen  to  the  performance 
of  his  duty  to  the  United  States,  it  may  well  be 
questioned  whether  the  General  Government 
can  release  him  from  those  duties  without  the 
consent  of  the  State.  So  long  as  a  citizen  re- 
mains a  citizen  of  a  State,  a  State  has  a  right  to 
require  the  power  of  the  General  Government 
in  aid  of  his  protection,  and  it  cannot  withhold 
it.  This  is  of  the  very  essence  of  the  compact 
between  the  States  and  the  General  Govern- 
ment. By  this  compact,  the  protection  of  the 
rights  ofi  persons  and  property  is  fairly  stipulat- 
ed, and  it  cannot  be  dispensed  with,  in  regard 
to  one,  without  the  consent  of  all.  This  com- 
pact constitutes  the  citizens  of  the  State  citi- 
zens of  the  United  States.  The  relation  to  the 
State  government  was  the  basis  of  the  relation 
to  the  General  Government,  and  therefore,  as 
long  as  a  man  continues  a  citizen  of  a  State,  he 
must  be  considered  a  citizen  of  the  United  States. 
I  affirm  that  the  Government  of  the  United 
States  cannot  withhold  its  protection  from,  or 
dispense  with  its  duties  to  any  man,  while  he 
remains  a  citizen  of  any  individual  State,  and 
that  any  act  of  the  General  Government,  ab- 
solving him  from  such  duties,  would  be  inopera- 
tive. 


DEBATES  OF  CONGRESS. 


117 


FEBKC.UJY,  1818.] 


The  Expatriation  Bill. 


[H.  OF  R. 


It  then  becomes  an  important  question,  which 
this  committee  must  decide,  whether  Congress 
can  destroy  the  relation  of  citizenship  between 
a  citizen  and  a  State  ? 

The  only  powers  possessed  by  Congress  are 
those  enumerated  in  the  constitution,  or  such  as 
are  incidental  to  the  execution  of  those  enumer- 
ated. It  will  not  be  contended  that  the  power 
in  question  is  expressly  given ;  it  is  nowhere  to 
be  found  in  the  constitution ;  and,  as  was  well 
remarked  by  the  honorable  gentleman  from 
Kentucky,  (Mr.  AXDEESOX,)  it  is  not  necessary 
to  the  execution  of  any  express  power.  I  can- 
not discern  any  reference  which  it  has  to  either 
the  powers  or  objects  of  the  Government. 

The  fundamental  object  of  the  General  Gov- 
ernment being  shown  to  be  the  protection  of 
the  States  in  their  sovereign  rights,  the  measure 
now  proposed  would  appear  to  be  opposed  to 
the  object,  since  it  tends  to  sever  the  ties  by 
which  the  State  communities  are  held  toge- 
ther, and  puts  the  citizen  beyond  the  protection 
of  both  the  State  and  the  General  Government. 
Such  a  power,  carried  to  an  extent  easily  con- 
ceivable, might  interfere,  materially,  with  State 
rights,  and  drain  the  States  of  their  population, 
against  their  evident  policy,  and  contrary,  per- 
haps, to  their  express  laws.  Sir,  I  do  not  know 
whether  such  a  law  as  is  now  contemplated, 
does  not  go  the  whole  of  this  extent ;  it  annihi- 
lates the  authority  of  the  State  over  the  citizen, 
without  its  interposition,  at  the  mere  will  and 
pleasure  of  the  individual  It  cannot,  reason- 
ably, be  imagined  that  the  States  ever  designed 
to  surrender  this  portion  of  their  sovereignty ; 
it  strikes  immediately  at  the  root  of  their  exist- 
ence, and  does  not  in  any  degree  conduce  to 
the  objects  of  the  Union. 

There  is  no  instance  in  which  the  General 
Government  possesses  any  control  over  the 
personal  rights  of  the  citizen,  in  his  relation  to 
the  individual  State.  Such  is  always  exclusively 
the  object  of  State  jurisdiction.  The  instances 
in  which  it  can  exercise  a  power  over  the  per- 
sons of  individuals,  at  all,  are  few,  are  confined 
to  their  relations  to  the  Federal  Government, 
and  expressly  defined  in  the  constitution.  But 
the  power  of  regulating  expatriation,  implies 
indefinite  supremacy  over  the  personal  rights 
and  effects  of  the  individual,  in  all  their  rela- 
tions. 

Each  State  in  the  Union  is  a  distinct,  independ- 
ent sovereignty,  and  without  some  provision 
to  the  contrary,  a  citizen  of  one  would  be  a 
foreigner  in  another,  liable  to  nil  the  disabilities 
of  that  situation.  It  was  essential,  however, 
for  the  great  purposes  of  the  Union,  that  such 
an  inconvenience  should  be  guarded  against, 
and  it  was  therefore  declared,  that  "  the  citi- 
zens of  each  State  should  be  entitled  to  all 
privileges  and  immunities  of  citizens  in  the 
several  States."  It  was  this  provision  that 
dictated  the  necessity  of  vesting  in  Congress 
the  power  "  to  establish  a  uniform  rule  of 
naturalization,"  lest  the  interests  of  one  State 
might  be  jeopardized  by  an  improvident  admis- 


sion of  citizens  into  another.  But,  even  this 
power  of  naturalization  would  not  have  been 
possessed,  unless  it  had  been  expressly  delegated. 
There  is,  perhaps,  nothing  more  necessary  and 
natural  to  a  sovereign  State,  than  the  power  of 
admitting  foreigners  to  the  rights  of  citizenship. 
It  was  therefore  inherent  in  State  sovereignty, 
and  surrendered  for  the  reason  mentioned.  But 
the  power  of  divesting  the  right  of  citizenship, 
and  of  regulating  the  exercise  of  the  right  of 
expatriation,  is  one  of  a  very  different  charac- 
ter, productive  of  different  and  important  con- 
sequences, equally  an  attribute  of  sovereign 
power,  but  in  no  degree  connected  with  the 
power  of  naturalization,  and  therefore  cannot 
be  supposed  to  have  been  surrendered  at  the 
same  time.  I  conclude,  therefore,  said  Mr. 
McL.,  that  Congress,  having  no  power  to  de- 
stroy the  relation  between  a  citizen  and  his 
State,  cannot,  constitutionally,  pass  any  law 
that  could  denaturalize  him  from  the  United 
States. 

Mr.  JOHNSON,  of  Virginia,  said  he  felt  humili- 
ated by  the  debate  which  had  taken  place  on 
the  subject  now  under  deliberation.  To  hear 
the  old  feudal  doctrine  of  perpetual  allegiance 
advocated  on  this  floor,  said  Mr.  J.,  as  it  has 
been  by  the  gentleman  from  Delaware,  (Mr. 
McLANE ;)  the  doctrine  resulting  from  a  system 
which,  from  time  immemorial,  has  borne  down 
and  oppressed  most  of  the  wretched  subjects  of 
Europe.  A  doctrine  which  was  unknown  in 
England,  until  the  reign  of  "William  the  Con- 
queror ;  who,  by  great  art  and  address,  prevail- 
ed upon  the  English  people  to  adopt  the  feudal 
system,  from  which  the  doctrine  of  perpetual 
allegiance  sprang. 

I  had  not  expected  at  this  period  of  peace, 
tranquillity,  and  prosperity,  when  it  is  said  that 
no  distinction  of  party  exists,  when  all  are  pre- 
tending to  crowd  into  the  Republican  fold,  to 
hear  the  fundamental  principles  on  which  this 
Government  rests  for  its  support,  questioned, 
much  less  denied  to  exist.  Although  no  person 
has  had  the  hardihood  to  deny  the  right  of  the 
citizen  to  expatriate  himself,  yet  arguments  are 
used,  which,  if  they  be  correct,  go  conclusively 
to  prove  that  the  citizen  cannot  and  ought  not 
to  enjoy  the  means  essential  to  the  exercise  of 
this  right.  The  gentleman  from  Delaware  (Mr. 
McLAXE)  contends  that  allegiance  is  a  contract 
between  the  citizen  and  the  sovereign  power  of 
the  country,  which  cannot  be  cancelled  without 
the  consent  of  both  the  contracting  parties.  He 
then  charges  the  honorable  gentleman  from 
Louisiana  Olr.  ROBEBTSON)  with  introducing 
the  bill  on  your  table,  in  order  to  aid  the  pa- 
triots of  South  America.  I  well  recollect  the 
introduction  of  a  similar  proposition,  by  the 
gentleman  from  Louisiana,  during  the  Thirteenth 
Congress,  and  the  effect  at  that  time  produced 
on  the  Federal  gentlemen  of  the  House.  Our 
attention  is  invited  by  the  gentleman  from 
Delaware  (Mr.  MoLAUE)  to  the  deplorable  situa- 
tion of  the  country  during  the  late  war.  The 
difficulties  we  had  to  encounter  in  raising  an 


118 


ABRIDGMENT  OF  THE 


H.  OF  R.] 


The  Expatriation  Bill. 


[FEBRUARY,  1818. 


army  are  described  in  glowing  terms.  Our 
being  driven  almost  to  the  adoption  of  a  system 
of  conscription  is  artfully  introduced.  And  we 
are  gravely  admonished  by  the  gentleman  that 
if  we  pass  the  present  bill — in  the  event  of  an- 
other war,  another  period  of  difficulty — to  avoid 
fighting  the  battles  of  their  country,  of  assert- 
ing its  honor,  defending  its  liberty  and  independ- 
ence, our  citizens  will  avail  themselves  of  its 
provisions,  and  exercise  the  right  of  expatria- 
tion. Can  this  be  possible,  Mr.  Chairman  ?  If 
it  be,  I  hope  it  is  confined  to  the  citizens  of  the 
State  of  Delaware.  I  am  confident  that  no 
Virginian  would  ever  abandon  his  country  in 
the  hour  of  danger,  would  ever  expatriate  him- 
self to  avoid  fighting  her  battles,  defending  her 
honor,  her  liberty,  and  her  independence.  If, 
however,  there  be  such  an  one,  I  should  have 
no  difficulty  in  fixing  his  doom ;  I  would  furnish 
him  the  means  of  expatriating  himself  to  a  region 
from  whence  he  never  should  return.  Is  there 
any  man  who  would  dare  to  avow  such  a  prin- 
ciple ?  No,  sir.  He  would  shrink  from  the 
light  like  the  recreant  felon.  He  would  dare 
not  meet  the  scrutinizing  eye  of  investigation. 
I  hope  there  is  not  a  square  foot  of  soil  within 
the  jurisdictional  limits  of  the  United  States 
which  nurtures  such  a  miserable  and  depraved 
wretch. 

What,  sir,  is  the  true  question  for  the  com- 
mittee to  decide  ?  Do  the  citizens  of  the  United 
States  possess  the  right  to  expatriate  themselves  ? 
Has  Congress  the  power  to  legislate  competent- 
ly on  the  subject  ?  and  is  it  expedient  that  a 
complete  and  perfect  act  of  legislation  shall  now 
take  place  ?  I  answer  that  the  citizens  of  the 
United  States  do  possess  the  right  in  the  most 
ample,  unlimited,  and  unlimitable  degree.  If  I 
be  asked  from  whence  I  derive  the  right — I 
point  to  Heaven.  It  is  in  that  great  charter  by 
which  nature  secured  to  man  the  right  to  seek 
happiness  wheresoever  he  could  enjoy  it.  I 
would  disdain  to  derive  the  right  from  any  of 
the  little  petty  sovereignties  or  Governments 
on  earth.  Does  it  require  any  act  of  the  Gov- 
ernment to  enable  the  citizen  to  exercise  and 
enjoy  this  right  ?  I  contend  not.  The  moment 
a  citizen  changes  permanently  his  residence,  and 
takes  the  oath  of  allegiance  to  the  Government 
of  the  country  in  which  he  has  fixed  his  per- 
manent residence,  he  has  exercised  this  right. 
All  claims  of  the  Government  which  he  has 
abjured  cease  to  exist.  But  the  decisions  of 
our  courts  are  cited — a  long  case  has  been  read, 
the  case  of  Jonathan  Williams,  who  had  regu- 
larly expatriated  himself  from  Virginia,  and 
become  a  citizen  of  France,  and  who  was  tried 
and  punished  by  one  of  our  Federal  courts. 
The  remedy  is  at  hand.  It  was  an  act  of  tyranny 
and  oppression  for  which  the  judge  ought  to 
have  been  impeached.  As  it  respects  the  right, 
this  is  a  plain  question.  No  man  has,  no  man 
will  dare  openly  to  deny  it.  The  warmest  ad- 
vocates of  the  feudal  system — the  warmest 
friends  of  English  principles  and  English  law 
will  not  deny  the  right.  How  does  the  conduct 


of  England  agree  with  the  dictates  after  jurists  ? 
Two  years'  service  in  their  navy,  ipso  facto, 
makes  an  alien,  a  foreigner,  a  citizen  of  Eng- 
land. Can  any  Government  presume  to  natural- 
ize foreigners  and  deny  the  right  of  expatria- 
tion ?  Such  pretence  ought  to  subject  a  Gov- 
ernment to  ridicule  and  scorn. 

Mr.  COBB,  of  Georgia,  said,  the  object  of  the 
bill  under  discussion,  was  not  to  change  any 
known  law,  acknowledged  to  be  in  force  in  the 
United  States.  Its  object  was  to  declare  that 
the  principle  of  perpetual  allegiance,  known 
only  to  the  common  law  of  England,  so  many 
of  the  other  principles  of  which  are  in  force, 
has  no  binding  efficacy  upon  the  people  of  this 
country.  In  reasoning  upon  such  a  law,  said 
he,  it  is  indispensably  necessary  that  all  terms 
necessarily  used  should  have  a  definite  and  clear 
meaning  attached  to  them. 

By  allegiance,  as  it  is  explained  by  the  judges 
of  our  own  courts,  and  as  it  is  defined  by  those 
who  have  preceded  me  in  debate,  we  mean, 
"  that  tie  by  which  the  Government  and  the 
citizen  are  connected ;  "  from  which  protection 
is  promised,  and  submission  expected ;  protec- 
tion being  the  duty  imposed  upon  the  Govern- 
ment, and  submission  upon  the  citizen,  with 
their  corresponding  duties.  Expatriation  is  the 
dissolution  of  this  tie  ;  it  is  the  act  of  throwing 
off  the  character  of  citizen — of  declaring  that 
protection  is  no  longer  expected,  and  conse- 
quently claiming  to  be  freed  from  the  duty  of 
submission.  The  friends  of  this  bill,  of  which 
I  am  one,  say  that  the  citizen  can,  as  a  matter 
of  natural  right,  exercise  this  act  of  expatria- 
tion whenever  he  pleases,  and  that  of  this  right 
no  human  laws  can  deprive  him.  If  I  under- 
stood the  gentleman  from  Virginia,  (Mr.  PIN- 
DALL,)  even  he  does  not  deny  the  power  of  the 
citizen  to  exercise  this  right,  and  yet,  in  the 
next  breath,  he  attempted  to  prove  that  there 
was  no  such  right ;  that  there  is  and  must  be, 
in  every  citizen,  a  principle  of  gratitude  so  eter- 
nal in  its  obligations,  as  that  it  cannot  be  dis- 
charged. What  is  this  but  the  English  common 
law  upon  the  subject?  The  gentleman  has 
used  almost  the  very  words  of  Sir  William 
Blackstone.  He  ought  also  to  have  adopted 
the  reasons  of  the  same  writer,  and  have  traced 
this  gratitude  to  the  principles  of  universal 
law,  preached  by  himself  only,  and  which  no 
other  can  understand.  To  me  this  principle  of 
universal  law  is  so  utterly  incomprehensible, 
that  I  have  heard  of  but  one  thing  more  su- 
premely ridiculous,  and  that  is,  the  "  immacu- 
late purity  of  the  Spanish  monarchy,"  about 
which  we  have  learned  something  from  the  pen 
of  the  Spanish  Minister,  during  the  present  ses- 
sion. Such  a  principle  of  universal  law  is  a 
twin  brother  of  this  immaculacy,  and  no  head 
but  such  as  could  comprehend  the  latter,  is  able 
to  understand  the  former.  It  was  to  be  hoped 
that  doctrines  like  these  were  out  of  fashion ; 
but,  like  Judge  Ellsworth,  the  honorable  gen- 
tleman from  Virginia  cannot  dispense  with  the 
common  law,  or  rather  that  part  of  it  which 


DEBATES  OF  CONGRESS. 


119 


MARCH,  1818.] 


Duty  on  Salt. 


[H.  OF  R. 


does  not  and  ought  not  to  prevail  in  this  coun- 
try, for  the  best  of  reasons,  that  it  is  not  found- 
ed in  common  sense. 

I  would  not  be  understood  as  denouncing  the 
common  law ;  on  the  contrary,  in  its  genuine 
principles  I  find  a  safe  and  sure  guarantee  of 
the  best  rights  of  the  citizen. 

But  -even  in  England  the  absurdity  of  the 
doctrine  of  perpetual  allegiance  is  obvious, 
because  of  its  inconsistency  with  other  princi- 
ples equally  admitted,  and  founded  in  better 
reasons.  England  also  maintains  the  doctrine 
of  naturalization.  "What  is  naturalization  but 
the  act  of  conferring  upon  a  foreigner  all  the 
rights  of  a  citizen,  by  the  acquisition  of  which 
he,  at  the  same  moment,  imposes  upon  himself 
all  the  duties  of  a  citizen  ?  Can  there  be  such 
a  thing  as  the  naturalized  citizen  of  two  States? 
Can  all  the  duties  of  the  citizen  be  claimed  by 
two  States,  each  having  a  just  right?  Cer- 
tainly not.  For  the  act  by  which  all  the  rights 
of  citizen  are  acquired,  and  all  the  duties  are 
imposed,  necessarily  pre-supposes  that  all  con- 
nection between  the  individual  and  any  other 
State,  is  dissolved.  "Wherever  naturalization, 
then,  is  permitted,  the  right  of  expatriation  is 
admitted ;  and  all  measures  which  have  a  ten- 
dency to  curtail  this  right,  is  tyranny.  The 
creatures  of  kings,  and  the  slaves  of  despots, 
may  venture  to  assert  a  contrary  doctrine,  but 
it  ought  never  to  come  from  the  mouths  of 
freemen. 

The  question  was  at  length  taken  on  striking 
out  the  first  section  of  the  bill,  and  decided  in 
the  affirmative,  by  a  small  majority. 

The  committee  rose,  and  reported  to  the 
House  this  decision ;  and,  after  refusing  to  ad- 
journ, or  to  lay  the  bill  on  the  table,  the  ques- 
tion was  taken  on  concurring  with  the  com- 
mittee in  striking  out  the  first  section  of  the 
bill,  (considered  equivalent  to  rejection,)  and 
was  decided  in  the  affirmative — yeas  70,  nays 
68,  as  follows: 

YEAS. — Messrs.  Abbott,  Adams,  Allen  of  Vermont, 
Baldwin,  Ball,  Barbour  of  Virginia,  Bayley,  Beecher, 
Blount,  Boss,  Campbell,  Clagett,  Colston,  Crager, 
Cnshman,  Darlington,  Drake,  Earle,  Edwards,  Elli- 
cott,  Ervin  of  South  Carolina,  Folger,  Hall  of  Dela- 
ware, Hasbrouck,  Herbert,  Hitchcock,  Hogg,  Holmes 
of  Connecticut,  Huntington,  Lawyer,  Livermore, 
Lowndes,  McLane,  W.  P.  Maclay,  Marr,  Mason  of 
Rhode  Island,  Merrill,  Middleton,  Mills,  Moore,  Mor- 
ton, Mnmford,  J.  Nelson,  H.  Nelson,  Ogden,  Ogle, 
Orr,  Parrott,  Pindall,  Pleasants,  Porter,  Reed,  Rice, 
Richards,  Ruggles,  Scudder,  Servant,  Sherwood, 
Slocumb,  A.  Smyth,  Stuart  of  Maryland,  Tallmadge, 
Taylor,  Trimble,  Wendover,  Whitman,  Williams  of 
Connecticut,  Williams  of  New  York,  Wilkin,  and 
Wilson  of  Massachusetts. 

NAYS. — Messrs.  Barber  of  Ohio,  Bassett,  Bateman, 
Bellinger,  Bennett,  Boden,  Butler,  Cobb,  Comstock, 
Crafts,  Desha,  Forsyth,  Fuller,  Garnett,  Harrison, 
Hendricks,  Herkimer,  Herrick,  Heister,  Holmes  of 
Massachusetts,  Hunter,  Irving  of  New  York,  Johnson 
of  Virginia,  Jones,  Kinsey,  W.  Maclay,  McCoy,  Mur- 
ray, T.  M.  Nelson,  Nesbitt,  Newton,  Patterson, 
Quarles,  Rhea,  Rich,  Ringgold,  Robertson  of  Ken- 


tucky, Robertson  of  Louisiana,  Sampson,  Savage, 
Sawyer,  Seybert,  Shaw,  Silsbee,  B.  Smith,  Southard, 
Speed,  Spencer,  Stewart  of  North  Carolina,  Strother, 
Tarr,  Terrill,  Tompkins,  Tucker  of  South  Carolina, 
Tyler,  Walker  of  Kentucky,  Whiteside,  and  Wilson  of 
Pennsylvania. 

The  remaining  sections  of  any  bill,  after  the 
first  is  stricken  out,  have  usually  been  disposed 
of  by  a  motion  of  course ;  but,  on  this  occasion, 
the  procedure  was  objected  to  by  Mr.  JOHN- 
SON, of  Virginia,  and  by  Mr.  ROBERTSON,  on  the 
ground  that  the  bill  was  yet  capable  of  amend- 
ment, and  might  be  put  into  a  declaratory 
shape,  or  amended  in  some  way  to  recognize 
the  right  (acknowledged  by  all,  but  controvert- 
ed by  certain  judicial  decisions)  of  expatriation. 
To  whom  Mr.  LOWNDES  replied,  that  the  pro- 
ceeding now  proposed  was  unparliamentary, 
and  would  tend  to  the  utter  confusion  of  the 
proceedings  of  the  House,  if  sanctioned ;  since 
there  would  be  no  end  to  any  question,  if  it 
could  be  debated,  and  solemnly  decided,  and 
then  again  debated  and  decided. 

Before  settling  this  mooted  point  of  order,  a 
motion  to  adjourn  finally  prevailed,  after  being 
once  or  twice  refused. 


TUESDAY,  March  3. 
Monument  to  the  Baron  de  Kalb. 

Mr.  REED  submitted  the  following  preamble 
and  resolution : 

"Whereas  a  resolution  was  passed  by  the  Congress 
of  the  United  States,  on  the  14th  day  of  October, 
1780,  in  the  following  words,  to  wit : 

Resolved,  That  a  monument  be  erected  to  the 
memory  of  the  late  Major  General  the  Baron  de 
Kalb,  in  the  city  of  Annapolis,  in  the  State  of  Mary- 
land, with  the  following  inscription : 

"  Sacred  to  the  Memory  of  THE  BARON  DE  KALB, 
Knight  of  the  Royal  Order  of  Military  Merit,  Briga- 
dier of  the  Armies  of  France,  and  Major  General  in 
the  service  of  the  United  States  of  America.  Having 
served  with  honor  and  reputation  for  three  years,  he 
gave  a  last  and  glorious  proof  of  his  attachment  to 
the  liberties  of  mankind  and  the  cause  of  America, 
in  the  action  near  Camden,  in  the  State  of  South 
Carolina,  on  the  16th  of  August,  1780,  when  leading 
on  the  troops  of  the  Maryland  and  Delaware  lines 
against  superior  numbers,  and  animating  by  his  ex- 
ample to  deeds  of  valor,  he  was  pierced  with  many 
wounds,  and  on  the  19th  following  expired,  in  the 
forty-eighth  year  of  his  age.  The  Congress  of  the 
United  States  of  America,  in  gratitude  to  his  zeal, 
services,  and  merit,  have  erected  this  monument" 

Hesohed,  therefore,  That  the  aforegoing  resolution 
be  referred  to  a  select  committee,  with  instruction  to 
report  a  bill  to  carry  the  same  into  effect. 

The  question  was  taken,  "  "Will  the  House 
now  consider  the  said  resolution1  ?"  and  deter- 
mined in  the  negative. 

Duty  on  Salt. 

Mr.  LOWNDES,  from  the  Committee  of  Ways 
and  Means,  who  were  instructed  to  inquire  into 
the  expediency  of  repealing  the  duty  on  salt, 
made  a  report  against  repealing  the  duty ;  which 


120 


ABRIDGMENT  OF  THE 


H.  OF  R.] 


Internal  Improvement. 


[MARCH,  1818. 


was  read,  and  referred  to  a  Committee  of  the 
Whole.    The  report  is  as  follows : 

That  the  letter  from  the  Secretary  of  the  Treasury, 
with  the  statement  which  accompanies  it,  which  they 
report  to  the  House,  explains  the  principal  objections 
to  the  repeal  of  the  duty  in  question,  which  have  in- 
duced the  committee  to  concur  in  the  opinion  of  the 
Secretary. 

TREASURY  DEPARTMENT,  Jan.  5,  1818. 

SIR  :  In  reply  to  your  letter  of  the  12th  ultimo, 
enclosing  a  resolution  of  the  House  of  Representatives, 
instructing  the  Committee  of  Ways  and  Means  "  to 
inquire  into  the  expediency  of  repealing  the  law  lay- 
ing a  duty  on  imported  salt,  granting  a  bounty  on 
pickled  fish  exported,  and  allowances  to  certain  ves- 
sels employed  in  the  fisheries  ;"  requesting  any  infor- 
mation or  opinion  which  I  may  think  proper  to  com- 
municate, and  particularly  an  estimate  of  the  revenue 
which  has  accrued  from  the  salt  duty  in  the  years 
1816  and  1817,  I  have  the  honor  to  suhmit  a  state- 
ment of  the  revenue  accruing  from  that  duty  during 
the  years  1815,  1816,  and  the  first  two  quarters  of 
1817,  and  of  the  amount  paid  upon  the  exportation 
of  pickled  fish,  as  well  as  of  the  allowances  to  vessels 
employed  in  the  fisheries. 

Deducting  the  hounty  and  allowances  from  the 
gross  amount  of  duty,  and  apportioning  the  remain- 
der between  the  two  years  and  a  half,  the  period 
within  which  it  has  accrued,  the  annual  average 
revenue  arising  from  that  duty  is  estimated  at  $810,- 
016.  But  as  the  war  prevented  importations  to  any 
considerable  extent  during  the  first  quarter  of  the  year 
1815,  if  that  quarter  should  be  omitted  in  the  esti- 
mate, the  annual  revenue  arising  from  the  duty  on 
salt  during  the  period  embraced  by  the  statement 
would  exceed  $900,000.  By  comparing  the  revenue 
of  the  first  two  quarters  of  the  year  1817  with  that 
which  accrued  in  the  year  1816,  it  appears  that  there 
has  been  a  considerable  diminution  during  the  latter 
period;  it  may,  therefore,  be  unsafe  to  estimate  it 
above  §800,000  a  year. 

The  revenue  in  the  annual  report  of  the  Treasury 
has  been  estimated  for  the  year  1818  at  $24,525,000, 
including  the  internal  duties,  which  have  been  since 
repealed.  The  revenue  for  that  and  for  the  next  two 
years  may  be  estimated  at  $22,025,000.  The  expen- 
ditures for  the  same  year  have  been  estimated  at 
$21,946,351  74,  which  being  deducted  from  the  esti- 
mated revenue,  there  would  remain  a  surplus  of  rev- 
enue, beyond  the  expenditure  at  present  authorized 
by  law,  of  $78,648  26. 

It  therefore  appears  that,  if  the  salt  tax  shall  be 
repealed,  there  will  be  a  deficit  in  the  revenue  of 
more  than  $700,000  annually,  until  the  proceeds  of 
the  lands  in  the  State  of  Mississippi  and  in  the  Ala- 
bama Territory  shall  be  applicable  to  the  current  ex- 
penses of  the  Government.  During  this  interval  the 
deficit  will  have  to  be  supplied  by  the  balance  esti- 
mated to  be  in  the  Treasury  on  the  1st  day  of  Janu- 
ary of  the  present  year. 

As  it  is  uncertain  what  appropriations  may  be  made 
during  the  present  session  of  Congress,  beyond  those 
authorized  by  existing  laws,  and  upon  which  the  esti- 
mates of  expenditure  for  the  year  1818  are  founded, 
it  is  impossible  to  determine  whether  the  balance  in 
the  Treasury  will  be  equal  to  the  supply  of  the  defi- 
ciency which  the  repeal  of  the  duty  upon  salt  will 
create.  It  may  be  proper  also  to  observe,  that,  after 
paying  the  interest  of  the  public  debt,  and  reimburs- 
ing the  old  six  per  cent,  and  deferred  stock,  accord- 


ing to  the  principles  of  the  funding  system,  the  ap- 
propriation often  millions  of  dollars,  constituting  the 
sinking  fund,  will  be  unequal  to  the  discharge  of  the 
Louisiana  debt  during  the  years  1818  and  1819.  The 
deficiency  was  intended  to  be  supplied  from  the  bal- 
ance remaining  in  the  Treasury,  under  the  provisions 
of  the  act  of  the  last  session  of  Congress,  providing 
for  the  redemption  of  the  public  debt.  A  reduction 
of  the  balance  in  the  Treasury,  so  as  to  prevent  its 
application  to  this  object,  ought  to  be  carefully  guard- 
ed against. 

I  have  the  honor  to  be,  your  most  obedient  and 
very  humble  servant, 

WM.  H.  CRAWFORD. 

Hon.  WILLIAM  LOWNDES, 

Chairman  of  the  Com.  of  Ways  and  Means. 

Statement  showing  the  amount  of  duty  which  accrued 
on  salt  imported  during  the  years  1815  and  1816, 
and  from  the  1st  of  January  to  the  30th  June,  1817, 
together  with  the  amount  paid  for  bounty  on  pickled 
fish  exported,  and  for  allowances  to  vessels  employed 
in  thejisheries  during  the  same  period. 

Duty  on  Salt. 

From  1st  Jan.  to  31st  December,  1815,  $855,448  40 
From  1st  Jan.  to  31st  December,  1816,  1,100,745  70 
From  1st  January  to  30th  June,  1817,  232,183  74' 

Bounty. 

From  1st  Jan.  to  31st  December,  1815, 
From  1st  Jan.  to  31st  December,  1816,         $586  80 
From  1st  January  to  30th  June,  1817,        1,836  20 

Allowances. 

From  1st  Jan.  to  31st  December,  1815,      $1,811  74 
From  1st  Jan.  to  31st  December,  1816,      84,736  26 
From  1st  January  to  30th  June,  1817,       76,786  43 
TREASURY  DEPARTMENT, 

Register's  Office,  December  18,  1817. 

JOSEPH  NOURSE,  Register. 


FRIDAY,  March  6. 

Mr.  BUTLER  presented  a  petition  of  John 
Stark,  a  Major  General  in  the  Revolutionary 
Army,  representing  his  necessitous  circumstan- 
ces, and  praying  that  the  bounty  of  the  National 
Government  may  he  extended  to  him  in  the 
decline  of  his  days,  in  consideration  of  his  faith- 
ful services  in  the  defence  of  his  country :  which 
was  referred  to  a  select  committee ;  and  Messrs. 
BUTLEE,  KICH,  ANDERSON  of  Kentucky,  MER- 
CEE,  LIVERMORE,  HopKiNSON,  and  MILLS,  were 
appointed  the  committee. 

SATTTRDAT,  March  14. 
Internal  Improvement. 

The  House  having  resumed  the  consideration 
of  the  report  of  the  Committee  of  the  Whole, 
on  the  report  of  a  Committee  on  the  subject  of 
Roads  and  Canals ;  and  the  question  being  on 
agreeing  to  the  first  resolution  reported  by  said 
committee,  in  the  following  words  : 

1.  Resolved,  That  Congress  has  power,  under  the 
constitution,  to  appropriate  money  for  the  construc- 
tion of  post  roads,  military,  and  other  roads,  and  of 
canals,  and  for  the  improvement  of  water-courses. 

Mr.  JOHNSON,  of  Kentucky,  said  he  had  never 
voted  for  any  proposition  since  he  had  enjoyed 


DEBATES  OF  CONGKESS. 


121 


MARCH,  1818.] 


Internal  Improvement. 


[H.  OF  R. 


the  honor  of  a  seat  in  this  House,  which  he  did 
not  helieve  to  be  sanctioned  by  the  express 
letter  of  the  constitution  ;  nor  should  he  on  the 
present  occasion.  After  expressing  the  satis- 
faction which  he  had  received  from  this  debate, 
than  which  he  had  never  listened  to  any  with 
greater  pleasure,  Mr.  J.  proceeded  to  say,  that, 
as  he  bottomed  his  opinion  on  this  question  on 
the  express  letter  of  the  constitution,  he  should 
derive  no  aid  in  support  of  his  vote  by  implica- 
tion. He  claimed  for  Congress  no  grant  of 
power  under  that  clause  of  the  constitution 
which  speaks  of  the  common  defence  and  gen- 
eral welfare ;  nor  did  he  stand  here  in  any 
other  character  than  as  an  advocate  for  State 
rights ;  for  he  was  thoroughly  convinced  that 
there  never  was  a  more  vital  attack  on  the  in- 
tegrity of  the  States,  and  on  State  rights,  than 
would  be  the  rejection  of  the  present  proposi- 
tion, unless  it  Avere  immediately  followed  by 
an  amendment  to  the  constitution  in  this  re- 
spect. 

Mr.  DESHA  moved  to  amend  the  said  resolu- 
tion, by  striking  out  the  words  "  and  other" 
the  effect  of  which  would  have  been  to  confine 
the  declaration  to  post  roads  and  military  roads. 

After  some  remarks  from  Mr.  LOWNDES,  who 
desired  that  the  amendment  might  not  prevail, 
that  the  House  might  be  allowed  to  vote  on 
the  broad  proposition,  the  motion  of  Mr.  DESHA 
was  negatived. 

Mr.  MILLS  moved  to  postpone  indefinitely  the 
further  consideration  of  the  subject,  and  sup- 
ported this  motion  in  a  speech  of  half  an  hour. 

Mr.  LOWXDES  made  some  observations  calcu- 
lated to  show  that  it  was  highly  important  to 
obtain  a  decision  of  this  House  at  the  present 
session ;  a  different  course,  after  the  many  days 
consumed  in  debate,  he  thought  would  be  un- 
just to  the  committee  who  had  made  report  on 
the  subject,  and  dissatisfactory  in  its  result. 

Messrs.  BALDWIN  and  LIVEKMOEE  also  op- 
posed the  indefinite  postponement. 

The  motion  for  indefinite  postponement  was 
decided  in  the  negative,  by  yeas  and  nays — for 
the  postponement  77,  against  it  87. 

The  question  was  then  taken  on  concurring 
in  the  first  resolution  adopted  by  the  Committee 
of  the  "Whole,  as  above  stated,  and  decided  as 
follows— yeas  90,  nays  75: 

YEAS.— -Messrs.  Abbott,  Anderson  of  Kentucky, 
Baldwin,  Barber  of  Ohio,  Bateman,  B.ayley,  Beecher, 
Bloomfield,  Campbell,  Colston,  Comstock,  Crawford, 
Cruger,  Cushman,  Darlington,  Ellicott,  Ervin  of 
South  Carolina,  Forsyth,  Gage,  Hall  of  Delaware, 
Harrison,  Hasbrouck,  Hendricks,  Herbert,  Herkimer, 
Herrick,  Heister,  Hitchcock,  Holmes  of  Massachusetts, 
Hopkinson,  Hubbard,  Irving  of  New  York,  Johnson 
of  Kentucky,  Jones,  Kinsey,  Lawyer,  Linn,  Liver- 
more,  Lowndes,  McLane,  W.  P.  Maclay,  Marchand, 
Marr,  Mercer,  Middleton,  Moore,  Morton,  Mumford, 
Murray,  Jeremiah  Nelson,  Ogflen,  Ogle,  Palmer, 
Parrott,  Patterson,  Pawling,  Peter,  Pindall,  Poin- 
dexter,  Porter,  Quarles,  Robertson  of  Kentucky,  Rob- 
ertson of  Louisiana,  Savage,  Schuyler,  Sergeant,  Sey- 
bert,  Simkins,  Slocumb,  S.  Smith,  Bal.  Smith,  South- 
ard, Spencer,  Stuart  of  Maryland,  Tallmadge,  Tarr, 


Taylor,  Terrill,  Trimble,  Tucker  of  Virginia,  Upham, 
Wallace,  Wendover,  Westerlo,  Whiteside,  Whitman, 
Wilkin,  Wilson  of  Massachusetts,  and  Wilson  of 
Pennsylvania. 

NAYS.— Messrs.  Adams,  Allen  of  Massachusetts, 
Allen  of  Vermont,  Anderson  of  Pennsylvania,  Austin, 
Ball,  Barbour  of  Virginia,  Bassett,  Bellinger,  Ben- 
nett, Blonnt,  Boden,  Bryan,  Bnrwell,  Butler,  Clagett, 
Cobb,  Cook,  Crafts,  Culberth,  Desha,  Drake,  Earle. 
Edwards,  Folger,  Forney,  Garnett,  Hale,  Hall  of 
North  Carolina,  Hogg,  Holmes  of  Connecticut,  Hun- 
ter, Huntington,  Johnson  of  Virginia,  Kirtland,  Mc- 
Coy, Mason  of  Massachusetts,  Mason  of  Rhode  Island, 
Merrill,  Mills,  Mosely,  H.  Nelson,  T.  M.  Nelson, 
New,  Orr,  Owen,  Pitkin,  Pleasants,  Reed,  Rhea, 
Rice,  Richards,  Ringgold,  Ruggles,  Sampson,  Sawyer, 
Scudder,  Settle,  Sherwood,  Shaw,  Silsbee,  Alexander 
Smyth,  J.  S.  Smith,  Speed,  Stewart  of  North  Caro- 
lina, Strong,  Terry,  Tompkins,  Townsend,  Tucker  of 
South  Carolina,  Taylor,  Walker  of  North  Carolina, 
Williams  of  Connecticut,  Williams  of  New  York,  and 
Williams  of  North  Carolina. 

So  the  first  resolution  was  adopted. 

The  second  resolution  having  been  read  in 
the  following  words : 

2.  Resolved,  That  Congress  has  power,  under  the 
constitution,  to  construct  post  roads  and  military 
roads ;  provided  that  private  property  be  not  taken 
for  public  use,  without  just  compensation. 

The  question  was  then  taken  on  agreeing  to 
the  second  resolution  as  above  stated,  and  de- 
cided as  follows — yeas  82,  nays  84 : 

YEAS. — Messrs.  Anderson  of  Kentucky,  Baldwin, 
Barber  of  Ohio,  Bateman,  Baylcy,  Beecher,  Bloom- 
field,  Campbell,  Colston,  Comstock,  Crawford,  Cruger, 
Cushman,  Darlington,  Ellicott,  Ervin  of  South  Car- 
olina, Forsyth,  Gage,  Hall  of  Delaware,  Harrison, 
Hasbrouck,  Hendricks,  Herbert,  Herkimer,  Herrick, 
Heister,  Hitchcock,  Hopkinson,  Irving  of  New  York, 
Johnson  of  Kentucky,  Jones,  Kinsey,  Lawyer,  Linn, 
Livermore,  Lowndes,  McLane,  Marchand,  Marr,  Mer- 
cer, Moore,  Morton,  Mumford,  Murray,  Ogden,  Ogle, 
Palmer,  Parrott,  Patterson,  Pawling,  Peter,  Pindall, 
Porter,  Quarles,  Rich,  Robertson  of  Kentucky,  Rob- 
ertson of  Louisiana,  Savage,  Schuyler,  Sergeant, 
Seybert,  Simpkins,  Slocumb,  Ballard  Smith,  South- 
ard, Speed,  Spencer,  Stuart  of  Maryland,  Tallmadge, 
Tarr,  Taylor,  Terrill.  Trimble,  Upham,  Wallace, 
Wendover,  Westerlo,  Whiteside,  Wilkin,  Wilson  of 
Massachusetts,  and  Wilson  of  Pennsylvania. 

NAYS. — Messrs.  Abbott,  Adams,  Allen  of  Massa- 
chusetts, Allen  of  Vermont,  Anderson  of  Pennsyl- 
vania, Austin,  Ball,  Barbour  of  Virginia,  Bassett,  • 
Bellinger,  Bennett,  Blount,  Boden,  Boss,  Bryan,  Bnr- 
well, Butler,  Clagett,  Claiborne,  Cobb,  Cook,  Crafts, 
Culberth,  Desha,  Drake,  Earle,  Edwards,  Folger, 
Forney,  Garnett,  Hale,  Hall  of  North  Carolina,  Hogg, 
Holmes  of  Massachusetts,  Holmes  of  Connecticut, 
Hunter,  Huntington,  Johnson  of  Virginia,  W.  Maclay, 
W.  P.  Maclay,  McCoy,  Mason  of  Massachusetts,  Ma- 
son of  Rhode  Island/Merrill,  Mills,  Mosely,  Jeremiah 
Nelson,  H.  Nelson,  T.  M.  Nelson,  New,  Orr,  Owen, 
Pitkin,  Pleasants,  Poindexter,  Reed,  Rhea,  Rice, 
Richards,  Ringgold,  Ruggles,  Sampson,  Sawyer,  Scnd- 
der,  Settle,  Shaw,  Sherwood,  Silsbee,  S.  Smith,  Alex- 
ander Smyth,  J.  S.  Smith,  Stewart  of  North  Caro- 
lina, Strong,  Terry,  Tompkins,  Townsend,  Tucker  of 
Virginia,  Tucker  of  South  Carolina,  Tyler,  Walker 
of  North  Carolina,  Whitman,  Williams  of  Connecti- 


122 


ABRIDGMENT  OF  THE 


H.  OF  R.] 


Our  Relations  with  Spain. 


[MARCH,  1818. 


cut,  'Williams  of  New  York,  and  Williams  of  North 
Carolina. 

So  the  resolution  was  not  agreed  to. 

The  third  resolution  was  then  read  as  fol- 
lows : 

3.  Resolved,  That  Congress  has  power,  under  the 
constitution,  to  construct  roads  and  canals  necessary 
for  commerce  between  the   States;   provided,    that 
private  property  be  not  taken  for  public  purposes, 
without  just  compensation. 

The  question  was  then  stated  upon  concur- 
ring with  the  Committee  of  the  Whole,  in  that 
part  of  their  amendment  embraced  by  the  fourth 
resolution,  in  the  following  words,  viz : 

4.  Resolved,  That  Congress  has  power,  under  the 
constitution,  to  construct  canals  for  military    pur- 
poses: Provided,  That  no  private  property  be  taken 
for    any    such   purpose,   without  just  compensation 
being  made  therefor. 

The  question  then  recurred  on  agreeing  to 
the  said  fourth  resolution,  and  being  taken,  it 
was  determined  in  the  negative — yeas  61,  nays 
88. 

So  the  resolution  was  not  agreed  to. 

The  result  of  the  whole  proceeding  is,  that 
the  House  have  come  the  following  resolution : 

"  That  Congress  have  power,  under  the  constitu- 
tion, to  appropriate  money  for  the  construction  of 
post  roads,  military  and  other  roads,  and  of  canals, 
and  for  the  improvement  of  water-courses."* 

Our  Relations  with  Spain. 

The  following  Message  was  then  received 
from  the  PRESIDENT  OF  THE  UNITED  STATES  : 
To  ihe  Speaker  of  the  House  of  Representatives : 

In  compliance  with  a  resolution  of  the  Senate,  of 
the  16th  December,  and  of  the  House  of  Representa- 
tives, I  lay  before  Congress  a  report  of  the  Secretary 


*  The  vote  in  this  case  seems  to  have  turned  upon  the 
word  "necessary,'"  as  found  at  the  end  of  the  enumerated 
powers  granted  to  Congress ;  and  under  which  word  it  was 
held  to  be  constitutional  to  adopt  the  measures  -which  were 
deemed  necessary  to  carry  into  effect  these  granted  powers ; 
— a  very  unsafe  way  of  deriving  powers ; — as  the  opinion  ol 
what  may  be  necessary  may  depend  upon  the  temperament 
of  different  members  as  well  as  upon  judgment,  and  may 
vary  in  the  same  man  at  different  times ;  and  is,  at  all  times, 
Influenced  by  existing  circumstances.  Thus  the  financial 
circumstances  of  the  country  in  the  war  of  1812  induced  the 
establishment  of  the  second  National  Bank— under  the  sup- 
position of  necessity :  the  circumstances  of  the  country  in 
the  Mexican  war  of  1846,  were  different,  and  no  such  bank 
was  thought  of.  Again :  The  want  of  roads  during  the  war  of 
1812,  for  the  march  of  troops,  and  the  transportatio 
supplies,  and  the  general  difficulty  in  carrying  the  mails 


and  keeping  up  commercial  intercourse, : 


these  roads 


be  felt  as  a  necessity  in  war,  in  commerce,  and  in  the  post 
office :  and  many  roads,  undor  the  conviction  of  these  nece* 
sities,  were  then  made— not  one  of  which  is  now  so  used 
all  being  superseded  by  the  railways,  and  the  electric  tele 
graph — fruits  of  individual  genius  and  private  enterprise 
So  that  the  constitutionality  of  the  federal  road-making 
power  would  be  condemned  in  1856  upon  the  same  test  on 
which  it  was  established  in  1818. 


State,  and  the  papers  referred  to  in  it,  respecting 
be  negotiation  with  Spain.  To  explain  fully  the 
nature  of  the  differences  between  the  United  States 
and  Spain,  and  the  conduct  of  the  parties,  it  has  been 
ound  necessary  to  go  back  to  an  early  epoch.  The 
ecent  correspondence,  with  the  documents  accom- 
aanying  it,  will  give  a  full  view  of  the  whole  sub- 
ect,  and  place  the  conduct  of  the  United  States,  in 
very  stage,  and  under  every  circumstance,  for  justice, 
Qoderation,  and  a  firm  adherence  to  their  rights,  on 
hat  high  and  honorable  ground,  which  it  has  invari- 
ibly  sustained. 

JAMES  MONROE. 
WASHINGTON,  March  14,  1818. 

DEPARTMENT  OF  STATE,  March  14,  1818. 

The  Secretary  of  State,  to  whom  have  been  refer- 
red the  resolution  of  the  Senate,  of  16th,  December, 
ind  of  the  House  of  Representatives  of  the  24th  Feb- 
ruary last,  has  the  honor  of  submitting  to  the  Presi- 
dent the  correspondence  between  this  Department 
,nd  the  Spanish  Minister  resident  here,  since  he 
received  the  last  instructions  of  his  Government  to 
renew  the  negotiations  which,  at  the  time  of  the  last 
communication  to  Congress,  were  suspended  by  the 
nsufficiency  of  his  powers.  These  documents  will 
show  the  present  state  of  the  relations  between  the 
two  Governments. 

As  in  the  remonstrance  by  Mr.  de  Onis,  of  the  6th 
of  December  against  the  occupation  by  the  United 
States  of  Amelia  Island,  he  refers  to  a  previous  com- 
munication from  him,  denouncing  the  expedition  of 
Sir  Gregor  McGregor  against  that  place,  his  note  of 
9th  July,  being  the  paper  thus  referred  to,  is  added 
to  the  papers  now  transmitted.  Its  date,  when  com- 
pared with  that  of  the  occupation  of  Amelia  by  Mc- 
ill  show  that  it  was  written  ten  days  after 
that  event  ;  and  the  contents  of  his  note  of  Gth  De- 
cember, will  show  that  measures  had  been  taken  by 
the  competent  authorities  of  the  United  States  to  ar- 
rest McGregor  as  soon  as  the  unlawfulness  of  his  pro- 
ceedings within  our  jurisdiction  had  been  made  known 
to  them  by  legal  evidence,  although  he  was  beyond 
the  reach  of  the  process  before  it  could  be  served 
upon  his  person.  The  tardiness  of  Mr.  Onis's  remon- 
strances is  of  itself  a  decisive  vindication  of  the 
magistrates  of  the  United  States  against  any  impu- 
tation of  neglect  to  enforce  the  laws  ;  for,  if  the 
Spanish  Minister  himself  had  no  evidence  of  the  pro- 
ject of  McGregor,  sufficient  to  warrant  him  in  ad- 
dressing a  note  upon  the  subject,  to  this  Department, 
until  ten  days  after  it  had  been  accomplished,  it  can- 
not he  supposed  that  officers,  whose  authority  to  act 
commenced  only  at  the  moment  of  the  actual  violation 
of  the  law,  and  who  could  be  justified  only  by  clear 
and  explicit  evidence  of  the  facts  in  proof  of  such 
violation,  should  have  been  apprised  of  the  necessity 
of  their  interposition  in  time  to  make  it  effectual 
before  the  person  accused  had  departed  from  this 
country. 

As,  in  the  recent  discussions  between  Mr.  Onis  and 
this  Department,  there  is  frequent  reference  to  those 
of  the  negotiation  at  Aranjuez  in  1805,  the  corre- 
spondence between  the  Extraordinary  Minister  of  the 
United  States  at  that  period,  and  Don  Pedro  Cevallos, 
the  Minister  of  Foreign  Affairs  in  Spain,  will  be  also 
permitted  as  soon  as  may  be,  to  be  laid  before  Con- 
ondence between 
ing,  immediate- 


gress,  together   with    the 
Don  Francisco  Pizarro  and  Mr. 


ly  preceding  the  transmission  of  new  instructions  to 
Mr.  Onis,  and  other  correspondence  of  Mr.  Onis  with 


DEBATES  OP  CONGRESS. 


123 


MARCH,  1818.] 


Neutral  Relations. 


[H.  OK  R. 


this  Department,  tending  to  complete   the  view  of 
the  relations  between  the  two  countries. 

JOHN  QUINCY  ADAMS. 

MONDAY,  March  16. 

Mr.  MARK  presented  a  petition  of  the  General 
Assembly  of  the  State  of  Tennessee,  praying 
that  such  measures  may  be  adopted,  as  will  en- 
able citizens  of  that  State  to  take  possession 
of  lands  purchased  by  them  from  the  State  of 
North  Carolina,  and  which  are  now  held  by  the 
Chickasnw  Indians,  under  a  treaty  concluded 
with  the  United  States. — Referred'to  the  com- 
mittee appointed  on  the  17th  December  last, 
respecting  the  Indian  title  to  lands  within  the 
State  of  Kentucky. 

Mr.  ROBERTSON,  of  Louisiana,  presented  a 
petition  of  Gales  &  Seaton,  stating,  that  they 
proposed  to  publish  a  History  of  Congress,  from 
the  commencement  of  the  Government  to  the 
present  day,  and  praying  the  aid  and  patronage 
of  Congress  in  their  said  publication;  which 
was  read,  and  referred  to  a  select  committee  ; 
and  Mr.  ROBERTSON,  Mr.  TYLER,  Mr.  HOPKIN- 
SON,  Mr.  HOLMES,  of  Massachusetts,  and  Mr. 
SLMKINS,  were  apppointed  the  committee. 

Mr.  SCOTT  presented  petitions  of  sundry  in- 
habitants of  the  Territory  of  Missouri,  praying 
that  the  said  Territory  may  be  admitted  into 
the  Union,  as  a  State,  on  an  equal  footing  with 
the  original  States ;  which  were,  together  with 
the  petitions  of  a  similar  nature,  heretofore 
presented  at  the  present  session,  referred  to  a 
select  committee ;  and  Mr.  SCOTT,  Mr.  ROBERT- 
SON of  Kentucky,  Mr.  POINDEXTER,  Mr.  HEN- 
D  RICKS,  Mr.  LIVERMOBE,  Mr.  MILLS,  and  Mr. 
BALDWIN,  were  appointed  the  committee. 

TUESDAY,  March  17. 

Neutral   Relations. 

The  House  went  into  Committee  of  the  Whole 
on  the  bill  in  addition  to  "  An  act  for  the  pun- 
ishment of  certain  crimes  against  the  United 
States,"  and  to  repeal  the  acts  therein  men- 
tioned, (to  enact  into  one,  with  amendments, 
the  several  acts  heretofore  passed  to  enforce 
the  neutral  obligations  of  the  United  States.) 

Mr.  FORSYTH  rose  in  explanation  of  the  views 
of  the  Committee  of  Foreign  Relations  in  pro- 
posing this  bill,  which  was  the  result  of  the  gen- 
eral inquiry  into  the  various  existing  acts  on 
this  subject  which  had  been  referred  to  them, 
and  which  it  was  presumed  answered  the  inten- 
tions of  the  House  in  directing  the  inquiry.  Mr. 
F.  briefly  recapitulated  the  history  of  the  several 
laws  passed  on  this  subject,  from  the  act  of 
1794,  rendered  necessary  by  the  French  Revo- 
lution, and  the  want  of  sufficient  power  in  the 
Executive  to  enforce  on  our  own  citizens  the 
observance  of  neutrality,  down  to  the  act  of 
the  last  session ;  and  concluded  by  explaining 
the  amendment  which  the  committee  had 
deemed  necessary  to  the  strict  impartiality  ot 
the  provisions  of  the  bill  they  had  reported. 
Mr.  ROBERTSON,  of  Louisiana,  after  submitting 


his  reasons  for  disputing  the  propriety  of  some 
of  the  former  acts ;  for  believing  that  the  pro- 
visions of  the  present  bill  exceeded  the  obliga- 
tions imposed  on  us  by  a  just  regard  to  neutral 
duties,  and  went  further  than  the  neutral  acts 
of  any  other  nation — moved,  first,  to  strike  out 
the  following  proviso : 

1  That  if  any  person  so  enlisted,  shall,  within 
thirty  days  after  such  enlistment,  voluntarily  discover 
upon  oath  to  some  justice  of  the  peace,  or  other  civil 
magistrate,  the  person  or  persons  by  whom  he  was 
so  enlisted,  so  as  that  he  or  they  may  be  apprehended 
or  convicted  of  the  said  offence,  such  person  so  dis- 
covering the  offender  or  offenders,  shall  be  indemni- 
fied from  the  penalty  prescribed  by  this  act" 

This  motion  was  agreed  to  without  a  divi- 
sion. 

Mr.  CLAY  offered  some  general  remarks  on 
the  offensive  nature  of  the  bill,  which,  he  said, 
instead  of  an  act  to  enforce  neutrality,  ought  to 
be  entitled,  an  act  for  the  benefit  of  His  Ma- 
jesty the  King  of  Spain.  He  also  expressed  his 
unwillingness  thus  to  be  called  on  to  re-enact 
laws  already  in  force,  of  which  he  did  not  wish 
to  have  now  the  labor  of  investigating  their 
principles,  or  the  responsibility,  if  wrong,  of  ren- 
ovating and  participating  in' them.  Sufficient, 
he  thought,  for  the  day,  was  the  evil  thereof; 
and  he  was  sorry  the  committee  had  not  con- 
tented itself  with  bringing  forward  some  original 
proposition,  without  hunting  out  and  bringing 
up  for  re-enaction  all  the  old  laws  heretofore 
passed  on  the  subject.  There  was  a  great  dif- 
ference between  suffering  acts  to  remain  unre- 
pealed,  and  bringing  them  up  for  re-enactment, 
and  he  gave  notice  that,  after  this  bill  should 
be  made  as  perfect  as  its  friends  could  make  it, 
he  should  submit  a  single  proposition  to  leave 
the  act  of  1794  in  force,  and  to  repeal  the  acts 
of  1797  and  of  1817.  Mr.  C.  concluded  by 
moving  to  strike  out  of  the  second  section  the 
words  which  make  it  penal  for  a  person  to  "  go 
beyond  the  limits  or  jurisdiction  of  the  United 
States,  with  intent  to  be  enlisted  or  entered," 
hi  the  service  of  any  foreign  Prince  or  State. 

Mr.  FORSYTH  opposed  the  motion,  and  ob- 
served, that  after  the  great  labor  which  the 
committee  had  undertaken  on  this  subject,  at 
the  instance  of  the  Speaker,  (Mr.  CLAY.)  they 
had  some  reason  to  complain  of  his  remarks  on 
the  course  they  had  taken.  A  general  inquiry 
into  the  subject  and  revision  of  the  acts  had 
been  referred  to  them,  and  the  committee  had 
found  it  easier  and  better  to  amend  and  bring 
into  one  general  bill  all  the  acts,  than  to  adopt 
any  other  course.  Mr.  F.  said  that,  so  far 
from  operating  unfairly  against  the  cause  of  the 
patriots,  this  bill  removed  certain  provisions  of 
the  act  of  1797,  which  bore  exclusively  on  that 
cause,  denouncing  the  severest  penalties  against 
those  of  our  citizens  who  aid  them,  which  this 
bill  would  render  equal  and  impartial.  Mr.  F. 
adduced  some  arguments  to  show  the  propriety 
of  retaining  the  provision  moved  to  be  stricken 
out ;  but,  after  some  conversation  between  Mr. 
CLAY  and  Mr.  FORSYTH,  the  question  was  taken. 


124 


ABRIDGMENT  OF  THE 


H.  OF  R] 


The  Neutrality  Bill. 


[MARCH,  1818. 


and  Mr.  CLAY'S  motion  agreed  to  without  a 
count. 

MT.  KOBERTSON,  of  Louisiana,  objected  to  the 
penalties  proposed  by  the  bill,  as  unreasonably 
severe,  and  instead  of  a  fine  of  $10,000,  and  ten 
years'  imprisonment  which  the  judge  might,  at 
his  discretion,  impose  on  the  offender — moved 
to  substitute  $2,000  and  three  years. 

This  motion  was  opposed  by  Messrs.  FORSYTE, 
SMITU  of  Maryland,  LIVERMOEH,  and  KHEA,  and 
supported  by  Messrs.  KOBEBTSON  of  Louisiana, 
CLAIBORNE,  and  BALL. 

The  question  being  divided,  the  motion  to  re- 
duce the  fine  was  negatived — ayes  40 ;  and  the 
motion  to  reduce  the  limit  of  imprisonment  was 
carried — 62  to  60. 

Mr.  HOLMES,  of  Massachusetts,  moved  to 
amend  the  section,  so  as  to  leave  it  to  the  dis- 
cretion of  the  judge  to  inflict  both  fine  and  im- 
prisonment, or  one  only,  instead  of  being 
obliged,  as  the  bill  stood,  to  impose  both,  if 
either. — Negatived — ayes  55. 

Mr.  HERRICK  moved  to  reduce  the  fine  to 
$5,000  ;  which  was  also  negatived. 

After  some  other  unsuccessful  motions  of 
minor  importance — 

Mr.  FORSYTE  moved  to  strike  from  the  third 
section  the  provision  which  makes  it  penal  for 
any  citizen  to  fit  out  or  arm,  without  the  juris- 
diction of  the  United  States,  any  ship  or  vessel 
with  intent  to  commit  hostilities  upon  the  citi- 
zens or  subjects  of  a  friendly  State — leaving  in 
this  section  only  the  provision  against  such  citi- 
zens of  the  United  States  as  shall,  beyond  our 
jurisdiction,  fit  out  vessels  to  commit  hostilities 
against  the  citizens  of  the  United  States. 

This  motion  produced  a  good  deal  of  debate, 
principally  on  the  expediency  of  striking  out 
the  whole  section,  and  on  the  impropriety  of 
still  retaining  a  feature  in  the  bill  which  would 
admit  the  possibility  of  a  crime  so  monstrous 
and  improbable,  as  that  of  citizens  going  abroad 
to  commence  war  upon  the  citizens  and  qom- 
merce  of  their  own  country,  and  which,  even 
if  committed,  would  be  punishable  either  as 
treason  or  piracy. 

Messrs.  CLAY,  EOBEETSON,  FORSYTII,  SMITH 
of  Maryland,  and  PITKIN,  joined  in  the  discus- 
sion ;  but,  before  any  question  was  taken,  the 
committee  rose,  and  the  House  adjourned. 


WEDNESDAY,  March  18. 
The  Neutrality  Bill 

A  motion  (made  yesterday)  to  amend  the 
fourth  section  of  the  bill,  was  now  agreed  to — 
the  effect  of  which  was  to  confine  the  provi- 
sions of  that  section  to  the  punishment  of  any 
citizens  of  the  United  States  who  should  fit  out 
vessels  to  cruise  against  the  commerce  of  the 
United  States,  leaving  out  what  related  to  the 
commerce  of  foreign  nations. 

Mr.  CLAY  rose  to  propose  an  amendment  he 
had  before  indicated.  Amended  as  it  had  been, 
Mr.  C.  said  he  had  no  objection  to  retaining  the 
fourth  section ;  but  moved  to  strike  out  all  the 


remainder  of  the  bill,  except  so  much  as  retains 
the  provisions  of  the  act  of  1794,  and  repeals 
the  acts  of  1797  and  1817 — the  simple  effect  of 
which  amendment  would  be  to  repeal  the  act 
of  1797  and  that  of  1817.  In  the  propriety  of 
repealing  the  act  of  1797,  he  understood  the 
Chairman  of  Foreign  Kelations  to  concur.  Of 
course,  then,  it  would  only  be  necessary  to  show 
that  the  act  of  the  last  session  ought  to  be  re- 
pealed ;  and  that  it  goes  beyond  any  neutral 
duty  we  can  owe.  In  the  threshold  of  this 
discussion,  Mr.  C.  said,  he  confessed  he  did  not 
like  much  the  origin  of  that  act.  There  had 
been  some  disclosures,  not  in  an  official  form, 
but  in  such  a  shape  as  to  entitle  them  to  cre- 
dence, that  showed  that  act  to  have  been  the 
result  of  a  teasing  on  the  part  of  foreign  agents 
in  this  country,  which  he  regretted  to  have 
seen.  But,  from  whatever  source  it  sprung,  if 
it  was  an  act  necessary  to  preserve  the  neutral 
relations  of  the  country,  Mr.  0.  said  it  ought  to 
be  retained.  But  this  he  denied.  The  act  was 
predicated  on  the  ground  that  the  existing  pro- 
visions did  not  reach  the  case  of  the  war  now 
raging  between  Spain  and  the  South  American 
provinces.  In  its  provisions  it  went  beyond  the 
obligations  of  the  United  States  to  other  powers, 
and  that  part  of  it  was  unprecedented  in  any 
nation,  which  compelled  citizens  of  the  United 
States  to  give  bonds  not  to  commit  acts  without 
the  jurisdiction  of  the  United  States,  which  it 
is  the  business  of  foreign  nations,  and  not  of 
this  Government,  to  guard  against.  Does  the 
act  of  1794,  said  Mr.  C.,  embrace  the  case  of 
the  Spanish  patriots  ?  That  was  the  question, 
and  it  was  not  worth  while  to  disguise  it.  If 
St.  Domingo  was  not  included,  as  had  been 
said,  in  the  act  of  1794,  it  would  not  follow- 
that  that  act  did  not  embrace  the  case  of  the 
Spanish  patriots.  What  was  the  condition  of 
St.  Domingo  ?  Had  the  Executive  of  the  Unit- 
ed States  ever  acknowledged,  in  regard  to  that 
war,  that  it  was  a  civil  war,  respecting  which 
the  United  States  stood  in  a  neutral  relation  ? 
No  such  acknowledgment,  he  said,  had  ever 
been  made,  in  respect  to  the  war  in  that  island, 
as  had  been  expressly  made  by  the  Executive 
in  regard  to  the  war  in  South  America,  that  it 
was  a  civil  war.  And,  when  the  courts  came 
to  apply  the  law  to  cases  before  them,  having 
the  decision  of  the  Executive  to  guide  them, 
they  must  decide  that  the  law  of  1794  is  appli- 
cable to  both  parties.  The  act  of  1817,  conse- 
quently, was  wholly  unnecessary  to  the  object 
for  which  it  was  avowedly  enacted,  and  was 
one  of  superfluous  legislation.  Mr.  C.  said 
he  recollected  with  pleasure  that  he  gave  his 
negative  to  it ;  that  every  member  from  the 
State  of  which  he  was  a  Kepresentative  did  the 
same.  Ho  recollected  that  sixty-three  members 
of  that  part  of  this  House,  with  whom  it  had 
been,  and  would  always  be,  his  pride  and  pleas- 
ure to  act,  had  recorded  their  votes  against  it. 
The  voice  of  the  country  had  since  pronounced 
its  doom,  and  left  for  Congress  nothing  to  do 
but  to  repeal  the  act.  Disguise  it  as  you  will, 


DEBATES  OF  CONGRESS. 


125 


MARCH,  1818.] 


The  Neutrality  Bill. 


[H..OP  R. 


said  lie,  the  world  has  seen  the  act  in  its  true 
character ;  has  regarded  it  as  a  measure  calcu- 
lated to  affect  the  struggle  going  on  in  the 
South,  and  discovered  that,  however  neutral  in 
its  language,  its  bearing  was  altogether  against 
the  cause  of  the  patriots.  How,  asked  he,  is 
that  war  now  carried  on  ?  But  for  the  sup- 
plies drawn  from  this  country  through  Havana, 
for  sustaining  the  army  of  Morillo,  this  modern 
Alva,  whose  career  is  characterized  by  all  the 
enormities  which  have  consigned  to  perpetual 
infamy  the  name  of  his  great  prototype ;  but 
for  the  supplies  drawn  through  Havana,  whose 
port  is  open  to  us  .only  for  the  sake  of  those 
supplies,  General  Morillo  could  not  have  sup- 
ported his  army.  This  fact  he  had  from  the 
highest  authority,  from  the  commander  of  one 
of  our  national  vessels  who  had  been  on  a 
cruise  in  that  quarter  and  had  received  it  from 
the  lips  of  Morillo  himself.  It  becomes  us,  Mr. 
C.  said,  really  and  bona  fide  to  perform  our 
neutral  obligations.  He  had  seen  and  heard  of 
circumstances  respecting  this  subject,  humiliat- 
ing in  the  extreme.  He  had  been  told,  for  in- 
stance, that  in  the  case  lately  argued  in  the 
Supreme  Court  of  the  United  States,  of  some 
of  those  individuals  tried  in  the  court  of  the 
United  States  at  Boston,  not  only  was  the  At- 
torney-General ready  at  his  post,  as  he  should 
be,  to  attend  to  it,  but  the  attorney  for  the 
Massachusetts  district  was  there  to  argue  it 
also;  and,  not  satisfied  with  this,  a  foreign 
agent  was  seen  attending  the  court,  to  see  prob- 
ably that  nothing  was  omitted,  and  not  even 
a  poor  Amicus  Curis3  was  there  to  speak  for 
the  accused.  Such  was  the  state  of  the  case 
that  the  humanity  of  the  Attorney-General  had 
interposed,  and  induced  that  highly  meritorious 
officer  to  make  some  suggestions  favorable  to 
those  individuals.  Was  there  a  man  in  this 
country,  Mr.  C.  asked,  who  did  not  feel  his 
conscience  reproach  him  for  that  transaction? 

The  act  of  1797  being  given  up  on  all  hands, 
and  the  act  of  1817  being,  as  he  thought  he  had 
shown,  unnecessary,  he  hoped  his  motion  would 
prevail.  If,  however,  contrary  to  his  belief, 
the  House  should  decide  that  the  act  of  1794 
did  not  cover  the  case  of  the  existing  civil  war, 
and  the  act  of  1817  should  be  thought  necessary 
to  bring  it  within  the  provisions  of  the  act  of 
1794,  Mr.  0.  said  he  should,  in  that  event,  sub- 
mit another  proposition  to  amend  the  bill,  pre- 
dicated on  the  idea  that  some  provision  was 
necessary  hi  addition  to  the  act  of  1794. 

The  motion  of  Mr.  CLAY  to  amend  .the  bill 
having  been  stated  from  the  Chair — 

Mr.  FOBSYTH  said  he  was  opposed  to  the  mo- 
tion, and  could  not  but  suppose  the  honorable 
Speaker  himself  was  doubtful  of  its  success,  as 
he  had  drawn  before  the  House  a  variety  of 
considerations  which  had  no  bearing  on  the 
question.  Mr.  F.  denied,  in  the  first  place,  that 
public  sentiment  had  condemned  the  act  of 
1817.  It  was  true,  indeed,  that  certain  exclu- 
sive friends  of  liberty,  at  the  head  of  presses  in 
the  United  States,  had  condemned  this  act;  but, 


so  far  as  we  have  any  expression  of  opinion 
from  the  great  body  of  the  people  of  the  Unit- 
ed States,  from  the  thinking  part  of  the  com- 
munity, the  act  had  been  approved.  But  the 
Speaker  had  informed  the  committee  that  sixty- 
three  members  of  the  House  had  opposed  that 
act,  and  that  all  the  members  from  a  certain 
section  of  the  country  were  in  favor  of  it. 
This  was  another  point,  Mr.  F.  said,  on  which 
he  differed  from  the  honorable  Speaker.  The 
act  of  1817,  as  it  stands,  came  into  this  House 
on  the  3d  of  March,  1817,  and  was  passed  by  a 
large  majority,  the  yeas  and  nays  not  having 
been  required  on  it.  How  the  Speaker  then 
had  ascertained  the  political  complexion  of 
those  who  voted  for  the  bill,  Mr.  F.  knew  not ; 
as  far  as  he  recollected,  a  very  small  minority 
had  voted  against  it.  That  part  of  *the  bill 
which  had  been  objected  to  in  this  House,  had 
been  stricken  out  in  the  Senate,  and  the  bill,  so 
amended,  and  as  it  now  stands,  was  scarcely 
opposed  on  its  final  passage.  There  was,  there- 
fore, no  decided  political  sentiment  expressed 
on  the  passage  of  the  bill.  But,  to  excite  pre- 
judice against  the  act  of  1817,  another  ground 
had  been  taken,  and  a  suggestion  made,  which, 
if  true,  was  a  reflection,  not  on  the  House,  but 
on  the  gentleman  whose  eulogy  the  Speaker 
some  days  ago  pronounced.  The  origin  of  this 
act  had  been  imputed  to  the  teasing  of  certain 
foreign  agents  near  the  United  States.  That 
the  Message  of  President  Madison,  recommend- 
ing that  act,  was  in  consequence  of  the  repre- 
sentations of  foreign  ministers,  Mr.  F.  said  he 
was  ready  to  admit — not  of  reiterated  importu- 
nities, but  of  a  performance  of  their  duty  to 
their  Governments  by  remonstrating  against 
violations,  by  citizens  of  the  United  States,  of 
obligations  which  we  owe  not  to  any  one  na- 
tion, but  equally  to  all.  A  remonstrance  had 
been  made  by  the  Portuguese  Minister,  a  garbled 
representation  of  which  had  been  published ;  a 
similar  statement  of  facts  had  been  made  by 
the- Minister  of  Great  Britain,  another  by  the 
Minister  of  France.  All  the  foreign  Ministers 
here  had,  in  short,  represented  that  citizens  of 
the  United  States,  engaged  in  cruises  in  patriot 
vessels,  as  they  were  called,  fitted  from  our 
ports,  committed  depredations  on  the  commerce 
of  England,  France,  and  Spain.  What,  Mr.  F. 
asked,  had  been  the  duty  of  the  President  of 
the  United  States  if  these  facts  were  true? 
"Were  not  the  United  States  bound  to  make  re- 
paration, if,  without  an  effort  to  prevent  it,  we 
suffered  depredations  to  be  made,  by  our  citi- 
zens, and  from  our  ports,  on  the  commerce  of 
nations  in  amity  with  us  ?  The  Government, 
he  said,  had  heretofore  recognized  this  princi- 
ple, and  had  remunerated  foreign  citizens  for 
property  taken  from  them  by  citizens  of  the 
United  States.  The  President,  then,  had  barely 
performed  an  imperious  duty  in  representing  to 
Congress  the  insufficiency  of  the  laws,  &c. 

But,  Mr.  F.  said,  he  would  never  do  the  late 
President  the  injustice  to  state  his  views,  when 
he  had  it  in  hia  power  to  quote  his  own  Ian 


126 


ABRIDGMENT  OF  THE 


H.  OP  R..] 


Neutral  Relations. 


[MARCH,  1818. 


guage  conveying  them.  [Mr.  F.  then  referred 
to  the  President's  Message,  of  last  session,  on 
which  the  neutrality  act  of  March  3d,  1817,  was 
founded.]  lie  appealed  to  every  other  member 
of  the  House  whether,  in  this  recommendation, 
there  was  any  thing  censurable ;  any  thing  that 
the  most  fastidious  could  mark  for  reprobation. 
The  act  of  1817  was  precisely  correspondent 
with  the  Message,  and,  almost  in  so  many, 
words,  an  answer  to  it.  It  corrected  the  de- 
fects of  the  existing  laws,  and  enabled  the 
President  of  the  United  States,  where  there 
was  strong  ground  to  presume  that  a  cruiser 
was  about  to  violate  the  neutral  relations  of  the 
United  States,  to  arrest  his  departure  until  he 
should  give  bond  not  to  violate  the  laws  of  his 
country.  But  this,  the  House  had  been  told, 
was  a  most  extraordinary  provision,  and  unpre- 
cedented in  the  annals  of  civilized  legislation. 
It  was  not  necessary,  Mr.  F.  said,  for  him  to 
tell  the  House  that,  whenever  a  citizen  of  the 
United  States  or  of  any  State  is  accused,  on 
public  ground,  of  intending  to  commit  an  of- 
fence against  the  authority  of  the  laws,  it  is  the 
duty  of  a  magistrate  to  require  him  not  only  to 
give  security  not  to  commit  a  particular  act,  but 
to  bind  him  over,  in  ample  security,  that  he  will 
not  violate  any  of  the  laws.  But  it  was  object- 
ed, particularly,  that  it  was  required  of  a  citizen 
to  give  bond  to  refrain,  when  beyond  the  juris- 
diction of  the  United  States,  from  certain  acts. 
And  was  it  not  right  to  do  so,  when  the  United 
States  were  responsible  for  his  conduct  when 
beyond  their  j  urisdiction  ?  That  was  a  question 
which  had  long  been  settled.  And  was  there  any 
hardship,  Mr.  F.  asked,  in  requiring  bond  from  a 
citizen  that  he  will  refrain  on  the  high  seas  from 
acts  affecting  the  character  of  the  country,  and 
involving  it  in  disputes  with  foreign  powers? 
And  yet  there  was  nothing  else  in  that  act  which 
even  in  the  eyes  of  the  honorable  Speaker  was 
reprehensible.  But  this  provision  had  been 
said  to  be  unprecedented.  Why,  Mr.  F.  said, 
our  statute  book  is  full  of  similar  provisions. 
Every  restrictive  law  of  the  United  States,  every 
law  forbidding  commercial  intercourse  or  regu- 
lating it  with  foreign  nations,  contains  similar 
provisions.  The  laws  prohibiting  the  slave  trade 
contain  similar  provisions.  If  a  person  swear 
that  he  suspects  another  of  intention  to  violate 
the  laws,  against  the  slave  trade,  the  person  so 
suspected  is  required  by  the  collector  to  give 
bond  and  security  that  he  will  not  violate  the 
law  in  this  re.spect.  And  where,  Mr.  F.  asked, 
was  the  impropriety  of  this  provision?  But 
there  was  a  still  stronger  case :  That  of  the  act 
prohibiting  intercourse  with  St.  Domingo  was 
perfectly  parallel  to  the  present ;  for,  although 
the  color  of  those  who  were  there  fighting  for 
their  liberty  might  make  a  difference  in  the 
policy  of  the  Government,  it  could  make  none 
in  the  principles  on  which  that  policy  was 
founded.  It  was  well  known  that,  at  the  date 
of  that  act,  a  contest  existed  between  the  Euro- 
pean colonists  and  the  colored  population  of  St. 
Domingo ;  the  latter  claiming  a  recognition  of 


their  liberty,  the  former  claiming  to  reduce 
them  to  obedience.  Did  the  United  States  per- 
mit the  vessels  of  that  Government,  or  pretend- 
ed Government,  to  come  here  for  military  sup- 
plies? Did  it  permit  the  agent  from  St. 
Domingo  to  reside  here,  to  grant  commissions 
to  privateers,  to  make  representations  to  the 
Government,  officially  or  unofficially,  and  to 
make  appeals  from  the  acts  of  the  Executive  to 
the  Congress  or  the  people  ?  No,  Mr.  F.  said, 
the  Government  of  France  asked  from  the  jus- 
tice of  this  country,  to  pass  laws  prohibiting 
any  commercial  intercourse  with  the  citizens  of 
St.  Domingo,  and  an  act  was  passed,  for  two 
years,  and  afterwards  continued  in  force  for  two 
years  longer,  one  of  the  provisions  of  which  was 
similar  to  that  one  of  the  act  of  '17,  which  was 
so  much  reprobated  by  the  Speaker. 

Mr.  KOBEBTSON,  of  Louisiana,  said  he  had 
voted  against  the  act  of  1817,  and  was  now  in 
favor  of  its  repeal.  Before  coming  to  that 
question,  however,  he  would  remark  that,  when 
our  situation  was  more  critical,  and  when,  in 
point  of  resources,  we  were  infinitely  weaker ; 
when,  in  1794,  our  citizens  were  engaged  in 
behalf  of  the  republicans  of  France,  with  a  zeal 
infinitely  more  dangerous  to  the  peace  of  the 
country  than  any  thing  that  has  been  exhibited 
in  regard  to  the  patriots  of  South  America,  the 
act  of  1794  had  been  deemed  sufficient  to  secure 
the  observance  of  our  neutral  relations.  Was 
our  situation,  he  asked,  more  critical  in  1817 
than  in  1794  ?  If  not,  ought  we  to  have  been 
induced  to  take  stronger  measures  by  far  than 
had  been  applied  to  the  emergency  of  1794? 
The  administration  of  WASHIXGTOJJ  not  only 
deemed  the  act  of  that  day  sufficient,  but  cau- 
tiously limited  its  duration  to  two  years.  It 
had  been  subsequently  renewed  two  or  three 
times,  and  Congress  had  always  been  satisfied 
with  its  provisions.  In  1817,  however,  a  state 
of  things  somewhat  similar  occurs,  but  infinitely 
less  critical,  in  consequence  of  another  effort, 
by  another  people,  to  throw  off  the  yoke  of  a 
despotic  Government.  As  the  struggle  of  the 
people  of  France  for  liberty  gave  rise  to  the  act 
of  1794,  so  that  of  the  people  of  South  America 
gave  rise  to  the  act  of  1817,  which  was  passed 
by  Congress  without  the  knowledge  of  any  ex- 
terior pressure  on  the  Government,  or  of  the 
letter  which  had  been  mentioned,  and  other 
representations.  It  now  appeared  that  the  act 
of  1817  was  passed  in  consequence  of  representa- 
tions of  foreign  nations,  growing  out  of  hostile 
feelings  to  the  cause  in  which  the  people  of 
South  America  were  engaged.  This,  said  Mr. 
K.,  might  be  a  sufficient  ground  for  the  Minis- 
ters of  Portugal,  of  England,  and  of  France,  to 
proceed  upon — but  shall  we  sympathize  in  their 
feelings  on  the  subject,  and  be  induced  by  them 
to  pass  acts  to  shackle  our  citizens,  when  it  is 
so  easy  to  trace  their  remonstrances  to  a  gen- 
eral hostility  to  the  cause  of  any  people  who 
are  engaged  in  a  struggle  to  ameliorate  their 
condition  by  changing  their  form  of  govern- 
ment? It  did  not  appear  now,  he  said,  that 


DEBATES  OF  CONGRESS. 


127 


MARCH,  1818.] 


Neutral  Relations. 


[H.  OF  R. 


that  act  had  been  passed  so  much  with  a  view 
to  do  what  was  just  to  ourselves,  as  to  accom- 
modate the  views  of  foreign  nations.  That, 
Mr.  R.  said,  had  been  his  objection  to  the  act 
when  it  passed ;  and  the  more  its  causes  and 
effects  were  developed,  the  more  anxious  he 
was  to  get  rid  of  it,  and  to  return  to  the  statu- 
tory provisions  of  1794,  which,  for  a  number  of 
years,  had  been  found  sufficient. 

The  cases  stated  by  the  Chairman  of  the 
Committee  of  Foreign  Relations,  (Mr.  FOBSYTH,) 
as  having  induced  the  passage  of  the  act  of  last 
session,  were  already  provided  for  by  the  act  of 
1794 ;  he  referred  to  cases  of  fitting  out  vessels 
in  our  harbors,  and  with  them  cruising  against 
the  commerce  of  foreign  nations,  prohibited  in 
that  act,  under  very  heavy  penalties.  But  the 
act  of  1817  went  a  step  further,  and  authorized 
the  collector  to  stop  any  vessel  manifestly  built 
for  warlike  purposes,  if  it  has  a  cargo  on  board 
which  shows  it  to  have  been  intended  for  such 
purposes,  or  having  a  crew,  or  for  any  other 
cause,  justifying  that  suspicion.  Mr.  R.  wished 
to  know  by  what  authority  the  Government 
undertook  to  say,  that  a  vessel  built  for  warlike 
purposes  should  not  leave  the  ports  and  harbors 
of  the  United  States.  "What  breach  of  neutral- 
ity is  it  to  suffer  such  vessels  to  depart  our 
ports ;  and  why  are  we  required,  in  this  man- 
ner, to  cripple  the  operations  of  the  shipholders 
and  shipbuilders  ?  Mr.  R.  strongly  objected  to 
the  latitude  of  discretion  given  to  collectors  by 
the  term  "  or  for  any  other  cause,"  which  sub- 
jected the  vessels  of  our  citizens  to  vexatious 
detentions.  This,  he  said,  was  one  difference 
between  the  act  of  1794  and  that  of  1817 ;  but 
there  was  yet  another.  By  the  act  of  1817,  not 
only  armed  vessels,  but  vessels  manifestly  built 
for  war,  though  built  for  sale  only,  were  forbid- 
den to  go  from  our  ports  without  giving  bond 
that  they  were  not  to  be  employed  in  aiding  or 
assisting  any  military  expedition,  &c.,  and  so 
obviously  unjust  was  this  provision,  that  the 
gentleman  himself  had  found  it  necessary  to 
propose  an  amendment  to  narrow  its  scope. 
Mr.  R.  concluded  by  repeating  that  he  could 
see  nothing  in  our  situation  which  required 
a  stronger  act  than  was  deemed  sufficient  in 
1794,  and  he,  therefore,  hoped  the  acts  of  1797 
and  1817  would  be  repealed. 

Mr.  LOWXDES  commenced  his  remarks  by  re- 
deeming the  act  of  1817  from  the  charge  which 
had  been  alleged  against  it,  as  far  as  his  opinion 
went,  by  declaring  that  act  not  to  have  been 
adopted  in  consequence  of  any  foreign  remon- 
strance, but  to  have  been  the  deliberate  expres- 
sion of  the  judgment  of  this  and  of  the  other 
House ;  and,  though  he  kad  listened  with  the 
greatest  attention  to  the  arguments  of  the  gen- 
tlemen from  Kentucky  and  Louisiana,  they  had 
failed  to  convince  him  that  that  deliberate  ex- 
pression of  the  opinion  of  Congress  at  the  last 
ses.-ion  ought  now  to  be  reversed.  But,  he 
said,  there  was  less  difference  on  principle  than 
he  had  expected  to  have  found  between  those 
gentlemen  and  those  who  approved  the  act  of 


the  last  session.  The  Speaker  particularly  had 
conceded  that  the  acts  were  unlawful  which 
hat  law  was  designed  to  prevent ;  and  the  only 
difference  between  us,  said  Mr.  L.,  is  that  for 
the  prevention  of  these  unlawful  acts  we  pro- 
pose a  remedy,  which  they  will  not  accept. 
On  the  question  of  the  criminality  of  enlistment 
in  a  war  between  two  powers  with  whom  we 
are  in  amity,  we  perfectly  agree.  The  opinion 
of  the  House  and  of  the  country,  Mr.  L.  said, 
must  be  that,  so  long  as  we  profess  neutrality, 
we  ought  to  observe  it ;  that  our  neutral  obli- 
gations should  be  fairly  and  honestly  fulfilled. 
And  it  was  because  he  thought  it  the  duty  of 
Congress  to  prevent  our  citizens,  by  requiring 
bond  and  security  to  that  effect,  from  engaging 
in  the  existing  war,  that  he  was  willing  to  con- 
tinue the  act  which  the  Speaker  proposed  to 
repeal.  He  could  not  think,  he  said,  that  there 
was  any  thing  new  in  the  act  of  1817;  not 
merely  because  similar  provisions  might  be 
found  in  our  own  municipal  regulations,  but  be- 
cause analogous  provisions  existed  in  the  laws 
of  other  nations.  Mr.  L.  asked  of  the  honorable 
Speaker,  seeing  that  in  time  of  war  we  require 
bond  from  privateers,  before  commissioned, 
that  they  will  not  violate  the  laws  of  nations, 
why  in  time  of  peace  he  would  not  require 
bonds  from  those  suspected  of  the  intention  to 
violate  them.  Mr.  L.  considered  it  an  imper- 
fect view  of  the  subject  to  suppose  that  the 
bond  thus  required  was  only  to  prevent  injury 
being  done  to  any  one  power.  Those  who 
leave  our  shores  to  assail  the  property  of  one 
power,  may,  when  they  get  to  sea,  employ 
their  arms  against  any  and  every  nation.  It 
was  perfectly  fair,  certainly,  that  those  who 
left  our  shores  with  the  means  of  mischief  on 
board,  should  give  that  security  against  their 
involving  the  interests,  and  perhaps  the  peace 
of  then*  country,  which  bonds,  such  as  are  re- 
quired by  the  law  of  1817,  are  calculated  to 
afford.  The  gentleman  from  Louisiana  appeared 
to  think  that  there  could  scarcely  be  any  thing 
in  the  cargo  of  the  vessel  which  ought  to  be 
taken  as  an  indication  of  a  warlike  purpose. 
Now,  Mr.  L.  said,  though  he  did  not  think  this 
clause  material — not,  however,  that  he  would 
repeal  a  law  because  every  syllable  it  contained 
was  absolutely  necessary — yet  he  thought  that 
from  the  cargo  the  object  of  an  expedition  fitted 
from  our  ports  might  be  readily  inferred.  Might 
there  not,  he  said,  be  that  preparation  of  fixed 
ammunition,  &c.,  which  would  afford  a  strong 
presumption  that  the  vessel  was  not  intended 
for  traffic,  but  prepared  for  war?  He  thought 
this  might  occur  where  other  proof  would  fail. 
Mr.  L.  took  other  views  of  this  question.  He 
said  he  could  not  regard  this  question  as  one  of 
a  mere  fulfilment  of  our  duties  to  the  countries 
at  war,  as  the  vessels  equipped  in  our  ports 
might  be  employed  against  other  countries  with 
whom  we  are  at  peace,  as  well  as  against  those 
belligerents.  One  consideration  for  such  an  act 
he  would  suggest,  which  it  was  too  late  for  us 
I  to  deny,  that  we  are  responsible  for  injuries 


128 


ABRIDGMENT  OF  THE 


H.  OF  R.) 


Neutral  Relations. 


[MABCH,  1818. 


done  by  vessels  of  the  United  States,  after  they 
leave  our  ports,  before  they  arrive  at  a  foreign 
port.  For  such  depredations  we  are  responsi- 
ble, and  have  recognized  the  principle  by  pay- 
ing claims  founded  on  it.  We  have  bound  our- 
selves to  respect  the  principle  in  a  manner 
equally  obligatory,  by  preferring  claims  founded 
on  it  against  other  nations.  Having  done  so, 
every  consideration  of  prudence,  of  respect  for 
the  character  of  our  country,  requires  that  we 
should  exact  the  security  which  is  demanded 
by  the  act  of  1817.  As  regards  those  who  de- 
sire to  trade  in  vessels  of  war,  it  is  necessary  to 
provide,  as  has  been  provided,  that  it  shall  be 
carried  on  in  a  way  beneficial  to  them,  but 
compatibje  with  the  higher  interests  of  the 
country.  No  duty,  said  Mr.  L.,  is  by  the  act 
of  1817  exacted  from  any  individual  which  the 
Speaker  does  not  think,  as  well  as  myself,  ought 
to  be  performed ;  a  bond  only  is  exacted,  in 
certain  suspicious  cases,  that  that  duty  shall  be 
performed.  Where  the  hardship,  then ;  where 
the  commercial  inconvenience  of  being  required 
to  give  bond  that,  while  on  the  high  seas,  the 
suspected  vessel  shall  not  violate  the  laws  of  the 
country  ?  The  act  of  1817  created  no  new  duty, 
established  no  new  prohibition ;  it  only  secured 
the  execution  of  existing  duties  in  a  particular, 
for  the  failure  to  observe  which  the  Treasury  of 
the  United  States,  and  not  the  offending  indi- 
viduals, would  ultimately  be  responsible.  Mr. 
L.  would  not  say  that  the  act  merited  none  of 
the  reprobation  bestowed  on  it ;  but  he  would 
say  that  it  had  not  been  proved  to  contain  any 
injurious  or  oppressive  provisions. 

Mr.  CLAY  said  it  was  always  with  very  pain- 
ful regret  that  he  found  himself  differing  from 
the  gentleman  who  had  just  taken  his  seat,  and 
with  the  Chairman  of  the  Committee  of  For- 

_ eign  Relations;  and,  when  differing  from  them; 

'  he  almost  distrusted  his  own  perceptions.  But 
this  was  not  the  first  time  he  had  that  misfor- 
tune ;  for  his  honorable  friend  (Mr.  LOWNDKS) 
had  been  at  the  last  session  a  powerful  auxil- 
iary in  carrying  through  the  bill  which  then 
passed,  and  was  now  proposed  to  be  repealed. 
Notwithstanding  his  great  regret  at  the  circum- 
stance, however,  he  must  obey  the  dictates  of 
his  own  judgment.  Mr.  0.  said  he  never  had 
intimated  that  the  act  of  1817  did  not  originate 
in  the  judgment  of  this  House,  or  that  it  was 
passed  at  the  instance  of  any  foreign  Ministers ; 
and  yet,  if  he  understood  the  gentleman  from 
Georgia,  he  had  admitted  that  the  committee 
had  had  the  benefit  of  the  suggestions  of  several 
foreign  Ministers.  It  was  immaterial  to  him, 
Mr.  0.  said,  whether  the  act  sprung  from  any 
suggestion  of  foreign  agents,  or  whether  after  it 
•was  recommended,  the  letters  of  the  Ministers 
were  sent  to  the  Committee  of  Foreign  Rela- 
tions. As  to  the  foreign  Ministers,  Mr.  C.  said, 
in  referring  to  them,  he  meant  nothing  disre- 
spectful towards  them — he  would  not  treat 
with  disrespect  even  the  Minister  of  Ferdinand, 
whoso  cause  this  bill  was  intended  to  benefit ; 
he,  said  Mr.  C.,  is  a  faithful  Minister ;  if,  not 


satisfied  with  making  representations  to  the  for- 
eign department,  he  also  attends  the  proceed- 
ings of  the  Supreme  Court,  to  watch  its  deci- 
sions, he  affords  but  so  many  proofs  of  the 
fidelity  for  which  the  representatives  of  Spain 
have  always  been  distinguished.  And  bow 
motifying  is  it,  sir,  to  hear  of  the  honorary  re- 
wards and  titles,  and  so  forth,  granted  for  these 
services ;  for,  if  I  am  not  mistaken,  our  act  of 
1817  produced  the  bestowal  of  some  honor  on 
this  faithful  representative  of  His  Majesty — and, 
if  this  bill  passes  which  is  now  before  us,  I  have 
no  doubt  he  will  receive  some  new  honor  for 
his  further  success.  No,  Mr.  C.  said,  he  would 
never  treat  foreign  Ministers  to  our  Govern- 
ment with  disrespect.  But  yet  he  was  not  en- 
tirely satisfied  with  the  suggestions  respecting 
the  representations,  garbled  and  ungarbled,  of 
the  foreign  Ministers.  In  regard  to  the  letter 
of  the  Minister  of  Portugal — a  man  whom  Mr. 
C.  said  he  highly  venerated ;  whom  he  regard- 
ed as  an  honor  to  his  country  and  an  ornament 
to  science — a  man  whose  country  could  not  have 
shown  a  greater  respect  for  the  United  States 
than  by  deputing  him  as  its  representative  to 
this  Government — with  regard  to  that  letter,  as 
the  gentleman  had  charged  the  publication 
which  had  been  made  of  it  to  be  a  garbled  one, 
and  it  seemed  by  his  confession,  (his  precious  con- 
fession, he  would  call  it,  but  not  in  the  obnox- 
ious sense  of  the  term,)  that  he  either  had  the 
document  in  his  possession  or  had  seen  it,  he 
hoped  that  he  would  lay  it  before  the  House 
in  extenso,  that  they  might  see  it  in  its  un- 
garbled state,  &c.  But,  having  been  contra- 
dicted in  the  statement  he  had  made  when  up 
before,  respecting  the  passage  of  the  act  of  1817, 
Mr.  0.  begged  of  the  honorable  gentleman,  be- 
fore he  disputed  any  statement  of  his  (Mr.  C.'s) 
to  take  the  trouble  to  examine  whether  he  was 
himself  correct.  If  the  gentleman  would  turn 
to  the  Journal,  he  would  find  that,  on  the  ques- 
tion to  engross  the  bill,  there  were  sixty-three 
in  the  negative.  [Mr.  FOKSTTH  explained ;  the 
bill  thus  ordered  to  be  engrossed  was  not  that 
which  finally  passed,  which  came  from  the  Sea- 
ate.]  If,  Mr.  CLAY  continued,  the  gentleman 
would  look  over  the  list  of  names  recorded  in 
the  negative,  he  would  find  the  name  of  one  of 
the  present  Cabinet,  the  Secretary  of  War.  The 
yeas  and  nays  had  also  been  taken  on  the  prop- 
osition to  postpone  the  bill  indefinitely  when  it 
came  back  from  the  Senate ;  and,  although  owing 
to  the  period  of  the  session,  a  smaller  number  vo- 
ted on  the  bill,  there  were  yet  thirty -seven  votes 
for  postponement,  to  some  sixty  odd  against  it. 

But,  said  Mr.  C.,  it  seems  that  in  the  remarks 
which  I  have  submitted,  I  have  made  some  re- 
flections on  the  late  President  of  the  United 
States.  No  such  thing.  But  was  there  not,  he 
asked,  a  considerable  alteration,  since  the  act  of 
1817,  in  our  posture  in  respect  to  the  war  be- 
tween Spain  and  the  Provinces.  The  Executive 
had  since  declared  to  the  whole  world  that  the 
condition  of  the  United  States  is  one  of  neutral- 
ity in  regard  to  the  contest.  Not  that  only 


DEBATES  OF  CONGRESS. 


129 


MARCH,  1818.] 


Neutral  Relations. 


[H.  OF  B. 


but  that  the  war  carrying  on  is  a  civil  war,  and 
that  we  owe  to  both  parties  all  the  obligations 
of  neutrality — the  obligations  due  to  a  party  in 
a  civil  war  being  very  different  from  those  due 
to  a  people  in  rebellion,  and  demanding  there- 
fore a  different  state  of  our  laws.  But,  return- 
ing to  the  late  President  of  the  United  States — 
no  man,  Mr.  C.  said,  had  a  more  high  sense  of 
the  exalted  character  and  distinguished  services 
of  the  gentleman  to  \vhom  he  thus  alluded ; 
but,  whilst,  said  he,  I  am  a  Representative  of 
the  nation,  I  shall  speak  freely  my  sentiments,  let 
them  be  in  opposition  to  whom  they  may, 
whether  the  existing  or  any  former  Chief  Ma- 
gistrate of  the  United  States.  Mr.  C.  then 
called  upon  gentlemen  to  show  that  the  act  of 
1794  was  inapplicable  to  the  existing  conflict 
under  the  circumstances  of  the  change  of  atti- 
tude, to  which  he  had  referred.  The  gentle- 
man had  contended  it  was  not,  because  of  a  de- 
cision in  the  case  of  St.  Domingo.  That,  Mr. 
C.  said,  was  a  case  standing  on  insular  ground, 
and  totally  different  from  the  present.  We  ad- 
mit the  flag  of  the  patriots:  that  President 
Madison  did — we  declare  the  contest  to  be  a 
civil  war:  that  President  Monroe  did — and  com- 
missioners have  been  sent  there,  if  not  with  cre- 
dentials, to  hear  and  make  representations. 
The  Judiciary  then  would  say,  that  the  act  of 
1794  does  include  the  case,  and  the  act  of  1817 
would  be  superfluous  and  unnecessary,  but  for 
the  further  provisions  contained  in  that  act. 
Gentlemen  had  contended,  that  these  further 
provisions  were  necessary,  because  it  was  prop- 
er to  require  bond  and  security  from  vessels  de- 
parting from  our  ports,  that  they  will  not  violate 
our  neutral  obligations  without  the  territory  of 
the  United  States.  This  proposition,  Mr.  0. 
could  not  reconcile  with  the  admission  he  un- 
derstood gentlemen  to  make,  that  acts  com- 
mitted out  of  our  jurisdiction  are  acts  of  which 
foreign  powers  must  take  care  for  themselves. 

The  bonds  required  by  the  restrictive  sys- 
tems, which  had  been  referred  to,  were  not  anal- 
ogous to  the  present  case ;  they  stood  on  pecu- 
liar ground,  the  measures  they  were  necessary 
to  enforce  having  been  required  by  our  own 
policy,  in  defence  of  our  own  rights  and  in- 
terests, and  were  not  an  act  of  legislation  for 
the  benefit  of  a  foreign  power,  for  whom  we 
are  under  no  obligation  to  legislate.  The  dif- 
ference in  the  two  cases  was  precisely  the  dif- 
ference between  legislating  for  ourselves  and 
legislating  for  others.  But  it  had  been  said, 
that  bonds  are  required  even  from  privateers 
in  war.  That  is  because  they  have  commis- 
sions, said  Mr.  0.,  and,  acting  under  our  au- 
thority, constitute  a  particular  part  of  the  force 
of  the  community,  and  the  bond  is  required  for 
our  own  sakes.  Whilst  on  this  subject,  he  said, 
he  could  not  see  the  cause  for  all  this  anxiety 
on  the  part  of  gentlemen,  lest  the  patriots 
should  get  hold  of  a  vessel  prepared  for  war. 
Were  they  not  aware  that  the  whole  marine  of 
tlie  Island  of  Cuba  consists  of  vessels  purchased 
from  this  country?  Ships  are  an  objecl  of 
VOL.  VI.— 9 


commerce,  condemned  by  no  authority.  It 
was  particularly  fitting,  under  present  circum- 
stances, that  we  should  give  every  facility  to 
the  sale  of  our  ships.  Do  we  not  know,  said 
he,  that  owing  to  the  condition  of  the  world, 
our  merchant  vessels  are  cut  out  of  employ- 
ment, and  that,  unless  we  can  sell  them,  they 
will  rot  at  our  wharves?  Mr.  C.  laid  it  down 
as  a  principle,  incontrovertible,  that  a  ship, 
armed  or  not  armed,  was  an  object  of  com- 
merce. Gentlemen  would  not  deny,  that  the 
materials  of  armament  might  be  separately 
sold,  and  afterwards  combined.  But  the  honor- 
able gentleman  from  South  Carolina  had  made 
one  admission,  which  gives  up  the  question, 
when  he  conceded  that  an  armed  ship  might  be 
fitted  out — completely  equipped — go  to  a  for- 
eign port,  and  afterwards  go  to  war  with  any 
belligerent  whatever,  without  a  violation  of 
our  neutrality.  And  yet  such  a  course,  ad- 
mitted by  the  gentleman  to  be  lawful,  was  ex- 
pressly forbidden  by  the  act  of  1817. 

[Mr.  LOWNDES  briefly  explained,  not  ad- 
mitting the  principle  Mr.  C.  considered  him 
as  ceding,  in  the  latitude  given  to  it  by  the 
Speaker.] 

Mr.  C.  said  he  had  conceived  the  principle 
to  be  fairly  inferred  from  the  course  of  the  gen- 
tleman's argument;  and  he  did  not  yet  under- 
stand him  as  denying,  that,  after  a  vessel  gets 
into  a  foreign  port,  and  departs  thence,  our  re- 
sponsibility for  its  conduct  ceases.  And  the 
gentleman  had  the  other  day  admitted,  in  de- 
bate on  another  subject,  the  right  of  expatria- 
tion. Suppose,  then,  that  any  number  of  citi- 
zens of  the  United  States  should  fit  out  an 
armed  vessel  to  go  to  any  port  in  Spanish, 
America,  and  there  expatriate  themselves  by 
becoming  citizens  of  another  country,  might 
they  not  then  engage  in  war  under  the  flag  of 
that  country  ?  Gentlemen  would  not  deny  it, 
and  yet  they  would  be  forbidden  to  do  so  by 
the  act  of  1817. 

Mr.  C.  stated  further  objections  to  this  act. 
For  example,  the  collector  of  a  port  might  de- 
tain any  vessel,  when  the  number  of  men,  the 
nature  .of  the  cargo,  or  any  other  circumstance, 
induce  him  to  suppose  the  vessel  is  intended 
for  cruising  with  a  belligerent  purpose.  Mr.  0. 
said  he  was  opposed  to  vesting  such  discretion- 
ary power  in  any  collector.  The  voyage  may 
be  intended  to  Lima,  to  China,  or  any  distant 
port,  and  the  voyage  may  be  totally  defeated, 
and  heavy  loss  incurred,  by  a  mere  caprice  of 
the  collector.  Mr.  C.  wished  his  honorable 
friend  (Mr.  JOHNSON)  to  read  a  letter  he  had  re- 
ceived from  St.  Bartholomew's,  stating  that 
three  vessels  had  arrived  there  from  British 
ports,  not  only  with  skeletons  of  regiments,  but 
with  nearly  all  the  men,  on  their  way  to  join 
the  patriots.  Had  these  men,  Mr.  0.  asked, 
been  subjected  to  any  bond  and  security — to 
any  such  onerous  provisions  as  are  contained  hi 
this  bill?  No,  said  he ;  we  alone,  it  seems,  are 
to  stretch  our  power  to  its  limit  to  prevent  our 
citizens  from  aiding  in  any  manner  the  efforts 


130 


ABRIDGMENT  OF  THE 


H.  OF  R.] 


Neutral  Relations. 


[MAKCH,  1818. 


of  those  who  are  struggling  for  liberty  in  the 
South;  whilst  Great  Britain,  in  this  respect, 
pursues  a  policy  which  we  might  worthily  im- 
itate. While  at  peace,  he  admitted,  we  oughi 
to  perform  our  obligations  of  neutrality ;  but 
they  did  not  require  the  passage  of  bills  with 
neutral  titles,  but  with  provisions  favorable  to 
one  only  of  the  belligerents.  What,  on  the 
other  hand,  had  Great  Britain  done  ?  She  had 
issued  a  proclamation  which  almost  recognizes 
the  independence  of  the  provinces,  calling  the 
contest  a  war  between  America  and  Spain,  and 
forbidding  her  citizens  to  engage  in  it,  but  re- 
quiring no  bond  and  security  from  them.  No, 
said  Mr.  C.,  she  has  gone  a  step  further  than 
she  has  ever  before  gone:  her  citizens,  who 
constitute  a  part  of  the  armies  of  Spain,  she  has 
forbidden  from  fighting  against  the  patriots.  I 
wish  we  might  imitate  her  example,  and  ob- 
serve a  real  neutrality,  instead  of  that  which 
exists  in  name  only,  to  the  prejudice  of  one 
party  and  not  of  the  other 

In  reference  to  the  suggestions  made  by  Mr. 
LOWNDES  respecting  spoliations,  Mr.  0.  asked, 
what  success  have  we  had  in  our  applications 
for  indemnity  for  spoliations?  We  are  told, 
very  good-naturedly,  indeed,  by  the  Secretary 
of  State,  in  a  late  communication — I  am  sorry 
we  have  not  the  benefit  of  that  letter — though, 
when  we  get  it,  I  presume  we  shall  find  it  a 
compilation  of  other  works  on  the  same  sub- 
ject— the  Secretary  of  State  tells  us,  very  good- 
naturedly,  that  we  have  patiently  waited  for 
the  settlement  of  our  differences  with  Spain, 
and  it  will  require  no  very  great  effort  to  wait 
a  little  longer.  Very  good-natured,  indeed! 
No  change,  say  gentlemen,  in  the  aspect  of  our 
relations  with  Spain !  Yes,  a  most  humiliating 
one,  within  the  last  three  or  four  years.  We 
were  told  by  the  President,  in  his  message  at  the 
commencement  of  the  session ;  and,  ambiguous 
as  the  intimation  was,  hope  clung  to  it  as  prom- 
ising a  change;  that  a  disposition  had  been 
shown  on  the  part  of  Spain,  to  move  in  the  ne- 
gotiation. And  what  sort  of  a  motion  was  it? 
A  motion  which  has  terminated  in  something 
like  a  perpetual  repose,  waiting  till  the  passions 
and  prejudices  of  His  Majesty  of  Spam  may 
have  time  to  subside.  Admirable  Job-like  pa- 
tience, ^aid  Mr.  CLAY.  I  thank  my  God  that  I 
do  no  possess  it. 

Let  us,  said  Mr.  0.,  in  conclusion,  put  all 
these  statutes  out  of  our  way,  except  that  of 
1794.  When  was  that  passed  ?  At  a  moment 
when  the  enthusiasm  of  liberty  ran  through  the 
country  with  electric  rapidity ;  when  the  whole 
country,  en  masse,  was  ready  to  lend  a-  hand 
and  aid  the  French  nation  in  their  struggle, 
General  WASHINGTON,  revered  name!  the  Fa- 
ther of  his  Country,  could  hardly  arrest  this  in- 
clination. Yet,  under  such  circumstances,  the 
act  of  1794  was  found  abundantly  sufficient. 
There  was,  then,  no  gratuitous  assumption  of 
neutral  debts.  For  twenty  years  that  act  has 
been  found  sufficient.  But  some  keen-sighted, 
sagacious  foreign  Minister  finds  out  that  it  is 


not  sufficient,  and  the  act  of  1817  is  passed. 
That  act,  said  Mr.  C.,  we  find  condemned  by 
the  universal  sentiment  of  the  country;  and  I 
hope  it  will  receive  further  condemnation  by 
the  vote  of  the  House  this  day. 

Mr.  LOWNDES  rose  to  vindicate  himself  from 
the  charge  of  inconsistency  alleged  against  him 
by  the  Speaker ;  but  which,  he  said,  could  not 
be  properly  established  by  taking  a  sentence  or 
half  a  sentence  from  a  speech,  and  founding  an 
argument  on  it.  The  Speaker  infers,  said  he, 
because  I  will  not  take  measures  to  punish  him 
who,  without  the  jurisdiction  of  the  United 
States,  enters  into  a  vessel  armed  by  a  foreign 
authority,  and  cruises  on  the  property  of  for- 
eign nations,  that  I  must  therefore  be  willing 
that  a  citizen  of  the  United  States,  within  the 
limits  of  the  United  States,  in  a  vessel  belong- 
ing to  the  United  States,  shall  involve  the  Gov- 
ernment in  a  responsibility  for  her  acts,  with 
equal  impunity.  Mr.  L.  submitted  to  the  com- 
mittee, whether  there  was  any  resemblance  be- 
tween the  two  propositions. 

Mr.  FORSYTE  explained  the  difference  as  to 
facts  between  him  and  the  Speaker.  If  what 
the  Speaker  had  advanced,  respecting  the  vote 
on  the  act  of  1817,  had  been  intended  as  argu- 
ment, Mr.  F.  said,  he  had  endeavored  to  show 
that  there  was  no  weight  in  it,  by  showing 
that  the  vote  to  which  the  Speaker  had  referred 
was  not  on  the  bill  which  actually  passed,  but 
on  a  bill  reported  by  the  Committee  on  Foreign 
Relations  which  did  not  pass.  The  member  of 
the  Cabinet,  who  had  been  referred  to,  voted 
against  the  last-mentioned  bill,  but  in  favor  of 
that  which  passed  into  a  law,  and  there  was  a 
very  small  minority  against  it.  With  respect 
to  the  influence  which  produced  the  passage  of 
the  act  of  1817,  if  there  was  any  felt,  it  was  by 
the  President,  and  to  him  must  be  imputed  the 
blame;  for  to  him  the  remonstrances  of  the 
foreign  Ministers  had  been  addressed,  and  he 
had  brought  the  subject  before  Congress.  With 
respect  to  the  correspondence  with  the  Minis- 
ters, on  the  call  of  the  committee  for  facts  of 
depredations  by  our  cruisers,  these  papers  had 
been  shown  to  them.  I  have  no  recollection, 
said  Mr.  F.,  of  every  word  in  one  of  the  official 
notes,  but  I  am  sure  that  the  version  which  has 
seen  given  of  it  is  not  correct.  I  very  well  re- 
collect, although  not  particularly  remembering 
:he  particular  words  or  arguments,  that  the 
x)ne  of  the  letter  and  its  manner  were  perfectly 
respectful  to  the  Government,  and  such  as 
might  have  been  expected  from  the  character 
of  the  Minister.  It  was  neither  indecent  nor 
disrespectful ;  in  the  letter  which  is  published 
as  a  copy  of  that,  there  are  passages  both  inde- 
cent and  disrespectful. 

In  reply  to  the  suggestion,  that  even  if  the 
act  of  1817  was  required  at  the  time  it  passed, 
"t  was  no  longer  necessary,  because  of  a  change 
n  our  posture,  Mr.  F.  said  he  knew  of  no  such 
shange.  As  far  as  the  independence  of  the 
>rovinces,  or  of  any  of  them,  was  recognized  at 
hispnoment,  it  had  been  at  that  day.  If  his 


DEBATES  OF  CONGRESS. 


131 


MARCH,  1818.] 


Ohio  Contested  Election. 


[H.  OP  R. 


memory  was  not,  in  this  respect,  treacherous, 
the  President  of  the  United  States  announced 
to  the  Spanish  Minister,  through  the  Secretary 
of  State,  in  the  correspondence  between  them 
laid  before  this  House  at  the  middle  of  the  last 
session,  that  such  was  the  relation  in  which  we 
regarded  them.  This  answer  had  been  given 
to  an  application  to  exclude  their  flags  from 
our  ports. 

To  show  that  his  construction  of  the  decision 
of  the  Supreme  Court  on  the  act  of  1794,  as  ap- 
plied to  the  case  of  St.  Domingo,  was  correct, 
Mr.  F.  quoted  the  words  of  the  decision  from 
Cranch's  Reports.  In  Massachusetts,  the  case 
referred  to  by  the  Speaker,  was  that  of  an  in- 
dictment for  piracy,  from  which  the  accused 
sought  to  shield  himself  by  a  commission  from 
one  of  the  Governments  asserting  their  inde- 
pendence. The  judges  composing  the  court 
differed  on  points  of  law.  One  of  the  questions 
was,  whether  a  commission  emanating  from  any 
revolted  colony,  district,  or  people,  whose  in- 
dependence was  not  recognized  by  the  Execu- 
tive authority  of  the  United  States,  was  valid. 
Here  was  a  question,  very  different  from  the 
present  one  raised  by  the  courts  of  the  United 
States,  and  brought  up  for  decision ;  it  was  not 
decided,  because  the  counsel  for  the  party  was 
not  present,  or  for  some  cause  of  that  descrip- 
tion. This  point  being  doubtful,  it  was  highly 
proper  that  the  act  of  1817  should  have  re- 
moved all  doubt  on  the  subject.  Under  the  act 
of  1794,  it  was  doubtful  whether  the  commis- 
sion of  certain  acts  was  an  offence  under  our 
laws  or  not ;  and  a  long  course  of  litigation  be- 
fore the  courts  would  have  been  necessary  be- 
fore the  question  would  have  been  settled.  It 
was  better  to  settle  the  question,  and  clear  the 
law  of  all  doubt.  In  this  view,  the  act  of  1817 
was  necessary,  independently  of  all  other  con- 
siderations, and  ought  not  to  be  repealed. 


FEIDAT,  March  20. 
OTiio  Contested,  Election. 

The  House  (having  refused  to  take  up  the 
Neutrality  bill)  again  went  into  Committee  of 
the  Whole,  on  the  report  of  the  Committee  of 
Elections  respecting  the  right  of  Mr.  HEBEICK, 
a  member  from  Ohio,  to  a  seat  in  this  House — 
Mr.  ADAMS'S  motion  to  reverse  the  report,  and 
thus  vacate  the  seat,  being  under  consideration. 

Mr.  TATLOE  concluded  his  remarks  (which 
were  interrupted  by  the  adjournment  yesterday) 
in  favor  of  the  report. 

Mr.  HOPKINSON  took  the  opposite  side,  and 
spoke  near  an  hour  against  the  report  of  the 
Committee  of  Elections,  and  the  right  of  the 
member  to  a  seat. 

Mr.  BALDWIN  spoke  at  considerable  length  in 
confirmation  of  the  right  of  Mr.  HEEEICK  to  his 
seat. 

Mr.  ADAMS briefly  replied;  when  the  question 
was  taken  on  reversing  the  report  of  the  Com- 
mittee of  Elections,  and  carried — ayes  67,  noes 


The  committee  then  rose,  and  reported  their 
decision  to  the  House. 

After  a  good  deal  of  desultory  conversation 
on  various  motions,  touching  the  right  of  certain 
members  to  vote  on  the  question,  whose  seats 
were  supposed  to  be  held  under  circumstances 
similar  to  that  of  Mr.  HEBBIOK,  and  therefore 
personally  interested  in  the  decision ;  and  after 
refusing  to  excuse  Messrs.  BABBEB,  of  Ohio,  and 
HTJBBABD,  of  New  York,  from  voting,  the  ques- 
tion on  concurring  with  the  Committee  of  the 
Whole  in  reversing  the  report  of  the  Committee 
of  Elections,  was  decided  in  the  negative,  by 
yeas  and  nays.  Those  who  voted  for  concurring 
with  the  Committee  of  the  Whole,  and,  of 
course,  against  the  right  of  the  member  to  a 
seat,  were : 

Messrs.  Abbott,  Adams,  Allen  of  Massachusetts, 
Anderson  of  Kentucky,  Austin,  Ball,  Barbour  of 
Virginia,  Bateman,  Bayley,  Beecher,  Bellinger,  Ben- 
nett, Burwell,  Claiborne,  Cook,  Crawford,  Cushman, 
Darlington,  Edwards,  Ervin  of  South  Carolina,  Floyd, 
Forney,  Forsyth,  Garnett,  Hogg,  Holmes  of  Connec- 
ticut, Hopkinson,  Hnntington,  Irving  of  New  York, 
Johnson  of  Virginia,  Little,  Lowndes,  McLane,  Mair, 
Mason  of  Rhode  Island,  Middleton,  Jeremiah  Nelson, 
H.  Nelson,  Owen,  Pawling,  Peter,  Pindall,  Pleasants, 
Reed,  Rhea,  Rice,  Richards,  Robertson  of  Louisiana, 
Ruggles,  Sawyer,  Scbnyler,  Sergeant,  Seybert,  Sher- 
wood, Simkins,  Slocumb,  S.  Smith,  Bal.  Smith,  J.  S. 
Smith,  Speed,  Stewart  of  North  Carolina,  Terrill, 
Terry,  Tompkins,  Tucker  of  Virginia,  Tucker  of 
South  Carolina,  Walker  of  Kentucky,  Wendover, 
Westerlo,  Whiteside,  Williams  of  Connecticut,  Wil- 
liams of  New  York,  Williams  of  North  Carolina,  and 
Wilson  of  Massachusetts— 74. 

Those  who  voted  against  concurring,  and  in 
favor  of  the  member's  keeping  his  seat,  were  : 

Messrs.  Allen  of  Vermont,  Anderson  of  Pennsylva- 
nia, Barber  of  Ohio,  Bassett,  Bloomfield,  Blount, 
Boden,  Boss,  Butler,  Campbell,  Clagett,  Cobb,  Corn- 
stock,  Crnger,  Culbreth,  Desha,  Earle,  Ellicott,  Fol- 
ger,  Gage,  Hale,  Hall  of  Delaware,  Harrison,  Has- 
brouck,  Herkimer,  Hitchcock,  Holme's  of  Massachu- 
setts, Hubbard,  Hunter,  Johnson  of  Kentucky,  Jones, 
Kinsey,  Kirtland,  Lawyer,  Linn,  Livermore,  W.  P. 
Maclay,  McCoy,  Marchand,  Mason  of  Massachusetts, 
Merrill,  Moore,  Morton,  Mosely,  Mumford,  Murray, 
New,  Ogle,  Palmer,  Patterson,  Poindexter,  Porter, 
Rich,  Ringgold,  Robertson  of  Kentucky,  Sampson, 
Savage,  Scudder,  Settle,  Shaw,  Silsbee,  Southard, 
Spencer,  Strong,  Tallmadge,  Tarr,  Taylor,  Townsend, 
Tyler,  Upham,  Walker  of  North  Carolina,  Wallace, 
Whitman,  Wilkin,  and  Wilson  of  Pennsylvania— 77. 

So  the  House  refused  to  concur  in  the  report 
of  the  Committee  of  the  Whole ;  and  then,  after 
an  unsuccessful  motion  by  Mr.  FOESYTH,  to  re- 
commit the  subject  to  the  Committee  of  Elec- 
tions, with  instructions  to  report  the  case  of 
Mr.  HEKEIOK  distinct  from  other  cases  now  em- 
braced in  the  report ;  and  a  motion  also  unsuc- 
cessful, by  Mr.  ALLEN,  of  Massachusetts,  to  post- 
pone the  report  indefinitely — 

The  question  was  taken,  by  yeas  and  nays, 
on  agreeing  with  the  Committee  of  Elections, 
that  Mr.  HEBEICK  is  entitled  to  a  seat,  and 
decided  in  the  affirmative— yeas  77,  nays  70. 


132 


ABRIDGMENT  OF  THE 


H.  OP  R] 


National  Flay. 


[MARCH,  1818. 


TUESDAY,  March  24. 

Another  member,  to  wit,  from  Pennsylvania, 
THOMAS  J.  ROGERS,  elected  to  supply  the  vacancy 
occasioned  by  the  resignation  of  John  Boss,  ap- 
peared, produced  his  credentials,  was  qualified, 
and  took  his  seat. 

Batture  at  St.  Louis — Pre-emption  Rights,  and, 
Out-lots  and  Commons  in  Missouri. 

On  motion  of  Mr.  SOOTT, 

Resolved,  That  the  Committee  on  the  Public 
Lands  be  instructed  to  inquire  into  the  expedi- 
ency of  granting  or  securing  to  the  town  of  St. 
Louis,  in  the  Missouri  Territory,  as  a  common, 
all  the  sand-bar  or  batture,  formed  by  the  re- 
cession of  the  Mississippi  river,  between  the 
said  town  and  low-water  mark ;  and  to  prohi- 
bit the  location  of  any  floating  claim  in  the  said 
Territory,  thereon,  or  if  any  location  should 
have  been  made,  to  prohibit  by  law  the  issuing 
of  a  patent  therefor. 

Resolved,  also,  That  the  Committee  on  the 
Public  Lands  be  instructed  to  inquire  into  the 
expediency  of  prohibiting  by  law  the  location 
of  any  floating  claim,  on  any  lands  in  the  Terri- 
tory of  Missouri,  the  right  of  pre-emption  to 
which  land  has  been  secured  to  any  settler,  by 
the  act  of  the  12th  of  April,  1814,  or  if  any  such 
location  should  have  been  made,  to  prohibit  by 
law,  the  issuing  a  patent  therefor. 

Resolved,  also,  That  the  Committee  on  the 
Public  Lands  be  instructed  to  inquire  into  the 
expediency  of  prohibiting  by  law  the  location 
of  any  floating  claim,  in  the  Territory  of  Mis- 
souri, on  any  lands,  the  right,  title,  or  claim  to 
which,  has  been  at  any  time  heretofore  given 
notice  of,  or  filed  with  either  of  the  Boards  of 
Commissioners  in  said  Territory,  or  with  the 
recorder  of  land  titles,  acting  as  such  under  any 
kw  of  Congress,  for  the  adjustment  of  land 
titles  in  said  Territory,  or,  if  any  such  location 
should  have  been  made,  to  prohibit  by  law  the 
issuing  of  patents  therefor. 

Resolved,  also,  That  the  Committee  on  the 
Public  Lands  be  instructed  to  inquire  into  the 
expediency  of  prohibiting  by  law  the  location 
of  any  floating  claim  in  the  Territory  of  Mis- 
souri, on  any  town  lot,  village  lot,  put-lot,  com- 
mon field  lot,  or  common,  in,  adjoining,  or  ap- 
pertaining to  any  of  the  towns  or  villages  in 
the  Territory  of  Missouri,  or  if  any  such  loca- 
tion shaU  have  been  made  to  prohibit  by  law 
the  issuing  of  patents  therefor. 

National  Flag. 

The  House  then  resolved  itself  into  a  Com- 
mittee of  the  "Whole  on  the  bill  to  alter  the  flag 
of  the  United  States,  [providing  that  from  and 
after  the  fourth  day  of  July  next,  the  flag  of  the 
United  States  be  thirteen  horizontal  stripes,  al- 
ternate red  and  white ;  that  the  Union  be  twenty 
stars,  white  in  a  blue  field ;  and  that,  on  the  ad- 
mission of  every  new  State  into  the  Union,  one 
star  be  added  to  the  Union  of  the  flag,  and  that 
such  addition  shall  take  effect  on  the  fourth 
day  of  July  then  next  succeeding  such  admission.] 


Mr.  WENDOVEB  rose.  In  complying  with  a 
duty  incumbent  on  me,  said  Mr.  W.,  as  result- 
ing from  a  proposition  I  had  the  honor  to  sub- 
mit to  the  House,  for  altering  in  part  the  flag  of 
the  United  States,  I  feel  no  disposition  to  con- 
sume much  of  the  time  of  the  committee,  or  to 
.ndulge  in  the  many  observations  which  tho 
nature  of  the  subject  might  appear  to  justify. 
But  I  ask  tho  patience  of  the  committee,  while 
I  state  a  few  of  the  considerations  which  pre- 
sent themselves  in  favor  of  the  bill  now  on  your 
table. 

Sir,  the  importance  attached  to  a  national  flag, 
both  in  its  literal  and  figurative  use,  is  so  univer- 
sal, and  of  such  ancient  origin,  that  we  seldom 
inquire  into  the  meaning  of  their  various  figures, 
as  adopted  by  other  nations,  and  are  in  some 
danger  of  forgetting  the  symbolical  application 
of  those  composing  that  of  our  own. 

Were  we  now  about  to  devise  suitable  em- 
blems for  a  national  flag,  I  doubt  not  we  should 
see  much  diversity  of  sentiment,  and  perhaps 
some  efforts  for  local  gratification ;  but  I  pre- 
sume we  should  unite  in  some  general  and  ap- 
propriate figures,  referring  not  to  sectional  but 
national  objects.  But  on  this  subject  we  need 
not  differ.  Suitable  symbols  were  devised  by 
those  who  laid  the  foundation  of  the  Republic ; 
and  I  hope  their  children  will  ever  feel  them- 
selves in  honor  precluded  from  changing  these, 
except  so  far  as  necessity  may  dictate,  and  with 
a  direct  view  of  expressing  by  them  their  ori- 
ginal design. 

Mr.  Chairman,  I  am  not  particularly  informed 
as  to  the  origin  of  our  flag ;  but  have  repeatedly 
heard  it  was  first  used  by  a  citizen  of  Philadel- 
phia, on  his  own  vessel,  and  afterwards  adopted 
by  the  Congress  of  the  Revolution,  as  appro- 
priate to  and  emblematical  of  these  confederated 
States,  contending  for  the  rights  of  man,  and 
the  rich  boon  of  an  independent  Government. 
At  its  adoption  our  flag  was  founded  on  a  rep- 
resentative principle,  and  in  the  arrangement 
of  its  parts  made  appli  cable  to  the  number  of 
the  States  then  united  against  the  common  foe. 
The  same  representative  principle  was  retain- 
ed and  applied  when  the  flag  was  altered ;  but 
experience  having  shown  that  a  similar  exten- 
sion of  numbers  throughout  the  flag  would 
now  be  improper  and  inconvenient.  It  is  worthy 
the  attention  of  the  National  Legislature  again 
to  consider  the  subject,  and  see  if  it  be  practi- 
cable to  retain  in  it  the  object  contemplated  by 
its  founders,  as  pointing  to  the  component  parts 
of  the  nation,  without  losing  sight  of  the  origi- 
nal formation  of  this  Government  as  a  free 
republic. 

Sir,  the  flag  of  the  United  States  having  un- 
dergone some  change,  and  in  its  present  state 
being  altogether  inappropriate,  we  are  called 
upon  to  determine  whether  a  further  change  be 
not  advisable,  and,  if  it  be,  what  alteration  will 
be  most  proper,  and  best  to  apply  to  the  pres- 
ent and  relative  state  of  the  nation,  consistent 
with  the  representative  character  of  the  flag.  If 
you  do  not  alter  it,  you  do  injustice  to  the  States 


DEBATES  OF  CONGRESS. 


133 


MARCH,  1818.] 


National  Flag. 


[H.  OF  R. 


admitted  into  the  Union  since  the  former  altera-  I 
tion ;  and  if  you  alter  in  the  way  as  before,  you 
will  destroy"  the  conspicuity  of  your  flag,  and 
render  it  too  indistinct  to  be  known  at  a  dis- 
tance, and  increase  the  inconvenience  already 
experienced. 

At  the  present  day,  and  particularly  since  the 
commencement  of  the  late  war,  there  are  few 
vessels,  however  small,  if  they  carry  a  mast, 
but  are 'furnished  with  a  flag  of  some  descrip- 
tion ;  and  it  is  well  known  to  gentlemen  living 
on  the  seaboard,  and  others,  that  it  is  impracti- 
cable for  small  vessels  to  conform  even  to  the 
present  law ;  and  the  law  itself  does  not  corre- 
spond with  the  existing  or  original  facts. 

The  flag  of  the  United  States  was  altered  by 
law,  from  thirteen  to  fifteen  stripes  and  stars, 
on  the  first  of  May,  1795,  to  apply  to  the  ad- 
mission of  Vermont  and  Kentucky  into  the 
Union.  On  the  first  of  June,  1796,  Tennessee 
was  admitted.  Thus  the  alteration  was  appli- 
cable to  the  fact  on  which  it  was  predicated, 
for  the  short  space  of  one  year  and  one  month. 
On  the  19th  of  February,  1803,  Ohio  was  ad- 
mitted, Louisiana  on  the  30th  of  April,  1812. 
Indiana  was  admitted  at  the  last  session  of  Con- 
gress, and  Mississippi  at  the  present  session,  and 
you  now  have  on  your  table  a  bill  for  the  ad- 
mission of  another  State.  Calculating  on  such 
a  result  caused  many  to  regret  the  former 
alteration ;  and  no  doubt  the  same  reason  ope- 
rated in  the  House  of  Representatives  when  the 
bill  passed,  and  will  account  for  the  small  ma- 
jority of  eight  by  which  it  succeeded. 

I  presume  none  will  now  advocate  the  pro- 
priety of  continuing  the  fifteen  stripes  as  at 
present ;  that  number  was  founded  on  a  mere 
contingency,  which  has  since  repeatedly  hap- 
pened, and  will  frequently  occur ;  whereas  the 
number  proposed  by  the  bill  refers  to  our  na- 
tional origin,  and  is  equally  interesting  to  all. 

Sir,  it  cannot  be  deemed  proper  to  go  on  and 
increase  the  stripes  in  your  flag.  There  are  now 
twenty  States ;  what  number  they  will  ultimate- 
ly extend  to  none  can  conjecture.  For  my  own 
part,  I  doubt  not  there  will  in  time  be  acces- 
sions from  the  East,  from  the  North,  from  the 
West,  and  from  the  South.  Sir,  I  am  not  now 
speaking  of  conquest.  I  am  willing  every  peo- 
ple should  "  manage  their  own  affairs  in"  their 
own  way."  But  I  can  no  more  believe  that 
any  portion  of  the  earth  will  remain  in  perpet- 
ual thraldom,  and  be  forever  tributary  to  a 
foreign  power,  than  I  can  subscribe  to  the  doc- 
trine of  a  ceaseless  succession  of  legitimate  kings. 

Sir,  it  cannot  be  deemed  desirable,  under  the 
existing  state  of  things,  in  relation  to  the  stripes 
and  stars  in  the  flag,  to  retain  it  in  its  present 
situation  ;  it  is  not  only  inapplicable,  but  both 
parts  refer  to  the  same  thing,  and  the  one  is  a 
duplicate  of  the  other ;  but  the  alteration  pro- 
posed will  direct  the  view  to  two  striking  facts 
in  our  national  history,  and  teach  the  world  an 
important  reality,  that  republican  government 
is  not  only  practicable,  but  that  it  is  also  pro- 
gressive. 


Is  it  desirable  to  produce  greater  uniformity  ? 
Most  undoubtedly  it  is.  In  the  navy  the  law  is 
generally  conformed  to,  but  it  is  well  known 
that  uniformity  does  not  elsewhere  exist.  If 
evidence  were  wanting,  among  other  and  nu- 
merous instances,  I  would  refer  you  to  the  flag 
at  this  moment  waving  over  the  heads  of  the 
Representatives  of  the  nation,  and  two  others 
in  sight,  equally  the  flags  of  the  Government : 
while  the  law  directs  that  the  flag  shall  contain 
fifteen,  that  on  the  Hall  of  Congress,  whence 
laws  emanate,  has  but  thirteen,  and  those  at 
the  Navy  Yard  and  Marine  Barracks  have  each 
at  least  eighteen  stripes.  Nor  can  I  omit  to 
mention  the  flag  under  which  the  last  Congress 
sat  during  its  first  session,  which,  from  some 
cause  or  other  unknown  to  me,  had  but  nine 
stripes.  But  even  that  flag,  with  all  its  defects, 
was  entitled  to  much  honor,  for  it  was  not  only 
striped,  but,  to  use  another  British  cant,  it  was 
"  Bagged  Bunting"  and  was  the  first  flag  hoist- 
ed on  the  Hall  of  Congress,  after  the  proverbial 
"  Bulwark  of  Religion"  had  here,  in  this  city, 
shown  its  anxious  solicitude  to  promote  the  use- 
ful arts. 

Sir,  I  consider  the  plan  proposed  as  in  unison 
with  the  original  design  ;  it  points  to  the  States 
as  they  commenced  and  as  they  now  are,  and 
will,  with  an  inconsiderable  addition,  direct  the 
mind  to  a  future  state  of  things.  The  necessary 
alteration,  either  now  or  hereafter,  can  be  made 
by  almost  any  person,  at  any  place  and  at  any 
time ;  and  the  proposition,  if  adopted,  will  in 
future  save  the  expense  of  legislating  on  the 
subject. 

The  committee  who  reported  this  bill  deemed 
it  advisable  to  direct  that  the  stripes  be  horizon- 
tal ;  this  is  now  the  form  in  use  ;  but  it  results 
from  example,  and  not  from  the  act,  and  would 
be  equally  conformable  to  law,  if  the  stripes 
were  arranged  in  a  perpendicular  direction. 
There  is,  indeed,  one  exception  in  practice. 
Under  the  laws  for  the  collection  of  impost  and 
tonnage,  the  Executive  has  directed  that  the 
cutters  and  boats  employed  in  this  service  shall 
carry  ensigns  and  pennants,  with  perpendicular 
stripes,  and  other  marks  of  distinction  ;  but  this 
being  alterable  at  the  pleasure  of  the  President, 
forms  no  objection  to  the  proposition  in  the  bill ; 
and  it  is  obviously  proper  to  define  the  form  in 
this  particular,  when  it  is  considered  that  in  this 
only  has  been  the  distinction  between  the  flags 
of  two  different  nations,  and  was  recently  the 
case  as  regarded  those  of  France  and  Holland. 

As  to  the  particular  disposition  of  the  stars 
in  the  union  of  the  flag,  the  committee  were  of 
opinion  that  might  be  left  at  the  discretion  of 
persons  more  immediately  concerned ;  either  to 
arrange  them  in  the  form  of  one  great  luminary, 
or  in  the  words  of  the  original  resolution  of  1777, 
"  representing  a  new  constellation." 

Mr.  Chairman,  in  viewing  this  subject,  there 
appears  to  be  a  happy  coincidence  of  circum- 
stances, in  having  adopted  the  symbols  in  your 
flag,  and  a  peculiar  fitness  of  things  in  making 
I  the  proposed  alteration.  In  that  part  designed 


134 


ABRIDGMENT  OF  THE 


H.  OP  R.] 


Spanish  American  Province*. 


[MARCH,  1818. 


at  a  distance  to  characterize  your  country,  and 
which  ought,  for  the  information  of  other  na- 
tions, to  appear  conspicuous  and  remain  perma- 
nent, you  present  the  number  of  the  stars  that 
burst  the  bands  of  oppression,  and  achieved 
your  independence ;  while  in  the  part  intended 
for  a  nearer,  or  home  view,  you  see  a  represent- 
ation of  your  happy  Union  as  it  now  exists, 
and  space  sufficient  to  embrace  the  symbols  of 
those  who  may  hereafter  join  under  your  ban- 
ners. 

Spanish  American  Provinces. 

The  House  went  into  Committee  of  the  Whole 
on  the  appropriation  bill ;  the  clause  appropri- 
ating thirty  thousand  dollars  for  compensation 
to  the  Commissioners,  sent  to  South  America  by 
the  Executive  in  December  last,  under  consid- 
eration. 

Mr.  CLAY  wished  to  know  if  this  appropriation 
was  to  defray  the  expenses  of  the  commission 
lately  sent  to  South  America ;  if  so,  he  would  ask 
of  the  chairmen  of  the  Committee  of  Ways  and 
Means  and  the  Committee  of  Foreign  Relations, 
whether  those  Commissioners  were  furnished 
with  credentials,  and  if  their  appointment  had 
been  confirmed  by  the  Senate ;  also,  to  what 
ports  of  South  America  they  were  sent,  and  the 
probable  duration  of  the  commission ;  and,  also, 
if  it  would  not  be  looking  too  much  into  its 
objects,  he  would  be  glad  to  know  what  those 
objects  were. 

Mr.  LOWNDES  said,  that  although  he  had  not 
all  the  information  required  by  the  Speaker,  yet 
he  was  possessed  of  something  on  the  subject 
more  than  newspaper  intelligence.  It  must  be 
recollected  that  the  objects  of  the  Committee  of 
Ways  and  Means  were  confined  merely  to  the 
financial  department ;  they  had,  however,  some 
information  on  this  subject,  received  in  reply  to 
some  inquiries  that  the  committee  had,  in  the 
performance  of  their  duties,  addressed  to  the  De- 
partment of  .State,  which  would  answer  the 
Speaker's  inquiry  as  to  the  credentials  and  the 
probable  duration  of  the  commission.  The  other 
points  did  not  come  within  the  objects  belong- 
ing to  the  Committee  of  Ways  and  Means. 

The  papers  referred  to  by  Mr.  L.  were  handed 
up  by  him  and  read  as  follows : 

DEPABTMENT  OF  STATE,  March  2,  1818. 
SIR  :  I  have  the  honor  to  enclose  a  copy  of  the  com- 
mission from  this  Department  with  which  Messrs. 
Rodney,  Graham,  and  Bland,  were  furnished  by  direc- 
tion of  the  President.  They  have,  as  you  will  per- 
ceive, no  distinct  diplomatic  rank.  They  are  expected 
to  be  absent  seven  or  eight  months ;  and  the  compen- 
sation allowed  them  by  the  President  is  $G,000  each, 
and  $2,000  to  their  Secretary.  Their  expenses  on  the 
voyage,  until  their  return,  except  while  on  shore  in 
South  America,  are  likewise  allowed ;  and  Messrs. 
Rodney  and  Graham  having  been  appointed  in  June 
last,  and  prepared  to  go,  but  by  various  accidents  de- 
tained until  the  beginning  of  December,  when  they 
sailed,  claim  on  that  accouut  a  further  allowance.  If 
after  their  arrival  at  Buenos  Ayres,  they  find  it  advis- 
able that  one  or  more  of  them  should  remain  on  that 
continent,  and  go  to  Chili,  that  measure  is  within 


their  discretionary  powers.  As  this  contingency  was, 
however,  not  expected  as  probable ;  and,  if  it  should 
occur,  it  was  not  foreseen  to  what  extent  of  time  it 
might  go,  no  specific  allowance  was  fixed  upon  for  it. 
Under  these  circumstances,  it  was  anticipated  that  the 
sum  of  thirty  thousand  dollars  would  not  more  than 
suffice  to  cover  the  expenses  of  the  mission. 

I  am,  with  great  respect,  sir,  your  very  humble  and 
obedient  servant, 

JOHN  Q.  ADAMS. 

W.  LOWNDES,  Esq.,  Chairman,  dec. 

To  all  who  shall  see  these  presents : 
Be  it  Known,  Caesar  Augustus  Rodney,  John  Gra- 
ham, and  Theodorick  Bland,  three  distinguished  citi- 
zens of  the  United  States,  and  enjoying,  in  a  high 
degree,  the  confidence  and  esteem  of  the  President, 
are  about  to  visit,  in  a  national  ship,  on  just  and 
friendly  objects,  and  at  the  special  desire  of  the 
President,  divers  places  and  countries  in  South 
America. 

These  are  therefore  to  request  that,  whithersoever 
they  may  go,  they,  with  their  suite,  may  be  received 
and  treated  in  a  manner  due  to  the  .confidence  re- 
posed in  them,  and  each  of  them,  as  aforesaid,  by 
the  President  of  the  United  States,  and  to  their  own 
merit. 

Given  tinder  my  hand,  and  the  seal  of  the  Depart- 
ment of  State,  this  twenty -fourth  day  of  No- 
[L.  s.]  vember,  in  the  year  of  our  Lord  one  thousand 
eight  hundred  and  seventeen. 

JOHN  Q.  ADAMS. 
Secretary  of  State. 

Mr.  CLAY  rose,  not,  he  said,  to  make  any  ob- 
jection to  the  three  respectable  citizens  for 
whom  this  appropriation  was  intended — that 
was  not  his  object ;  but  to  enter  his  protest  to 
this  kind  of  appropriation  by  Congress.  As  to 
the  object  of  the  commission,  he  thought  it  of 
very  little  use  for  the  expenditure  of  public 
money ;  he  referred  to  the  views  avowed,  and 
the  directions  to  touch  at  Buenos  Ayres,  &c., 
and  said,  if  the  object  of  the  commission  was  to 
acquire  information  of  the  actual  state  of  affairs 
in  the  Southern  provinces,  it  was  the  most  un- 
fortunate mode  that  could  have  been  adopted 
for  that  purpose.  What,  asked  Mr.  C.,  was  this 
mode  ?  Three  distinguished  citizens  are  select- 
ed, their  appointment  and  intentions  are  an- 
nounced by  the  newspapers,  months  before  their 
departure,  then  declared  by  the  President  him- 
self, and  made  known  to  the  whole  world,  and 
they  depart  with  all  the  paraphernalia  of  public 
Ministers ;  information  of  their  object  precedes 
them  wherever  they  go.  As  soon  as  they  ar- 
rive at  a  South  American  port  they  are  sur- 
rounded by  all  the  factions  in  the  country; 
royalists,  if  there  were  any,  as  well  as  republi- 
cans ;  who  strive  to  prejudice  them  in  favor  of 
their  respective  interests,  to  mislead  their  judg- 
ments, and  prevent  the  getting  correct  informa- 
tion of  the  real  condition  of  things.  ^Mr.  C. 
described  the  extent  of  the  interior  provinces  of 
Buenos  Ayres,  to  show  that  the  time  allowed 
to  the  Commissioners  (if  they  were  acquainted 
with  the  language,  manners,  and  habits,  of  the 
country)  was  inadequate  to  enable  them  to 
make  any  material  addition  to  our  stock  of  in- 


DEBATES  OF  CONGRESS. 


135 


MARCH,  1818.] 


Spanish  American  Provinces. 


[H.  OF  IL 


formation ;  but,  even  if  they  could,  were  they 
to  range  the  whole  continent,  and  visit  even  the 
armies,  whether  successful  or  not,  of  the  differ- 
ent parties,  still,  their  object  being  known,  they 
would  everywhere  be  liable1  to  the  same  de- 
ception and  imposition.  Correct  information 
they  would  not  obtain.  The  proper  course  to 
have  adopted,  Mr.  C.  said,  was  to  despatch  an 
individual  unknown  to  all  parties ;  some  intel- 
ligent, keen,  silent,  and  observing  man,  of  pleas- 
ing address  and  insinuating  manners,  who, 
concealing  the  object  of  his  visit,  would  see  and 
hear  every  thing,  and  report  it  faithfully. 

But  it  was  not  to  the  object  of  the  appropri- 
ation, boldly  as  the  mission  had  been  devised, 
that  Mr.  C.  rose  to  object ;  it  was  the  constitu- 
tional point  it  involved  that  made  it  obnoxious ; 
and  he  read  the  clause  of  the  constitution  which 
requires  the  consent  and  concurrence  of  the 
Senate  to  all  appointments  not  specifically  pro- 
vided for  by  law,  to  show  that  these  Commis- 
sioners should  have  been  nominated  to  that 
body — taking  it  for  granted,  that  they  had  not 
been  submitted  to  the  Senate.  The  President 
had  not  only  made  these  appointments  without 
the  authority  of  the  constitution,  or  of  any  law 
recognizing  them,  but  in  derogation  from  a  posi- 
tive act  of  Congress.  There  was  an  act  of  Con- 
gress fixing  the  grade  of  the  only  Ministers  we 
sent  abroad,  and  it  provided  for  two  cases  only, 
that  of  Minister  Plenipotentiary  and  that  of 
Charge  des  Affaires.  To  the  first  it  assigned  a 
salary  of  $9,000,  to  the  last  a  salary  of  $4,500. 
Here  were  Commissioners,  then,  sent  with  a 
salary  fixed  by  the  sole  authority  of  the  Presi- 
dent, and  not  conformable  to  that  prescribed  by 
the  law  in  either  of  the  two  grades.  If  he 
might  assign  $6,000,  what  was  there  to  prevent 
his  allowance  of  $50,000  ?  It  might  be  said  in 
that  case  this  House  would  afford  a  remedy ; 
but  gentlemen  would  perceive  how  difficult  it 
would  be,  to  withhold  from  an  agent  an  appro- 
priation, which  had  been  promised  and  pledged 
by  the  Executive.  There  was  a  contingent  fund 
of  $50,000  allowed  to  the  President  by  law, 
which  he  was  authorized  to  expend  without 
rendering  to  Congress  any  account  of  it — it  was 
confided  to  his  discretion,  and,  if  the  compensa- 
tion of  the  Commissioners  had  been  made  from 
that  fund,  Mr.  C.  said,  it  would  not  have  been 
a  proper  subject  for  inquiry ;  but,  under  present 
circumstances,  in  opposition  to  the  constitution, 
he  could  not  be  going  too  far,  in  giving  at  least 
his  protest  to  this  appropriation.  It  was  not 
his  intention  to  make  any  motion  on  the  sub- 
ject, and  he  made  none. 

Mr.  FoBflTxn  said>  the  constitution  vests  the 
Executive  with  the  powers  to  make  appoint- 
ments in  the  recess  of  the  Senate.  Whether 
these  were  such  as  required  the  confirmation  of 
the  Senate,  had  been  or  would  be  submitted  for 
that  purpose,  to  that  body,  he  did  not  know, 
nor  was  it  necessary  to  inquire.  He  presumed 
what  ought  to  be  done  would  be  done,  and  he 
was  disposed  to  leave  the  subject  to  the  Execu- 
tive and  to  the  Senate,  to  whom  it  more  prop- 


erly belonged.  If  the  idea  of  the  Speaker  was 
correct,  and  these  were  officers  requiring  a 
nomination  to,  and  the  approbation  of  the 
Senate,  yet.  as  they  were  appointed  in  the  re- 
cess, no  constitutional  wrong  had  been  done  in 
their  appointment.  But  the  Speaker  had  ob- 
jected to  this  commission  because  it  was  useless, 
if  it  was  information  they  went  for.  "Was  it  not 
proper  and  necessary,  Mr.  F.  asked,  for  the 
Government  to  have  information  of  the  state 
of  the  South  American  provinces — of  their  ac- 
tual political  condition,  their  prospects  of  suc- 
cess, &c.  ?  If  so,  this  information  could  be  ob- 
tained only  hi  two  ways — by  the  newspapers, 
or  by  agents  sent  out  for  that  purpose.  The 
vague  and  uncertain  reports  given  in  the  news- 
papers could  not  be  relied  on,  and  the  President 
had  thought  proper  to  send  intelligent  agents 
to  obtain  the  knowledge  desired.  It  was  prob-' 
able  that  a  private  man  might  have  obtained 
this  information  better ;  but  there  was  another 
point  to  be  considered — the  importance  of  this 
information  to  the  Government  was  such,  that 
it  would  be  necessary  that  this  individual 
should  be  an  American,  and  the  kind  of  infor- 
mation to  be  acquired  might  have  subjected  him 
to  the  fate  of  other  Americans  in  the  Spanish 
provinces ;  he  might  have  been  thrown  into  a 
dungeon.  The  opposite  party  might  adopt  this 
course  to  prevent  his  communicating  the  infor- 
mation he  should  have  acquired.  This  had  been 
done ;  American  citizens  had  been  thrown  into 
dungeons.  In  whatever  aspect  this  subject  was 
viewed,  Mr.  F.  could  see  no  impropriety  in 
voting  this  appropriation.  It  was  true,  the 
President  might  have  taken  it  out  of  the  secret 
service  fund,  and  no  inquiry  would  have  been 
made  about  it ;  but,  in  order  to  meet  all  the  ex- 
penses of  the  mission,  it  might  have  been  neces- 
sary to  ask  a  further  appropriation  for  this  fund, 
and  then  the  inquiry  would  have  been  made, 
for  what  it  was  wanted.  The  present  course, 
he  thought,  was  more  honorable  and  fair.  It 
would  have  been  necessary  nearly  to  double  the 
ordinary  contingent  fund,  and  it  would  have 
been  a  conclusive  objection  to  the  appropriation, 
that  Congress  was  ignorant  of  the  object  to 
which  it  was  to  be  applied.  "Would  the  House 
have  been  willing  to  vote  an  addition  to  the  se- 
cret service  fund,  for  what  might  have  been 
considered  the  employment  of  spies  throughout 
the  world  ?  This  objection  to  such  an  appro- 
priation, he  believed,  would  have  been  made 
with  effect;  and  it  was  much  better  for  the 
Executive  to  proceed  in  the  present  open  and 
frank  manner.  Mr.  F.  took  occasion,  in  reply 
to  an  allusion  of  Mr.  CLAT,  to  say,  that  it  was 
true  he  did  not  find  fault  with  the  Executive 
quite  as  often  as  the  honorable  Speaker  had 
latterly  done,  but  still  he  was  not  the  defender 
of  all  Executive  measures.  The  committee 
would  do  him  the  justice  to  recollect  that  he 
sometimes  differed  from  the  Executive,  and 
never  failed  to  censure  what  he  believed  cen- 
surable. 
Mr.  CLAY  said,  in  reply,  that  Mr.  FOESTTH 


136 


ABRIDGMENT  OF  THE 


H.  OF  R.] 


Presidential  Message — Political  Condition  of  Spanish  America. 


[MARCH,  1818. 


had  not  controverted  the  objection  that  these 
appointments  had  not  been  submitted  to  the 
Senate.  But  these  agents  were  to  be  provided 
for,  either  in  the  quality  of  Ministers  or  Charges 
des  Affaires ;  and,  considered  in  either  capacity, 
the  House  was  called  on  to  make  a  larger  ap- 
propriation than  was  authorized  by  law  for 
officers  of  that  character.  As  to  a  private 
agent  being  liable  to  the  fate  mentioned  by  Mr. 
FOBSYTII,  what,  he  asked,  were  the  immunities 
of  the  present  Commissioners?  Nothing  more, 
he  said,  than  those  of  a  private  man.  It  had 
even  been  decided,  in  the  affair  of  the  Eussian 
Consul  at  Philadelphia,  that  Consul  Generals 
were  not  entitled  to  the  immunities  of  Minis- 
ters. But,  could  not  the  President  have  given 
the  same  commission  to  one  man,  sent  privately 
to  obtain  information,  as  to  those  three  Com- 
missioners, and  with  the  same  effect  and  valid- 
ity ?  As  to  the  object  of  the  commission,  Mr. 
C.  again  asked,  how  these  gentlemen  were  to 
acquire  this  information  respecting  the  independ- 
ence of  the  South  American  provinces?  The 
fact  of  their  independence  was  not  to  be  estab- 
lished by  a  dedimus  potestatum  sent  out  to  take 
depositions.  The  independence  of  some  of 
these  States  was  matter  of  history — was  too 
notorious  to  require  the  evidence  of  those  Com- 
missioners. And  Mr.  0.  referred  to  the  con- 
dition of  some  of  the  South  American  States, 
on  which  the  knowledge  was  complete,  and 
contended  that  they  had  been  sent  to  parts, 
with  regard  to  which  (Venezuela  and  Buenos 
Ayres,  for  example)  our  information  was  most 
perfect,  and  were  not  to  visit  all  those  parts 
(Mexico  and  New  Granada)  from  which  we 
most  wanted  it.  Mr.  C.  again  adverted  to  the 
manner  in  which  the  Commissioners  had  been 
appointed,  which  being  done  not  according  to 
law,  was  the  more  improper,  as  they  had  not 
sailed  till  after  the  meeting  of  Congress,  when 
it  would  have  been  scarcely  any  detention  to 
have  waited  the  concurrence  of  the  Senate, 
which  was  in  session  when  they  departed. 

Mr.  HOPKINSOX  observed,  that  he  did  not 
rise  to  express  any  opinion  upon  the  object  or 
utility  of  the  mission  in  question — he  was  will- 
ing to  agree  in  both ;  but  he  desired  to  express 
distinctly  his  dissent  to  the  appropriation,  be- 
cause he  believed  the  appointment  of  these 
Commissioners  was  of  a  kind,  under  the  provi- 
sion and  spirit  of  our  constitution,  to  require 
the  approbation  and  assent  of  the  Senate,  and 
because  he  had  no  reason  to  believe  such  assent 
h'ad  ever  been  given  by  the  Senate,  or  asked  by 
the  Executive.  He  thought  it  more  important 
for  us,  as  the  Representatives  of  the  American 
people,  to  attend  to  and  guard  our  own  consti- 
tution, than  to  send  abroad  to  inquire  into  the 
form  of  government  of  other  people.  Mr.  H. 
said,  that  being  up,  he  would  take  occasion  to 
say  that  he  saw  little  or  no  difference  between 
sending  a  Minister  without  consulting  the  Sen- 
ate, in  a  case  when  their  assent  is  admitted  to 
be  necessary,  and  sending  him  just  on  the  eve 
of  the  meeting  of  that  body,  without  any  known 


urgency,  and  afterwards  submitting  the  appoint- 
ment to  the  Senate.  Nobody  can  believe  the 
Senate  can  exercise  that  free  and  unemba'rrassed 
judgment  upon  the  nomination  which  the  con- 
stitution intended  they  should  have,  after  the 
Minister  had  actually  embarked  and  sailed  for 
his  destination,  with  his  outfit  and  other  ex- 
penses of  the  mission. 

On  the  suggestion  of  Mr.  LOWXDES  this  ap- 
propriation was  passed  by  for  the  present,  that 
in  the  mean  time  the  additional  information 
which  had  been  asked  for  by  the  Speaker  might 
be  obtained  from  the  Department  of  State. 

Mr.  CLAY  rose,  and  moved  to  insert  in  the 
bill  a  provision  to  appropriate  the  sum  of  eigh- 
teen thousand  dollars  as  the  outfit  and  one  year's 
salary  of  a  Minister  to  be  deputed  from  the 
United  States  to  the  independent  provinces  of 
the  River  Plata,  in  South  America. 

This  proposition  Mr.  C.  followed  up  by  en- 
tering into  a  discussion  of  the  question,  involved 
in  his  motion,  of  a  formal  recognition  of  the 
independence  of  the  South  American  States 
mentioned.  He  had  spoken  something  more 
than  an  hour,  when  (having  given  way  for  a 
motion  to  that  effect)  the  committee  rose,  about 
half-past  four  o'clock,  and  the  House  adjourned. 

WEDNESDAY,  March  25. 
On  motion  of  Mr.  MAKE,  the  Committee  on 
the  Public  Lands  were  instructed  to  inquire 
whether  any,  and  if  any,  what  further  provi- 
sions of  law  are  necessary  for  preventing  waste 
and  trespass  on  that  portion  of  the  public  lands 
which  have  been,  or  may  hereafter  be,  reserved 
for  the  use  of  schools. 

Presidential  Message — Political  Condition  of 
" — --*  America. 


Several  Messages  were  received  from    the 
PEESIDEST  OF  THE  UNITED  STATES.     The  first  ot 
the  said  Messages  was  read,  and  is  as  follows : 
WASHINGTON,  March  24,  1818. 

In  pursuance  of  a  resolution  of  the  House  of  Rep- 
resentatives of  the  7th  instant,  I  now  transmit  the 
report  of  the  Secretary  of  State,  with  a  statement  of 
the  expenses  incurred  under  the  4th,  5th,  6th,  and 
7th  articles  of  the  Treaty  of  Ghent,  specifying  the 
items  of  expenditure  in  relation  to  each. 

JAMES  MONROE. 

The  second  of  the  said  Messages  was  read,  and 
is  as  follows : 
To  the  House  of  Representatives  of  the  United  States : 

In  conformity  with  the  resolution  of  the  House  of 
Representatives  of  the  5th  of  December  last,  I  now 
transmit  a  report  of  the  Secretary  of  State,  with  a 
copy  of  the  documents  which  it  is  thought  proper  to 
communicate,  relating  to  the  independence  and  polit- 
ical condition  of  the  provinces  of  Spanish  America. 
JAMES  MONROE. 

WASHINGTON,  March  25,  1818. 

The  report  of  the  Secretary  of  State  is  as 
follows : 

The  Secretary  of  State,  to  whom  has  been  referred 
the  resolution  of  the  House  of  Representatives  of  the 
loth  of  December,  has  the  honor  of  submitting  the 


DEBATES  OF  CONGRESS. 


137 


MARCH,  1818.] 


Presidential  Message — Seminole  War. 


[H.  OF  R. 


documents  herewith  transmitted,  as  containing  the 
information  possessed  at  his  department,  requested 
by  that  resolution. 

In  the  communication  received  from  Don  Manuel 
H.  de  Aguirre,  there  are  references  to  certain  con- 
ferences between  him  and  the  Secretary  of  State, 
which  appear  to  require  some  explanation. 

The  character  in  which  Mr.  Aguirre  presented 
himself  was  that  of  a  public  agent  from  the  Govern- 
ment of  La  Plata,  and  of  private  agent  of  that  of 
Chili — his  commissions  from  both  simply  qualified 
him  as  agent ;  but  his  letter  from  the  Supreme  Direc- 
tor Pueyrredon,  to  the  President  of  the  United  States, 
requested  that  he  might  be  received  with  the  consid- 
eration due  to  his  diplomatic  character.  He  had  no 
commission  as  a  public  minister  of  any  rank,  nor  any 
foil  power  to  negotiate  as  such.  Neither  the  letter, 
of  which  he  was  the  bearer,  nor  he  himself,  at  his 
first  interviews  with  the  Secretary  of  State,  suggested 
that  he  was  authorized  to  ask  the  acknowledgment 
of  his  Government  as  independent — a  circumstance 
which  derived  additional  weight  from  the  fact,  that 
his  predecessor,  Don  Martin  Thompson,  had  been  dis- 
missed by  the  Director  Pneyrredon,  for  having  tran- 
scended his  powers,  of  which  the  letter  brought  by 
Mr.  Aguirre,  gave  notice  to  the  President. 

It  was  some  time  after  the  commencement  of  the 
session  of  Congress,  that  he  made  this  demand,  as 
will  be  seen  by  the  dates  of  his  written  communica- 
tions to  the  Department.  In  the  conferences  held 
with  him  on  that  subject,  among  other  questions 
which  it  naturally  suggested,  were  those  of  the  man- 
ner in  which  the  acknowledgment  of  his  Government, 
should  it  be  deemed  advisable,  might  be  made  ?  and 
what  were  the  territories  which  he  considered  as 
forming  the  State  or  nation  to  be  recognized  ?  It 
was  observed,  that  the  manner  in  which  the  United 
States  had  been  acknowledged  as  an  independent 
power  by  France,  was,  by  a  treaty  concluded  with 
them,  as  an  existing  independent  power,  and  in 
which  each  one  of  the  States,  then  composing  the 
Union,  was  distinctly  named  ;  that  something  of  the 
same  kind  seemed  to  be  necessary  in  the  first  ac- 
knowledgment of  a  new  government,  that  some 
definite  idea  might  be  formed  not  of  the  precise 
boundaries,  but  of  the  general  extent  of  the  country 
thus  recognized.  He  said  the  Government  of  which 
he  desired  the  acknowledgment,  was  of  the  country 
which  had,  before  the  revolution,  been  the  Vice 
Royalty  of  La  Plata.  It  was  then  asked,  whether 
that  did  not  include  Montevideo  and  the  territory 
occupied  by  the  Portuguese — the  Banda  Oriental, 
understood  to  be  under  the  government  of  General 
Artigas,  and  several  provinces,  still  in  the  undisputed 
possession  of  the  Spanish  Government  He  said  it 
did ;  but  observed,  that  Artigas,  though  in  hostility 
with  the  Government  of  Buenos  Ayres,  supported, 
however,  the  cause  of  independence  of  Spain — and 
that  the  Portuguese  could  not  ultimately  maintain 
their  possession  of  Montevideo.  It  was  after  this 
that  Mr.  Aguirre  wrote  the  letter,  offering  to  enter 
into  a  negotiation  for  conducting  a  treaty ;  though 
admitting  that  he  had  no  authority  to  that  effect 
from  his  government  It  may  be  proper  to  observe, 
that  the  mode  of  recognition  by  concluding  a  treaty, 
had  not  been  suggested  as  the  only  one  practicable 
or  usual,  but  merely  as  that  which  had  been  adopted 
by  France  with  the  United  States,  and  as  offering 
the  most  convenient  means  of  designating  the  extent 
of  the  territory  acknowledged  as  a  new  dominion. 


The  remark  to  Mr.  Aguirre,  that  if  Buenos  Ayres 
should  be  acknowledged  as  independent,  others  of 
the  contending  provinces  would,  perhaps,  demand  the 
same,  had  particular  reference  to  the  Banda  Orien- 
tal. The  inquiry  was,  whether  General  Artigas 
might  not  advance  a  claim  of  independence  for  those 
provinces,  conflicting  with  that  of  Buenos  Ayres  for 
the  whole  Vice  Royalty  of  La  Plata  ?  The  Portu- 
guese possession  of  Montevideo  was  noticed  in  refer- 
ence to  a  similar  question. 

It  should  be  added,  that  these  observations  were 
connected  with  others,  stating  the  reasons  upon 
which  the  present  acknowledgment  of  the  Government 
of  La  Plata,  in  any  mode,  was  deemed  by  the  President 
inexpedient,  in  regard  as  well  to  their  interests  as  to 
those  of  the  United  States. 

JOHN  QUTNCY  ADAMS. 

Presidential  Message — Seminole  War. 
The  last  of  the  said  Messages  was  read,  and 
is  as  follows : 

To  the  House  of  Representatives  of  the  United  States : 
I  now  lay  before  Congress  all  the  information  in 
the  possession  of  the  Executive  respecting  the  war 
with  the  Seminoles,  and  the  measures  which  it  has 
been  thought  proper  to  adopt  for  the  safety  of  our 
fellow-citizens  on  the  frontier  exposed  to  their  rav- 
ages. The  enclosed  documents  show  that  the  hostili- 
ties of  this  tribe  were  unprovoked,  the  offspring  of  a 
spirit  long  cherished,  and  often  manifested  towards 
the  United  States,  and  that,  in  the  present  instance, 
it  was  extending  itself  to  other  tribes,  and  daily  as- 
suming a  more  serious  aspect.  As  soon  as  the  nature 
and  object  of  this  combination  were  perceived,  the 
Major  General  commanding  the  southern  division  of 
the  troops  of  the  United  States,  was  ordered  to  the 
theatre  of  action,  charged  with  the  management  of 
the  war,  and  vested  with  the  powers  necessary  to 
give  it  effect.  The  season  of  the  year  being  unfa- 
vorable to  active  operations,  and  the  recesses  of  the 
country  affording  shelter  to  these  savages,  in  case  of 
retreat,  may  prevent  a  prompt  termination  of  the 
war,  but  it  may  be  fairly  presumed  that  it  will  not 
be  long  before  this  tribe,  and  its  associates,  receive 
the  punishment  which  they  have  provoked  and  justly 
merited. 

As  almost  the  whole  of  this  tribe  inhabits  the 
country  within  the  limits  of  Florida,  Spam  was 
bound,  by  the  Treaty  of  1795,  to  restrain  them  from 
committing  hostilities  against  the  United  States. 
We  have  seen  with  regret,  that  her  Government  has 
altogether  failed  to  fulfil  this  obligation,  nor  are  we 
aware  that  it  made  any  effort  to  that  effect  When 
we  consider  her  utter  inability  to  check,  even  in  the 
slightest  degree,  the  movements  of  this  tribe,  by  hep 
very  small  and  incompetent  force  in  Florida,  we  are 
not  disposed  to  ascribe  the  failure  to  any  other  cause. 
The  inability,  however,  of  Spain  to  maintain  her 
authority  over  the  territory  and  Indians  within  her 
limits,  and  in  consequence  to  fulfil  the  treaty,  ought 
not  to  expose  the  United  States  to  other  and  greater 
injuries.  When  the  authority  of  S^R  ceases  to  ex- 
ist there,  the  United  States  have  irVght  to  pursue 
their  enemy,  on  a  principle  of  self-defence.  In  this 
instance,  the  right  is  more  complete  and  obvious, 
because  we  shall  perform  only  what  Spain  was  bound 
to  have  performed  herself.  To  the  high  obligations 
and  privileges  of  this  great  and  sacred  right  of  self- 
defence,  will  the  movement  of  our  troops  be  strictly 


138 


ABRIDGMENT  OF  THE 


H.  OF  R.] 


Spanish  American  Provinces. 


[MARCH,  1818. 


confined.  Orders  have  been  given  to  the  General  in 
command,  not  to  enter  Florida,  unless  it  be  in  pur- 
suit of  the  enemy,  and  in  that  case  to  respect  the 
Spanish  authority  wherever  it  is  maintained,  and  he 
will  be  instructed  to  -withdraw  his  forces  from  the 
province  as  soon  as  he  shall  have  reduced  that  tribe 
to  order,  and  secure  our  fellow-citizens,  in  that  quar- 
ter, by  satisfactory  arrangements,  against  its  unpro- 
voked and  savage  hostilities  in  future. 

JAMES  MONROE. 
WASHINGTON,  March  25,  1818. 

The  said  Messages  and  their  accompanying 
documents,  were  ordered  to  lie  on  the  table. 

Spanish  American  Provinces. 

The  House  having  again  resolved  itself  into  a 
Committee  of  the  Whole  on  the  annual  general 
appropriation  bill,  and  Mr.  CLAY'S  proposition 
to  amend  the  bill  by  inserting  a  clause  for  ap- 
propriating $18,000  for  the  outfit  and  year's 
salary  of  a  Minister  to  Buenos  Ayres,  yet  pend- 
ing, Mr.  CLAY  concluded,  in  a  speech  of  three 
hours  in  length,  the  observations  he  yesterday 
commenced  in  support  of  his  proposition ;  the 
whole  of  which  is  given  entire,  as  follows : 

Mr.  CLAY  said  he  rose,  under  feelings  of  deep- 
er regret  than  he  had  ever  experienced  on  any 
former  occasion,  inspired,  principally,  by  the 
painful  consideration,  that  he  found  himself,  on 
the  proposition  which  he  meant  to  submit,  dif- 
fering from  many  highly  esteemed  friends,  in 
and  out  of  this  House,  for  whose  judgment  he 
entertained  the  greatest  respect.  A  knowledge 
of  this  circumstance  had  induced  him  to  pause ; 
to  subject  his  own  convictions  to  the  severest 
scrutiny ;  and  to  revolve  the  question  over  and 
over  again.  But  all  his  reflections  had  con- 
ducted him  to  the  same  clear  result ;  and  much 
as  he  valued  those  friends,  great  as  his  defer- 
ence was  for  their  opinions,  he  could  not  hesi- 
tate, when  reduced  to  the  distressing  alterna- 
tive of  conforming  his  judgment  to  theirs,  or 
pursuing  the  deliberate  and  matured  dictates  of 
his  own  mind.  He  enjoyed  some  consolation, 
for  the  want  of  their  co-operation,  from  the 
persuasion  that,  if  he  erred  on  this  occasion,  he 
erred  on  the  side  of  the  liberty  and  the  happi- 
ness of  a  large  portion  of  the  human  family. 
Another,  and,  if  possible,  indeed  a  greater 
source  of  the  regret  to  which  he  referred,  was 
the  utter  incompetency  which  he  unfeignedly 
felt  to  do  any  thing  like  adequate  justice  to  the 
great  cause  of  American  independence  and 
freedom,  whose  interests  he  wished  to  promote 
by  his  humble  exertions,  in  this  instance.  Ex- 
hausted and  worn  down  as  he  was,  by  the  fa- 
tigue, confinement,  and  incessant  application 
incident  to  the  arduous  duties  of  the  honorable 
station  he  haj^  during  a  four  months'  session, 
he  should  neUall  that  kind  indulgence  which 
had  been  so  often  extended  to  him  by  the 
House. 

He  begged,  in  the  first  place,  to  correct  mis- 
conceptions, if  any  existed,  in  regard  to  his 
opinions.  He  was  averse  from  war  with  Spain, 
or  with  any  power.  He  would  give  no  just 


cause  of  war  to  any  power — not  to  Spain  her- 
self. He  had  seen  enough  of  war,  and  of  its 
calamities,  when  even  successful.  No  country 
upon  earth  had  more  interest  than  this  in  cul- 
tivating peace,  and  avoiding  war,  as  long  as  it 
was  possible  honorably  to  avoid  it.  Gaining 
additional  strength  every  day,  our  numbers 
doubling  in  periods  of  twenty-five  years,  with 
an  income  outstripping  all  our  estimates,  and 
so  great,  as,  after  a  war  in  some  respects  dis- 
astrous, to  furnish  results  which  carry  aston- 
ishment, if  not  dismay,  into  the  bosom  of  the 
states  jealous  of  our  rising  importance,  we  had 
every  motive  for  the  love  of  peace.  He  could 
not,  however,  approve,  in  all  respects,  of  the 
manner  in  which  our  negotiation  with  Spain 
had  been  conducted.  If  ever  a  favorable  time 
existed  for  the  demand,  on  the  part  of  an  in- 
jured nation,  of  indemnity  for  past  wrongs, 
from  the  aggressor,  such  was  the  present  time. 
Impoverished  and  exhausted  at  home,  by  the 
wars  which  have  desolated  the  Peninsula, 
with  a  foreign  war,  calling  for  infinitely  more 
resources  in  men  and  money,  than  she  can  pos- 
sibly command,  this  is  the  auspicious  period 
for  insisting  upon  justice  at  her  hands,  in  a 
firm  and  decided  tone.  Time  is  precisely  what 
Spain  now  most  wants.  Yet  what  were  we 
told  by  the  President,  in  his  Message,  at  the 
commencement  of  Congress  ?  That  Spain  had 
procrastinated,  and  we  acquiesced  in  her  pro- 
crastination. And  the  Secretary  of  State,  in 
the  late  communication  with  Mr.  Onis,  after 
ably  vindicating  all  our  rights,  tells  the  Spanish 
Minister,  with  a  good  deal  of  sang  froid,  that 
we  had  patiently  waited  thirteen  years  for  a 
redress  of  our  injuries,  and  that  it  required  no 
great  effort  to  wait  longer !  He  would  have 
abstained  from  thus  exposing  our  intentions. 
Avoiding  the  use  of  the  language  of  menace, 
he  would  have  required,  in  temperate  and  de- 
cided terms,  indemnity  for  all  our  wrongs ;  for 
the  spoliations  upon  our  commerce  ;  for  the  in- 
terruption of  the  right  of  depot  at  New  Orleans, 
guaranteed  by  treaty ;  for  the  insults  repeatedly 
offered  to  our  flag;  for  the  Indian  hostilities 
which  she  was  bound  to  prevent ;  for  the  bel- 
ligerent use  made  of  her  ports  and  territories 
by  our  enemy,  during  the  late  war — and  the 
instantaneous  liberation  of  the  free  citizens  of 
the  United  States,  now  imprisoned  in  her  jails. 
Contemporaneous  with  that  demand,  without 
waiting  for  her  final  answer,  and  with  a  view 
to  the  favorable  operation  on  her  councils,  in 
regard  to  our  own  peculiar  interests,  as  well  as 
in  justice  to  the  cause  itself,  he  would  recog- 
nize any  established  government  in  Spanish 
America.  He  would  have  left  Spam  to  draw 
her  own  inferences  from  these  proceedings,  as 
to  the  ultimate  steps  which  this  country  might 
adopt,  if  she  longer  withheld  justice  from  us. 
And  if  she  persevered  in  her  iniquity,  after  we 
had  conducted  the  negotiation  in  the  manner 
he  had  endeavored  to  describe,  he  would  then 
take  up  and  decide  the  solemn  question  of  peace 
or  war,  with  the  advantage  of  all  the  light  shed 


DEBATES  OF  CONGRESS. 


139 


MARCH,  1818.] 


Spanish  American  Provinces. 


[H.  OP  R 


upon  it  by  subsequent  events  and  the  probable 
conduct  of  Europe. 

Spain  had  undoubtedly  given  us  abundant 
and  just  cause  of  war.  But,  it  was  not  every 
cause  of  war  that  should  lead  to  war.  "War 
was  one  of  those  dreadful  scourges  that  so 
shakes  the  foundations  of  society ;  overturns  or 
changes-  the  character  of  governments ;  inter- 
rupts or  destroys  the  pursuits  of  private  hap- 
piness ;  brings,  in  short,  misery  and  wretched- 
ness in  so  many  forms ;  and  at  last  is,  in  its 
issue,  so  doubtful  and  hazardous — that  nothing 
but  dire  necessity  can  justify  an  appeal  to  arms. 
If  we  were  to  have  war  with  Spain,  he  had, 
however,  no  hesitation  in  saying  that  no  mode 
of  bringing  it  about  could  be  less  fortunate  than 
that  of  seizing,  at  this  time,  upon  her  adjoining 
province.  There  was  a  time,  under  other  cir- 
cumstances, when  we  might  have  occupied  East 
Florida,  with  safety  ;  had  we  then  taken  it,  our 
posture  in  the  negotiation  with  Spain,  would 
have  been  totally  different  from  what  it  is. 
But,  we  had  permitted  that  time,  not  with  his 
consent,  to  pass  by  unimproved.  If  we  were 
to  seise  upon  Florida,  after  a  great  change  in 
those  circumstances,  and  after  declaring  our 
intention  to  acquiesce  in  the  procrastination 
desired  by  Spain,  in  what  light  should  we  be 
viewed  by  foreign  powers,  particularly  Great 
Britain?  We  have  already  been  accused  of 
inordinate  ambition,  and  of  seeking  to  aggran- 
dize ourselves  by  an  extension,  on  all  sides,  of 
our  limits.  Should  we  not,  by  such  an  act 
of  violence,  give  color  to  the  accusation  ?  No, 
Mr.  Chairman,  if  we  are  to  be  involved  in  war 
with  Spain,  let  us  have  the  credit  of  disinter- 
estedness ;  let  us  put  her  yet  more  in  the  wrong. 
Let  us  command  the  respect  which  is  never 
withheld  from  those  who  act  a  noble  and  gen- 
erous part.  He  hoped  to  communicate  to  the 
committee  the  coAdclion  which  he  so  strongly 
felt,  that,  adopting  the  amendment  which  he 
intended  to  propose,  would  not  hazard,  in  the 
slightest  degree,  the  peace  of  the  country.  But 
if  that  peace  were  to  be  endangered,  he  would 
infinitely  rather  it  should  be  for  our  exerting 
the  right,  appertaining  to  every  state,  of  ac- 
knowledging the  independence  of  another  state, 
than  for  the  seizure  of  a  province  which  sooner 
or  later  we  must  certainly  acquire. 

Mr.  C.  proceeded.  In  contemplating  the  great 
struggle  in  which  Spanish  America  is  now  en- 
gaged, our  attention  is  first  fixed  by  the  im- 
mensity and  character  of  the  country  which 
Spain  seeks  again  to  subjugate.  Stretching  on 
the  Pacific  Ocean  from  about  the  40th  degree 
of  north  latitude,  to  about  the  55th  degree  of 
south  latitude,  and  extending  from  the  mouth 
of  the  Eio  del  Norte  (exclusive  of  East  Flori- 
da) around  the  Gulf  of  Mexico,  and  along  the 
South  Atlantic  to  near  Cape  Horn,  it  is  about 
5,000  miles  in  length,  and,  in  some  places,  near 
3,000  in  breadth.  Within  this  vast  region,  we 
behold  the  most  sublime  and  interesting  objects 
of  creation;  the  loftiest  mountains,  the  most 
majestic  rivers  in  the  world ;  the  richest  mines 


of  the  precious  metals ;  and  the  choicest  pro- 
ductions of  the  earth.  We  behold  there  a  spec- 
tacle still  more  interesting  and  sublime — the 
glorious  spectacle  of  eighteen  millions  of  people, 
struggling  to  burst  their  chains  and  to  be  free. 
When  we  take  a  little  nearer  and  more  detailed 
view,  we  perceive  that  nature  has,  as  it  were, 
ordained  that  this  people  and  this  country  shall 
ultimately  constitute  several  different  nations. 
Leaving  the  "United  States  on  the  north,  we 
come  to  New  Spain,  or  the  Vice  Royalty  of 
Mexico  on  the  south ;  passing  by  Guatemala, 
we  reach  the  Vice  Royalty  of  New  Grenada, 
the  late  Captain  Generalship  of  Venezuela,  and 
Guyana,  lying  on  the  east  side  of  the  Andes. 
Stepping  over  the  Brazils,  we  arrive  at  the 
United  Provinces  of  La  Plata,  and,  crossing  the 
Andes,  we  find  Chili  on  their  west  side,  and 
further  north,  the  Vice  Royalty  of  Lima  or 
Peru.  Each  of  these  several  parts  is  sufficient 
in  itself,  in  point  of  limits,  to  constitute  a  pow- 
erful state,  and,  in  point  of  population,  that 
which  has  the  smallest  contains  enough  to  make 
it  respectable.  Throughout  all  the  extent  of 
that  great  portion  of  the  world,  which  he  had 
attempted  thus  hastily  to  describe,  the  spirit  of 
revolt  against  tie  dominion  of  Spain  had  mani- 
fested itself.  The  revolution  had  been  attended 
with  various  degrees  of  success  hi  the  several 
parts  of  Spanish  America.  In  some  it  had 
been  already  crowned,  as  he  would  endeavor  to 
show,  with  complete  success,  and  in  all  he  was 
persuaded  that  independence  had  struck  such 
deep  root,  as  that  the  power  of  Spain  could 
never  eradicate  it.  What  were  the  causes  of 
this  great  movement? 

Three  hundred  years  ago,  upon  the  ruins  of 
the  thrones  of  Montezuma  and  the  Incas  of  Peru, 
Spain  erected  the  most  a^pendous  system  of 
colonial  despotism  that  the  world  has  ever  seen 
— the  most  rigorous,  the  most  exclusive.  The 
great  principle  and  object  of  this  system  has 
been  to  render  one  of  the  largest  portions  of  the 
world  exclusively  subservient,  in  all  its  faculties, 
to  the  interests  of  an  inconsiderable  spot  in 
Europe.  To  effectuate  this  aim  of  her  policy, 
she  locked  Spanish  America  up  from  the  rest  oi 
the  world,  and  prohibited,  under  the  severest 
penalties,  any  foreigner  from  entering  any  part 
of  it.  To  keep  the  natives  themselves  ignorant 
of  each  other,  and  of  the  strength  and  resources 
of  the  several  parts  of  her  American  possessions, 
she  next  prohibited  the  inhabitants  of  one  Vice 
Royalty  or  Government  from  visiting  those  of 
another ;  so,  that  the  inhabitants  of  Mexico,  for 
example,  were  not  allowed  to  enter  the  Vice 
Royalty  of  New  Grenada.  The  agriculture  of 
those  vast  regions  was  so  regulated  and  re- 
strained as  to  prevent  all  collision  with  the  in- 
terests of  the  agriculture  of  the  Peninsula. 
Where  nature,  by  the  character  and  composi- 
tion of  the  soil,  had  commanded,  the  abominable 
system  of  Spain  has  forbidden  the  growth  of 
certain  articles.  Thus,  the  olive  and  the  vine, 
to  which  Spanish  America  is  so  well  adapted, 
are  prohibited  wherever  their  culture  could  in- 


140 


ABRIDGMENT  OF  THE 


H.  OF  R.] 


erican  Provinces. 


[MARCH,  1818. 


terfere  with  the  olive  and  the  vine  of  the  Pen- 
insula. The  commerce  of  the  country,  in  the 
direction  and  objects  of  the  exports  and  imports, 
is  also  siibjected  to  the  narrow  and  selfish  views 
of  Spain,  and  fettered  by  the  odious  spirit  of 
monopoly  existing  in  Cadiz.  She  has  sought, 
by  scattering  discord  among  the  several  castes 
of  her  American  population,  and  by  a  debasing 
course  of  education,  to  perpetuate  her  oppres- 
sion. Whatever  concerns  public  law,  or  the 
science  of  government,  all  writers  upon  political 
economy,  or  that  tend  to  give  vigor,  and  free- 
dom, and  expansion  to  the  intellect,  are  pro- 
hibited. Gentlemen  would  be  astonished  by  the 
long  list  of  distinguished  authors,  whom  she 
proscribes,  to  be  found  in  Depon's  and  other 
works.  A  main  feature  in  her  policy  is  that 
which  constantly  elevates  the  European  and  de- 
presses the  American  character.  Out  of  up- 
wards of  750  Viceroys  and  Captains  General, 
whom  she  has  appointed  since  the  conquest  of 
America,  about  eighteen  only  have  been  from 
the  body  of  the  American  population.  On  all 
occasions  she  seeks  to  raise  and  promote  her 
European  subjects,  and  to  degrade  and  humiliate 
the  Creoles.  Wherever  in  America  her  sway 
extends  every  thing  seems  to  pine  and  wither 
beneath  its  baneful  influence.  The  richest  re- 
gions of  the  earth ;  man,  his  happiness  and  his 
education  ;  all  the  fine  faculties  of  his  soul,  are 
regulated,  and  modified,  and  moulded,  to  suit 
the  execrable  purposes  of  an  inexorable  des- 
potism. 

Such  is  a  brief  and  imperfect  picture  of  the 
state  of  things  in  Spanish  America  in  1808, 
when  the  famous  transactions  of  Bayonne  oc- 
curred. The  King  of  Spain  and  the  Indies  (for 
Spanish  America  had  always  constituted  an  in- 
tegral part  of  the  Swinish  empire)  abdicated  his 
throne  and  became  a  voluntary  captive.  Even 
at  this  day,  one  does  not  know  whether  he  should 
most  condemn  the  baseness  and  perfidy  of  the 
one  party,  or  despise  the  meanness  and  imbe- 
cility of  the  other.  If  the  obligation  of  obedi- 
ence and  allegiance  existed  on  the  part  of  the 
colonies  to  the  King  of  Spain,  it  was  founded  on 
the  duty  of  protection  which  he  owed  them. 
By  disqualifying  himself  from  the  performance 
of  this  duty,  they  became  released  from  that  ob- 
ligation. The  monarchy  was  dissolved,  and  each 
integral  part  had  a  right  to  seek  its  own  hap- 
piness by  the  institution  of  any  new  govern- 
ment adapted  to  its  wants.  Joseph  Bonaparte, 
the  successor  de  facto  of  Ferdinand,  recognized 
this  right  on  the  part  of  the  colonies,  and  re- 
commended them  to  establish  their  independ- 
ence. Thus,  upon  the  ground  of  strict  right ; 
upon  the  footing  of  a  mere  legal  question,  gov- 
erned by  forensic  rules,  the  colonies,  being  ab- 
solved by  the  acts  of  the  parent  country  from 
the  duty  of  subjection  to  it,  had  an  indisputable 
right  to  set  up  for  themselves.  But  Mr.  C.  took 
a  broader  and  bolder  position.  He  maintained 
that  an  oppressed  people  were  authorized,  when- 
ever they  could,  to  rise  and  break  their  fetters. 
This  was  the  great  principle  of  the  English  Kev- 


olution.  It  was  the  great  principle  of  our  own. 
Vattel,  if  authority  were  wanting,  expressly 
supports  this  right.  We  must  pass  sentence  of 
condemnation  upon  the  founders  of  our  liberty 
— say  that  they  were  rebels,  traitors,  and  that 
we  are  at  this  moment  legislating  without  con- 
petent  powers,  before  we  could  condemn  the 
cause  of  Spanish  America.  Our  Revolution  was  • 
mainly  directed  against  the  mere  theory  of  tyr- 
anny. We  have  suffered  comparatively  but 
little;  we  had,  in  some  respects,  been  kindly 
treated ;  but  our  intrepid  and  intelligent  fathers 
saw,  in  the  usurpation  of  the  power  to  levy  an  in- 
considerable tax,  the  long  train  of  oppressive 
acts  that  was  to  follow.  They  rose;  they 
breasted  the  storm ;  they  conquered  our  free- 
dom. Spanish  America,  for  centuries,  has  been 
doomed  to  the  practical  effects  of  an  odious 
tyranny.  If  we  were  justified,  she -is  more  than 
justified. 

Mr.  0.  said  he  was  no  propagandist.  He 
would  not  seek  to  force  upon  other  nations  our 
principles  and  our  liberty,  if  they  did  not  want 
them.  He  would  not  disturb  the  repose  even 
of  a  detestable  despotism.  But  if  an  abused  and 
oppressed  people  willed  their  freedom ;  if  they 
sought  to  establish  it ;  if,  in  truth,  they  had  es- 
tablished it,  we  had  a  right,  as  a  sovereign 
power,  to  notice  the  fact,  and  to  act  as  circum- 
stances and  our  interest  required.  He  would^ay, 
in  the  language  of  the  venerated  Father  of  his 
Country :  "  Born  in  a  land  of  liberty,  my  anx- 
ious recollections,  my  sympathetic  feelings,  and 
my  best  wishes,  are  irresistibly  excited,  when- 
soever, in  any  country,  I  see  an  oppressed  na- 
tion unfurl  the  banners  of  freedom."  *  For  his 
own  part,  Mr.  C.  said,  that  whenever  he  thought 
of  Spanish  America,  the  image  irresistibly 
forced  itself  upon  his  mind  of  an  elder  brother, 
whose  education  had  been,  neglected,  whose 
person  had  been  abused  and  maltreated,  and  who 
had  been  disinherited  by  the  unkindness  of  an 
unnatural  parent.  And  when  he  contemplated 
the  glorious  struggle  which  that  country  was 
now  making,  he  thought  he  beheld  that  brother 
rising,  by  the  power  and  energy  of  his  fine  na- 
tive genius,  to  the  manly  rank  which  nature  and 
nature's  God  intended  for  him. 

If  Spanish  America  were  entitled  to  success 
from  the  justness  of  her  cause,  we  had  no  less 
reason  to  wish  that  success  from  the  horrible 
character  which  the  royal  arms  had  given  to 
the  war.  More  atrocities  than  those  which  had 
been  perpetrated  during  its  existence  were  not 
to  be  found  even  in  the  annals  of  Spain  herself. 
And  history,  reserving  some  of  her  blackest 
pages  for  the  name  of  Morillo,  is  prepared  to 
place  him  alongside  of  his  great  prototype,  the 
infamous  desolator  of  the  Netherlands.  He  who 
has  looked  into  the  history  of  the  conduct  of  this 
war,  is  constantly  shocked  at  the  revolting 
scenes  which  it  portrays ;  at  the  refusal,  on  the 
part  of  the  commanders  of  the  royal  forces,  to 


*  Washington's  answer  to  the  French  Minister's  address, 
on  his  presenting  the  colors  of  France,  in  1T96. 


DEBATES  OF  CONGRESS. 


141 


MARCH,  1818.] 


Spanish  American  Provinces. 


[H.  OP  B 


treat,  on  any  terras,  with  the  other  side ;  at  the 
denial  of  quarters;  at  the  hutchery,  in  cold 
blood,  of  prisoners;  at  the  violation  of  flags,  in 
some  cases,  after  being  received  with  religious 
•ceremonies  ;  at  the  instigation  of  slaves  to  rise 
against  their  owners ;  and  at  acts  of  wanton  and 
useless  barbarity.  Neither  the  weakness  of  the 
other  sex,  nor  the  imbecility  of  old  age,  nor  the 
innocence  of  infants,  nor  the  reverence  due  to 
the  sacerdotal  character,  can  stay  the  arm  of 
royal  vengeance.  On  this  subject  he  begged 
leave  to  trouble  the  committee  with  reading  a 
few  passages  from  a  most  authentic  document, 
the  manifesto  of  the  Congress  of  the  United 
Provinces  of  Rio  de  la  Plata,  published  in  Oc- 
tober last.  This  was  a  paper  of  the  highest 
authority ;  it  was  an  appeal  to  the  whole  world ; 
it  asserted  facts  of  notoriety  in  the  face  of  the 
whole  world.  It  was  not  to  be  credited  that  the 
Congress  would  come  forward  with  a  statement 
which  was  not  true,  when  the  means,  if  it  were 
false,  of  exposing  their  fabrications,  must  be  so 
abundant,  and  so  easy  to  command.  It  was  a 
document,  in  short,  that  stood  upon  the  same 
footing  of  authority  with  our  own  papers,  pro- 
mulged  during  the  Revolution  by  our  Congress. 
He  would  add,  that  many  of  the  facts  which  it 
affirmed,  were  corroborated  by  most  respectable 
historical  testimony,  which  was  in  his  ownpos- 


[Mr.  C.  here  read  the  following  passages  from 
the  manifesto :  ] 

"  Memory  shudders  at  the  recital  of  the  horrors  that 
were  then  committed  by  Goyeneche,  in  Cochabamba. 
Would  to  heaven  it  were  possible  to  blot  from  remem- 
brance the  name  of  that  ungrateful  and  blood-thirsty 
American  ;  who,  on  the  day  of  his  entry,  ordered  the 
virtuous  Governor  and  Intendant,  Antesana,  to  be 
shot ;  who,  beholding  from  the  balcony  of  his  house 
that  infamous  murder,  cried  out  with  a  ferocious 
voice  to  the  soldiers,  that  they  must  not  fire  at  the 
head,  because  he  wanted  it  to  be  affixed  to  a  pole  ; 
and  who,  after  the  head  was  taken  off,  ordered  the 
cold  corpse  to  be  dragged  through  the  streets ;  and,  by 
a  barbarous  decree,  placed  the  lives  and  fortunes  of 
the  citizens  at  the  mercy  of  his  unbridled  soldiery, 
leaving  them  to  exercise  their  licentious  and  brutal 
sway  during  several  days !  But  those  blind  and  cru- 
elly capricious  men  (the  Spaniards)  rejected  the  me- 
diation of  England,  and  despatched  rigorous  orders  to 
all  the  Generals  to  aggravate  the  war,  and  to  punish 
us  with  more  severity.  The  scaffolds  were  every- 
where multiplied,  and  invention  was.racked  to  devise 
means  for  spreading  murder,  distress,  and  conster- 
nation. 

"  Thenceforth  they  made  all  possible  efforts  to  spread 
division  among  us,  to  incite  us  to  mutual  extermina- 
tion ;  they  have  slandered  us  with  the  most  atrocious 
calumnies,  accusing  us  of  plotting  the  destruction  of 
our  holy  religion,  the  abolition  of  all  morality,  and  oi 
introducing  licentiousness  of  manners.  They  wage  a 
religious  war  against  us,  contriving  a  thousand  arti- 
fices to  disturb  and  alarm  the  consciences  of  the 
people,  making  the  Spanish  bishops  issue  decrees  ol 
ecclesiastical  condemnation,  public  excommunica- 
tions, and  disseminating,  through  the  medium  of  some 
ignorant  confessor,  fanatical  doctrines  in  the  tribunal 


of  penitence.  By  means  of  these  religious  discords 
hey  have  divided  families  against  themselves ;  they 
lave  caused  disaffection  between  parents  and  chil- 
dren ;  they  have  dissolved  the  tender  ties  which  unite 
msband  and  wife ;  they  have  spread  rancor  and  im- 
jlacable  hatred  between  brothers,  most  endeared, 
and  they  have  presumed  to  throw  all  nature  into 
discord. 

'  They  have  adopted  the  system  of  murdering  men 
^discriminatory  to  diminish  our  numbers ;  and,  on 
their  entry  into  towns,  they  have  swept  off  all,  even 
the  market  people,  leading  them  to  the  open  squares, 
and  there  shooting  them  one  by  one.  The  cities  of 
Ohnquisaca  and  Cohabamba  have  more  than  once 
been  the  theatres  of  these  horrid  slaughters. 

They  have  intermixed  with  their  troops  soldiers 
of  ours  whom  they  had  taken  prisoners,  carrying 
away  the  officers  in  chains  to  garrisons  where  it  is 
impossible  to  preserve  health  for  a  year  ;  they  have 
[eft  others  to  die  in  their  prisons  of  hunger  and  misery, 
nd  others  they  have  forced  to  hard  labor  on  the  pub- 
lic works.  They  have  exultingly  put  to  death  oar 
bearers  of  flags  of  truce,  and  have  been  guilty  of  the 
blackest  atrocities  to  our  chiefs,  after  they  had  sur- 
rendered, as  well  as  to  other  principal  characters,  in 
disregard  of  the  humanity  with  which  we  treated 
prisoners  ;  as  a  proof  of  it,  witness  the  deputy  Mutes 
of  Potosi,  the  Captain  General  Pumacagua,  General 
Augulo,  and  his  brother  Commandant  Munecas,  and 
other  partisan  chiefs,  who  were  shot  in  cold  blood, 
after  having  been  prisoners  for  several  days. 

"  They  took  a  brutal  pleasure  in  cropping  the  ears 
of  the  natives  of  the  town  of  Villegrande,  and  sending 
a  basket  full  of  them  as  presents  to  the  headquarters. 
They  afterwards  burnt  that  town,  and  set  fire  to 
thirty  other  populous  towns  of  Peru,  and  worse  than 
the  worst  of  savages,  shutting  the  inhabitants  up 
in  the  houses,  before  setting  them  on  fire,  that  they 
might  be  burnt  alive. 

"  They  have  not  only  been  cruel  and  unsparing  in 
their  mode  of  murder,  but  they  have  been  void  of  all 
morality  and  public  decency,  causing  aged  ecclesias- 
tics and  women  to  be  lashed  to  a  gun  and  publicly 
flogged,  with  the  abomination  of  first  having  them 
stripped,  and  their  nakedness  exposed  to  shame,  in 
the  presence  of  their  troops. 

"  They  established  an  inquisitorial  system  in  all 
these  punishments;  they  have  seized  on  peaceable 
inhabitants,  and  transported  them  across  the  seas  to 
be  adjudged  for  suspected  crimes,  and  they  have  put 
a  great  number  of  citizens  to  death  everywhere  with- 
out accusation  or  the  form  of  a  trial. 

"  They  have  invented  a  crime  of  unexampled  hor- 
ror, in  poisoning  our  water  and  provisions,  when  they 
were  conquered  by  General  Pineto  at  La  Paz,  and  in 
return  for  the  kindness  with  which  he  treated  them, 
after  they  had  surrendered  at  discretion,  they  had 
the  barbarity  to  blow  up  the  headquarters,  under 
which  they  had  constructed  a  mine,  and  prepared  a 
train  beforehand. 

"  He  has  branded  us  with  the  stigma  of  rebels  the 
moment  he  returned  to  Madrid ;  he  refused  to  listen 
to  our  complaints,  or  to  receive  our  supplications ; 
and  as  an  act  of  extreme  favor,  he  offered  us  a  par- 
don. He  confirmed  the  Viceroys,  Governors,  and 
Generals,  whom  he  found  actually  glutted  with  car- 
nage ;  he  declared  us  guilty  of  a  high  misdemeanor 
for  having  dared  to  frame  a  constitution  for  our  own 
government,  free  from  the  control  of  a  deified,  ab 
solute,  and  tyrannical  power,  under  which  we  had 


142 


ABRIDGMENT  OF  THE 


H.  OF  R.] 


Spanish  American  Provinces. 


[MARCH,  1818 


groaned  three  centuries — a  measure  that  could  be 
offensive  only  to  a  Prince,  an  enemy  to  justice  and 
beneficence,  and  consequently  unworthy  to  rule  over  us. 

"  He  then  undertook,  with  the  aid  of  his  Minis- 
ters, to  equip  large  military  armaments  to  be  direct- 
ed against  us.  He  has  caused  numerous  armies  to  be 
sent  out  to  consummate  the  work  of  devastation,  fire, 
and  plunder. 

"  He  has  sent  his  Generals,  with  certain  decrees  of 
pardon,  which  they  publish  to  deceive  the  ignorant, 
and  induce  them  to  facilitate  their  entrance  into 
towns ;  whilst,  at  the  same  time,  he  has  given  them 
other  secret  instructions,  authorizing  them,  as  soon 
as  they  should  get  possession  of  a  place,  to  hang,  burn, 
confiscate,  and  sack ;  to  encourage  private  assassina- 
tions, and  to  commit  every  species  of  injury  in  their 
power  against  the  deluded  beings  who  had  confided 
in  his  pretended  pardon.  It  is  in  the  name  of  Ferdi- 
nand of  Bourbon,  that  the  heads  of  patriot  officers, 
prisoners,  are  fixed  up  in  the  highways,  that  they 
beat  and  stoned  to  death  a  commandant  of  light 
troops,  and  that,  after  having  killed  Colonel  Camugo, 
in  the  same  manner,  by  the  hands  of  the  indecent 
Centeno,  they  cut  off  his  head,  and  sent  it  as  a  present 
to  General  Pezuela,  telling  him  it  was  a  miracle  of  the 
Virgin  of  the  Carmelites." 

In  the  establishment  of  the  independence  of 
Spanish  America,  the  United  States  have  the 
deepest  interest.  He  had  no  hesitation  in  assert- 
ing his  firm  belief,  that  there  was  no  question, 
in  the  foreign  policy  of  this  country,  which  had 
ever  -arisen,  or  which  he  could  conceive  as  ever 
occurring,  in  the  decision  of  which  we  had  so 
much  at  stake.  This  interest  concerned  our 
politics,  our  commerce,  our  navigation.  There 
could  not  be  a  doubt  that  Spanish  America, 
once  independent,  whatever  might  be  the  form 
of  the  governments  established  in  its  several 
parts,  those  governments  would  be  animated  by 
an  American  feeling,  and  guided  by  an  Amer- 
ican policy.  They  would  obey  the  laws  of  the 
system  of  the  New  World,  of  which  they  would 
compose  a  part,  in  contradistinction  to  that  of 
Europe.  "Without  the  influence  of  that  vortex 
in  Europe,  the  balance  of  power  between  its 
several  parts,  the  preservation  of  which  had  so 
often  drenched  Europe  in  blood,  America  is 
sufficiently  remote  to  contemplate  the  new 
wars  Avhich  are  to  afflict  that  quarter  of  the 
globe,  as  a  calm,  if  not  a  cold  and  indifferent, 
spectator.  In  relation  to  those  wars,  the  several 
parts  of  America  will  generally  stand  neutral. 
And  as,  during  the  period  when  they  rage,  it 
would  be  important  that  a  liberal  system  of 
neutrality  should  be  adopted  and  observed,  all 
America  will  be  interested  in  maintaining  and 
enforcing  such  a  system.  The  independence, 
then,  of  Spanish  America  is  an  interest  of  pri- 
mary consideration.  Next  to  that,  and  highly 
important  in  itself,  was  the  consideration  of 
the  nature  of  their  governments.  That  was  a 
question,  however,  for  themselves.  They  would, 
no  doubt,  adopt  those  kinds  of  governments 
which  were  best  suited  to  their  condition,  best 
calculated  for  their  happiness.  Anxious  as  he 
was  that  they  should  be  free  governments,  we 
had  no  right  to  prescribe  for  them.  They  were, 


and  ought  to  be,  the  sole  judges  for  themselves. 
He  was  strongly  inclined  to  believe  that  they 
would  in  most,  if  not  all,  parts  of  their  country, 
establish  free  governments.  We  were  their 
great  example.  Of  us  they  constantly  spoke  < 
as  of  brothers,  having  a  similar  origin.  They 
adopted  our  principles,  copied  our  institutions, 
and,  in  some  instances,  employed  the  very 
language  and  sentiments  of  our  revolutionary 
papers.  [Here  Mr.  0.  read  the  following  pas- 
sage from  the  same  manifesto  before  cited :] 

"  Having,  then,  been  thus  impelled  by  the  Span- 
iards and  their  King,  we  have  calculated  all  the  con- 
sequences, and  have  constituted  ourselves  independ- 
ent, prepared  to  exercise  the  right  of  nature  to 
defend  ourselves  against  the  ravages  of  tyranny,  at 
the  risk  of  our  honor,  our  lives,  and  fortune.  We 
have  sworn  to  the  only  King  we  acknowledge,  the 
Supreme  Judge  of  the  World,  that  we  will  not  aban- 
don the  cause  of  justice ;  that  we  will  not  suffer  the 
country  which  he  has  given  us  to  be  buried  in  ruins, 
and  inundated  with  blood,  by  the  hands  of  the  ex- 
ecutioner," &c. 

But  it  is  sometimes  said  that  they  are  too 
ignorant  and  too  superstitious  to  admit  of  the 
existence  of  free  government.  This  charge  of 
ignorance  is  often  urged  by  persons  themselves 
actually  ignorant  of  the  real  condition  of  that 
people.  He  denied  the  alleged  fact  of  igno- 
rance; he  denied  the  inference  from  that 
fact,  if  it  were  true,  that  they  wanted  capacity 
for  free  government ;  and  he  refused  his  assent 
to  the  further  conclusion,  if  the  fact  were  true 
and  the  inference  just,  that  we  were  to  be  in- 
different to  their  fate.  All  the  writers  of  the 
most  established  authority,  Dep6ns,  Humboldt, 
and  others,  concur  in  assigning  to  the  people  of 
Spanish  America,  great  quickness,  genius,  and 
particular  aptitude  for  the  acquisition  of  the 
exact  sciences,  and  others  which  they  have  been 
allowed  to  culti  vate.  In  astronomy,  geol  ogy,  min- 
eralogy, chemistry,  botany,  &c.,  they  are  allowed 
to  make  distinguished  proficiency.  They  justly 
boast  of  their  Abzate,  Velasquez,  and  Gama, 
and  other  illustrious  contributors  to  science. 
They  have  nine  Universities,  and  in  the  city  of 
Mexico  it  is  affirmed,  by  Humboldt,  that  there 
are  more  solid  scientific  establishments  than  in 
any  city  even  of  North  America.  He  would 
refer  to  the  message  of  the  Supreme  Director 
of  La  Plata,  which  he  would  hereafter  have 
occasion  to  use  for  another  purpose,  as  a  model 
of  fine  composition  of  a  State  paper,  challeng- 
ing a  comparison  with  any,  the  most  celebrated 
that  ever  issued  from  the  pens  of  Jefferson  or 
Madison.  Gentlemen  would  egregiously  err  if 
they  formed  then*  opinions  of  the  present  moral 
condition  of  Spanish  America,  from  what  it 
was  under  the  debasing  system  of  Spain.  The 
eight  years'  revolution  in  which  it  has  been  en- 
gaged, has  already  produced  a  powerful  effect. 

Education  had  been  attended  to,  and  genius 
developed.  [Here  Mr.  0.  read  a  passage  from 
the  Colonial  Journal,  published  last  Summer 
in  Great  Britain,  where  a  disposition  to  exag- 
gerate on  that  side  of  the  question  could  hardly 


DEBATES  OF  CONGRESS. 


143 


MARCH,  1818.] 


Spanish  American  Provinces. 


[H.  OP  R. 


be  supposed  to  exist]  The  fact  was  not,  there- 
fore, true,  that  the  imputed  ignorance  existed  ; 
but,  if  it  did,  he  repeated  that  he  disputed  the 
inference.  It  was  the  doctrine  of  thrones,  that 
man  was  too  ignorant  to  govern  himself.  Their 
partisans  assert  this  incapacity  in  reference  to 
all  nations ;  if  they  cannot  command  universal 
assent  to 'the  proposition,  it  is  then  demanded 
as  to  particular  nations ;  and  our  pride  and  our 
presumption  too  often  make  converts  of  us. 
Mr.  C.  contended  that  it  was  to  arraign  the  dis- 
positions of  Providence  himself,  to  suppose  that 
he  had  created  beings  incapable  of  governing 
themselves,  and  to  be  trampled  on  by  kings. 
He  contended  that  self-government  was  the 
natural  government  of  man,  and  he  referred  to 
the  aborigines  of  our  own  land.  If  he  were 
to  speculate  in  hypotheses  unfavorable  to  human 
liberty,  his  should  be  founded  rather  upon  the 
vices,  refinements,  or  density  of  population. 
Crowded  together  in  compact  masses,  even  if 
they  were  philosophers,  the  contagion  of  the 
passions  is  communicated  and  caught,  and  the 
effect  too  often,  he  admitted,  was  the  overthrow 
of  liberty.  Dispersed  over  such  an  immense 
space  as  that  on  which  the  people  of  Spanish 
America  were  spread,  their  physical,  and  he 
believed,  also,  their  moral  condition,  both  favor- 
ed liberty. 

With  regard  to  their  superstition,  he  said, 
they  worshipped  the  same  God  with  us.  Their 
prayers  were  offered  up  in  their  temples  to  the 
same  Redeemer,  whose  intercession  we  expected 
to  save  us.  All  religions,  united  with  Govern- 
ment, were  more  or  less  inimical  to  liberty. 
All,  separated  from  Government,  were  compati- 
ble with  liberty.  If  the  people  of  Spanish 
America  had  not  already  gone  as  far,  in  religious 
toleration,  as  we  had,  the  difference  in  their  con- 
dition from  ours  should  not  be  forgotten. 
Every  thing  was  progressive.  And  in  time  he 
hoped  to  see  them  imitating,  hi  this  respect, 
our  example.  But  grant  that  the  people  of 
Spanish  America  are  ignorant,  and  incompe- 
tent for  free  government,  to  whom  is  that  igno- 
rance to  be  ascribed  ?  Is  it  not  to  the  execrable 
system  of  Spam,  which  she  seeks  again  to 
establish  and  to  perpetuate?  So  far  from 
chilling  our  hearts,  it  ought  to  increase  our 
solicitude  for  our  unfortunate  brethren.  It 
ought  to  animate  us  to  desire  the  redemption  of 
the  minds  and  the  bodies  of  unborn  millions 
from  the  brutifying  effects  of  a  system,  whose 
tendency  is  to  stifle  the  faculties  of  the  soul, 
and  to  degrade  man  to  the  level  of  beasts.  He 
would  invoke  the  spirits  of  our  departed  fathers. 
"Was  it  for  yourselves  only  that  you  nobly 
fought  ?  No,  no.  It  was  the  chains  that  were 
forging  for  your  posterity  that  made  you  fly  to 
arms,  and,  scattering  the  elements  of  those 
chains  to  the  winds,  you  transmitted  to  us  the 
rich  inheritance  of  liberty. 

Mr.  0.  continued — having  shown  that  the 
cause  of  the  patriots  was  just,  and  that  we  had 
a  great  interest  in  its  successful  issue,  he  would 
next  inquire  what  course  of  policy  it  became  us 


to  adopt.  He  had  already  declared  that  to  be 
one  of  strict  and  impartial  neutrality.  It  was 
not  necessary  for  their  interest,  it  was  not  ex- 
pedient for  our  own,  that  we  should  take  part 
in  the  war.  All  they  demanded  of  us  was  a  just 
neutrality.  It  was  compatible  with  this  pacific 
policy — it  was  required  by  it,  that  we  should 
recognize  any  established  Government,  if  there 
were  any  established  Government  in  Spanish 
America.  Recognition  alone,  without  aid,  was 
no  just  cause  of  war.  With  aid  it  was,  not 
because  of  the  recognition,  but  because  of  the 
aid,  as  aid  without  recognition  was  cause  of 
war.  The  truth  of  these  propositions  he  would 
maintain  upon  principle,  by  the  practice  of 
other  States,  and  by  the  usage  of  our  own. 
There  was  no  common  tribunal  among  the  na- 
tions to  pronounce  upon  the  fact  of  the  sover- 
eignty of  a  new  State.  Each  power  must  and 
does  judge  for  itself.  It  was  an  attribute  of 
sovereignty  so  to  judge.  A  nation,  in  exerting 
this  incontestable  right — in  pronouncing  upon 
the  independence,  in  fact,  of  a  new  State,  takes 
no  part  in  the  war.  It  gives  neither  men,  nor 
ships,  nor  money.  It  merely  pronounces  that 
hi  so  far  as  it  may  be  necessary  to  institute  any 
relations,  or  to  support  any  intercourse,  with 
the  new  power,  that  power  is  capable  of  main- 
taining those  relations  and  authorizing  that  in- 
tercourse.— Martens  and  other  publicists  lay 
down  these  principles. 

When  the  United  Provinces  formerly  severed 
themselves  from  Spam,  it  was  about  eighty  years 
before  their  independence  was  finally  recognized 
by  Spain.  Before  that  recognition,  the  United 
Provinces  had  been  received  by  all  the  rest  of 
Europe  into  the  family  of  nations.  It  is  true 
that  a  war  broke  out  between  Philip  and  Eliza- 
beth, but  it  proceeded  from  the  aid  which  she 
determined  to  give,  and  did  give  to  Holland. 
In  no  instance,  he  believed,  could  it  be  shown, 
from  authentic  history,  that  Spain  made  war 
upon  any  power,  on  the  sole  ground  that  such 
power  had  acknowledged  the  independence  of 
the  United  Provinces. 

In  the  case  of  our  own  Revolution,  it  was  not 
until  after  France  had  given  us  aid,  and  had  de- 
termined to  enter  into  a  treaty  of  alliance  with 
us — a  treaty  by  which  she  guaranteed  our  in- 
dependence— that  England  declared  war.  Hol- 
land also  was  charged  by  England  with  favoring 
our  cause,  and  deviating  from  the  line  of  strict 
neutrality.  And  when  it  was  perceived  that 
she  was,  moreover,  about  to  enter  into  a  treaty 
with  us,  England  declared  war.  Even  if  it 
were  shown  that  a  proud,  haughty,  and  power- 
ful nation,  like  England,  had  made  war  upon 
other  provinces,  on  the  ground  of  a  mere  recog- 
nition, the  single  example  could  not  alter  the 
public  law,  or  shake  the  strength  of  a  clear 
principle. 

But  what  had  been  our  own  uniform  prac- 
tice. We  constantly  proceeded  on  the  prin- 
ciple, that  the  government  de  facto  was  that 

hich  we  could  alone  notice.  Whatever  from 
of  government  any  society  of  people  adopt; 


144 


ABRIDGMENT  OF  THE 


H.  OF  R.] 


Spanish  American  Provinces. 


[MAKCH,  1818. 


•whoever  they  acknowledge  as  their  sovereign, 
we  consider  that  government  or  that  sovereign 
as  the  one  to  be  acknowledged  by  us.  We  have 
invariably  abstained  from  assuming  a  right  to 
decide  in  favor  of  the  sovereign  de  jure,  and 
against  the  sovereign  de  facto.  That  is  a  ques- 
tion for  the  nation  in  which  it  arises  to  deter- 
mine. And,  so  far  as  we  are  concerned,  the 
sovereign  de  facto  is  the  sovereign  de  jure. 
Our  own  revolution  stands  on  the  basis  of  the 
right  of  a  people  to  change  their  rulers.  He 
did  not  maintain  that  every  immature  revolu- 
tion— every  usurper,  before  his  power  was  con- 
solidated, was  to  be  acknowledged  by  us ;  but 
that  as  soon  as  stability  and  order  were  main- 
tained, no  matter  by  whom,  we  always  had 
considered  and  ought  to  consider  the  actual  as 
the  true  Government.  General  Washington,  Mr. 
Jefferson,  Mr.  Madison,  had  all,  whilst  they 
were  respectively  Presidents,  acted  on  these 
principles. 

IQ  the  case  of  the  French  Republic,  General 
Washington  did  not  wait  until  some  of  the 
crowned  heads  of  Europe  should  set  him  the 
example  of  acknowledging  it,  but  accredited  a 
Minister  at  once.  And  it  is  remarkable  that  he 
was  received  before  the  Government  of  the  Re- 
public was  considered  as  established.  It  will  be 
found,  in  Marshall's  Life  of  Washington,  that, 
when  it  was  understood  that  a  Minister  from 
the  French  Republic  was  about  to  present  him- 
self, President  Washington  submitted  a  number 
of  questions  to  his  Cabinet  for  their  considera- 
tion and  advice,  one  of  which  was,  whether, 
upon  the  reception  of  the  Minister,  he  should 
be  notified  that  America  would  suspend  the 
execution  of  the  treaties  between  the  two  coun- 
tries until  France  had  an  established  Govern- 
ment. General  Washington  did  not  stop  to  in- 
quire whether  the  descendants  of  St.  Louis 
were  to  be  considered  as  the  legitimate  sover- 
eigns of  France,  and  if  the  revolution  was  to 
be  regarded  as  unauthorized  resistance  to  their 
sway.  He  saw  France,  in  fact,  under  the  Gov- 
ernment of  those  who  had  subverted  the  throne 
of  the  Bourbons,  and  he  acknowledged  the 
actual  Government.  During  Mr.  Jefferson's  and 
Mr.  Madison's  Administration,  when  the  Cortes 
of  Spain  and  Joseph  Bonaparte  respectively 
contended  for  the  Crown,  those  enlightened 
statesmen  said,  we  will  receive  a  Minister  from 
neither  party;  settle  the  question  between 
yourselves,  and  we  will  acknowledge  the  party 
that  prevails.  We  have  nothing  to  do  with 
your  feuds;  whoever  all  Spain  acknowledges 
as  her  sovereign,  is  the  only  sovereign  with 
whom  we  can  maintain  any  relations.  Mr. 
Jefferson,  it  is  understood,  considered  whether 
he  should  not  receive  a  Minister  from  both 
parties,  and  finally  decided  against  it  because  of 
the  inconveniences  to  this  country  which  might 
result  from  the  double  representation  of  another 
power.  As  soon  as  the  French  armies  were 
expelled  from  the  Peninsula,  Mr.  Madison,  still 
acting  on  the  principle  of  the  Government 
de  facto,  received  the  present  Minister  from 


Spain.  During  all  the  phases  of  the  French 
Government  —  Republic,  Directory,  Consuls, 
Consul  for  life,  Emperor,  King,  Emperor  again, 
King — our  Government  has  uniformly  received 
the  Minister. 

If,  then,  there  be  an  established  Government 
in  Spanish  America,  deserving  to  rank  among 
the  nations,  we  were  morally  and  politically 
bound  to  acknowledge  it,  unless  we  renounced 
all  the  principles  which  ought  to  guide,  and 
which  hitherto  had  guided,  our  councils.  Mr.  C. 
then  undertook  to  show,  that  the  united  prov- 
inces of  the  Rio  de  la  Plata  was  such  a  Govern- 
ment. Its  limits,  he  said,  extending  from  the 
South  Atlantic  Ocean  to  the  Pacific,  embraced  a 
territory  equal  to  that  of  the  United  States,  cer- 
tainly equal  to  it,  exclusive  of  Louisiana.  Its 
population  was  about  three  millions,  more  than 
equal  to  ours  at  the  commencement  of  our  Revo- 
lution. That  population  was  a  hardy,  enterpris- 
ing, and  gallant  population.  The  establishments 
of  Montevideo  and  Buenos  Ayres  had,  during 
different  periods  of  their  history,  been  attacked 
by  the  French,  Dutch,  Danes,  Portuguese,  Eng- 
lish, and  Spanish ;  and  such  was  the  martial 
character  of  the  people,  that,  in  every  instance, 
the  attack  had  been  repulsed.  In  1807,  General 
Whitlocke,  commanding  a  powerful  English 
army,  was  admitted,  under  the  guise  of  a  friend, 
into  Buenos  Ayres,  and,  as  soon  as  he  was  sup- 
posed to  have  demonstrated  inimical  designs,  ho 
was  driven  by  the  native  and  unaided  force  of 
Buenos  Ayres  from  the  country.  Buenos  Ayres 
had,  during  now  nearly  eight  years,  been,  in 
point  of  fact,  in  the  enjoyment  of  self-govern- 
ment. The  capital,  containing  more  than  sixty 
thousand  inhabitants,  has  never  been  once  lost. 
As  early  as  1811,  the  regency  of  Old  Spain  made 
war  upon  Buenos  Ayres,  and  the  consequence 
subsequently  was,  the  capture  of  a  Spanish  army 
in  Montevideo,  equal  to  that  of  Burgoyne.  This 
Government  has  now  in  excellent  discipline, 
three  well-appointed  armies,  with  the  most 
abundant  materiel  of  war ;  the  army  of  Chili, 
the  army  of  Peru,  and  the  army  of  Buenos 
Ayres.  The  first,  under  San  Martin,  has  con- 
quered Chili ;  the  second  is  penetrating  in  a 
Northwestern  direction  from  Buenos  Ayres, 
into  the  vice-royalty  of  Peru ;  and,  according 
to  the  last  accounts,  had  reduced  the  ancient 
seat  of  empire  of  the  Incas.  The  third  remains 
at  Buenos  Ayres  to  oppose  any  force  which 
Spain  may  send  against  it. 

Are  we  not  bound,  then,  upon  our  own  prin- 
ciples, to  acknowledge  this  new  Republic  ?  If 
we  do  not,  who  will  ?  Are  we  to  expect  that 
Kings  will  set  us  the  example  of  acknowledging 
the  only  Republic  on  earth  except  pur  own  ? 
We  receive,  promptly  receive,  a  Minister  from 
whatever  King  sends  us  one.  From  the  great 
powers  and  the  little  powers  we  accredit  Min- 
isters. We  do  more :  we  hasten  to  reciprocate 
the  compliment ;  and  anxious  to  manifest  our 
gratitude  for  royal  civility,  we  send  for  a  Minister 
(as  in  the  instance  of  Sweden  and  the  JTether- 
lands)  of  the  lowest  grade,  one  of  the  highest 


DEBATES  OF  CONGRESS. 


145 


MARCH,  1818.] 


Spanish  American  Provinces. 


[H.  OF  E. 


rank  recognized  by  our  laws.  We  were  the 
natural  head  of  the  American  family.  He 
would  not  intermeddle  in  the  affairs  of  Europe. 
We  wi<c-ly  kept  aloof  from  their  broils.  He 
would  not  even  intermeddle  in  those  of  other 
parts  of  America,  farther  than  to  exert  the  in- 
contestable rights  appertaining  to  us  as  a  free, 
sovereign,  and  independent  power ;  and,  he  con- 
tended, that  the  accrediting  of  a  Minister  from 
the  new  Republic  was  such  a  right.  We  were 
bound  to  receive  their  Minister,  if  we  meant 
to  be  really  neutral.  If  the  Royal  belligerent 
were  represented  and  heard  at  our  Government, 
the  Republican  belligerent  ought  also  to  be 
heard.  Otherwise,  one  party  would  be  in  the 
condition  of  the  poor  patriots  who  were  tried 
ex  parte  the  other  day  in  the  Supreme  Court, 
without  counsel,  without  friends.  Give  M.  Onis 
his  conge,  or  receive  the  Republican  Minister. 
Unless  you  do  so,  your  neutrality  is  nominal. 

There  was  great  reason,  Mr.  0.  contended, 
from  the  peculiar  character  of  the  American 
Government,  in  there  being  a  perfect  under- 
standing between  the  legislative  and  Executive 
branches,  in  relation  to  the  acknowledgment 
of  a  new  power.  Everywhere  else  the  power 
of  declaring  war  resided  with  the  Executive. 
Here  it  was  deposited  with  the  Legislature.  If, 
contrary  to  his  opinion,  there  were  even  a  risk 
that  the  acknowledgment  of  a  new  State  might 
lead  to  war,  it  was  advisable  that  the  step 
should  not  be  taken,  without  a  previous  knowl- 
edge of  the  will  of  the  war-making  branch.  He 
was  disposed  to'  give  to  the  President  all  the 
confidence  which  he  must  derive  from  the  une- 
quivocal expression  of  our  will.  This  expres- 
sion he  knew  might  be  given  in  the  form  of  an 
abstract  resolution,  declaratory  of  that  will ;  but 
he  preferred,  at  this  time,  proposing  an  act  of 
practical  legislation.  And  if  he  had  been  so 
fortunate  as  to  communicate  to  the  committee, 
in  any  thing  like  that  degree  of  strength  in 
which  he  entertained  them,  the  convictions  that 
the  cause  of  the  patriots  was  just;  that  the 
character  of  the  war,  as  waged  by  Spain,  should 
induce  us  to  wi#h  them  success ;  that  we  had  a 
great  interest  in  that  success ;  that  this  interest, 
as  well  as  our  neutral  attitude,  required  us  to 
acknowledge  any  established  Government  in 
Spanish  America ;  that  the  united  provinces  of 
the  river  Plata  was  such  a  Government ;  that 
we  might  safely  acknowledge  its  independence, 
without  danger  of  war  from  Spain,  from  the 
allies,  or  from  England ;  and  that,  without  un- 
constitutional interference  with  the  Executive 
power,  with  peculiar  fitness,  we  might  express, 
in  an  act  of  appropriation,  our  sentiments, 
leaving  him  to  the  exercise  of  a  just  and  respon- 
sible discretion,  he  hoped  the  committee  would 
adopt  the  proposition  which  he  now  had  the 
honor  of  presenting  to  them,  after  a  respectful 
tender  of  his  acknowledgments  for  their  atten- 
tion and  kindness,  during,  he  feared,  the  tedious 
period  he  had  been  so  unprofitably  trespassing 
upon  their  patience.  He  offered  the  following 
amendment  to  the  bill 
VOL.  VL— 10 


For  one  year's  salary,  and  an  outfit  to  a  Minister 
to  the  United  Provinces  of  the  Rio  de  La  Plata,  the 
salary  to  commence,  and  the  outfit  to  be  paid,  when- 
ever the  President  shall  deem  it  expedient  to  send  a 
Minister  to  the  said  United  Provinces,  a  sum  not  ex- 
ceeding eighteen  thousand  dollars." 

When  Mr.  CLAY  had  concluded, 

Mr.  FORSYTE  said,  that  before  entering  into 
the  examination  of  the  subject  before  the  com- 
mittee, he  would  detain  them  for  a  moment  by 
a  remark  or  two  on  a  suggestion  that  had  fallen 
from  the  Speaker,  so  remotely  connected  with 
the  question,  that  he  should  probably  forget  it 
if  he  omitted  to  notice  it  then.  It  had  been 
said  that  Ministers  were  sent  from  the  United 
States  to  all  the  crowned  heads  in  Europe  who 
had  Ministers  here.  A  Charge  d' Affaires  to 
the  United  States  was  reciprocated  by  a  Minis- 
ter Plenipotentiary  to  the  Court  from  whence 
he  came,  and  the  Courts  of  Sweden,  Holland, 
and  Prussia,  had  been  particularly  named.  The 
last  is  one  to  which  a  Minister  was  expected  to 
be  sent,  particular  information  of  which  fact 
Mr.  F.  was  supposed  to  possess.  But  for  this 
personal  allusion  he  should  not  have  felt  him- 
self compelled  to  refer  to  this  subject.  [Mr. 
CLAY  explained.]  Mr.  F.  understood  perfectly 
well  that  there  was  no  unfriendly  spirit  in  the 
remark,  it  was  an  allusion  to  an  event  which 
was  expected  to  occur,  but  upon  what  founda- 
tion he  had  been  at  a  loss  to  conjecture.  Cer- 
tain it  was,  he  had  no  intimation  that  this  or 
any  other  diplomatic  appointment  would  be 
offered  to  him,  and  it  was  equally  certain  that 
he  had  not  solicited  any.  An  idle  rumor  was 
in  circulation  that  he  was  to  be  sent  abroad, 
where,  the  persons  circulating  it,  had  not  de- 
termined. He  hoped  to  be  consulted  as  to  the 
place  of  exile,  when  he  was  to  be  sent  into  hon- 
orable banishment.  The  Administration  had 
not,  he  believed,  determined  to  send  a  Minister 
to  Prussia,  of  any  grade.  There  was  a  mistake 
as  to  the  fact,  in  the  case  of  Holland.  The 
Government  of  the  Netherlands  had  sent  a 
Minister  of  the  first  grade  to  the  United  States, 
before  Mr.  Eustis  went  to  the  Hague.  At  pres- 
ent there  was  only  a  Charg6  here,  and  it  was 
altogether  probable  that  the  interest  of  the 
United  States  would  not  require  a  representa- 
tive of  a  different  character  in  the  Netherlands. 
The  appointments  to  the  Hague  and  to  Sweden, 
had  been  made  by  Mr.  Madison,  under  circum- 
stances requiring  them.  With  regard  to  Swe- 
den, the  motive  for  the  original  appointment 
was  well  known.  It  was  made  at  a  period 
when,  from  the  peculiar  situation  of  Europe, 
Sweden  was  an  important  power.  She  was  the 
keystone  of  the  arch  of  the  great  confederation 
against  France,  and  it  was  part  of  our  policy  at 
that  period  to  stand  well  with  all  the  powers 
in  the  north  of  Europe.  The  restoration  of 
peace  certainly  rendered  this  mission  of  minor 
importance;  and  when  the  Minister  of  the 
United  States  came  home,  it  was  not  expected 
that  he  would  again  return  to  fix  his  official 
residence  at  Stockholm.  Why  he  returned  to 


146 


ABRIDGMENT  OF  THE 


H.  OF  R] 


Spanish  American  Provinces. 


[MARCH,  1818. 


Sweden  was  as  well  known  to  the  honorable 
Speaker  as  to  any  member  of  the  House.  Mr. 
F.  was  confident  that  he  would  not  remain 
there.  * 

Was  the  importance  of  the  amendment  pro- 
posed to  be  estimated  by  the  interest  it  excited, 
and  the  extraordinary  manner  in  which  it  had 
been  presented,  few  subjects  of  equal  magnitude 
had  ever  been  submitted  to  the  decision  of 
the  National  Legislature.  That  the  deep  in- 
terest felt  in  the  fate  of  the  measure,  was  not 
confined  to  those  who  were  to  decide  upon  it, 
was  apparent  from  the  crowded  benches  of  the 
Hall  and  the  overflowing  gallery.  For  our- 
selves, the  Throne  of  Grace  had  been  that 
morning  addressed  to  purify  our  hearts  and 
enlighten  our  understandings  for  its  correct 
decision.  Every  one  must  be  struck  by  the 
whimsical  contrast  between  the  real  and  facti- 
tious importance  of  the  proposition.  To  judge 
from  the  extraordinary  exertions  of  the  Speaker, 
from  the  ground  over  which  he  travelled  and 
the  variety  of  objects  noticed  by  him,  it  would 
seem  he  believed  it  worthy  of  the  exertions  of 
all  his  industry,  ability,  and  enthusiasm — that 
the  freedom  and  happiness  of  eighteen  millions 
of  people  were,  in  truth,  involved  in  its  decision. 
Mr.  F.  had  in  vain  tasked  his  imagination  to 
discover  that  such  consequences  could  follow 
from  it.  He  could  not.  perceive  the  miraculous 
influence  of  appropriating  eighteen  thousand 
dollars  for  an  outfit  and  salary  for  a  Minister  to 
La  Plata,  to  commence  when,  in  the  discretion 
of  the  President,  a  Minister  should  be  sent  to 
that  Government.  All  the  facts  stated  by  the 
Speaker  might  be  admitted,  the  arguments 
founded  upon  them  might  be  considered  as  con- 
clusive, still  the  amendment  proposed  ought  not 
to  be  adopted.  How  obvious,  then,  must  be 
the  propriety  of  rejecting  it,  when  the  facts 
were  disputable  and  the  reasoning  inconclusive. 
Admitting  the  independence  of  La  Plata  to  be 
.  established ;  that  it  was  the  right  and  the  duty  of 
the  United  States  to  recognize  that  independ- 
ence ;  that  war  with  Spain  or  any  other  power 
would  not  follow;  that  our  interest  and  our 
honor  required  this  step  to  be  taken — still  the 
amendment  ought  to  be  rejected.  If  recogni- 
tion is  made,  it  is  to  be  done  in  the  United 
States.  We  are  to  acknowledge  their  independ- 
ence ;  to  send  a  Minister  to  La  Plata  is  to  ask 
them  to  acknowledge  ours.  A  Minister  must 
be  sent  to,  and  accredited  by  this  Government. 
It  had  not  as  yet  appeared  that  the  Govern- 
ment of  La  Plata  desired  or  expected  us  to 
make  such  an  acknowledgment;  at  least  no 
one  with  requisite  authority  was  known  to 
have  been  sent  to  this  country  for  the  purpose 
of  asking  such  a  favor.  Another  objection,  not 
less  obvious,  was  presented  by  the  constitu- 
tional division  of  the  powers  of  the  Govern- 
ment. Heretofore  the  President  and  Senate 
were  left  to  the  exclusive  management  of  the 
foreign  intercourse  of  the  United  States.  Min- 
isters were  received  from  other  powers,  and 
sent  from  this  country  to  other  Governments, 


with  whom  political  or  commercial  interest  re- 
quired us  to  negotiate,  and  the  House  of  Repre- 
sentatives contented  itself  with  its  constitu- 
tional check  upon  the  exercise  of  this  authority ; 
satisfied  that  they  could  at  all  times  prevent  its 
improvident  exertion,  by  withholding  appropri- 
ations from  those  missions  the  public  interest 
did  not  require.  This,  however,  proposes  a, 
new  system ;  this  House,  instead  of  checking, 
is  made  to  stimulate  the  Executive  to  a  further 
extension  of  its  patronage.  This  new  system 
might  have  its  conveniency,  but  these  would  bo 
found,  on  examination,  to  be  personal  conveni- 
ences to  aspiring  and  designing  members  of  the 
Legislative  body,  at  the  expense  of  the  general 
welfare.  The  suggestion  that,  under  the  pres- 
ent extraordinary  circumstances  of  the  world, 
the  expression  of  the  public  opinion  by  the 
Representatives  of  the  people  ought  to  precede 
the  movements  of  the  Executive,  was  not  enti- 
tled to  the  weight  which  was  given  to  it.  The 
President  does  not  require  to  be  told  that  the 
Representatives  of  the  people  who  selected  him 
to  preside  over  their  Government,  are  prepared 
at  all  times,  and  at  every  hazard,  to  do  their 
duty.  He  dare  not  doubt  that  he  will  be  sup- 
ported in  every  measure  the  interest  and  honor 
of  the  nation  require  him  to  adopt.  Were  it 
really  true  that  the  Executive  Magistrate  had 
discovered  a  criminal  indifference  on  this  sub- 
ject, Mr.  F.  said  he  would  be  among  the  most 
eager  to  express  such  an  opinion  in  the  only 
form  in  which  an  opinion  could  be  expressed, 
by  a  resolution  of  the  House — boldly  and  openly 
declaring  its  dislike  of  the  course  which  had 
been  pursued,  and  recommending  the  necessary 
change.  The  amendment  to  an  appropriation 
bill  in  the  form  proposed  did  not  convey  such 
an  opinion.  The  President  might  conjecture 
that  such  was  the  intention  of  the  Legislature ; 
yet,  even  while  forming  this  conjecture,  it 
would  be  necessary  for  him  to  look  beyond  the 
act  to  the  motives  assigned  to  those  who  advo- 
cated it.  As  a  measure  of  ordinary  policy  the 
proposition  was  inadmissible ;  as  an  extraordi- 
nary measure  it  was  indefensible.  It  was  re- 
commended as  a  bold,  independent,  manly  ex- 
pression of  the  public  sentiment,  placing  the 
House  of  Representatives  in  the  front  rank  in 
the  march  of  the  Government  on  a  dangerous 
and  untried  field ;  it  was,  in  reality,  unmeaning 
and  insignificant  in  its  character;  and  while  it 
proceeds  by  hinting  to  the  President  the  course 
he  should  pursue,  it  warily  shelters  the  House 
from  all  responsibility  for  the  consequences  be- 
hind the  Executive  discretion.  If  our  inter- 
ference is  necessary,  let  us  act  effectually ; 
marking  the  steps  necessary  to  be  taken,  and 
taking  the  responsibility  for  the  result — claim- 
ing all  the  honor,  and  bearing  all  the  disaster. 
Let  us  not  at  least  pretend  to  give  the  Execu- 
tive a  discretion  already  possessed,  thus  dimin- 
ishing his  responsibility  without  adding  to  our 
own. 

Mr.  F.  could  not  but  remark  an   apparent 
contradiction  in  the  address  of  the  Speaker  on 


DEBATES  OF  CONGRESS. 


147 


MARCH,  1818.] 


Spanish  American  Provinces. 


[H.  OF  R. 


this  subject  of  the  declaration,  made  a  few  days 
since  in  a  discussion  of  the  bill  reported  by  the 
Committee  on  Foreign  Eolations.  He  had  cen- 
sured with  much  asperity  the  patience  discov- 
ered by  the  Government  in  its  correspondence 
with  the  Spanish  Minister,  and  thanked  his 
God  that  he  did  not  possess  that  Job-like  attri- 
bute. Jn  the  address  of  yesterday  we  were  told 
that  he  was  opposed  to  war  with  Spain — would 
do  no  act  which  would  give  her  just  cause  of 
war — would  not  violently  seize  any  of  her  pos- 
sessions. It  would  seem  that,  impatient  as  the 
honorable  Speaker  may  be  at  the  situation  of 
the  dispute  with  Spain,  he  is  not  disposed  to 
do  any  act  calculated  to  bring  it  to  an  immedi- 
ate determination.  The  difference  between  the 
Administration  and  himself  is,  that  they  would 
wait  with  patience,  and  he  impatiently,  the 
change  in  the  Spanish  councils.  The  honora- 
ble gentleman  would  pardon  the  notice  of  a 
species  of  inconsistency  in  the  course  he  wished 
to  pursue.  He  believed  that  Spain  ought  to  be 
pressed ;  that  the  moment  was  peculiarly  fortu- 
nate, and  ought  not  to  be  lost.  How  was  this 
pressing  to  be  made?  By  argument?  That 
had  been  tried  in  vain.  Certainly  not.  By 
threats  never  intended  to  be  executed  ?  The 
character  of  the  Speaker  forbids  such  a  suppo- 
sition. Not  by  war ;  that  had  been  disclaimed. 
Not  by  any  means  that  would  give  Spain  justi- 
fiable cause  of  war.  These  also  had  been  re- 
jected. It  was  difficult  to  imagine  how  the 
object  was  to  be  accomplished,  unless  a  subse- 
quent suggestion  furnished  a  key  to  the  mys- 
tery. He  would  take  the  step  in  relation  to 
the  Spanish  colonies  we  might  rightfully  take, 
and  leave  Spain  to  do  as  she  thought  proper. 
If  she  continued  to  refuse  to  do  us  justice,  the 
important  question  of  peace  or  war  was  then  to 
be  decided.  If  Mr.  F,  understood  the  policy 
recommended,  it  was  to  do  rightfully  all  we 
Could  to  tempt  Spain  to  declare  war  against  us ; 
and  if  we  failed  in  all  these,  then  we  would  de- 
clare war  against  Spain.  Thus,  while  disclaim- 
ing all  idea  of  war,  the  Speaker  looked  con- 
stantly to  that  issue.  The  sources  of  tempta- 
tion were  in  the  dispute  with  her  colonies ;  we 
were  first  to  recognize  them,  what  follows  is 
easily  foreseen.  The  motive  for  this  abandon- 
ment of  our  own  quarrel,  to  engage  in  war  on 
account  of  Spanish  American  governments,  was 
the  apprehension;  if  we  moved  in  our  own 
case,  we  should  be  justly  charged  with  a  thirst 
of  aggrandizement — excite  the  jealousy,  perhaps 
the  hostility,  of  some  other  power,  and  enjoy 
the  sympathy  of  none.  If  an  interference  with 
Spanish  affairs  is  the  ground  of  dispute,  we  shall 
have  the  sympathies  of  the  world  on  our  side, 
and  excite  neither  jealousy  nor  hostility  in  any 
of  the  nations  of  Europe,  Mr.  F.  believed,  with 
the  Speaker,  that  the  present  was  an  auspicious 
moment  for  a  settlement  of  the  Spanish  contro- 
versy ;  that  it  ought  not  to  be  suffered  to  es- 
cape. He  was  not  for  war,  but  for  such,  a 
movement,  in  our  own  dispute,  as  would  place 
the  means  of  indemnity  in  our  possession,  as 


should  enable  the  Government  to  do  justice  to 
its  injured  citizens,  whatever  might  be  the  fu- 
ture condition  of  the  Spanish  monarchy.  It 
was  war  if  Spain  chose  to  consider  it  so ;  it 
was  short  of  war  if  she  desired  to  remain  at 
peace.  The  jealousy  or  hostility  of  foreign  pow- 
ers could  not  be  reasonably  excited  by  such  a 
course.  Sympathy  was  out  of  the  question. 
No  European  Government  felt  it  for  the  United 
States ;  they  do  not  fear  our  power,  but  they 
dread  our  example;  they  do  not  apprehend 
danger  from  our  physical  strength,  bnt  tremble 
at  the  moral  influence  of  our  institutions.  Tho 
course  of  the  Speaker  was  the  one  best  calcu- 
lated to  excite  all  their  jealousies  and  hostili- 
ties ;  to  confirm  an  idea,  Spain  had  been  at  all 
times  exerting  herself  to  enforce,  that  we  were 
the  cause  of  the  disturbances  in  her  possessions, 
the  aiders  and  abettors  of  her  revolting  subjects, 
and  on  all  occasions  ready  to  sow  discord  among 
the  subjects  of  Princes,  and  to  jeopardize  the 
safety  of  the  colonial  dependencies  of  European 
powers.  War  with  Spain  was  no  bugbear  to 
him ;  but,  if  it  was  commenced,  it  should  be  in 
our  own  quarrel,  and  should  not  be  mixed  with 
baser  matter.  The  Administration  occupied 
the  middle  ground  between  the  Speaker  and 
himself,  probably  the  safest  and  most  congenial 
to  the  wishes  and  the  interests  of  the  people. 
There  was  one  point  on  which  there  would  be 
no  dispute  between  them;  the  policy  of  the 
Government  was  by  each  of  them  preferred  to 
the  policy  recommended  by  the  other.  Mr.  F. 
was,  however,  justified,  by  the  opinion  of  the 
Speaker,  in  believing  that  a  war  would  not  be 
the  consequence  of  either  project.  "Spain 
would  not,  and  could  not,  declare  war  against 
us,  from  the  state  of  her  finances,  and  the  ruin 
of  her  resources."  The  wisdom  of  the  two 
plans  was,  therefore,  tcTbe  tested  by  the  bene- 
fits which,  we  would  or  should  derive  from  com- 
plete success,  without  the  hazard  of  a  contest 
for  either. 

The  amendment  was  advocated  as  a  recogni- 
tion of  the  independence  of  La  Plata.  The  ar- 
gument of  the  honorable  mover  was  directed  to 
this  point ;  and  Mr.  F.  was  well  aware  that  one 
question  was  frequently  argued,  and  another  de- 
cided, and  that  the  vote  on  the  decision  was 
sometimes  determined  on  the  merits  of  the 
question  discussed.  Considering  it  as  an  open 
proposition  to  recognize,  he  was  content  to 
meet  it,  and  that  it  should  succeed  or  fail  on 
the  propriety  of  refusing  or  making  an  imme- 
diate recognition.  Where  was  the  motive  for 
this  step?  What  beneficial  consequences  will 
flow  from  it  to  La  Plata  or  the  United  States  ? 
What  benefits,  commercial  or  political,  will  ac- 
crue? The  commerce  between  the  people  of 
this  Government  and  that  of  the  revolutionary 
La  Plata,  was  free  and  unrestrained.  Our  citi- 
zens enjoyed  all  that  they  asked  in  the  ports  of 
Buenos  Ayres,  and  the  people  of  La  Plata  were 
admitted  to  all  the  rights  and  hospitalities  that 
are  shown  to  any  foreigners  hi  the  waters  of  the 
United  States.  Arms,  ammunition,  all  the  pro- 


148 


ABRIDGMENT  OF  THE 


H.  OF  R] 


Spanish  American  Provinces. 


[MABCH,  1818. 


duct  of  our  agriculture  and  industry,  that  their 
wants  may  require,  are  freely  purchased  and 
transported  in  their  own  or  American  vessels, 
without  delay  or  molestation.  Their  vessels, 
armed  and  equipped  for  war,  are  admitted 
without  scruple  into  our  ports,  and  treated  with 
a  kindness  they  have  but  too  frequently  abused. 
Are  there  any  important  political  results  to 
proceed  from  this  step  to  either  party  ?  To  us 
there  certainly  are  none;  to  them  the  only 
possible  advantage  would  be  the  probability 
that  our  example  would  be  followed  by  the  rest 
of  the  world.  Mr.  F.  spoke  on  the  supposition 
that  no  war  with  Spain  was  produced  by  this 
act.  Our  recognition  was  better  calculated  to 
excite  the  jealousy  and  prejudice  of  despotic 
Governments  against  this  new  power,  than  to 
produce  a  similar  recognition  of  their  claims  to 
a  place  in  the  family  of  nations ;  better  calcu- 
lated to  produce  a  combination  of  despotic 
power,  to  their  ruin,  than  a  friendly  aid  in  the 
accomplishment  of  their  independence.  This 
acknowledgment  was  useless  to  them  politically 
and  commercially.  All  the  practical  benefits 
arising  from  it,  were  enjoyed  so  long  as  we  con- 
sidered their  independence  as  existing  without 
pronouncing  a  decision  upon  that  point  disput- 
ed by  them  with  Spain.  Where  was  the  mo- 
tive to  be  found  to  justify  this  improvident 
hurry  to  the  useless  acknowledgment  of  a  Gov- 
ernment whose  independence  depended  wholly 
upon  its  own  exertions?  That  could  not  be 
aided  in  its  progress  by  such  a  declaration,  un- 
less accompanied  by  substantial  aid;  an  aid 
even  the  sanguine  gentleman  from  Kentucky 
did  not  propose  to  give.  It  was  said,  however, 
that  we  ought  to  be  the  first  to  acknowledge  a 
sister  Republic.  If  we  did  not,  who  would? 
"With  more  than  ordinary  diligence,  Mr.  F.  had 
endeavored  to  find  the  freedom  and  liberality  in 
the  frame  and  institutions  of  this  new  Govern- 
ment, which  would  entitle  it  to  this  name.  He 
had  sought  for  them  in  vain.  There  was  a  Con- 
gress and  a  Supreme  Director ;  a  Congress,  the 
Speaker  has  said,  chosen  somewhat  like  our 
own.  Mr.  F.  would  have  rejoiced  to  learn  in 
what  this  resemblance  consisted.  If  the  Con- 
gress were  chosen  by  the  people,  he  had  been 
deceived  by  the  Outline  of  the  Eevolution  in 
Spanish  America ;  a  work  to  which  he  referred 
on  the  recommendation  of  the  Speaker.  The 
sole  resemblance  was  in  name.  The  Govern- 
ment of  La  Plata  was  a  military  despotism,  like 
the  Republic  of  France  in  the  days  of  the  Con- 
sulate, but  destitute  of  its  order,  strength,  and 
stability.  If  the  resemblance  was  perfect,  and 
the  Government  and  people  of  La  Plata  worthy 
to  be  ranked  by  our  side  in  the  community  of 
nations,  still  the  inutility  of  such  an  acknowl- 
edgment is  a  satisfactory  reason  for  refraining 
from  it. 

Mr.  F.  thought  he  might  safely  leave  the 
question  to  the  judgment  of  the  committee,  af- 
ter showing  that  the  most  powerful  recom- 
mendations of  the  amendment  were,  that  it  was 
unmeaning  and  harmless.  But  he  considered 


it  a  duty  to  examine  more  at  large  the  various 
inducements  offered  by  the  Speaker  to  insure 
its  success.  Mr.  F.  knew  and  felt  the  danger 
to  which  he  exposed  himself  by  this  course — 
that  he  would  be  assailed  as  an  enemy  to  lib- 
erty, &c.  Exertions  had  been  made  to  prepare 
the  public  mind  for  such  impressions  against 
all  those  who  thought  with  him  on  this  subject. 
Notice  had  been  given  from  this  city,  and  was 
now  ringing  through  the  Western  country,  that 
questions  were  to  be  brought  into  view,  by 
whose  decision  the  people  would  be  able  to  dis- 
criminate between  those  who  were  just  and  un- 
just to  the  patriot  cause — between  the  friends 
and  the  enemies  of  freedom.  Such  considera- 
tions had  no  influence  upon  his  conduct.  Ho 
who  was  deterred  by  anticipated  censure,  or 
threatened  calumny,  from  the  performance  of 
any  duty,  was  not  worthy  to  represent  a  free 
people — to  preside  even  in  the  most  subordi- 
nate sphere  over  the  movements  of  a  mighty 
empire.  Careless  of  the  motives  which  might 
be  imputed  to  him,  he  should  proceed  to  show 
that  the  Speaker  had  offered  no  sufficient  in- 
ducement to  justify  his  proposal  in  the  origin, 
progress,  or  character,  of  the  revolution  in 
Spanish  America ;  that  it  is  not  demanded  by 
our  •commercial  or  political  interest  in  the  great 
struggle  between  Spain  and  her  former  depend- 
encies; that  while  he  admitted  it  was  the 
right  of  the  United  States,  it  was  not  a  duty  to 
recognize  the  new  Government ;  that  it  could 
not  _  be  done  without  the  danger  of  war  with 
Spain ;  and  that  it  was  not  sufficiently  demon- 
strated that  Buenos  Ayres  had  established,  and 
would  maintain,  a  free  and  independent  Gov- 
ernment. In  tracing  the  origin  of  the  revolu- 
tion, the  Speaker  had  carried  us  back  to  the 
first  invasion  of  Mexico  and  Peru,  to  the  days 
of  Cortez  and  Pizarro,  of  Montezuma  and  Ata- 
hualpa.  From  that  period  he  had  given  a  faint 
outline  of  the  cruel,  selfish,  monopolizing,  and 
debasing  policy  of  Spain  to  her  American  de- 
pendencies— foreign  and  inter-colonial  inter- 
course forbidden  to  her  subjects  in  those  mag- 
nificent and  fertile  regions  of  the  earth ;  the 
pursuits  of  agriculture  directed  by  the  narrow 
policy  of  an  unjust  Government ;  the  soul  itself 
debased  to  the  purposes  of  oppression  by  muni- 
cipal regulation.  It  was  a  gloomy  picture  of  a 
sad  reality ;  a  faithful  representation  of  nature, 
drawn  by  a  master's  hand.  The  policy  was 
but  too  truly  characterized,  and  its  success  was 
as  complete  as  its  character  was  atrocious.  It 
had  been  pursued  with  undeviating  steadiness, 
until  the  horrible  contrast  was  exhibited  of  a 
people  the  most  debased,  in  the  midst  of  the 
fairest  regions  of  the  globe ;  man,  the  master- 
work  of  creation,  with  intellect  enervated  by 
despotism,  and  soul  withered  by  superstition, 
surrounded  by  the  most  sublime  and  stupendous 
monuments  of  inanimated  nature.  Was  the 
origin  of  the  revolution  to  be  found  in  this  sys- 
tematic oppression?  It  would  be  looked  for 
here  in  vain.  To  use  the  language  of  the 
Speaker,  Spain  would  have  succeeded  in  contin- 


DEBATES  OF  CONGKESS. 


149 


MARCH,  1818.] 


Spanish  American  Provinces. 


[H.  OF  R. 


ning  this  system  but  for  the  transactions  of 
Bayonne.  The  puerile  ambition  of  Napoleon 
was  the  foundation  of  the  South  American  strug- 
gle. The  Old  World  was  convulsed ;  eighteen 
millions  of  people  were  agitated  in  the  new,  by 
his  childish  desire  to  have  a  King  of  the  new 
dynasty  on  the  throne  of  Spain ;  by  his  silly 
anxiety  to  substitute  the  Bonapartes  for  the 
Bourbons,  over  all  nations  dependent  upon  his 
colossal  power.  "Was  this  great  event  hailed 
with  joy  by  the  Spariish  Americans  ?  Was  the 
glorious  opportunity  of  breaking  their  chains 
seized  with  avidity?  Far,  very  far,  from  it. 
They  were  stunned  by  this  unexpected  occur- 
rence ;  stupefied  by  the  dreadful  alternative  of 
self-government,  or  submission  to  French  rule. 
Like  the  unhappy  man  long  immured  in  the 
gloom  of  a  prison,  they  had  been  so  long  de- 
prived of  his  glorious  light,  that  the  beams  of 
the  blessed  sun  were  hateful  to  their  eyes.  This 
fortunate  event  was  considered  a  national  ca- 
lamity, to  which  there  was  no  alleviation  but 
the  opportunity  it  afforded  to  discover  their 
unshaken  loyalty  and  blind  devotion  to  the 
cause  of  their  adored  King.  Their  resources 
were  devoted  to  his  service.  The  sole  difficulty 
was  to  find,  during  his  imprisonment,  a  substi- 
tute for  the  royal  authority.  The  laws,  and 
customs,  and  frame  of  Government,  in  other 
respects,  remained  without  change ;  the  muni- 
cipalities, haciendas,  audiencias,  &c.,  all  the 
subordinate  machinery,  continued  in  its  accus- 
tomed place,  and  performed  its  accustomed  ope- 
rations; and,  although  the  necessity  of  addi- 
tional exertion  produced  a  greater  vigor  of 
character  and  boldness  of  thought  in  the  heads 
of  the  Government,  the  great  mass  remained 
unaltered  in  habits,  opinions,  and  desires. 
England,  covering  the  peninsula  of  Spain  and 
Portugal  with  her  armies,  and,  the  enemy  of 
France,  procuring,  without  difficulty,  the  great 
object  of  her  long- con  tinned  solicitude — a  free 
commerce  with  Spanish  America.  Juntas  were 
established  upon  the  same  principles  as  the 
Juntas  of  Spain,  and  war  with  the  Junta  of 
Spain  was  occasioned  by  the  refusal  of  Spanish 
America  to  acknowledge  that  they  were  the  le- 
gitimate repository  of  the  royal  power  in  both 
hemispheres.  The  unhappy  land  was  rent  by 
internal  factions,  in  which  the  people  were  the 
instruments  of  designing  ambition.  The  lead- 
ing men  disputed  for  the  honor  of  being  the 
royal  substitute,  none  for  the  glory  of  establish- 
ing a  free  Government,  founded  upon  the  prin- 
ciples of  justice  and  equality,  whose  basis  was 
the  power,  whoso  object  was  the  happiness  of 
the  people.  The  most  bold,  and  successful,  and 
honorable  exertion,  for  the  formation  of  a  lib- 
eral Government,  was  made  in  Venezuela.  But 
this  new  Government  was  overturned  by  an 
earthquake  in  1812.  The  misguided  people 
were  induced  to  believe  that  this  awful  visita- 
tion was  the  immediate  consequence  of  their 
conduct,  the  just  judgment  of  an  angry  God 
upon  the  revolution,  and  those  who  promoted 
or  favored  its  success. 


It  might  be  imagined  that  the  principles  of 
political,  civil,  and  religious  freedom  had  been 
developed  in  the  progress  of  the  revolution ;  the 
present  state  of  it  would  discover  how  far  the 
people  of  Spanish  America  had  improved  in  the 
knowledge  of  their  personal  rights,  and  their 
determination  to  maintain  them.  In  Mexico 
the  contest  was  at  an  end ;  at  all  times  of  a 
doubtful  issue,  the  last  ray  of  hope  was  extin- 
guished by  the  death  of  the  gallant  and  unfortu- 
nate Mina.  This  disastrous  termination  of  the 
struggle  was  not  produced  by  the  successful  ex- 
ertion of  Old  Spain ;  it  was  effected  by  the  ef- 
forts of  a  people  who  formed  a  large  portion  of 
the  eighteen  millions  of  men  who  were  repre- 
sented as  contending  in  the  glorious  cause  of 
freedom.  In  Caraccas,  a  sanguinary,  and  dread- 
ful, and,  at  least,  a  doubtful  contest  was  main- 
tained with  the  modern  Alva,  by  the  imitator 
of  his  cruelty,  Bolivar.  La  Plata  and  Chili  had 
better  prospects  of  success ;  and  all  our  sanguine 
hopes  are  fixed  upon  them.  Thus,  of  the 
eighteen  millions  of  people,  for  whom  our  sym- 
pathy is  demanded,  more  than  thirteen  millions 
are  the  contented  slaves  of  the  Spanish  author- 
ity; and  it  was  the  madness  or  stupidity  of 
Ferdinand,  that  prevented  the  voluntary  return 
of  all  to  their  ancient  thraldom.  A  decree  of 
oblivion  for  the  past  would  have  reinstated  the 
Spanish  power,  if  it  had  been  promulgated  by 
Ferdinand  on  his  restoration  to  the  throne. 
Mr.  F.  rested  this  opinion  upon  the  authority  of 
a  work  to  which  he  had  before  referred,  the 
Outline  of  the  Revolution  in  South  America. 
In  the  conclusion  of  that  work  it  is  said,  "  the 
return  of  Ferdinand  might  have  brought  with 
it  the  return  of  peace.  The  people  were  tired 
of  war;  the  leaders  of  the  revolution  disap- 
pointed in  their  views;  a  large  body  of  the 
people  in  a  state  of  apathy  or  indifference; 
and  what  was  still  more  important,  the  vene- 
ration attached  to  the  name  of  Ferdinand 
still  existed,  though,  in  some  degree,  dimin- 
ished." This  veneration  was  converted  into 
a  dread  of  his  resentment,  by  the  mission  of 
Morillo  and  his  sanguinary  suite.  Mr.  F.  trust- 
ed in  Heaven  that  this  act  of  royal  madness 
would  meet  with  its  appropriate  punishment,  in 
the  total  subversion  of  his  western  empire ; 
that  thus  compelled  to  continue  a  resistance  to 
the  Spanish  yoke,  that  the  people  would  ac- 
quire what  experience  and  suffering  had  not  yet 
taught  them,  the  knowledge  of  their  strength, 
and  the  means  of  using  it  to  the  establishment 
of  a  Government  similar  to  ours.  Such  were 
his  ardent  wishes,  not  his  confident  expecta- 
tions. That  the  independence  of  all,  or  por- 
tions of  the  southern  continent  would,  at  no 
distant  day,  be  achieved,  could  not  be  doubted ; 
to  what  extent  civil  liberty  would  be  established, 
was  matter  of  speculation.  Opinions,  more  or 
less  favorable,  would  be  formed,  according  to 
the  sanguine  or  cautious  temper  of  the  judge. 
In  the  origin  and  progress  of  the  revolution, 
there  was  no  inducement  to  an  act  of  doubtful 
policy.  But  our  sympathy  was  demanded  for 


150 


ABRIDGMENT  OF  THE 


H.  OF  R.] 


Spanish  American  Provinces. 


[MARCH,  1818. 


this  great  cause,  in  character  so  like  that  of  our 
Eevolution.  Sympathy  for  the  people  of  the 
South  was  universally  felt,  and  might  he  in- 
dulged, without  scruple,  in  wishes  and  in  hopes ; 
but,  when  it  was  made  the  foundation  of  an  at- 
tempt to  precipitate  the  adoption  of  a  favorite 
measure,  it  was  necessary  to  examine  how  far  it 
was  justly  inspired.  That  the  cause  of  the  colo- 
nies was  just,  and  that  they  were  entitled  to 
the  good  wishes  of  all  mankind  in  their  contest 
with  Spain,  was  unquestionable;  but  we  are 
expected  to  feel  and  indulge  a  deeper  sympathy, 
arising  from  the  alleged  similarity  of  their  situa- 
tion and  that  of  the  United  States  in  1Y76,  from 
a  congeniality  of  feeling,  opinions,  and  pursuits, 
between  the  Spanish  Americans  and  our  prede- 
cessors. The  honorable  member  from  Ken- 
tucky had  solemnly  invoked  the  departed  spirits 
of  our  ancestors  to  give  him  strength  and  ability 
to  vindicate  a  people  contending  in  a  cause  as 
glorious  as  that  in  which  they  had  been  engaged. 
An  invocation  to  those  illustrious  shades  to 
pardon  a  profanation  of  their  ashes,  by  this 
odious  comparison,  would  have  better  become 
him ;  and  if  the  inhabitants  of  the  other  world 
are  permitted  to  interest  themselves  in  the  trans- 
actions of  this  life,  they  would,  no  doubt,  find, 
in  the  purity  of  his  intentions,  the  motive 
for  this  forgiveness.  Was  not  the  comparison 
odious  ?  In  what  consisted  this  boasted  resem- 
blance? They  are  colonies,  contending  to  be 
independent  of  the  parent  country — so  were 
we  ;  here  the  resemblance  ceases.  In  the  mo- 
tives of  the  contests,  in  the  causes  which  pro- 
duced them,  in  their  means,  nnd  in  their  ends, 
there  is  contrast,  not  resemblance.  We  assert- 
ed, vindicated,  maintained,  and  improved  our 
rights,  political,  civil,  and  religious.  We  saw 
oppression  as  it  approached  us  ;  remonstrated 
with  firmness  against  injustice;  discussed  with 
calmness  the  extent  of  our  obligations  and  the 
nature  of  our  rights.  With  a  perfect  knowledge 
of  the  doubtful  issue  of  a  contest  with  our  pow- 
erful, proud,  and  ambitious  stepmother,  we  en- 
countered its  perils  and  pursued  it  with  virtu- 
ous steadiness,  until  our  triumph  was  as  signal 
as  our  moderation  had  been  conspicuous.  They 
were  oppressed  and  contented,  manacled  and 
reconciled  to  their  chains,  until  accident  com- 
pelled them  to  involuntary  exertions.  Political 
independence  was  cast  upon  them,  and  is  now 
the  sole  object  of  continued  resistance.  If 
human  rights  are  secured  by  success,  it  is  an 
unlocked  for,  unexpected  consequence ;  an  un- 
known good,  a  result  not  desired  by  those  who 
were  to  derive  its  benefits.  Political  independ- 
ence was,  with  us,  the  means  for  the  accom- 
plishment of  our  objects.  With  us  it  was  em- 
phatically a  war  of  the  people.  The  Govern- 
ment organized  to  conduct  it  was  established 
by  them.  In  the  numerous  changes  of  the  per- 
sons in  power,  it  was  the  immediate  and  regu- 
lar expression  of  their  will,  that  elevated  or 
depressed  the  candidates  for  their  confidence. 
The  Confederation,  a  rope  of  sand,  had  tenacity 
and  strength  enough  to  bind  them  together, 


while  union  was  necessary  to  success.  During 
the  contest,  the  military  was  completely  subor- 
dinate to  the  civil  power.  With  them,  the 
first  and  the  last  movements  in  the  contest 
were  made  without  consulting  the  will  of  the 
people,  and  no  means  have  yet  been  afforded 
by  which  it  can  be  effectually  expressed.  They 
have  neither  agency  in  the  management  of,  nor 
control  over,  the  acts  of  the  Government,  cre- 
ated for  them.  Revolution  has  succeeded  revo- 
lution. Every  change  of  rulers  has  been  pro- 
duced by  a  change  in  the  form  of  substitution 
for  the  royal  authority.  The  civil  has  been  at 
all  times  subordinate  to  the  military  power. 
There  was  an  equally  striking  dissimilarity  in 
the  manner  in  which  the  wars  were  conducted. 
With  us,  with  the  exception  of  some  personal, 
intestine,  and  bloody  feuds  between  Whig  and 
Tory,  it  was  carried  on  with  the  strictest  regard 
to  the  laws  of  honorable  and  civilized  warfare ; 
no  instance  occurred  of  the  death  of  the  unre- 
sisting by  the  command  of  any  officer  in  the 
public  service.  It  must  not  be  forgotten  that 
ample  justification  was  given  by  the  Britjsh 
armies  for  a  contrary  system.  The  massacre  of 
Paoli  and  the  murder  of  Hayne  were  still  fresh 
in  the  recollection  of  all.  But,  while  burning 
with  resentment  for  these  atrocious  deeds,  we 
did  not  forget  what  was  due  to  our  character, 
and  dishonor  our  reputation  by  following  a 
horrible  example.  The  cold-blooded  massacre 
nerved  the  arms  and  steeled  the  hearts  of  our 
soldiers  in  the  hour  of  conflict,  but  the  cry  of 
mercy  never  was  raised  in  vain  by  a  vanquished 
foe.  When  the  gallant  Hayne  was  barbarously 
executed  by  a  British  officer,  whose  present 
rank  and  subsequent  achievements  could  not 
remove  the  stain  of  this  sanguinary  act  from  his 
character,  the  deep  indignation  of  the  nation 
was  excited.  A  gallant  officer  was  selected  to 
pay  with  his  life  for  the  cruelty  of  his  country. 
But  the  sacrifice  was  never  made,  and  the  gal- 
lant and  generous  officer  was  reserved  to  perish 
in  defending  the  reputation  of  that  people,  by 
whose  forbearance  his  life,  forfeited  by  the  in- 
justice of  his  country,  was  spared.  Mr.  F. 
would  not  be  understood  to  call  in  question  the 
justice  of  the  retaliatory  system  of  extermina- 
tion adopted  by  the  Spanish  Americans.  He 
believed  that  the  dreadful  example  was  set  by 
the  Eoyalists,  and  the  resort  to  it  was  justifi- 
able, and  perhaps  essential  to  security  and  suc- 
cess. All  he  proposed  by  this  examination  was 
to  show,  what  was  highly  honorable  to  his 
own  countrymen,  that  a  resort  to  such  a  system 
was  not  made  by  them  under  the  strongest 
temptations,  and 'under  circumstances  which 
would  have  fully  justified  it.  The  comparison 
was' made  to  show  the  exalted  character  of  our 
own  contest,  not  excite  prejudice  against  that 
of  neighboring  nations. 

Splendid  political  consequences  were  antici- 
pated from  the  expected  change.  The  freedom 
of  the  commerce  of  the  Mississippi — the  safe 
navigation  of  the  Gulf  of  Mexico — the  power 
and  effect  we  should  derive,  from  being  the 


DEBATES  OF  CONGRESS. 


151 


MARCH,  1818.] 


Spanish  American  Provinces. 


[H.  OF  R. 


head  of  a  confederation  of  republics.  In  case  of 
necessity,  the  new  world  of  republics  was  to  be 
arrayed  against  the  old  world  of  despotisms.  In 
the  event  of  European  wars,  we  shall  have 
powerful  auxiliaries  in  the  assertion  of  neutral 
rights.  And  was  it  really  apprehended  we 
should  ever  want  aid  to  maintain  the  free  com- 
merce- of  the  Mississippi  or  the  Gulf  of  Mexico  ? 
these  might  be  safely  trusted  to  our  gallant  tars 
and  the  people  of  the  West.  Suppose  this  great 
change  to  have  taken  place.  Overleap  in  im- 
agination the  progress  of  centuries,  and  see  the 
United  States  connected  with  Eepublican  Gov- 
ernments to  the  southern  extremity  of  the  New 
"World;  the  first,  if  you  please,  in  wealth  and 
power ;  overcoming  the  disadvantages  of  situa- 
tion and  climate,  by  her  superior  skill  and  su- 
perior industry.  What  superior  advantages  will 
the  people  enjoy  that  are  not  possessed  by  our- 
selves ?  Will  they  be  more  free,  more  happy, 
more  virtuous,  and  less  exposed  to  the  danger 
of  internal  commotion  and  external  violence  ? 
The  power  of  the  Government  to  destroy  other 
nations  would  be  increased ;  the  power  of  the 
Government  to  promote  the  welfare  of  the  peo- 
ple, the  object  for  which  it  exists,  would  remain 
the  same.  Connected  with  the  people,  active, 
intelligent,  and  jealou§  as  ourselves,  our  rivals 
in  commerce,  in  agriculture,  in  science,  and  in 
the  freedom  of  their  institutions;  will  these 
elements  of  strife  be  composed  to  harmony  by  the 
tender  names  of  sister  Republics?  Men  do  not 
change  their  nature  with  their  Governments ! 
Brooding  avarice,  malignant  revenge,  daring 
ambition,  will  find  their  place  under  all  forms 
of  government,  in  all  ages  and  in  every  cliine. 
Mr.  F.  would  not  look  further  into  the  conse- 
quences which  might  be  anticipated  from  the 
working  of  these  passions  among  the  affiliatedna- 
tions.  As  in  the  days  of  ancient  Greece  the  ground 
of  quarrel  would  be,  who  should  be  the  first ; 
and  some  Eastern  Satrap  might  again  be  found, 
to  foment  the  quarrels  and  distract  the  councils 
of  the  Western  World.  There  was  one  remedy 
for  these  dangers;  instead  of  many,  but  two 
Republics  should  be  created  of  the  North  and 
South  Americas.  Mr.  F.  was  not  yet  prepared 
to  risk  the  happiness  and  the  security  of  the 
people  of  the  United  States,  by  such  a  sublime 
but  hazardous  extension  of  their  political  system. 
Nations,  like  individuals,  were,  under  God,  the 
fabricators  of  their  own  fortunes.  Of  this  na- 
tion this  was  undeniably  true.  We  want  no 
power  which  we  cannot  acquire,  since  we  desire 
none  but  for  our  own  protection.  We  ask  no 
aid,  since  we  will  not  invade  the  rights  of  others ; 
to  defend  ours,  our  own  strength  is  amply  suffi- 
cient. We  are  free,  independent,  and  happy,  so 
long  as  the  people  are  true  to  themselves.  Unit- 
ed, combined  Europe  would  be  arrayed  against 
them  in  vain.  No  man  need  look  beyond  our 
own  borders  for  the  means  of  securing  and  per- 
petuating all  that  is  valuable  in  life  and  liberty. 
In  the  assertion  of  neutral  rights  it  was  but  too 
fashionable  to  look  beyond  our  own  resources  ; 
the  experience  of  the  late  war  satisfactorily  de- 


monstrated that  it  was  unnecessary.  It  dis- 
covered to  us,  that  aid  was  not  to  be  found 
where  it  was  expected ;  it  demonstrated  that  it 
was  not  required.  He  rejoiced  that  that  con- 
test was  commenced  and  terminated  without  an 
ally,  and  he  most  heartily  thanked  the  English 
Government  for  refusing  the  proffered  mediation 
of  the  Emperor  of  all  the  Russias.  The  obliga- 
tion of  that  offer  would  weigh  upon  his  spirit, 
had  not  the  load  been  removed  by  the  non- 
chalance with  which  the  refusal  of  the  other 
power  had  been  received,  and  the  equivocal 
treatment  experienced  by  our  Ministers  from 
the  Court  of  St.  Petersburg.  We  want  no  aid 
and  no  ally  for  asserting  any  of  our  rights.  The 
experience  of  the  late  contest  was  not  less  use- 
ful to  ourselves  than  to  others  ;  it  taught  them, 
too,  the  secret  of  our  power ; — trust  to  its  effect ; 
the  impression  was  deep,  and  the  remembrance 
will  be  lasting.  Mr.  F.  would  not  press  this  in- 
quiry, lest  he  should  be  suspected  of  desiring  to 
produce  a  wish  that  Spanish  America  should 
remain  dependent.  All  he  desired  was,  by 
bringing  other  objects  into  view,  to  save  the 
committee  from  the  seducing  enthusiasm  of  the 
Speaker.  If  the  question  of  Spanish  American 
independence  depended  upon  our  selfish  con- 
siderations of  interest,  it  never  would  be  achiev- 
ed. If  we  were  governed  by  the  ordinary  policy 
of  nations,  we  should  desire  the  re-establish- 
ment of  the  Spanish  power,  since  it  impeded 
the  progress  of  our  neighbors,  and  left  us  un- 
disputed masters  of  the  world  of  western  enter- 
prise. But  our  policy  was  as  liberal  as  our 
institutions.  We  looked  anxiously  for  the 
emancipation  and  improvement  of  the  Spanish 
Americans,  however  formidable  their  compe- 
tition and  dangerous  their  rivalship.  We  de- 
sired it  for  their  good,  and  not  for  our  ad- 
vantage. That  the  United  States  had  a  right  to 
acknowledge  any  Government,  was  a  political 
axiom.  That  it  was  our  duty  to  recognize  the 
Government  of  La  Plata,  remains  to  be  proved. 
If  our  interest  and  our  honor  require  it ;  if  it  is 
demanded  by  our  obligations  to  that  Govern- 
ment, it  was  a  duty.  What  interest  have  we  in 
this  independence,  which  should  induce  us,  first 
among  the  nations  of  the  earth,  to  welcome  this 
stranger  ?  Was  it  commercial  ?  The  fact  that 
we  had  not  more  than  twenty  vessels  in  the 
commerce  of  La  Plata,  and  that  number  dimin- 
shing,  while  the  English  had  more  than  two 
hundred,  was  a  proof  of  the  extent  of  our  com- 
mercial interest  in  this  region  of  the  world. 
Separated  at  a  distance  so  remote,  where  was 
the  political  consideration  to  demand  it  from  us  ? 
There  was  none.  We  are  asked  to  do  what 
France  did  for  us.  Mr.  *F.  said,  the  United 
States  had  already  done  more,  openly,  for  La 
Plata,  than  France  ever  did  for  the  United 
States,  prior  to  her  determination  to  go  to  war 
with  England.  The  United  States  were  now  in 
advance  of  all  the  nations  of  the  earth,  except 
the  Government  of  Brazil,  in  kindness  to  Buenos 
Ayres.  France,  prior  to  the  capture  of  Bur- 
goyne,  forbade  her  subjects  to  supply  us  with 


152 


ABHIDGMENT  OF  THE 


H.  OF  R.] 


Spanish  American  Provinces. 


[MABCH,  1818. 


arms  and  munitions  of  war ;  would  not  suffer 
our  vessels  of  war  to  enter  her  ports,  but,  ac- 
cording to  the  provisions  of  the  Treaty  of 
Utrecht,  when  driven  in  hy  stress  of  weather, 
and  their  stay  was  limited  to  the  duration  of  the 
danger.  "We  openly  permit  the  exportation  of 
every  necessary  for  the  use  of  the  people  of  La 
Plata.  Their  vessels  enjoy  every  privilege  en- 
joyed by  Spanish  vessels,  or  the  armed  vessels 
of  any  other  nation,  in  our  harbors.  We  wish 
them  success :  they  know  it  well ;  we  do  not 
conceal,  or  affect  to  conceal,  it  from  Spain. 
These  privileges  are  denied  them  by  all  the 
powers  of  Europe,  or  if  granted,  are  yielded  to 
them  in  secret  by  England. 

We  have  proclaimed  a  strict  neutrality ;  regu- 
lated our  conduct  by  the  rule  of  the  national 
law.  "  In  civil  wars  foreigners  are  not  to  inter- 
fere in  the  internal  government  of  an  independ- 
ent State.  It  belongs  not  to  them  to  judge 
between  the  citizens  whom  discord  has  roused 
to  arms,  nor  between  a  Prince  and  his  subjects. 
Both  parties  are  equally  foreigners  to  them,  and 
equally  independent  of  their  authority."  The 
circumstance  to  which  the  Speaker  referred,  if 
correctly  stated,  is  the  most  certain  evidence  that 
our  conduct  has  been  consistent  with  our  pro- 
fessions. We  have  pleased  neither  party,  while 
more  fortunate  England  has  succeeded  in  pleas- 
ing both  parties.  Honorable  neutrality  is  never 
grateful  or  pleasing  to  either  of  the  belligerents ; 
pretended  neutrality  and  secret  assistance  is 
grateful  to  that  power  to  whom  aid  is  given. 
England  may  have  been  artful  enough  to  per- 
suade Spain  that  her  four  hundred  thousand 
pounds  was  intended  for  this  purpose,  while  her 
secret  supplies  of  arms  have  satisfied  the  United 
Provinces  that  England  desired  only  to  promote 
their  success.  Our  duty  cannot  require  us  to 
do  what  is  useless — what  is  calculated  to  con- 
firm a  charge  made  against  us,  of  fomenting  the 
disturbances  in  Spanish  America;  a  charge  to 
which  probable  evidence  is  already  afforded  by 
the  expeditions  of  Miranda,  of  Carrera,  of  Mi- 
na;  all  of  whom  sailed  from  these  States  to 
their  places  of  respective  destination.  It  is  the 
duty  and  the  interest  of  England  to  stand  forth 
as  the  protector  or  first  friend  of  the  new  Gov- 
ernment. She  enjoys  the  fruits  of  their  separa- 
tion from  the  parent  country;  she  fomented 
the  quarrel.  Then  let  her  take  the  risk,  as  she 
will  take  the  honor  and  the  profits  of  the  re- 
cognition of  the  new  power.  Mr.  F.  was  at  a 
loss  to  conjecture  why  it  had  not  already  been 
done  by  England,  unless  she  feared  the  unde- 
fined and  undefinable  obligations  of  the  Holy 
League,  or  was  content  to  reap  the  present 
profits,  reserving  to  herself  the  power  to  secure 
the  future,  either  by  recognizing  tho  new  peo- 
ple on  favorable  conditions,  or  by  restoring 
them  by  her  mediation  to  their  former  master, 
on  conditions  equally  favorable  to  her  commer- 
cial interest. 

At  what  risk,  it  may  be  asked,  will  this  re- 
cognition be  made  ?  At  the  hazard  of  a  war 
with  Spain.  The  gentleman  from  Kentucky 


says  it  is  not  justifiable  cause  of  war.  Does  he 
mean  in  the  eye  of  reason,  or  in  the  opinion  of 
nations?  In  the  opinion  of  nations  it  certainly 
is  justifiable  cause  of  war;  and  it  is  not  to  be 
doubted  that,  were  situations  reversed,  such  a 
recognition  of  the  independence  of  one  of  these 
States  of  the  Union — Louisiana,  for  example — 
by  Spain,  would  be  instantly  followed  by  war. 
The  Speaker  seemed,  indeed,  to  doubt  the 
soundness  of  this  position,  as  he  pressed  princi- 
pally the  want  of  ability  in  Spain  to  make  war, 
not  the  deficiency  of  just  motive  for  declaring 
it.  That  war  would  follow  with  England, 
should  Spain  venture  upon  a  contest  with  us, 
Mr.  F.  did  not  believe.  She  would  have  the 
most  powerful  motives  for  neutrality.  The 
glorious  opportunity  of  ruining  our  commerce 
would  be  afforded,  and  would  be  seized  with 
avidity.  The  increased  expense  of  shipments 
in  American  vessels  would  throw  the  whole  of 
our  trade  into  British  bottoms,  and  our  flag 
would  be  driven  from  the  ocean,  except  where 
it  floated  over  our  public  or  private  armed 
ships.  Mr.  F.  would  encounter  this  danger  of  a 
war  with  Spain,  with  all  its  consequences,  for 
an  adequate  motive ;  but  he  would  not,  by  hur- 
rying to  do  an  act  useless  at  best,  and  which 
might  hereafter  be  performed  without  hazard- 
ing any  thing.  At  all  events,  he  was  unwilling 
to  encounter  it  until  La  Plata  had  shown,  by 
indisputable  testimony,  that  she  was  independ- 
ent, and  had  the  power  and  the  will  to  main- 
tain it. 

Was  there  a  free  Government  in  La  Plata,  for 
whose  existence  we  ought  to  encounter  any 
hazard  ?  Was  there  a  Government  independent 
of  Spain,  and  which  could  not  be  compelled  by 
the  power  or  seduced  by  the  cajolements  of 
Spain  to  its  former  vassalage?  The  character 
of  the  Government  might  be  read  in  the  history 
of  its  formation,  in  the  changes  which  preceded 
it,  and  in  acts  since  it  was  established.  The 
disturbances  in  the  Peninsula  induced  the  Vice- 
roy of  Buenos  Ayres  (Oissneros)  to  call  a  Junta 
in  May,  1810,  composed  of  the  officers'  of  the 
Royal  Government.  '  In  April,  1811,  a  new 
Government  was  formed  by  the  inhabitants  of 
the  city  of  Buenos  Ayres,  having  been  called 
together  for  that  purpose  by  the  municipality 
of  the  city.  This  Government — which,  like  the 
other,  was  but  a  name  for  a  new  organization 
of  the  regal  power — was  composed  of  three 
members  and  two  secretaries.  According  to 
the  El  Estatuto,  one  member,  exercising  the  Ex- 
ecutive power,  was  to  vacate  his  seat  at  the  ex- 
piration of  six  months,  and  his  place  was  to  be 
supplied  by  election.  The  deputies  of  the  mu- 
nicipalities of  the  provinces  were  to  form  the 
electoral  college.  The  first  assembly  for  the 
election  of  one  of  the  members  of  the  Executive 
authority  met  on  the  5th  day  of  April,  1812, 
and  nominated  Puerrydon  for  one  member  of 
the  Government.  They  proposed  to  form  a 
constitution,  but  were  dissolved  by  the  existing 
authority — Puerrydon  deriving  no  power  from 
this  nomination.  The  second  assembly  met  on 


DEBATES  OF  CONGKESS. 


153 


MARCH,  1818.] 


Spanish  American  Provinces. 


[H.  OF  R. 


the  Gth  of  October,  1813,  and  elected  Medrano ; 
but,  pursuing  the  track  of  their  predecessors, 
they  met  a  similar  fate.  The  municipality,  peo- 
ple of  the  city,  and  troops,  opposed  their  meas- 
ures, and  the  assembly  was  dissolved  by  military 
force. 

A  meeting  of  the  inhabitants  of  Buenos 
Ayres,  Cabildo  Abierto,  was  convened  on  the 
8th  day  of  October,  1812,  .and  the  administra- 
tion was  vested  in  Pena,  Passo,  and  Johnte. 
Thus  perished  the  first  constitution,  after  exist- 
ing twelve  months,  and  being  violated  in  all  its 
provisions.  In  January,  1813,  a  new  assembly 
met ;  the  Constituyente,  composed  of  deputies, 
nominated  by  the  electoral  colleges  of  the  towns 
and  cities  of  Kio  de  La  Plata.  The  chief  acts 
of  the  new  assembly  was  the  change  of  the  title 
of  the  Government  from  Gobierno  Superior  to 
Supremo  Poder  Executive,  and  the  decree  of 
freedom  to  the  children  of  slaves.  The  same 
decree  compelled  a  sale  of  every  third  male  slave 
to  be  enrolled  in  the  army,  the  price  being  a  debt 
due  to  the  owners  by  the  State.  In  December, 
1813,  the  government  of  those  persons  was  an- 
nulled by  the  assembly,  and  Pozados  was  cho- 
sen Supreme  Director,  to  give  strength  by  con- 
centrating the  Executive  powers.  In  January, 
1815,  Pozados  having  resigned,  Alviar  was  ap- 
pointed Supreme  Director.  In  April,  1815, 
there  was  a  new  revolution.  A  meeting  of  the 
inhabitants  of  Buenos  Ayres  was  convened,  and 
the  authority  of  Alviar  and  the  Assembly  dis- 
owned. The  municipality  was  vested  with  the 
supreme  command.  The  municipality  formed  a 
junto  called  De  Observation,  by  whom  a  new 
constitution  was  published.  Rondeau  was 
named  Director,  but  being  in  military  command 
with  the  army,  Colonel  Alvarez,  a  ringleader  in 
the  revolt,  was  made  his  substitute.  Alvarez 
convoked  a  Congress,  but  before  it  assembled 
he  was  dispossessed  by  another  commotion  of 
the  power  he  held  in  the  absence  of  Rondeau. 
Belcora  was  then  appointed  Supreme  Director, 
but  was  soon  after  removed,  and  the  adminis- 
tration placed  in  the  hands  of  a  committee. 
The  Congress  of  Tucuman  met  in  1816,  chose 
Puerrydon  Supreme  Director,  and  declared  the 
independence  of  the  Provinces  of  La  Plata  on 
the  3d  of  July ;  proposed  to  publish  a  manifes- 
to, which  was  published  in  1817,  and  to  form  a 
constitution  that  has  not  yet  been  matured.  In 
this  hasty  sketch  of  the  events  which  led  to  the 
establishment  of  the  Government  as  it  now 
existed,  it  must  have  occurred  to  the  members 
of  the  committee  that  there  was  no  agency  of 
the  people  in  its  organization,  except  the  com- 
motions in  the  city  of  Buenos  Ayres ;  they  seem 
to  have  been  the  idle  spectators  of  the  move- 
ments of  the  constituted  authorities  and  the 
military.  For  aught  that  appeared,  the  ancient 
institutions  below  the  head  of  the  Government 
remained  as  formerly.  Mr.  F.  would  not  detail 
the  accusations,  trials,  executions,  and  banish- 
ments which  were  the  consequences  of  these 
chants.  That  the  people  were  not  deeply  in- 
terested in  the  successive  changes,  and  did  not 


appear  to  have  derived  essential  benefits  from 
them,  was  sufficiently  obvious,  and  all  he  desired 
to  establish.  The  conduct  of  Puerrydon  to 
Carrera,  since  this  declaration  of  independence, 
may  serve  further  to  illustrate  the  character  of 
this  new  power.  Carrera  was  a  Chilian,  the 
author  of  the  revolution  there ;  in  the  decline 
of  his  fortune  he  came  to  the  United  States,  and 
after  procuring  resources  for  renewed  efforts, 
returned  to  La  Plata  to  execute  his  designs ;  he 
carried  with  him  the  hopes  and  good  wishes  of 
all  the  friends  of  freedom  in  the  United  States. 
Unfortunately,  he  expected  assistance  from  La 
Plata,  and  sailed  with  confidence  into  her  ports. 
An  expedition  having  been  prepared  in  La 
Plata  against  Chili,  instead  of  receiving  aid  from 
Carrera,  in  the  deliverance  of  his  country  from 
slavery  and  oppression,  the  ostensible  motive 
for  this  expedition,  he  was  seized,  imprisoned, 
and  finally  banished;  the  only  satisfaction  he 
received  is  to  be  found  in  that  part  of  Puerry- 
don's  expose  that  has  been  read  by  the  Speaker, 
in  which  he  deplores  the  rudeness  which  he 
has  been  compelled  to  show,  so  contrary  to  the 
politeness  and  urbanity  of  his  own  nature  and 
that  of  his  Government.  The  motives  for  this 
course  may  be  collected  from  the  recent  ac- 
counts from  Chili.  A  letter  of  the  7th  of  Octo- 
ber says,  "  More  than  eighty  persons  of  the  first 
distinction  have  been  seized  and  thrown  into 
dungeons  by  the  military,  on  the  ground  of  at- 
tachment to  General  Carrera,  and  the  treasures 
of  Chili  were  exhausted  by  contributions  to 
Buenos  Ayres,  and  the  people  of  Chili  are  ex- 
periencing the  benefits  of  that  kind  of  deliver- 
ance from  the  Royal  Spaniards,  by  O'Higgins 
and  the  army  of  Buenos  Ayres,  that  France  has 
experienced  under  the  Bourbons,  supported  "  by 
the  armies  of  Wellington  and  Alexander."  The 
power  of  Spain  had  not  been  exerted  against 
this  new  Government — not  a  Spanish  soldier  or 
bayonet  had  been  sent  from  Old  Spain  since  the 
restoration  of  Ferdinand.  Was  the  new  Gov- 
ernment possessed  of  the  physical  and  moral 
strength  to  resist  her  efforts  when  they  should 
be  made?  Gentlemen  should  not  deceive  them- 
selves. Spain,  inert  and  powerless  as  she  was, 
was.  a  formidable  power  to  Spanish  America, 
by  the  nature  of  the  Government  and  the  su- 
perstition of  its  inhabitants.  She  had  ample 
resources  for  the  purchase  of  assistance,  should 
she  be  driven  to  this  resort.  The  time  had  not 
arrived  when  the  Spanish  Monarch  asked  him- 
self the  important  question — What  part  of  my 
dominions  will  I  surrender  for  the  preservation 
of  the  rest?  When  he  is  willing  to  make  great 
sacrifices  he  can  procure  ample  assistance. 
Those  who  sold  him  ships  for  money  will  sell 
him  men  for  territory.  His  European  territo- 
ries may  tempt  Russia — his  possessions  in  the 
West  Indies,  England — to  assist  him  in  the 
subjugation  of  his  rebellious  subjects.  He  may 
sell  La  Plata  for  Portugal,  and  the  parties  to 
the  holy  league  may  guarantee  their  respective 
cessions  to  each  other.  Shall  we  find  in  La 
Plata  the  unanimity,  energy,  and  virtue  to  re- 


154 


ABEIDGMENT  OF  THE 


H.  OF  R.] 


Spanish  American  Provinces. 


[MARCH,   1818. 


sist  such  arrangements,  where  Province  is  ar- 
rayed against  Province,  under  Puerrydon  and 
Artegas,  viewing  each  other  with  a  hostility 
more  deadly  than  the  proverbially  mutual  ha- 
tred of  Spaniard  and  Portuguese?  A  still 
more  fatal  course  may  be  pursued.  The  King 
of  Spain  may  choose  to  try  persuasion,  giving 
to  England  the  promise  of  free  commerce  with 
the  Spanish  Main ;  may  he  not  easily  procure 
another  mediation,  the  condition  of  which  shall 
be  the  conditional  return  of  La  Plata  to  her 
dependent  state  ?  England  knew  well  how  to 
make  such  a  mediation  effectual.  Let  it  not  be 
said  her  honor  forbids  it,  or  her  interest.  Her 
interest  is  promoted  by  the  commercial  monop- 
oly such  an  arrangement  will  give.  Her  honor 
always  bows  obedient  to  the  dictates  of  her 
commercial  interest;  if  she  should  feel  some 
qualms  of  conscience,  the  island  of  Cuba  will 
calm  her  scruples.  But  has  she  ever  promised 
more  than  to  secure  the  commercial  independ- 
ence of  Spanish  America  ?  What  a  contempti- 
ble figure  should  we  make  in  the  eyes  of  all 
mankind — how  degraded  in  our  opinions — if  we 
should  recognize  La  Plata,  and  the  Government 
should  shortly  after  voluntarily  return  to  the 
Spanish  yoke  I  That  the  committee  might  not 
be  deceived  by  the  supposed  attachment  felt  by 
the  new  Government  for  the  United  States — 
by  the  profession  of  an  anxious  desire  to  follow 
our  example  and  imitate  our  virtue,  Mr.  F. 
•would  mention  a  few  facts,  at  once  illustrating 
the  ardor  of  their  attachment  to  the  United 
States,  and  the  justice  and  honor  of  the  Govern- 
ment in  its  dealings  with  individuals.  The 
American  brig  Savage,  of  Baltimore,  sailed  to 
Buenos  Ayres  with  a  cargo  of  military  stores ; 
they  there  sold  them  to  Government,  to  be  de- 
livered in  Chili.  The  voyage  was  performed ; 
four  months  elapsed,  under  various  pretences, 
before  the  cargo  was  received,  and  after  this 
delay  the  payment  was  made,  not  according  to 
contract,  but  at  the  discretion  of  the  Govern- 
ment. The  owner  was  thus  plundered  of  his 
property,  and  Injured  by  this  delay  of  his  plun- 
derers. The  ship  Enterprise,  of  Philadelphia, 
Captain  Coffin,  was  employed,  by  contract,  to 
carry  three  hundred  exiles  from  Juan  Fernan- 
dez to  Valparaiso,  from  whence  they  had  been 
formerly  banished  by  the  royal  party.  He  was 
to  have  received  $7,200.  He  performed  his 
contract — restored  the  exiles  to  their  country 
and  their  homes.  After  a  detention  of  two 
months,  he  was  paid  $2,500— St.  Martin,  the 
"Washington  of  America,  as  he  is  called,  alleging 
that  this  was  enough. 

In  the  armies  of  La  Plata,  English  and  French 
officers  are  employed  without  scruple ;  Ameri- 
cans seldom,  if  ever.  Our  countrymen  do  not 
suit  their  manners,  opinions,  or  Government. 
Juett,  formerly  of  the  army  of  the  United 
States,  and  Kennedy,  formerly  of  the  marine 
corps,  sought  in  Valparaiso,  in  1817,  commis- 
sions in  the  army  of  St.  Martin.  He  suspected 
them  of  attachment  to  the  Carreras,  and  threw 
them  into  a  dungeon,  and  whence  they  were 


not  released  until  the  captain  of  a  vessel,  who 
procured  their  liberation,  entered  into  an  en- 
gagement to  take  them  immediately  from  a  soil 
they  were  deemed  unworthy  to  tread.  To 
judge  of  the  character  of  the  nation  from  the 
cruelty  and  harshness  or  injustice  of  an  indi- 
vidual, was  not  reasonable;  but  when  that  in- 
dividual was  the  theme  of  universal  admiration 
in  his  own  country,  it  could  not  be  considered 
as  improper  to  make  him  the  standard  by  which 
to  estimate  the  opinions  and  character  of  his 
countrymen. 

Every  arrival  from  this  land  of  promise 
brings  us  the  history  of  the  oppressions  of  the 
existing  Government,  and  the  fearful  forebod- 
ings of  our  countrymen,  that  the  people  for 
whom  our  anxious  wishes  are  hourly  expressed 
will  derive  no  benefits  from  the  change  of  their 
governors ;  that  the  Spanish  power  will  be  re- 
stored in  all  its  rigor ;  or  that  the  new  authori- 
ties will  ever  be  exercised  with  the  same  con- 
tempt of  the  principles  of  justice  and  of  freedom, 
that  distinguished  the  ancient  tyranny.  It 
might  be  urged  that  this  was  newspaper  infor- 
mation, derived  from  persons  of  doubtful  au- 
thority. This  objection  was  of  the  same  force, 
in  its  application,  to  all  the  information  pos- 
sessed of  that  country.  It  was  of  such  materi- 
als its  history  was  composed.  A  powerful,  an 
irresistible  argument,  to  induce  the  committee 
to  refrain  from  the  commission  of  an  act  of 
doubtful  propriety,  might  be  drawn  from  this 
source;  but  Mr.  F.  would  not  trespass  longer 
npon  their  patience,  exhausted  as  it  must  be  by 
attending  to  the  long  and  animated  address  of 
the  Speaker,  and  his  own  desultory  reply. 

And  the  House  adjourned. 

THURSDAY,  March  26. 
Spanish  American  Provinces. 

Mr.  RoBEBTSOir,  of  Louisiana. — I  should  not 
have  risen  to  express  my  opinion  on  the  present 
occasion,  if  I  had  not,  at  an  early  period  of  the 
session,  indicated  my  intention  to  do  so,  when- 
ever a  proper  opportunity  should  occur;  but 
for  this  circumstance,  I  should  have  been  con- 
tented to  give  a  silent  vote,  for  I  am  well  aware, 
from  my  more  than  usual  ill  health,  that  there 
will  be  nothing  in  either  the  manner  or  the 
matter  of  my  address  to  compensate  the  com- 
mittee for  that  attention  which  their  indulgence 
may  induce  them  to  bestow. 

I  unite  with  the  gentleman  from  South  Caro- 
lina in  considering  the  proposition  of  the  Speak- 
er as  involving  in  its  decision  the  views  of  this 
House,  in  respect  to  the  independence  of  the 
Government  of  Rio  de  la  Plata,  and  as  to  the 
expediency  of  acknowledging  it.  On  both  these 
points  my  opinions  are  formed,  and  I  shall  give 
them  utterance,  without  equivocation  or  hesita- 
tion, notwithstanding  certain  cabalistic  words, 
of  great  efficacy  with  old  women  and  men  of 
weak  minds,  of  the  use  of  which  the  gentleman 
from  South  Carolina  (Mr.  LOWNDES)  has  availed 
himself.  I  allude,  sir,  to  his  remarks  on  the 


DEBATES  OF  CONGRESS. 


155 


MARCH,  1818.] 


Spanish  American  Provinces. 


[H.  OF  R. 


danger  of  war,  and  the  impropriety  of  casting  I  freely  or  too  frequently.     Now,  I  dissent  from 
censure  on  the  conduct  of  the  Executive.  all  such  doctrine I  look  uon  it  to  be  the  dut 


I  beg  leave  to  assure  the  committee  that  I 
have  no  wish  to  involve  the  country  in  war ; 
that  I  agree  in  every  thing  my  friend  from  South 
Carolina  Las  said  as  to  the  inappreciable  advan- 
tages of  peace.  I  would  even  go  further;  I 
almost  think  that  peace  is  necessary  to  the  ex- 
istence of  liberty.  Rarely  indeed  does  the  free- 
dom of  nations  survive  the  expensive  and  bloody 
contests  in  which  they  are  too  prone  to  indulge ; 
liberty,  morals,  prosperity,  all  depend  upon 
peace ;  they  are  too  precious  to  be  wantonly 
hazarded;  I  would  sanction  no  measure  that 
would  endanger  them  but  under  the  most  im- 
perious circumstances.  Nothing,  too,  is  further 
from  my  intention  than  to  censure  the  conduct 
of  the  Executive ;  so  far  from  it,  I  wish  to  give 
to  the  President  the  strongest  proof  of  my 
agreeing  with  him  in  opinion,  by  furnishing 
him  with  the  means  of  executing  his  wishes  in 
regard  to  the  people  of  South  America.  Has 
he  not  told  us,  sir,  that  he  feels  the  sincerest 
sympathy  in  their  behalf,  and  has  he  not  told 
us  further  that  they  were  a  people  engaged  in 
civil  war,  and  entitled  to  equal  rights  with  their 
enemies ;  and  can  it  be  otherwise  than  gratify- 
ing to  him,  that  this  House  should  concur  in  his 
views,  and  enable,  nay  more,  encourage  him 
with  the  cheering  influence  of  its  approbation, 
to  give  effect  to  his  benevolent  and  kind  feel- 
ings, and  to  do  justice  to  the  revolutionists, 
by  acknowledging  their  independence,  sending 
them  an  ambassador,  and  placing  them  in  that 
situation  of  equality  which,  he  says,  they  are 
entitled  to  enjoy  ?  Sir,  it  cannot  be  otherwise 
than  agreeable  to  the  President  to  know  the 
opinion  of  Congress  on  so  momentous  a  subject ; 
if  that  opinion,  independently  expressed,  shall 
concur  with  his  own,  he  will  act  conformably 
to  it ;  on  the  other  hand,  if,  from  the  position 
he  occupies  in  the  Government,  from  his  better 
information,  or  from  any  other  circumstances, 
unknown  to  the  public,  he  shah1  think  it  best  to 
continue,  unchanged,  the  state  of  our  relations 
with  South  America,  he  will  do  so.  For  one 
I  shall  not  object,  if  he  does  but  exercise  his 
right  to  judge  and  decide  for  himself;  and  I 
am  too  much  in  the  habit  of  pursuing  my  own 
opinion  to  blame  others,  whether  in  public  or 
private  stations,  for  exhibiting  a  like  independ- 
ence. 

But  the  gentleman  from  South  Carolina  seems 
to  contend  that  it  is  the  exclusive  right  of  the 
Executive  to  manage  our  foreign  relations ;  that 
he  is  better  informed  on  these  subjects,  and  that 
this  House  ought  not  to  interfere  so  far  as  to 
suggest  an  opinion  or  a  wish,  unless  it  is  meant 
to  be  understood  that  strong  disapprobation  is 
felt  towards  the  course  which  has  been  pursued. 
I  think,  too,  it  may  be  inferred  from  the  re- 
marks of  the  gentleman,  that  the  President  is 
not  only  better  informed  on  all  questions  of  this 
kind  than  Congress  or  the  nation,  but  that  it  is 
right  and  proper  that  he  should  keep  his  infor- 
mation to  himself,  and  not  part  with  it  too 


all  such  doctrine ;  I  look  upon  it  to  be  the  duty 
of  Congress  to  express  its  opinion  freely  upon 
all  questions  which  concern  pur  domestic  or 
foreign  affairs,  and  I  consider  it  as  the  solemn 
duty  of  the  Chief  Magistrate  of  a  popular  Gov- 
ernment to  disseminate  among  the  people  all 
information  that  can  instruct  them  on  points  so 
important  as  their  situation  in  regard  to  other 
Governments. 

I  would  ask,  sir,  how  else  can  the  wise  meas- 
ures of  a  virtuous  administration  receive  ra- 
tional approbation,  or  how  a  vicious  Govern- 
ment be  arrested  in  its  mad  career?  Shall  it 
be  justified  in  managing  in  secret  the  whole  in- 
terests of  the  public,  in  plunging  into  war  after 
a  long  concatenation  of  events,  which,  if  known, 
might  have  been  prevented,  or  in  allowing  the 
nation  to  repose  in  security,  when,  from  its  own 
acts,  or  those  of  other  Governments,  it  stands 
on  the  brink  of  a  precipice?  Ought  there  not 
rather,  in  such  a  Government  as  ours,  to  be  the 
most  unreserved  and  frank  communication  of 
facts,  of  whatever  kind  they  may  be  ?  Ought 
there  not  to  be  felt  and  evidenced,  towards  the 
people,  the  most  entire  and  unaffected  confi- 
dence ?  Will  the  people  long  continue  to  con- 
fide in  those  who  manifest  distrust,  by  covering 
their  proceedings,  whether  of  an  external  or 
internal  nature,  with  a  veil  of  mystery  and  se- 
crecy ? 

I  cannot  approve  of  the  observations  of  the 
gentleman  from  South  Carolina,  and  I  do  hope 
that  the  present  Administration  will  act  on  no 
such  principles.  In  the  examination  of  th'e 
present  subject,  I  shall  'not  indulge  myself  in  so 
wide  a  range  as  some  of  the  gentlemen  who 
have  preceded  me.  I  will  endeavor  to  show 
that  the  Government  of  Rio  de  la  Plata  is  inde- 
pendent, and  that  it  is  expedient  to  acknowledge 
that  independence.  To  establish  the  fact  of  its 
independence,  let  us  inquire  whether  it  has  de- 
clared itself  independent  ?  Of  this  there  is  no 
doubt ;  this  fact  is  not  disputed  by  any  one.  I 
state  it  thus  specifically,  because  it  is  far  from 
being  Itself  an  unimportant  circumstance.  In 
our  own  case  it  was  not  so  considered.  In  the 
language  of  one  historian,  Ramsey,  after  that 
event  "  we  no  longer  appeared  in  the  character 
of  subjects  in  arms  against  their  sovereign,  but 
as  an  independent  people,  repelling  the  attacks 
of  an  invading  foe."  And  Marshall  says,  "  we 
changed  our  situation  by  the  Declaration  .it'  In- 
dependence, and  were  no  longer  considered  as 
subjects  in  rebellion."  From  that  time,  too,  we 
date  pur  actual  independence.  It  has  not  been 
permitted  to  be  deferred  till  its  acknowledg- 
ment by  other  nations,  nor  until  the  peace; 
and  so  has  the  fact  been  established,  as  well  by 
political  as  judicial  decisions,  both  in  England 
and  in  the  United  States.  Buenos  Ayres  re- 
mained faithful  to  Spain  under  circumstances 
extremely  favorable  to  her  throwing  off  the 
yoke.  When  the  Peninsula  was  overrun  by  a 
foreign  army  and  torn  by  domestic  faction,  the 
people  of  Buenos  Ayres  submitted  to  be  gov- 


156 


ABRIDGMENT  OF  THE 


H.  OP  R.] 


Spanish  American  Provinces. 


[MARCH,  1818. 


erned  as  a  colony ;  they  were  willing  to  con- 
tinue their  former  connection,  while  the  Gov- 
ernment was  in  the  hands  of  Charles,  or  Ferdi- 
nand, or  Juntas,  having  the  semblance  of  power; 
but,  when  the  whole  of  the  Peninsula,  except 
Cadiz,  fell  into  the  possession  of  France,  they 
declared  themselves  independent ;  this  was  done 
by  the  Viceroy  Cissneros.  But  the  final  and 
great  act  of  1816  flowed  from  the  people ;  they 
then  declared  themselves  independent  of  Spain 
and  the  Bourbons ;  established  a  Government 
for  themselves,  and  have  ever  since  enjoyed  the 
most  perfect  exemption  from  every  thing  like 
foreign  control.  They  now  appoint  their  own 
Executive  Magistrate,  their  legislators,  their 
judges,  lay  taxes,  raise  armies,  and  build  navies, 
with  which  they  not  only  secure  their  own  in- 
dependence, but  diffuse  that  blessing  over  the 
neighboring  Governments  of  Chili  and  Peru. 
They  .are  more  independent  than  we  were  at 
any  one  moment  previously  to  the  peace  of  1783. 
Their  soil  is  free  from  the  pollution  of  a  foreign 
hostile  foot ;  and,  if  it  be  said  that  they  have 
their  factions,  so  had  we  ours.  We  had,  in  ad- 
dition to  our  foreign  foes,  our  tories  and  domes- 
tic traitors.  But  it  is  objected  that  the  prov- 
inces are  not  all  united  under  one  Government, 
and  that  Artigas  is  in  possession  of  the  province 
of  Montevideo.  But  the  possession  of  Artigas 
is  not  the  possession  of  Ferdinand ;  the  whole 
of  the  Banda  Oriental  is  as  free  from  his  au- 
thority as  Buenos  Ayres  itself;  and  the  sole 
question  at  present  is  as  to  the  independence  of 
Rio  de  la  Plata  of  its  former  European  master. 
T"he  freedom  of  Venezuela,  New  Grenada,  and 
Mexico,  is,  unhappily,  less  assured;  but  they, 
too,  have  declared  themselves  absolved  from 
the  tyrant's  yoke.  Many  years  ago  the  Execu- 
tive of  the  United  States  laid  before  this  House 
the  constitution  of  Venezuela,  and  a  resolution 
was  adopted  by  the  committee  to  whom  it  was 
referred,  declaratory  of  the  interest  this  House 
felt  in  their  success,  and  promising  to  recognize 
them  as  independent  when  they  should  take  a 
stand  among  the  nations  of  the  world.  In  re- 
gard to  Buenos  Ayres,  that  happy  period  has 
arrived ;  and  it  becomes  us  to  realize  the  hopes 
to  which  our  promises  have  given  rise.  The 
fate  of  New  Grenada  has  been  various ;  it  has 
sometimes  enjoyed  self-government,  and  has 
been  again  subject  to  the  temporary  control  of 
the  usurpers  of  its  rights.  The  gentleman  from 
Georgia  tells  us  that  Mexico  has  been  preserved 
to  the  royal  cause  by  its  own  native  population ; 
that  it  has  not  been  found  necessary  to  send 
over  foreign  troops  to  secure  its  allegiance  to 
its  sovereign.  But  the  gentleman  forgot  to  in- 
form us  that  Mexico  has  been  always  filled,  with 
European  troops,  and  that  the  number  already 
there  rendered  any  augmentation  unnecessary. 
But  for  the  Europeans  in  Mexico,  a  dissolution 
of  its  connection  with  Spain  would  long  ago 
have  taken  place. 

But,  sir,  for  what  purpose  has  the  gentleman 
from  Georgia  dwelt  so  long  and  so  earnestly  on 
the  motives  of  the  people  of  South  America  for 


declaring  themselves  independent,  and  on  the 
manner  in  which  the  struggle  has  been  con- 
ducted? The  only  question  is,  whether  they 
are  or  are  not  independent.  But  the  gentleman 
is  as  mistaken  in  his  views  on  these  subjects,  as 
it  is  unkind  in  him,  professing,  as  he  does,  to 
wish  success  to  their  cause,  to  pass  their  con- 
duct, distorted  as  it  is,  in  review  before  us,  when 
nothing  renders  such  investigation  necessary. 
The  gentleman  says  that  their  revolution  did 
not  begin  on  principles  favorable  to  individual 
liberty ;  but  I  would  ask,  sir,  what  revolution 
ever  did?  What  revolution  ever  stopped  at 
the  point  to  reach  which  it  commenced  ?  What 
revolution,  at  its  origin,  ever  advanced  the  prin- 
ciples on  which,  in  its  progress,  it  was  conduct- 
ed? What  revolution  ever  terminated  where 
the  particular  grievances  were  removed  which 
gave  it  birth?  A  candid  examination  of  our 
own  history  will  sufficiently  elucidate  these 
views.  We  did  not  commence  our  contest  with 
the  mother  country  with  any  avowal,  whatever 
might  have  been  the  intention  of  the  intelligent 
and  virtuous,  of  a  wish  to  throw  off  colonial 
subjection ;  far  from  it ;  our  professions  of  at- 
tachment and  fidelity  to  the  monarch  were 
never  before  so  frequent  nor  so  strong.  We 
complained  of  trifling  grievances:  proceeded 
cautiously  to  remonstrances,  then  to  resistance ; 
declared  ourselves,  after  a  lapse  of  some  years, 
independent,  and  ultimately  overturned  the  en- 
tire fabric  of  that  Government,  which,  in  the 
beginning,  we  so  often  praised,  and  merely  af- 
fected to  disapprove  in  some  comparatively  im- 
material points.  So  the  South  American  pa- 
triots act  cautiously  in  regard  to  their  former 
masters ;  profess,  for  a  convenient  time,  entire 
devotion  to  their  will,  and  take  advantage  of 
circumstances  to  effect  the  liberation  of  their 
country.  But  I  acknowledge  that  individual 
freedom  does  not  seem  to  be  with  their  leaders 
a  subject  of  sufficient  concern,  and  perhaps  on 
this  point  it  is  no  more  difficult  to  excuse  them 
than  on  that  connected  with  their  national  in- 
dependence. Let  it  be  kept  in  view  that  they 
have  two  great  objects  to  attain — the  one,  ob- 
noxious to  Spain,  their  national  independence — 
the  other,  hateful  to  all  Governments  except 
our  own,  individual  liberty.  As  they,  in  com- 
mon with  all  revolutionists,  have  found  it  ne- 
cessary to  mask  their  designs  on  the  first  point, 
so  may  it  be  politic  in  them  to  be  as  silent  as 
possible  in  regard  to  the  other.  Where, 
throughout  this  enslaved  world,  are  they  to 
look  for  countenance  or  support,  if  they  should 
dare  to  announce  too  openly  their  attachment 
to  democratic  forms  of  government  ?  Will  the 
combined  despots  of  Europe  smile  upon  their 
efforts  ?  Can  they  look  across  the  Atlantic  for 
the  cheering  influence  of  approbation,  when 
even  here,  in  this  Republic,  they  meet  with  cold 
indifference?  Do  they  not  perceive  that  the 
nations  of  Europe,  although  friendly  to  their 
independence,  are  hostile  to  their  freedom? 
And  may  not  this  account,  if  it  be  true  indeed, 
for  the  carelessness  exhibited  by  them,  accord- 


DEBATES  OF  CONGRESS. 


157 


MARCH,  1818.] 


Spanish  American  Provincet. 


[H.  OK  R. 


ing  to  the  gentleman  from  Georgia,  on  the  sub- 
ject of  individual  rights? 

Mr.  Chairman,  the  combined  despots  of  Eu- 
rope cannot,  as  formerly,  indulge  themselves  in 
the  royal  sport  of  arms;  they  cannot  wage 
wars  of  amusement  or  ambition ;  they  are  suf- 
ficiently employed  in  keeping  their  own  sub- 
jects in  subordination.  Admirable  as  their 
Governments  may  be,  something  like  coercion 
seems  necessary  to  impress  that  opinion  on  the 
iniuds  of  their  people.  The  armies  of  Europe 
are  not  now  intended  to  guard  against,  or  to 
make  foreign  conquests ;  they  are  to  keep  their 
inhabitants  in  slavery,  and  the  kings  on  their 
thrones ;  three  millions  of  soldiers  in  arms  are 
all  necessary  for  that  purpose ;  they  have  no 
occasion  to  look  abroad  for  employment ;  they 
need  not  come  across  the  Atlantic.  Sir,  the 
impulse  given  to  the  human  character  by  the 
American  and  French  Revolutions  still  survives ; 
the  principles  of  despotism  and  superstition  are 
dead— they  do  not  suit  the  age ;  they  may  be 
sustained  a  little  longer  by  the  force  of  bayo- 
nets, but  the  love  of  liberty  lives  in  the  heart, 
will  again  before  long  have  utterance,  and  ulti- 
mately succeed  and  triumph.  Blind,  indeed, 
must  that  man  be,  who  does  not  see  in  the 
large  standing  armies  of  the  Governments  of 
Europe,  the  fear — the  just  fear — in  which  they 
stand  of  those  whom  they  rule  and  oppress. 
Sir,  we  may  manage  our  own  affairs  in  our  own 
way,  without  the  fear  of  kings  before  our  eyes. 
They  have  enough  to  do  to  keep  things  in  order 
at  home ;  their  vigilance  is  more  and  more  ne- 
cessary every  day;  if  they  relax,  they  are 
hurled  from  their  usurped  dominion.  I  rejoice 
in  this  state  of  terror  and  alarm,  and  I  most 
seriously  wish  that  many  years  may  not  pass 
away  before  sufficient  proof  may  be  given  that 
their  fears  are  not  unfounded  and  visionary. 

But,  sir,  admitting,  as  is,  on  the  main,  gener- 
ally admitted,  that  war  would  not  be  the  con- 
sequence of  sending  a  Minister  to  Buenos  Ayres, 
yet  it  is  contended  that  we  have  no  interest, 
commercial  or  political,  in  their  independence 
— indeed,  it  is  pretended  that  it  would  be  better 
for  us,  that  they  should  continue  in  a  state  ot 
colonial  subjection.  Sir,  I  feel  an  aversion  seri- 
ously tp  combat  so  vile  a  proposition.  I  can- 
not believe  that  the  happiness  of  others  is  in- 
compatible with  our  own — such  a  principle 
does  not  enter  into  the  great  scheme  of  nature 
— it  is  the  pitiful  emanation  of  counting-house 
calculation,  and  is  as  untrue,  as  it  is  unworthy 
of  any  thing  but  contempt.  Sir,  the  independ- 
ence of  South  America  is  the  common  cause  of 
all  commercial  powers — for  the  question  is, 
whether  its  trade,  by  the  subversion  of  its  in- 
dependence, will  be  agtin  monopolized  by 
Spain ;  or,  by  the  establishment  of  it,  laid  open 
on  equal  terms  to  all  the  world ;  whether  it  is 
our  interest  to  participate  in  the  commerce  of 
the  colonial  possessions  of  Spain,  amounting  in 
exports  and  imports  to  two  hundred  millions 
of  dollars,  or  to  be  excluded  from  it  entirely. 
This  is  the  view  of  the  subject;  for  it  must  not 


be  forgotten  that  a  return  of  these  countries  to 
the  state  of  colonies,  brings  along  with  it  the 
concomitant  effects  of  the  monopoly  enjoyed 
by  the  Metropolitan  Government.  The  com- 
merce which  we  now  enjoy  would  be  lost  to  us ; 
and  when  we  take  into  consideration  the  num- 
ber of  our  vessels  already  engaged  hi  trade  with 
the  Atlantic  ports,  as  well  as  those  with,  and 
without  licenses,  interchanging  then-  cargoes 
with  those  on  the  Pacific,  we  cannot  even  now 
doubt  of  its  importance.  Our  navigation  would 
be  benefited  by  carrying  for  them  a  portion  of 
their  valuable  productions  to  Europe,  and  re- 
turning to  them  the  manufactures  of  that 
quarter  of  the  world  in  exchange.  In  carrying 
our  productions  too,  wherever  we  might  obtain 
the  means  of  purchasing  commodities  suited  to 
their  markets,  our  manufactures,  too,  if  we  be- 
come a  manufacturing  people,  will  then  find 
additional  demand;  and  I  believe  it  may  be 
also  established,  that  our  agriculture  would  re- 
ceive essential  benefit.  It  may  be  fairly  assum- 
ed, that  the  price  of  the  raw  material  will  be 
enhanced  in  the  proportion  of  the  demand  for 
the  manufactured  article ;  and  the  demand  for 
the  manufactured  article  depends  upon  the 
number,  the  wants,  and  the  wealth  of  the  con- 
sumers. "Who  can,  then,  deny  that  these  facts 
depend  materially  upon  the  independence  of 
South  America?  Independence  will  bestow 
upon  the  people  every  blessing — it  will  add  to 
their  numbers,  to  their  industry,  to  their  wealth, 
to  then*  disposition  and  their  ability  to  consume 
commodities,  many  of  which  will  be  manufac- 
tured from  our  raw  materials — thus  giving  en- 
couragement to  agriculture ;  and,  being  convey- 
ed to  them  by  our  vessels,  adding  to  the  pros- 
pects of  commerce,  and  the  prosperity  of  navi- 
gation. An  estimate  of  the  value  of  a  free 
commerce  ought  not  to  be  made  from  the  pres- 
ent situation  of  this  interesting  and  unfortunate 
people,  depressed  and  poor,  from  the  combined 
effects  of  superstition  and  despotism,  habituated 
to  privations,  and  ignorant  of  the  importance 
of  the  world  to  them,  or  of  themselves  to  the 
world.  Their  present  value  in  the  scale  of  na- 
tions is  comparatively  inconsiderable,  yet  their 
imports  and  exports  exceed  our  own,  and,  when 
we  reflect,  under  the  colonial  system,  on  the 
necessarily  enormous  price  of  imports  purchased 
exclusively  from  Spam ;  or,  if  obtained  in  any 
other  country,  burdened  and  clogged  with 
heavy  dutie^  payable  into  the  King's  treasury, 
we  may  arrive  at  something  like  just  conclu- 
sions. When  looking  into  futurity,  we  find 
millions  of  slaves  converted  into  freemen — their* 
industry,  their  wealth,  and  their  wants  increas- 
ed, the  products  of  their  labor  augmenting  in 
value,  and  the  articles  of  their  consumption  di- 
minishing in  price.  But  I  do  not  consider  the 
direct  pecuniary  advantages  to  our  country, 
however  great  and  certain  they  may  be,  as  of 
so  much  importance  as  the  political  and  moral 
effects  growing  out  of  a  liberal  and  manly 
policy  towards  that  people.  It  will  have  a  ten- 
dency to  give  us  confidence  in  the  firmness  and 


158 


ABRIDGMENT  OF  THE 


H.  OF  R.] 


Spanish  American  Provinces. 


[MARCH,  1818. 


virtue  of  Government — it  will  prove  that  it  is 
not  forgetful  of  the  high  character  which  be- 
longs to  us  as  a  powerful  and  free  people — that 
the  reputation  we  have  acquired,  at  the  expense 
of  so  much  blood  and  treasure,  is  not  to  be  sac- 
rificed by  timidity,  or  an  undue  spirit  of  ac- 
commodation towards  the  rnonarchs  of  Europe 
— that  we  will  do  what  our  principles  require, 
in  spite  of  imaginary  terrors,  artfully  excited  by 
the  enemies  of  freedom — in  fine,  that,  cautious 
of  giving  just  cause  of  offence,  wo  will  pursue 
the  path  of  fidelity  .and  honor,  in  defiance  of 
the  views  and  wishes  of  those  whose  political 
institutions  make  them  necessarily  hostile  to 
human  happiness  and  human  rights — that  we 
dare  at  least  do,  what  we  are  sustained  in  by 
.  right  and  truth,  in  favor  of  the  liberties  of  man- 
kind, without  being  deterred  by  those  who  pro- 
mote, with  unhallowed  violence,  at  the  expense 
of  every  sacred^obligation,  the  dogmas  of  priest- 
craft, and  the  'doctrines  of  despotism.  And  if 
we  are  asked  by  the  officious  and  intermeddling 
representatives  of  kings,  why  it  is  that  we  not 
only  feel,  but  manifest  sympathy  for  a  people 
struggling  to  be  free,  let  us  refer  them  to  their 
own  unholy  combinations,  in  support  of  the 
execrable  principles  of  their  Government — let 
us  tell  them  of  their  wars  for  thirty  years  past 
against  liberty  —that  if  the  safety  of  monarchies 
in  Europe  depends  on  the  annihilation  of  re- 
publics, the  security  of  a  republic  in  America 
will  not  be  injured  by  other  republics  growing 
up  by  its  side ;  and  that,  if  they  have  presump- 
tuously broken  down,  by  force,  whatever  stood 
in  the  way  of  the  establishment  of  tyranny,  we 
may  at  least  hope  to  be  forgiven  for  going  so  far 
as  to  assert  an  abstract  proposition  in  favor  of 
freedom ;  for,  sending  or  receiving  a  Minister 
from  La  Plata,  is  no  more. 

Mr.  FLOYD,  of  Virginia,  rose,  for  the  purpose 
of  offering  his  view  of  this  interesting  subject, 
to  the  consideration  of  the  committee,  in  sup- 
port of  the  amendment  proposed  by  the  hon- 
orable Speaker ;  and  said,  as  he  knew  the 
House  must  be  weary  at  this  late  hour  of  the 
day,  the  only  apology  he  could  make  was,  that 
he  would  not  detain  them  long.  I,  am,  said  he, 
strongly  impressed  with  a  belief  that  an  appro- 
priation of  this  kind  would  well  comport  with 
the  disinterested  views  of  this  Government,  and 
would  enable  the  President  at  any  time  to  do  jus- 
tice to  this  Republic,  which  has  achieved  an  ob- 
ject so  glorious  to  itself,  and  of  such  signal  bene- 
fit to  mankind.  The  present  is  a  favorable 
moment,  when  our  affairs  are  prosperous  and 
'quiet — the  world  calm,  and  no  political  ebul- 
litions to  distract  us.  This  would  be  the  safe 
course— the  dignified  course — dictated  by  the 
true  policy  of  the  United  States,  and  one  calcu- 
lated to  free  them  from  the  odious  doubts  and 
suspicions  of  partiality  which  have  been  cast 
upon  them,  and  would  place  their  conduct  in  a 
high  point  of  view,  both  for  magnanimity  and 
justice. 

The  spectacle  presented  to  our  view  is  sub- 
lime and  wonderful ;  a  brave  people,  disdaining 


the  shackles  of  a  foreign  despot,  wading  through 
rivers  of  blood  to  erect  their  constitution  upon 
a  firm  basis,  which  will  secure  to  them  the  en- 
joyment of  personal  liberty,  and  give  them  a 
stand  among  the  nations  of  the  earth,  as  free 
and  independent.  Through  the  storms  of  revo- 
lution, their  institutions  have  been  purified. 
Warring  now  to  maintain  their  freedom,  they 
appealed  to  this  nation  for  justice,  and  ought 
to  have  demanded  our  attention.  This  nation, 
free  as  air,  cannot  envy  the  enjoyment  of  the 
world  besides,  will  bestow  a  part  of  its  deliber- 
ations upon  that  appeal ;  nor  now  refuse  to  lis- 
ten to  the  dictates  of  justice,  of  policy,  or  to 
the  cries  of  suffering  humanity,  in  adopting 
this  amendment ;  that  the  appropriation  may 
be  made ;  that  justice  be  dealt  out  with  an  even 
hand — as  I  should  be  sorry  to  believe  the 
United  States  could  at  any  time  so  far  forget 
the  great  principles  of  equal  rights,  equal  liber- 
ty, and  equal  law,  as  to  give  the  smallest  grounds 
for  complaint  to  any  nation,  and  surely  the 
situation  of  these  people  entitles  them  to  this 
appellation. 

The  civil  dissensions  which  for  some  time  so 
convulsed  the  Spanish  monarchy,  have  at  length 
assumed  a  determinate  shape,"and  war  is  now 
no  longer  the  war  of  revolution,  or  a  civil  war, 
but  the  efforts  of  contending  Governments. 
This  young  Eepublic,  powerful  in  its  resources, 
recovering  with  renewed  vigor  from  every  dis- 
aster, believes  herself  justified  by^  the  law  of 
nations,  in  demanding  a  recognition  of  her 
rights  as  a  free  and  independent  nation. 

Spain,  bloated  with  pride,  inherited  through  a 
long  line  of  ancestors,  is  incapable  of  imitating 
the  noble  and  magnanimous  conduct  of  Great 
Britain,  who,  after  seven  years  of  war  with  us, 
came  forward  as  Great  Britain  ought  to  have 
done,  and  acknowledged  our  independence. 
Yet  that  Monarch,  who  boasts  the  sun  never 
sets  upon  his  dominion,  parts  with  reluctance 
from  the  smallest  piece  of  soil,  and  wars  by 
withholding  his  assent  to  independence,  when 
hostilities  have  ceased,  through  inability  to 
prosecute  them.  Miserable  as  she  is,'  without 
resources,  without  finances,  bankrupt  at  home, 
that  monarchy  still  lingers,  like  the  gamester, 
upon  the  delusive  hope  that  a  fortuitous  con-  • 
currence  of  circumstances  may  again  bring 
under  her  dominion  half  a  revolted  world. 

And  now  we  are  told  by  the  honorable  chair- 
man of  the  Committee  of  Foreign  Affaire,  (Mr. 
FOESYTH,)  that  he  is  unwilling  to  make  the  re- 
cognition, because  it  will  interfere  with  our 
dispute  with  Spam.  Surely  that  ought  not  to 
weigh  with  him  from  whom,  recollecting  his 
declaration  a  few  days  ago  on  this  floor,  it  is 
expected  some  strongineasure  will  be  proposed 
with  regard  to  Spain.  Is  it  a  declaration  of 
war  ?  then  why  should  he  oppose  this  recog- 
nition ?  Is  it  a  proposition  to  take  possession  of 
Florida  ?  Why  in  that  case  should  he  oppose 
it  ?  rather  ought  it  to  be  a  cogent  reason  for 
adopting  this  measure.  Yet,  inadequate  as 
Spam  is,  to  a  task  so  unequal  as  that  of  reduc- 


DEBATES  OF  CONGRESS. 


159 


MARCH,  1818.] 


Spanish  American  Provinces. 


[H.  OF  R. 


ing  a  Government  fully  organized  since  their 
revolution,  and  exercising  the  rights  of  sover- 
eignty for  years,  building  fleets,  raising  and 
equipping  armies,  and  marching  them  to  dis- 
tant provinces  to  finish  there  a  work  which 
themselves  had  consummated — notwithstanding 
these  strong  and  decided  proofs  of  independ- 
ence, exhibited  in  the  fullest  powers  of  govern- 
ment, unmolested  by  hostile  troops  within 
their  territory,  still  we  hear  of  Europe ;  as  if, 
to  measure  justice,  we  should  consult  the 
frowns  or  smiles  of  another  continent ! 

From  some  cause  or  other,  lively  apprehen- 
sions have  arisen  in  the  mind  of  the  honorable 
chairman  of  the  Committee  of  "Ways  and  Means, 
(Mr.  LOWITDES,)  that  an  acknowledgment  of  this 
kind  migh  involve  us  in  national  difficulties. 
Can  he,  of  all  others,  who  is  so  well  acquainted 
with  laws  of  nations,  hint  this  result  of  an  ac- 
knowledgment, admitted  by  ah1  the  writers  on 
that  law,  to  be  no  cause  of  war  ?  Whilst  I 
would,  with  the  most  scrupulous  care  and  ex- 
actness, avoid  what  might  endanger  the  tran- 
quillity of  my  country,  I  would  likewise  avoid 
whatever  might  give  a  pang  to  this  budding 
Republic ;  and  if  to  pursue  the  right,  and  ad- 
minister strict  impartiality  and  justice,  cannot 
secure  to  this  nation  her  amicable  relations  nn- 
disturbed,  it  would  be  madness  or  folly  in  the 
extreme,  to  believe  any  course  free  from  the 
dangerous  tempests  which  as  often  arise  from 
mistaken  policy  as  conflicting  interests.  I  am 
sorry  that  gentleman  (Mr.  LOWNDES)  has  insin- 
uate'd  that  the  proposed  measures  was  in  hos- 
tility to  the  Executive ;  it  is  to  be  lamented 
that  any  such  opinion  should  have  escaped  him ; 
from  his  usual  benevolence  it  was  not  expected, 
and  if  any  thing  has  been  contemplated  of  that 
kind,  he  might  have  spared  those  who  advocate 
the  measure  from  honest  convictions.  But 
against  any  such  motive  for  myself  I  utterly 
protest,  nor  do  I  believe  any  such  motive  to 
have  actuated  the  honorable  mover  of  the 
proposition.  I  have  been  impelled  by  the  con- 
victions of  my  own  mind,  and,  whilst  ever  I 
have  the  honor  of  a  seat '  in  this  House,  such 
only  will  govern  me. 

In  this  fear  of  giving  offence,  and  this  zeal  to 
convince  the  nations  of  Europe  of  the  rectitude 
of  our  intentions,  are  we  not  bound  to  take 
care  of  the  interests  of  America,  that  she  should 
not  complain  ?  As  she  has  already  been  con- 
sidered, and  that  too  by  high  authority,  as  en- 
gaged in  civil  war,  a  situation  in  which  all 
know,  that  in  justice  each  party  is  entitled  to 
equal  rights  and  respect ;  and,  as  seems  mani- 
fest, warring  to  maintain  an  independence 
which  she  has  already  wrested  from  the  iron 
grasp  of  oppression,  and  ought  to  be  regarded 
by  the  world  as  the  germ  of  general  emancipa- 
tion. Clear  as  these  facts  seem  to  be,  we  are 
told,  with  a  doubtful  inquiring  look,  as  if  listen- 
ing for  danger,  that  we  are  observed  by  Europe, 
and  that  we  should  not  excite  tbeir  jealousy  or 
distrust,  as  if  the  justice  of  nations  was  the 
result  of  fear ;  I  know,  too,  there  are  many  ex- 


cellent men  whose  feelings  are  enlisted  for  these 
brave  patriots,  struggling  against  a  power 
which  still  annoys  them,  who  pause  in  their 
decision  because  this  Hydra  Europe  is  constant- 
ly presented  to  their  view.  Sir,  it  will  be  a 
black  and  sorrowful  day  to  this  Republic,  when 
this  imaginary  course  of  Europe  is  to  be  held 
over  its  deliberation  like  a  lash  of  scorpions  to 
goad  it  on  to  any  thing,  or  stop  it  in  its  course. 
Can  that  alarm  the  nations  of  Europe  which  is 
bottomed  upon  the  law  of  nations,  since  they 
have  been  so  lately  engaged  in  apportioning 
that  plundered  continent  without  consulting 
our  jealousies  or  our  fears  ?  For  my  own  part 
I  cannot  imagine  such  fears — radically  inimical 
as  I  am  to  an  interest  which  of  late  had  nearly 
involved  us  in  ruinous  difficulties ;  I  have  too 
high  an  opinion  of  the  quick  sagacity  of  the 
British  cabinet,  not  to  believe  they  would  dis- 
cern their  own  unequivocal  interest  in  doing 
this  act  of  justice.  The  fears  of  Europe! 
What  can  the  petty  States  of  Italy  fear  from 
our  acknowledging  the  independence  of  the 
Republic  of  La  Plata  ?  These  wretched  Gov- 
ernments, enveloped  in  the  legitimate  fogs  of 
Europe,  are  unseen  in  the  scale  of  nations. 
What  can  Russia  fear?  Surely  none  can  be  so 
politically  bewildered,  as  to  believe  she  can 
fear  any  thing ;  she  has  her  views  neirer  home ; 
with  a  boundless  extent  of  territory,  compris- 
ing one-twenty-eighth  part  of  the  whole  surface 
of  this  huge  globe — a  population  so  vast  as.  to 
overturn,  like  a  resistless  torrent,  every  thing 
which  opposes  it ;  still  anxious  to  extend  her 
dominions  to  the  south,  and  acquire  territory 
on  the  Mediterranean  ;  she  will  before  long 
give  employment  to  her  neighbor  there,  and 
it  were  well  for  the  powers  of  Europe  to  look  to 
their  own  safety  in  time.  Could  England  view 
a  measure  of  this  kind  with  jealousy  or  suspi- 
cion, when  at  this  very  instant  efforts  are  mak- 
ing throughout  Europe,  not  loud,  but  deep 
and  dangerous,  to  exclude  from  their  markets 
every  species  of  her  manufactures?  Witness 
the  conduct  of  France,  Holland,  Sweden,  Rus- 
sia, and  other  powers,  as  it  regards  the  cotton 
manufactures.  Witness  the  large  private  asso- 
ciations in  these  countries,  binding  themselves 
by  the  solemn  obligation  of  an  oath,  to  use  their 
every  effort  to  exclude  from  their  country  the 
use  of  British  fabrics  of  every  description.  This, 
sir,  is  a  continental  system  more  terrible  to 
England,  or  soon  will  be,  than  all  the  colossal 
power  of  the  Great  Napoleon,  enforcing  the 
same  object.  Is  it  not  rather  her  true  interest 
to  support  this  infant  power,  even  with  arms, 
where  she  will  find  a  tenfold  market  for  her 
merchandise,  unrivalled,  and  increasing  perhaps 
for  one  hundred  years?  These  then  are  the 
only  powers  which  have  any  concern  in  these 
events.  The  rest  of  Europe  is  a  mere  mockery 
upon  the  independence  of  nations.  Germany 
and  Sweden,  with  her  Bernadotte,  any  thing 
Russia  pleases,  and  Prussia  almost  an  append- 
age— Holland  and  Portugal  at  the  disposal  of 
England;  and  Spam,  reposing  in  the  embroi- 


160 


ABRIDGMENT  OF  THE 


H.  OF  R.] 


Spanish  American  Provinces. 


[MARCH,  1818. 


dered  arms  of  the  adored  Ferdinand,  dissolving 
by  a  political  hectic,  unpitied  by  the  world ; 
and  France,  lately  the  gaze  of  admiring  millions, 
guided  by  the  overwhelming  genius  of  her  Em- 
peror, is  now  little  else  than  the  great  garrison 
of  Europe,  with  a  pageant  King  in  splendid 
misery  in  the  midst  of  it. 

But  Kussia,  true  to  her  own  interest,  has  not 
been  inattentive  to  the  great  events  which  have 
been  evolving  themselves  in  South  America ; 
her  attempt  to  acquire  territory  on  the  Gulf  of 
California,  and  even,  if  the  news  be  true,  upon 
our  very  borders,  is  a  proof  of  this ;  she  is  will- 
ing to  acquire  territory  by  every  change,  and 
every  event,  for  territory  has  been  the  heredi- 
tary mania  of  her  monarchs.  Unwilling  to  com- 
mence hostilities  at  all  tunes,  disappointment 
only  results  in  new  efforts  on  new  objects,  at 
distant  and  different  points,  which  must  even- 
tuate, if  permitted  by  the  powers  of  Europe 
silently  to  progress,  in  her  controlling  the  com- 
merce of  the  world.  England,  actuated  by  dif- 
ferent motives,  has  approved,  by  her  conduct, 
and  fostered  those  brilliant  successes,  by  which 
the  patriots  of  South  America  have  raised  to 
fame  a  column  of  glory  so  bright,  as  to  shed  a 
blaze  of  renown  over  half  the  world,  and  has 
embalmed  forever  the  name  of  her  heroes. 

What  haire  we  done?  The  honorable  chair- 
man of  the  Committee  of  Foreign  Affairs  (Mr. 
FOBSYTH)  tells  us  that  the  patriots  captured  a 
vessel  belonging  to  a  citizen  of  the  United 
States,  and  refused  others  employment  in  their 
service ;  that  the  only  sympathy  felt  is  felt  by 
us ;  that  the  sympathy  is  all  on  our  side.  Then, 
sir,  I  must  say  they  are  languid  indeed !  for  in- 
stead of  those  vivid  sympathies  which  should 
have  watered  with  our  tears  the  rosy  bed  of 
immortality,  on  which  sleep  many  of  the  heroic 
defenders  of  that  Eepublic,  we  passed  an  act, 
like  a  one-eyed  warder  upon  the  watchtower, 
who  sees  only  on  one  side,  and  calls  out  "  all  is 
well,"  whilst  danger  and  rum  nearly  approaches 
on  the  other.  Sir,  if  our  apprehensions  prevent 
us  from  doing  them  justice,  let  them  not  induce 
us  to  do  injustice ;  let  us  not  impede  their  high 
destinies  by  a  law  which  operates  unequally, 
since  that  wonderful  wisdom  which  willed  the 
destiny  of  empires,  hath  willed  it  so,  for  the 
happiness  of  America  and  the  safety  of  Europe ; 
else  if  Spain,  a  few  little  years  ago,  had  seen  on 
her  throne  a  monarch  such  as  he  who  now 
sways  the  ponderous  sceptre  of  Eussia — a  man 
whose  talents  and  sagacity  were  equal  to  the 
population,  the  wealth,  and  the  extent  of  her 
dominions — the  crash  of  falling  thrones  would 
have  resounded  throughout  Europe,  and  their 
legitimacy,  instead  of  a  protocol,  would  have 
been  thundered  from  her  cannon's  mouth.  If, 
Mr.  Chairman,  the  United  States  shall  turn  from 
this  question,  other  nations  will  not ;  England, 
more  generous  than  we,  will  do  them  justice, 
and  reap  the  fruits  of  their  grateful  benedic- 
tions. These  colonies,  for  a  long^  time  settled 
for  the  purposes  of  commerce,  had  no  political 
existence,  or  any  part  in  the  great  agitations  of 


the  world — too  distant  from  the  mother  country 
to  feel  any  thing  of  national  prejudices  or  pre- 
dilections, they  have  become  a  new  people, 
under  the  influence  of  a  different  climate,  where 
the  productions,  the  scenery,  the  physical  con- 
formation of  the  country,  and  even  the  very 
sky  and  the  stars  of  heaven  are  so  different,  that 
nothing  of  the  Spaniard  is  left  but  the  name, 
and  that  now  no  more. 

In  vain  has  the  fond  remembrance  of  their 
forefathers  endeavored  to  cherish  the  recollec- 
tions of  their  youth,  by  giving  to  the  hills,  the 
valleys,  the  rivers,  and  mountains,  of  their 
adopted  country,  the  names  of  the  places  of 
their  childhood.  These  names  no  longer  pro- 
duce a  forceful  feeling ;  the  heart  has  ceased  to 
vibrate  at  the  sound;  the  meaning  unknown  to 
the  present  generation.  Under  this  different 
climate,  new  habits,  new  wants  have  been 
generated,  national  remembrances  have  been 
obliterated ;  all  is  new,  all  is  changed. 

Heretofore  the  young  American,  accustomed 
to  hear  his  country  contemned  and  despised, 
had  no  incentive  to  action.  He  had  been  told 
that  in  America  all  was  degeneracy,  all  was 
savage,  barbarous  ignorance ;  and  grave  phi- 
losophers and  naturalists  have  written  books  to 
prove  the  fact.  Notwithstanding,  he  was  pro- 
hibited from  going  to  the  mother  country  to 
enlighten  his  mind  by  an  education,  and  by 
their  inexorable  laws  forbidden  to  go  even  from 
one  province  to  another.  Thus,  like  a  vegetable 
fastened  to  the  soil,  was  he  doomed  to  live,  to 
die,  and  disappear  forever,  not  even  leaving  a 
trace  of  his  ever  having  existed. 

Unable  to  govern  himself,  all  officers  of  the 
Government,  of  every  rank  and  condition,  have 
been  sent  to  him  from  Europe,  to  administer 
justice  to  him  hi  his  peaceable  repose ;  but,  sir, 
at  the  very  sight  of  those  officers  they  turned 
pale,  and  trembled  at  the  sound  of  Spanish 
justice. 

Thus  have  they  lingered  on,  a  listless  life  of 
acquiescence  and  patient  resignation,  for  three 
hundred  years,  until  this  bright  beam  of  liberty 
broke  through  the  dark  cloud  of  royalty,  which 
had  nearly  overshadowed  them  for  ever ;  but 
which,  I  trust,  will  light  them  to  peace  and  to 
happiness  as  it  has  to  independence. 

If  there  are  any  doubts  about  their  independ- 
ence, from  the  circumstance  of  a  part  of  Chili 
being  still  occupied  by  the  royal  forces,  and  a 
force  of  native  Americans  under  Artigas  opposed 
to  the  Republic,  as  stated  by  the  gentleman  from 
Georgia,  let  those  doubts  be  dissipated  when 
it  is  remembered,  that,  late  in  our  own  Revo- 
lutionary war,  when  the  chances  in  the  minds 
of  many  good  men  nearly  poised  between  inde- 
pendence and  subjugation,  the  celebrated  battle 
of  King's  Mountain  was  fought  between  Whigs 
and  Tories — a  battle  which  has  crowned  the 
names  of  Campbell  and  Shelby  with  immortal 
glory — a  battle  which  measurably  decided  the 
fate  of  this  Republic — nor  let  us  longer  doubt, 
when  we  reflect,  that,  by  nature,  every  man  in 
America  is  a  General  for  enterprises  like  these. 


DEBATES  OF  CONGRESS. 


161 


MARCH,  1818.] 


Spanish  American  Provinces. 


[H.  OF  R 


American  wiles  and  stratagems,  quick  advance, 
attack,  and  fight,  insure  success ;  the  slow  and 
expensive  formalities  of  European  warfare,  de- 
feat. 

These  unfortunate  people,  sunk  in  despotism, 
have  borne  the  contumely  of  all  nations  for 
their  Spanish  gravity,  jealousy,  and  suspicion ; 
but  had  even  this  been  examined  with  indul- 
gent kindness,  it  would  have  been  found  to  be 
the  mark  which  distinguished  the  slave  of  every 
country.  This  national  gloom  stamps  itself 
upon  the  face  of  every  Spaniard  as  soon  as  he 
is  capable,  from  his  own  reflections,  to  distin- 
guish that  the  tyranny  of  his  Government, 
haunted  continually  by  the  phantoms  of  the 
imagination,  has  environed  him  with  racks,  and 
tortures,  and  the  inquisition,  where  a  living 
death  of  sufferance  awaits  more  terrible  than 
all.  He  dare  not  speak — he  knows  not  but 
that  every  one  who  hears  him  is  a  spy  upon  his 
conduct — silence  is  his  only  retreat — his  liberty, 
his  property,  at  the  disposal  of  any  clandestine 
informer — his  life,  his  reputation,  his  honor, 
at  the  disposal  of  an  implacable  priest,  who 
knows  no  mercy  or  forgiveness.  Well  might 
they  exclaim,  with  a  rapturous  fervor,  Oh !  for 
a  revolution — it  were  celestial  happiness  com- 
pared with  this ! 

If,  in  the  commencement  of  this  conflict, 
many  bloody  and  revengeful  acts  have  been 
committed,  the  noble  spirits  who  direct  the 
revolution  cannot  be  implicated,  or  their  cause 
condemned,  nor  ought  it  in  justice  to  be  used 
as  an  argument  against  them.  The  horrors  of 
our  own  Revolution  afford  us  proof  of  this, 
where  the  father  and  the  son  have  been  armed 
against  each  other — where  cold-blooded  mur- 
ders have  been  perpetrated,  butcheries  and  in- 
discriminate massacres  of  men,  women,  and 
children,  because  they  were  Whigs,  or  because 
they  were  Tories.  These  things,  it  is  true, 
happened  only  in  certain  sections  of  the  coun- 
try, but  they  did  take  place ;  we  have  heard 
but  little  of  them ;  the  English  historians  seem 
disposed  to  cast  a  veil  over  them,  and  the 
American  at  this  time  is  not  disposed  to  tear  it 
aside ;  then,  in  such  a  state  of  things,  can  we 
wonder  if,  in  the  fury  of  contending  armies, 
these  generous  patriots  should  have  left  un- 
punished crimes,  which,  in  other  times,  their 
gentler  natures  would  have  wept  at  with  tears 
of  the  bitterest  sorrow  ?  These  things  should 
not  be  attributed  to  them,  but  to  their  true 
source.  Attribute  them  to  that  frenzied  power 
which  sees  nothing  but  the  bloody  dagger  be- 
fore it,  and  drives  the  most  unresisting  temper 
to  madness  and  despair.  The  South  Americans 
are  now  free,  and  long  may  the  blessings  of  a 
republic  attend  them  ;  for  I  am  happy  in  being 
one  of  those  who  believe  the  liberties  of  a  re- 
public can  be  enjoyed  by  a  Spaniard,  or  by  any 
body  ;  the  enjoyment  of  freedom  is  not  pecu- 
liar to  any  nation ;  all  will  admit  that  the 
Greeks  once  had  it;  the  Romans,  the  Dutch, 
and  many  others,  as  dissimilar  in  their  national 
character  as  the  English  and  the  French.  Con- 
Vou  VL— 11 


suit  the  annals  of  the  world,  and  I  believe  it 
will  be  found,  that,  wherever  men  are  capable 
of  making  an  effort  to  obtain  their  freedom, 
they  are  capable  of  enjoying  it.  Then  why  not 
have  the  benevolence  to  allow  these  brave  pa- 
triots at  least  a  capacity  for  freedom,  since  they 
have  given  so  strong  a  proof  of  it  us  to  establish 
their  Government  through  revolution  and  main- 
tain it  in  war? 

If,  Mr.  Chairman,  the  law  of  nations  is  to  be 
regarded  by  a  just  people ;  if  the  political  whirl- 
winds which,  for  some  time  back,  so  desolated 
the  civilized  world,  has  left  them  any  thing  but 
a  wreck,  or  the  hopeless  resort  of  the  weak  and 
the  impotent,  I  would  say,  that,  whenever  a 
contest  became  doubtful  between  contending 
powers,  without  any  regard  whatever  to  the 
manner,  cause,  or  origin  of  that  contest,  the 
world  at  large  has  a  right  to  consider  them 
equal,  and  even  decide  between  them,  if  neces- 
sary, and  is  bound  to  extend  to  the  one  all  the 
other  had  a  right  to  expect.  The  case  of 
James  II.,  King  of  England,  is  a  clear  illustra- 
tion of  this  position,  and  is  acknowledged  by 
all  the  writers  on  the  law  of  nations  as  correct ; 
and  if  a  case  more  strong  were  necessary,  as 
being  a  parallel  in  all  respects  to  the  present,  I 
would  cite  that  of  the  revolt  of  the  Low  Coun- 
tries against  Philip  II.,  King  of  Spain,  of  '*  exter- 
minating" memory,  already  spoken  of  by  others, 
but  with  different  impressions.  Their  independ- 
ence, they  declared,  was  acknowledged  by  Queen 
Elizabeth,  of  England,  the  wisdom,  moderation, 
and  justice  of  whose  government,  is  celebrated 
and  acknowledged  by  all,  even  at  this  distant  day, 
and  places  her  among  the  most  illustrious  mon- 
archs  of  the  world.  Philip  remonstrated ;  her 
answer  was — the  law  of  nations  gave  her  the 
right,  and  her  interest  prompted  her  to  ac- 
knowledge their  independence.  Philip  was 
content ;  nor  did  he  even  require  his  Ambas- 
sador to  leave  London.  And  is  not  England 
now  precisely  situated  as  she  was  then — the  same 
necessity,  nay,  stronger  inducements  of  interest? 
And  will  the  present  monarch,  instructed  by 
history,  be  less  wise? 

An  honorable  gentleman  from  Maryland  (Mr. 
SMITH)  has  told  us  that  the  trade  of  the  United 
States  would  receive  no  benefit  fronl  that  coun- 
try. He  has  told  us  that  the  article  of  wheat 
has  been  brought  from  Chili  round  to  Brazil,  or 
the  West  Indies,  and  sold  at  a  lower  rate  than 
it  could  be  taken  from  the  United  States.  I 
would  ask  what  the  price  of  wheat  has  to  do 
with  the  acknowledgment  of  the  independence 
of  those  Republics  ?  The  inquiry  has,  too,  been 
made  with  an  air  of  triumph,  what  the  United 
States  would  gain  by  an  acknowledgment  of 
this  kind?  I  will  not  retort  the  question  by 
asking  what  wo  could  possibly  lose  by  the  ac- 
knowledgment ;  but  I  would  ask,  if  it  is  a  thing 
they,  by  the  law  of  nations,  have  a  right  to 
give,  without  doing  injustice  to  Spain,  or  any 
power  whatever,  why  not  grant  the  request? 

But,,  sir,  I  contend  that  the  United  States 
would  gain,  and  gain  essentially,  too.  Certainty 


162 


ABRIDGMENT  OF  THE 


H.  OF  R.] 


Spanish  American  Provinces. 


[MARCH,  1818. 


nothing  could  be  more  desirable  to  this  nation, 
so  full  of  enterprise,  than  a  free  and  direct  trade 
to  those  countries,  the  most  luxuriant  and  ex- 
tensive in  the  world  ;  so  rich  in  every  thing  we 
want,  and  containing  such  inexhaustible  abun- 
dance of  the  precious  metals,  and  needing  many 
things  we  have  to  spare.  There  is  the  strongest 
probability  that  our  exports,  instead  of  sixty  or 
seventy  millions,  would  be  increased  very  many 
millions,  and  would  be  much  benefited,  were  it 
only  from  the  advantages  of  our  contiguous 
situation.  Nor  can  I  perceive  the  force  of  the 
remarks  of  the  honorable  member  from  South 
Carolina,  (Mr.  LOWNDES,)  luminous  as  he  is  on 
all  subjects,  when  he  tells  us  that  injury  will 
result  to  us,  as  our  trade  to  that  country,  when 
compared  with  the  trade  of  Great  Britain  to 
the  same  place,  is  according  to  the  little  book 
from  Philadelphia,  in  the  ratio  of  one  hundred 
thousand  to  seven  millions.  Surely,  if  we  can- 
not receive  all  or  most  of  the  benefit,  it  cannot 
be  a  reason  why  we  should  not  receive  some 
benefit. 

But  the  grand  object  and  advantage  would  be 
in  systematizing  a  policy  for  America ;  that  we 
might  be  disenthralled — that  we  might  not  feel 
the  effects  of  that  political  plexus  which  has  so 
entangled  the  nations  of  Europe,  by  producing 
those  intimate  connections  and  combinations  by 
which  the  movements  and  operations  of  one 
power  are  so  felt  by  all,  as  to  influence  their 
councils,  and  produce  corresponding  motions. 
"When  now  we  negotiate,  it  is  in  Europe  ;  when 
we  are  inconvenienced  here,  we  send  off  an 
Ambassador  there ;  they  are  governed  by  the 
principles  and  policy  of  continental  Europe,  and 
not  by  any  thing  here.  Do  difficulties  arise  in 
Canada,  they  are  adjusted  in  London.  Do  the 
same  difficulties  arise  in  Mexico,  the  province 
of  Texas,  or  in  Florida,  it  is  settled  in  Madrid. 
Thus  are  we  compelled  to  negotiate  all  our 
affairs  upon  the  basis  of  European  policy,  be- 
cause even  the  best  interests  of  the  colonists 
must  give  way  to  the  policy  of  the  mother 
country. 

But  when  the  independence  of  the  Sonth 
Americans  shall  be  acknowledged,  and  they  take 
their  stand  among  the  great  nations  of  the  earth, 
there  will  then  be  an  American  policy,  and  a 
European  policy,  which  may,  in  negotiation 
upon  just  and  honorable  principles,  be  fairly 
opposed  to  each  other.  Nor  does  it  militate 
against  this  position,  whether,  in  the  end,  these 
Governments  shall  be  imperial  or  royal,  instead 
of  republican,  which  they  now  are.  The  great 
interests  of  America  will  be  the  same  ;  and  if, 
unhappily,  difficulties  should  arise  exclusively 
on  this  side  the  ocean,  there  will  be  no  European 
convenience  to  consult,  delay,  or  obstruct  their 
adjustment  in  terms  of  complete  reciprocity. 


FBIDAY,  March  27. 
Spanish  American  Provinces. 
The  House  having  resolved  itself  into  a  Com- 
mittee of  the  Whole  on  the  general  appropria- 


tion bill — to  which  an  amendment  had  been 
moved  by  Mr.  CLAY  to  introduce  an  appropria- 
tion for  the  outfit  of  a  Minister  to  Buenos  Ayres — 

Mr.  A.  SMYTH,  of  Virginia,  said,  that  he  was 
opposed  to  the  proposition  under  consideration, 
and  should  contend,  in  the  first  place,  that  the 
measure  proposed  is  an  act  of  usurpation,  an  in- 
vasion of  the  Executive  authority.  Secondly, 
he  would  contend,  that  the  conduct  of  the  Exec- 
utive branch  of  the  Government,  as  respected 
Spain  and  her  American  provinces,  has  been 
perfectly  impartial  and  honorable,  and  such  as 
was  required  by  the  interest  and  honor  of  the 
United  States;  that,  therefore,  no  interference 
on  our  part  was  necessary.  And,  thirdly,  he 
would  contend  that  the  measure  proposed  was 
pregnant  with  evil,  and  may  jeopardize  the 
safety  of  the  United  States. 

The  constitution,  said  Mr.  S.,  grants  to  the 
President,  by  and  with  the  consent  of  the  Sen- 
ate, power  to  appoint  Ambassadors  and  public 
Ministers,  and  to  make  treaties.  According  to 


who  receives  all  foreign  Ministers,  and  deter- 
mines what  foreign  Ministers  shall  or  shall  not 
be  received.  It  is  by  the  exercise  of  some  one 
of  these  powers,  in  neither  of  which  has  this 
House  any  participation,  that  a  foreign  power 
must  be  acknowledged.  Then  the  acknowledg- 
ment of  the  independence  of  a  new  power  is  an 
exercise  of  Executive  authority ;  consequently, 
for  Congress  to  direct  the  Executive  how  he 
shall  exercise  this  power,  is  an  act  of  usurpa- 
tion. 

To  give  such  direction  must  be  an  act  of  usur- 
pation, if  it  shall  have  any  effect.  Should  the 
direction  be  given,  by  adopting  the  proposition 
under  consideration,  and  have  effect,  then  the 
President  will  send  a  Minister  to  Buenos  Ayres, 
not  according  to  his  own  opinion,  but  according 
to  the  opinion  of  Congress.  Then  the  Presi- 
dent will  perform  his  proper  constitutional  duties 
as  Congress  shall  be  pleased  to  direct.  Will  not 
this  be  changing  the  constitution,  by  usurpa- 
tion? It  is  for  the  Executive  branch  of  the 
Government  to  decide  to  whom,  and  when,  a 
public  Minister  shall  be  sent.  Congress  under- 
take to  decide  when  and  to  whom  a  public 
Minister  shall  be  sent;  is  not  this  usurpation? 

You  possess  the  power  of  impeachment,  and, 
consequently,  may  discuss,  and,  by  resolution, 
express,  an  opinion  on  any  past  act,  either  of 
the  Executive  or  of  the  Judiciary ;  but  you  have 
no  right  to  give  a  direction  to  either. 

The  President  is  responsible  for  the  proper 
execution  of  his  constitutional  powers ;  he  may 
be  punished  for  abusing  them,  or  for  neglect  of 
his  duty.  This  House  is  the  proper  body  to 
prosecute  him,  if  he  shall  fail  to  do  his  duty. 
We  are  not,  in  like  manner,  responsible  and 
punishable.  If  we  direct  the  President  to  do 
an  act,  however  injurious  to  the  nation  it  may 
prove,  we  cannot  make  him  responsible.  Is  it 
proper  thus  to  deprive  the  people  of  the  security 
which  they  have  reserved  to  themselves,  in  the 
President's  constitutional  responsibility  ? 


DEBATES  OF  CONGRESS. 


163 


MARCH,  1818.] 


Spanish  American  Provinces. 


[H.  OF  R. 


The  President  is  re-eligible  at  the  end  of  four 
years;  it  is,  therefore,  fair  that  he  should  be 
left  free  to  execute  his  constitutional  powers ; 
that  the  people  may  be  enabled  to  judge  the 
manner  in  which  he  has  executed  them.  If 
you  undertake  to  direct  the  President  in  the 
performance  of  his  duties,  you  deprive  him  of 
the  merit  of  those  acts  which  the  people  might 
approve.  Let  it  be  supposed  that  the  President 
intends  to  do  the  act  which  it  is  proposed  that 
•we  shall  direct  him  to  do,  and  that  the  act  is 
one  which  deserves,  and  -will  receive,  the  ap- 
probation of  the  people.  If  you  shall  direct 
him  to  do  the  act,  his  performance  of  it  will  be 
ascribed  to  your  direction,  and  all  the  credit 
due  to  the  act  will  be  given  to  you,  and  with- 
held from  the  President.  On  the  contrary, 
should  the  President  disapprove  of  the  proposed 
measure,  resist  the  usurpation,  and  maintain 
his  constitutional  rights,  the  consequence  must 
be,  that  either  the  President  or  Congress  must 
sink  in  the  estimation  of  the  people. 

By  adopting  the  proposition  under  considera- 
tion, you  will  pronounce  to  the  world,  that  the 
President  will  not  voluntarily  do  his  duty  ;  and 
that  it  has  become  necessary  that  you,  by 
directing,  should  compel  him.  You  certainly 
intend  that  your  direction  shall  have  effect,  and 
it  can  have  no  effect,  unless  it  compels  the 
President  to  do  an  act  which  otherwise  he  would 
not  have  done.  You  do  not  intend  merely  to 
place  Congress  in  collision  with  the  President ; 
to  raise  an  opposition  to  him,  in  case  he  shall  have 
firmness  enough  to  maintain  his  constitutional 
rights,  and  to  act  according  to  his  own  views  of 
the  interests  of  the  United  States. 

The  people  have,  by  the  constitution,  distrib- 
uted distinct  powers  to  the  several  departments 
of  the  Government :  the  Executive  power  they 
have  confided  to  the  President,  either  alone,  or 
by  and  with  the  advice  and  consent  of  the  Sen- 
ate; they  have  adopted  a  particular  mode  of 
electing  the  President,  intended  to  secure  to 
the  office  of  Chief  Magistrate  the  greatest  wis- 
dom, knowledge,  patriotism,  and  integrity. 
They  have  .1  right  to  the  free  and  voluntary 
services  of  the  citizen  whom  they  have  selected, 
as  possessing  those  qualities,  to  fill  the  Presi- 
dential Chair ;  a  right  to  all  the  advantages  to 
be  derived  from  his  talents  and  his  information. 
And  at  no  time  has  the  Executive  department 
of  this  Government  more  deserved  the  public 
confidence  than  at  present.  At  no  moment 
since  the  formation  of  the  constitution,  did  the 
Cabinet  possess,  in  so  great  a  degree,  the  quali- 
ties which  a  Cabinet  ought  to  possess,  viz: 
talents,  knowledge,  political  information,  and 
harmony. 

Yet,  at  the  very  moment  when  the  President 
has  his  agents  in  those  countries,  which  claim 
to  be  admitted  to  the  rank  of  nations,  for  the 
purpose  of  ascertaining  their  true  situation,  and 
to  discover  what  order  of  things  will  probably 
be  ultimately  established,  it  is  proposed  that  you 
shall  prematurely  interfere,  and  that,  before  the 
desirable  information  has  been  obtained  in  sucl 


a  mode  as  may  be  relied  on,  you  shall,  on  such 
information  as  the  Speaker  (Mr.  CLAY)  has 
gleaned  from  newspapers  and  pamphlets,  direct 
the  President  to  send  a  Minister  to  Buenos 
Ayres.  Should  your  interference  be  at  any 
;ime  expedient,  certainly  this  is  the  most  im- 
proper time  to  interfere.  The  want  of  informa- 
tion on  this  subject  has  been  fully  shown  by 
this  discussion.  No  one  will  pretend  that  the 
members  of  this  House  generally  are  "well  in- 
formed concerning  the  actual  and  political  state 
of  the  Spanish  provinces,  and  the  contradictory 
nature  of  the  information  given  to  the  com- 
mittee, by  those  members  who  have  taken  pains 
to  procure  information,  proves  that  we  have 
none  that  is  worthy  of  being  relied  on. 

It  is  by  the  President  only  that  the  United 
States  communicate,  negotiate,  and  treat,  with 
foreign  nations.  To  them,  as  has  been  properly 
observed  by  the  gentleman  from. South  Caroli- 
na, (Mr.  LOWNDES,)  we  should  present  a  single 
front.  The  measure  proposed  seems,  in  itself, 
of  little  importance ;  but  it  will  be  understood 
by  the  speeches  of  the  honorable  mover,  and 
others  by  whom  it  is  supported.  Thus  under- 
stood, the  proposition  goes  to  degrade  your 
President  in  the  eyes  of  foreign  nations.  If 
Congress  shall  assume  power  to  direct  the  Pres- 
ident, this  House  becomes  the  efficient  Execu- 
tive. "Who  would  be  President  on  such  condi- 
tions? 

I  proceed  to  show  that  the  conduct  of  the 
Executive,  as  relates  to  Spain  and  the  provinces, 
has  been  impartial,  honorable,  and  such  as  com- 
ported with  the  true  interest  of  the  United 
States. 

The  honorable  Speaker  has  been  pleased  to 
say,  that  the  conduct  of  the  Executive  towards 
Spain  and  the  provinces  was  calculated  to  irri- 
tate both  parties,  and  conciliate  neither.  This 
brings  to  our  recollection  what  he  said  on  a  for- 
mer occasion — that  the  acts  of  the  Executive 
had  been  all  on  one  side,  and  bearing  entirely 
against  the  colonists.  This  charge,  which  has 
never  been  answered,  was  made  by  a  gentle- 
man whose  assertion  will  be  respected  as  au- 
thority throughout  Europe,  as  well  as  through- 
out this  country,  by  those  who  do  not  examine 
for  themselves. 

If  we  examine  those  acts  of  the  Executive 
which  have  any  bearing  on  the  contest  between 
Spain  and  the  colonies,  it  will  be  found,  that  the 
greater  number  was  favorable  to  the  patriots ; 
and  those  were  the  result  of  the  free  will  and 
discretion  of  the  Executive,  while  the  acts  com- 
plained of,  which  have  had  a  bearing  against 
the  patriots,  were  performed  by  the  Executive 
in  obedience  to  the  laws,  and  were  not  the  re- 
sult of  the  exercise  of  discretion. 

The  acts  of  the  Executive  of  the  United  States 
favorable  to  the  Spanish  provinces,  I  will  notice 
in  the  order  of  time. 

In  Mr.  Madison's  Message  of  November,  1811, 
we  find  this  passage:  "An  enlarged  philan- 
thropy, and  an  enlightened  forecast,  concur  in 
imposing  on  the  National  Councils  an  obligation 


164 


ABRIDGMENT  OF  THE 


H.  OF  R.] 


Spanish  American  Provinces. 


[MARCH,    1818. 


to  take  a  deep  interest  in  their  destinies;  to 
cherish  reciprocal  sentiments  of  good  will ;  to 
regard  the  progress  of  events ;  and  not  to  be 
unprepared  for  whatever  order  of  things  may 
be  ultimately  established."  Here  is  a  voluntary 
act,  favorable  to  the  cause  of  the  provinces ; 
and  this  recommendation  was  followed  by  an 
act  of  Congress  giving  a  considerable  sum  to 
the  people  of  Venezuela. 

The  next  act  favorable  to  the  provinces,  was 
the  issuing  by  Mr.  Madison  to  the  collector  of 
the  customs  instructions  to  admit  the  flag  of 
the  provinces;  by  which  their  ships  became 
entitled,  in  the  ports  of  the  United  States,  to 
every  privilege  granted  to  the  ships  of  other 
foreign  powers.  The  President  was  at  liberty 
to  have  considered  the  patriots  as  rebels  against 
their  Sovereign,  and  to  exclude  their  flag  from 
our  ports ;  or  to  consider  them  as  a  party  in  a 
civil  war,  and  as  such  to  admit  their  flag  into 
our  ports  ;  he  decided  favorably  to  the  patriots, 
and  admitted  their  flag. 

The  next  act  of  the  Executive,  favorable  to 
the  Spanish  provinces,  was  the  declaration  by 
the  present  Chief  Magistrate,  that  those  prov- 
inces are  parties  to  a  civil  war,  in  which  their 
rights,  as  relates  to  neutrals,  are  equal  to  the 
rights  of  Spain  ;  the  President  thus  looking  on 
the  independence  of  the  provinces  as  actually 
existing. 

The  next  Executive  act  which  has  a  bearing 
favorable  to  the  provinces,  was  the  construc- 
tion given  by  the  President  to  the  law  of  March, 
1817",  respecting  the  neutral  duties  of  the  United 
States.  That  act,  in  consequence  of  the  omis- 
sion of  the  words  "  district,  colony,  or  people," 
in  one  of  its  sections,  perhaps  admitted  of  a  con- 
struction that  would  have  denied  to  the  patriots 
equal  rights  with  the  subjects  of  Spain  in  the 
ports  of  the  United  States.  We  have  employed 
some  time  on  a  bill  intended  to  remedy  the  de- 
fect ;  but  the  construction  given  by  the  Presi- 
dent to  the  act  of  March,  1817,  had  rendered  its 
operation  perfectly  equal  as  related  to  Spain  and 
the  provinces,  so  far  as  the  Executive  authority 
is  concerned.  In  a  letter  written  by  the  Secre- 
tary of  the  Treasury,  which  may  be  considered 
as  official,  is  this  paragraph :  "  Having  declared 
that  the  flags  of  Spain  and  of  independent  Gov- 
ernments established  in  Spanish  America  should 
be  treated  in  the  same  manner  in  the  ports  of 
the  United  States;  the  Executive  authority 
would  not  hesitate  to  consider  the  flag  of  Ven- 
ezuela that  of  a  foreign  State,  within  the  mean- 
ing of  the  fourth  section  of  the  act." 

The  last  act  that  I  shall  mention,  manifestly 
favorable  to  the  provinces,  is  the  act  of  sending 
commissioners  to  ascertain  what  is  their  situa- 
tion; to  prevent  misunderstandings;  to  correct 
errors ;  perhaps  to  redress  past  grievances,  and 
prevent  tiueir  recurrence  in  future. 

These  various  acts  of  the  Executive,  having  a 
bearing  favorable  to  the  patriots,  and  all  of 
them  resulting  from  the  discretion  of  the  Ex- 
ecutive, were  overlooked  by  the  Speaker,  when 
he  said  that  the  acts  of  the  Executive  were  all 


on  one  side,  and  bearing  entirely  against  the 
colonists. 

Let  us  now  examine  those  acts  of  the  Execu- 
tive of  which  the  Speaker  complains  as  having 
so  unfavorable  a  bearing  against  the  patriots. 
These  are,  the  proclamation  of  Mr.  Madison, 
issued  for  the  purpose  of  dispersing  the  armed 
force  collected  under  Toledo,  in  violation  of  the 
law  of  the  United  States ;  and  the  suppression 
by  the  President  of  the  establishment  at  Amelia 
Island,  made  by  McGregor,  with  a  force  unlaw- 
fully prepared  within  the  United  States,  and 
maintained  by  Aury,  who  pretended  to  act  un- 
der the  authority  of  Mexico,  New  Grenada,  and 
Venezuela. 

As  to  the  proclamation  which  was  issued  for 
dispersing  the  armed  force  collected  under  To- 
ledo, it  will  be  remembered  that  President  Mad- 
ison was  sworn  faithfully  to  execute  his  office, 
the  chief  duty  of  which  is  to  take  care  that  the 
laws  be  faithfully  executed.  An  act  provides 
that  when  the  execution  of  the  laws  of  the  Unit- 
ed States  is  opposed  or  obstructed  by  combina- 
tions too  powerful  to  be  suppressed  by  the  or- 
dinary course  of  judicial  proceedings,  the  Pres- 
ident may  call  forth  the  militia ;  but  he  shall 
by  proclamation  command  those  who  thus  op- 
pose or  obstruct  the  laws,  to  retire  peaceably  to 
their  respective  abodes,  within  a  limited  time. 
The  force  collected  by  Toledo  came  within  the 
meaning  of  the  law ;  and  Mr.  Madison  had  no 
discretion  to  exercise.  The  law  pointed  out  his 
duty,  and  he  performed  it. 

The  suppression  of  the  establishment  made 
by  McGregor,  and  continued  by  Aury  at  Amelia 
Island,  was  required  by  the  interests  and  the 
honor  of  the  United  States.  The  world  knew 
that  the  Executive  was  authorized  to  take  East 
Florida  against  any  foreign  power.  Those  who 
follow  the  profession  of  arms,  must  either  be 
robbers  or  pirates,  or  they  must  have  some 
power.  The  friends  of  Aury  will  not  admit 
that  he  was  a  pirate;  then  they  must  contend 
that  he  served  a  foreign  power.  Let  us  admit 
that  Aury  served  the  Republic  of  Venezuela,  a 
power  whose  flag  is  admitted  into  the  ports  of 
the  United  States,  under  the  laws  respecting 
the  vessels  of  foreign  powers.  If  Venezuela 
had  been  formally  acknowledged  as  an  independ- 
ent State,  the  act  of  1811  authorizes  the  Pres- 
ident to  occupy  Florida  against  the  attempt  of 
Venezuela  to  take  possession  of  it;  and  the 
want  of  such  formal  acknowledgment  cannot 
diminish  the  rights  of  the  United  States.  It 
being  the  duty  of  the  President  to  execute  the 
laws,  and  the  case  contemplated  by  the  act  of 
1811  having  happened,  a  foreign  power  having 
attempted  to  take  possession  of  Florida,  and 
having  in  execution  of  that  attempt  made  an 
establishment  at  Amelia  Island,  the  President 
was  bound  to  suppress  the  establishment  main- 
tained there  by  Aury. 

Had  no  such  law  existed,  the  conduct  of  the 
President  would  have  been  worthy  of  approba- 
tion. A  nation  has  a  right  to  protect  itself 
from  the  evils  of  bad  neighborhoods.  Upon 


DEBATES  OP  CONGRESS. 


165 


MARCH,  1818.] 


Spanish  American  Provinces. 


[H.  OF  R. 


this  principle  it  was  that  the  act  for  taking  pos- 
session of  East  Florida  was  passed.  So  when 
Louisiana  was  transferred  from  Spain  to  France, 
our  Minister  at  Paris  most  seriously  remon- 
strated against  the  occupation  of  that  country 
by  the  forces  of  Napoleon ;  and  many  of  our 
distinguished  politicians  urged  the  expediency 
of  taking  Louisiana  by  war,  rather  tban  admit 
a  dangerous  neighbor  to  come  there.  Perhaps 
Louisiana  might  have  been  obtained  by  war,  at 
an  expense  of  one  hundred  and  fifty  millions ; 
but  the  wisdom  and  moderation  of  Mr.  Jefferson 
obtained  it  by  purchase  for  the  tenth  part  of  the 
sum.  It  was  to  preserve  herself  from  the  evils 
of  bad  neighborhood  that  Prussia  involved  her- 
self in  war,  first  with  Great  Britain  and  after- 
wards with  France,  rather  than  have  French 
troops  in  possession  of  Hanover.  Is  there  any 
nation  more  interested  in  avoiding  neighbors 
of  a  certain  description  than  the  United  States  ? 
Would  it  be  safe  to  allow  Florida  to  be  revolu- 
tionized by  black  troops  ?  We  have  said,  and 
I  presume  will  continue  to  say,  that  no  power 
except  Spain  shall  come  there. 

I  have  shown  that  the  conduct  of  the  Execu- 
tive, as  respects  Spain  and  her  American  pos- 
sessions, has  been  impartial.  The  honorable 
member  did  not  indeed  say  that  it  was  partial ; 
but  he  could  not  be  understood  as  meaning 
any  thing  else,  when  the  acts  of  the  Executive 
were  all  on  one  side,  bearing  entirely  against 
the  colonists.  I  will  now  proceed  to  show  that 
the  conduct  of  the  Executive,  as  respects  those 
parties,  has  been  most  honorable. 

I  have  said,  sir,  that  the  measure  proposed  is 
pregnant  with  evil,  and  may  jeopardize  the 
safety  of  the  United  States.  I  hope  and  trust 
that  we  are  able  to  resist  any  combination  that 
may  be  formed  against  us,  even  at  this  time. 
I  am  confidently  certain,  that  in  twenty  years 
we  shall  be  able  to  set  at  defiance  the  power 
of  the  world:  and  in  a  century  we  shall  be 
able  to  give  it  laws.  I  therefore,  deem  it  most 
important,  that  we  should  let  the  present  mo- 
ment of  peril  pass  away ;  that  we  should  gain 
time,  and  go  on  to  improve  our  resources  by 
the  acts  of  peace. 

If  any  event  can  jeopardize  our  safety,  it  is  a 
war  with  the  combined  powers  of  Europe  at 
this  time.  Sir,  if  a  hundred  measures  were  de- 
vised for  the  purpose  of  destroying  our  national 
existence,  and  this  was  among  them,  it  would 
be  the  very  measure  that  I  should  deem  most 
likely  to  succeed.  If  there  is  a  measure,  the 
adoption  of  which  can  produce  such  an  event, 
it  is  one  which  shall  amount  to  a  declaration 
that  we  are  the  patrons  of  revolutions ;  one,  by 
which  we  shall  proclaim,  that,  wherever  a  prov- 
ince shall  make  insurrection  against  the  au- 
thority of  the  parent  country,  we  will  consider 
it  our  business  and  duty  to  take  the  new  people 
by  the  hand  and  introduce  them  into  the  family 
of  nations. 

Sir,  the  coalition  still  hangs  together.  And 
what  is  their  common  bond  of  union  ?  It  is  the 
cause  of  legitimacy— the  cause  of  hereditary 


thrones.  The  combined  powers  have  proven, 
that  they  do  not  mean  to  confine  their  views  to 
Europe,  by  interfering  in  the  controversy  be- 
tween the  Courts  of  Spain  and  Brazil.  Is  it 
not  the  object  of  their  holy  leagues  to  bring 
back  mankind  to  the  state  of  mental  darkness 
in  which  they  were  for  ages  subsequent  to  the 
reign  of  Constantino?  Has  not  Great  Britain 
signified  to  you,  that  the  Mississippi  ought  to 
be  your  boundary  ?  Has  not  France  done  the 
same  ?  Has  not  Spain  claimed  that  boundary  ? 
Do  not  these  circumstances  indicate  concert  be- 
tween those  powers?  Shall  we  then,  at  such  a 
time,  do  an  act  utterly  useless  to  us,  equally 
useless  to  Buenos  Ayres,  (for  the  Speaker  ad- 
mits, that  there  can  be  no  concert  between  us, 
and  that  we  have  not  the  means  to  aid  her ;)  an 
act,  the  effect  of  which  will  be  to  bring  Con- 
gress and  the  President  into  collision ;  which 
act  may  by  any  possibility,  however  remote, 
involve  us  in  a  contest  with  the  combined 
European  powers? 

Mr.  TUCKER,  of  Virginia,  said,  that  at  this 
late  period  of  the  discussion,  he  could  only 
claim  the  indulgence  of  the  committee  upon  a 
principle,  which  never  failed  to  secure  to  those 
who  asked  it  their  patient  attention.  He  found 
that  upon  this  occasion,  he  should  be  in  a  small 
minority  of  the  delegation  from  his  own  State, 
and  was,  therefore,  peculiarly  solicitous  of  ex- 
plaining the  reasons  of  his  differing  from  his 
honorable  colleagues,  for  whose  opinions  he 
felt  the  greatest  respect  and  deference.  There 
was,  indeed,  another  reason  of  no  tless  impor- 
tance. This  proposition  had  been  supported 
upon  a  variety  of  principles,  and  by  various  ar- 
guments :  nor  would  gentlemen  be  surprised  to 
learn  that  his  own  views  of  a  subject,  which 
had  so  many  aspects,  had  not  been  exactly  pre- 
sented, when  they  recur  to  the  fact,  that 
scarcely  any  two  persons,  who  had  spoken  on 
this  occasion,  had  entirely  coincided.  The 
honorable  Speaker  had  declared  himself  for 
this  proposition,  but  was  opposed  to  war  or  the 
occupation  of  Florida.  The  gentleman  from 
Georgia  is  against  this  proposition,  but  is  in 
favor  of  the  occupation  of  Florida.  My  friend 
from  Louisiana  is  in  favor  of  both ;  and  my 
friend  from  South  Carolina  (Mr.  LOWXDES)  is  in 
favor  of  neither.  Among  these  various  opin- 
ions, I  am  inclined  to  the  adoption  of  this  pro- 
position, though  I  coincide  otherwise  entirely 
in  the  pacific  policy  of  the  chairman  of  the 
Committee  of  Ways  and  Means;  an  opinion 
which  I  shall  probably  endeavor  to  support 
upon  grounds  considerably  different  from  those 
which  have  been  advanced  by  the  Speaker. 

Sir,  I  have  said,  on  a  former  occasion,  that  I 
am  opposed  to  involving  the  nation  in  war,  un- 
less a  great  and  important  occasion  shall  re- 
quire it.  I  have  said,  that  I  am  unwilling  to 
entangle  ourselves  in  the  contest  now  raging 
between  Spain  and  the  provinces  of  South 
America,  but,  that  I  would  maintain  an  honor- 
able, impartial,  and  dignified  neutrality.  I  am 
opposed  to  war,  because  I  see  no  adequate  ad- 


166 


ABRIDGMENT  OF  THE 


H.  OF  R.] 


Spanish  American  Provinces. 


[MARCH,  1818. 


vantages  to  be  derived  from  it ;  because  the  oc- 
casion does  not  seem  to  justify  so  important 
and  momentous  a  measure ;  because  the  amount 
of  the  losses  for  which  we  seek  indemnity,  and 
of  the  property  we  wish  to  get  possession  of, 
bears  no  comparison  with  the  hazards  which 
we  must  encounter,  whenever  we  engage  in 
war;  and,  because  I  conceive  a  state  of  war  al- 
ways replete  with  danger  to  the  principles  of 
our  constitution.  It  has  long  been  my  settled 
and  deliberate  opinion,  that  nothing  is  so  apt  to 
sap  the  foundation  of  our  liberties  as  frequent 
wars.  Every  laurel  that  we  gain  is  at  the  haz- 
ard of  some  principle  of  free  government ;  every 
field  that  we  win  endangers  some  part  of  our 
constitution.  The  urgency  must,  therefore,  be 
pressing,  the  necessity  imperious,  which  drives 
us  to  war ;  and,  were  I  less  convinced  than  the 
gentleman  from  South  Carolina,  of  the  unprofit- 
able results  of  a  Spanish  war  in  other  respects, 
the  consideration  I  have  mentioned  would  suf- 
fice to  dissuade  me  from  giving  my  voice  for 
waging  it  in  the  present  state  of  things. 

But,  sir,  while  opposed  to  war ;  while  averse 
to  every  measure  which  will  probably  lead  to  it, 
and  which  the  honor  and  interest  of  the  nation 
does  not  require,  I  have  said  tiiat  I  would  pre- 
serve a  strict,  impartial,  and  dignified  neutrality ; 
and  I  do  most  sincerely  believe,  that,  in  the  pur- 
suit of  this  end,  the  measure  under  considera- 
tion ought  to  be  adopted. 

I  cannot  but  regret,  Mr.  Chairman,  the  man- 
ner in  which  this  proposition  has  been  discussed, 
and  the  remarks  that  have  been  introduced  by 
its  opposers.  I  allude  to  the  harsh  expressions 
that  have  been  used  in  speaking  of  these  un- 
happy people,  who  have  long  been  struggling 
to  throw  off  the  most  galling  yoke,  the  most 
hateful  slavery  that  has  ever  yet  tortured  and 
degraded  man.  The  honorable  gentleman  from 
Georgia  tells  ns,  that  he  sympathizes  in  their 
cause,  and  earnestly  wishes  for  their  success. 
I  doubt  not  his  sincerity.  Yet  I  would  appeal 
to  every  member  of  the  committee,  whether 
the  harsh  colors  in  which  he  has  represented" 
them,  and  the  dark  picture  he  has  drawn  of 
their  ignorance  and  depravity,  is  calculated  to 
transfuse  into  other  bosoms  the  sympathy  of 
his  own.  I  will  appeal  to  himself  whether  his 
glowing  language  is  likely  to  win  us  to  their 
cause,  and  to  disseminate,  through  the  nation, 
an  interest  in  their  prosperity,  when  he  repre- 
sented them  as  having  lit  the  torch  of  revolu- 
tion, without  possessing  a  sentiment  of  liberty ; 
with  conducting  it  by  massacres  and  enormities, 
which  render  them  unworthy  of  freedom ;  and 
with  terminating  it  in  a  tyranny,  not  inferior  to 
that  which  they  have  overthrown.  According 
to  this  view  of  the  subject,  their  Revolution  has 
commenced  in  ignorance;  its  course  has  been 
stained  by  murder ;  its  end  has  been  the  sub- 
jugation of  the  people;  and  we  should  feel  not 
one  emotion  of  pity  for  their  sufferings,  or  of 
solicitude  for  their  welfare.  Sir,  I  am  aware 
that  this  course  of  remark  was,  in  some  meas- 
ure, drawn  from  the  gentleman  by  the  observa- 


tions of  the  Speaker.  But,  while  he  protests 
against  the  comparison  of  the  patriots  with  the 
heroes  of  our  Revolution,  he  might  have  spared 
them,  at  least,  the  contrast  which  he  has  so 
vividly  drawn.  He  tells  us  that  they  hugged 
their  chains,  and  loved  the  tyranny ;  and  that 
the  origin  of  their  Revolution  had  no  founda- 
tion in  the  principles  of  freedom.  He  does  not 
attend  sufficiently,  I  think,  to  the  nature  of  rev- 
olution, or  sufficiently  consider  the  situation  of 
this  people.  "What  would  be  said  of  that  man, 
who,  turning  over  the  pages  of  our  history, 
should  charge  the  sages  and  patriots  of  our 
Revolution  with  hugging  their  chains  and  lov- 
ing their  tyranny,  because  of  the  repeated  and 
loyal  remonstrances  and  memorials  presented 
to  the  Crown  ?  What  should  we  think  of  the 
statesman,  who,  looking  only  to  the  surface  of 
things,  should  attribute  our  glorious  struggle  to 
a  mean  and  mercenary  spirit,  which  revolted 
only  at  a  twelvepenny  stamp,  or  a  trivial  duty 
on  a  pound  of  tea?  Sir,  those  who  sat  at  the 
helm  were  men  of  profound  wisdom  and  politi- 
cal sagacity ;  deeply  versed  in  the  knowledge 
of  their  rights  as  freemen,  and  intimately  ac- 
quainted with  the  principles  of  human  action ; 
and,  in  conducting  us  over  the  tempestuous 
ocean  of  revolution,  they  looked  with  a  steady 
eye  to  the  liberties  of  their  country,  while  they 
availed  themselves  of  all  these  popular  breezes, 
to  waft  the  vessel  of  state  into  the  haven  of 
freedom  and  independence.  Such  may  be  the 
case  with  the  Revolution  of  the  Spanish  prov- 
inces. We  are  too  imperfectly  acquainted  with 
the  facts  which  led  to  their  convulsion  to  pro- 
nounce them  destitute  of  the  noble  principles  of 
liberty. 

Nor  are  sufficient  allowances  made  for  the 
situation  of  these  unhappy  people  for  many  cen- 
turies. Two  or  three  hundred  years  have  they 
been  groaning  under  a  tyranny  the  most  op- 
pressive that  has  ever  overwhelmed  a  wretched 
people.  Nothing  parallel  to  the  misery  and 
slavery  of  Spanish  America  can  be  found  in  the 
annals  of  the  inhabitable  globe.  It  has  been 
governed  with  an  iron  rod,  by  monarchs  who 
have  been  most  distinguished  always  by  what- 
ever is  most  horrible  in  tyranny,  most  detesta- 
ble in  bigotry,  and  most  contemptible  in  imbe- 
cility. They  have  been  involved,  for  centuries, 
in  the  deepest  gloom  of  ignorance  and  super- 
stition, into  which  it  is  the  interest  of  tyrants 
forever  to  plunge  the  victims  of  their  power. 
And  when,  at  length,  a  beam  of  liberty  has 
pierced  the  cloud  which  has  so  long  benighted 
them,  shall  we  be  surprised  that  it  has  not,  in  a 
moment,  dispelled  the  darkness,  and  spread 
abroad,  throughout  their  land,  the  splendor  of 
the  meridian  sun  ?  Let  us  rather  rejoice  that 
light  hath  broken  in  upon  them,  and  look  with 
confidence  to  yet  brighter  moments.  Let  us 
remember  that  the  throes  of  revolution  are 
most  violent  where  the  mind  has  been  least  en- 
lightened, nor  wonder  that,  in  the  struggle  to 
throw  off  the  Spanish  yoke,  greater  outrages 
should  be  committed  than  in  our  own  Revolu- 


DEBATES  OF  CONGRESS. 


167 


MARCH,  1818.] 


Spanish,  American  Provinces. 


[H.  OF  R. 


tion.  We  are  told  of  the  massacres  of  their 
enemies,  and  the  enormities  of  their  Revolution. 
Unfortunately  these  are  evils,  too,  necessarily 
connected  with  civil  war.  Even  we  were  not 
without  them.  The  Carolinas  were  the  scene, 
during  our  Revolution,  of  events  that  we  shud- 
der to  recollect.  Brother  was  armed  against 
brother — neighbor  against  neighbor.  Our  foe, 
too,  was  generous  and  merciful,  compared  with 
the  cruel  and  unrelenting  tyrants  of  those 
wretched  and  struggling  people.  Yes,  sir,  the 
cruelties  perpetrated  on  the  Spanish  patriots  by 
the  inhuman  monsters  who  seek  their  subjuga- 
tion, cannot  find  a  parallel  in  the  annals  of  na- 
tions, if  you  except  the  history  of  Spain  herself. 
Tear  but  away  the  page  in  which  her  bloody 
deeds  are  recorded,  and  you  will  find  no  paral- 
lel to  her  late  enormities.  She  is,  indeed,  "  her 
only  parallel."  And  is  it  to  be  expected  that, 
in  u  war  like  this,  forbearance  can  be  found 
among  those  who  are  goaded  into  madness  by 
treachery  and  cold-blooded  massacre?  It  is 
impossible ! 

Sir,  it  is  for  these  struggling  people  that  I 
own  my  sympathies  are  excited.  I  am  not 
ashamed  to  avow  them.  I  know  it  is  not  very 
fashionable  to  declaim  in  favor  of  liberty,  and 
had  I  the  disposition  and  the  talent  I  should  be 
saved  the  effort  by  the  nervous  eloquence  of  the 
gentleman  who  spoke  on  yesterday,  (Mr.  ROB- 
ERTSON.) I  always  listen  to  him  with  pleasure, 
but  on  yesterday  with  delight.  His  speech  was 
dictated  by  a  Roman  spirit  and  a  genuine  re- 
publicanism— a  republicanism  that  knows  no 
change  ;  which,  during  the  lapse  of  nearly  thirty 
years  that  I  have  known  him,  has  remained  un- 
altered and  unimpaired. 

There  is,  Mr.  Chairman,  another  course  of  re- 
mark that  I  cannot  but  regret  on  this  occasion. 
It  has  been  said  that  this  proposition  implies  a 
censure  on  the  Executive.  I  am  well  aware 
that  the  gentleman  from  South  Carolina  did  not 
mean  to  intimate  any  thing  personal  by  the  re- 
mark. Yet  it  cannot  but  have  its  effect. 

[Mr.  LOWNDES  rose  and  explained,  saying 
that,  as  he  frequently  differed  from  the  Execu- 
tive himself,  he  could  not  disapprove  a  similar 
freedom  of  opinion  in  others.]  Mr.  TUCKEB 
continued — 

The  explanation  of  the  gentleman  was  unne- 
cessary. His  uniform  urbanity  furnished  a  suf- 
ficient assurance  that  the  remark  was  not  in- 
tended with  any  personal  view.  But,  though 
this  is  the  case,  yet  the  intimation  that  the  pro- 
position is  not  in  consonance  with  Executive 
opinion  is  not  without  effect.  The  high  stand- 
ing and  commanding  talents  of  the  gentleman 
may  render  it  personally  unimportant  to  him, 
whether  his  course  conflicts  with  Executive 
opinion  or  not.  It  is  not  always  so  with  others. 
The  Executive  branch  of  the  Government, 
though  it  possesses  not  a  very  extensive  direct 
influence,  is  vastly  powerful  iu  its  indirect  and 
reflected  influence  over  this  body.  Elected  by 
the  suffrages  of  the  whole  nation,  there  are 
many  who  look  upon  him  as  the  Northern  Star 


of  the  political  firmament,  which  alone  preserves 
its  place  in  the  heavens,  "  fixed  and  unshaked 
of  motion ;  "  and  by  him  they  discern  the  aber- 
rations of  the  lesser  constellations  of  the  system. 
I  will  not  pretend  to  say  that  to  a  certain  extent 
this  may  not  have  its  advantages ;  but  this  I 
can  venture  to  advance,  that  he  who  acts  with 
candor  and  frankness,  and  with  a  sole  view  to 
the  honor  and  interest  of  the  nation,  will  not 
fail  to  receive  approbation  rather  than  censure 
for  his  frankness  and  independence.  Our  con- 
stituents will  deal  liberally  by  us  so  long  as  our 
motives  are  pure ;  and  by  this  standard  I  am 
willing  to  bo  tried  whenever  I  am  found  in  col- 
lision with  the  Executive.  But  to  whom  are 
we  to  look  on  the  present  occasion  in  order  to 
discern  its  opinions  ?  To  either  of  the  two  hon- 
orable chairmen,  from  whom  we  might  most 
reasonably  expect  such  information  ?  No ;  they 
differ  with  each  other.  And  the  occupation  of 
Florida,  which  one  of  them  proposes,  seems 
generally  to  be  supposed  at  variance  with  the 
Cabinet  opinion.  Thus  situated,  I  beg  leave  not 
only  to  disregard  the  intimation  that  this  meas- 
ure implies  censure,  but  I  utterly  disavow  and 
disclaim,  on  my  part,  any  such  idea.  So  far 
from  it,  that,  according  to  my  notion  of  things, 
the  vote  which  I  shall  give  will  be  founded  on 
principles  that  confirm  the  propriety  of  the 
course  pursued  by  the  Government.  What  is 
the  character  of  the  proposition  ?  It  appropri- 
ates the  usual  sum  for  the  outfit  and  salary  of  a 
Minister,  for  the  purpose  of  sending  a  represent- 
ative of  this  Government  to  Buenos  Ayres, 
whenever  the  Executive,  in  the  exercise  of  its 
constitutional  discretion,  shall  think  it  advisa- 
ble. It  commands  nothing,  but  it  intimates,  in 
a  proper  and  constitutional  manner,  the  readi- 
ness of  this  House  to  go  hand  in  hand  with  the 
Executive  in  the  interesting  measure  of  opening 
an  intercourse  with  the  Government  of  La 
Plata,  by  sending  and  receiving  Ministers.  It 
is  in  this  way,  and  in  this  way  only,  that  I  un- 
derstand the  proposition.  Is  there  any  direct 
censure  of  the  Executive  here  ?  Not  at  all.  Is 
there  any  implied?  A  construction  which 
would  give  to  it  this  character  must  be  forced 
and  unnatural.  It  is  only  upon  the  hypothesis 
of  the  gentleman  from  South  Carolina  that  such 
a  construction  has  the  air  of  plausibility.  He 
tells  us  that,  as  the  Executive  have  the  power, 
this  House  ought  not  to  interfere,  unless  there 
has  been  culpable  negligence  in  its  exercise; 
unless  there  has  been  unreasonable  delay  in 
sending  a  Minister  to  a  foreign  power.  If  his 
doctrine  be  admitted  as  a  general  rule,  yet  cases 
like  the  present  must  form  an  exception  to  it. 
There  is  an  evident  distinction  between  sending 
Ministers  to  old-established  Governments,  and 
sending  a  Minister  for  the  first  time  to  a  new 
Government,  separating  itself  from  one  to  which 
it  had  formerly  been  attached.  The  one  leads 
to  no  dangerous  results  ;  the  other,  we  are  told 
by  gentlemen,  will  put  to  hazard  the  peace  of 
the  country.  You  may  send  a  Minister  to  Tur- 
key or  to  Italy,  to  Denmark  or  to  Austria, 


168 


ABRIDGMENT  OF  THE 


H.  OF  R] 


Spanish  American  Provinces. 


[MARCH,  1818. 


without  offending  any  one.  But  we  are  told 
that  if  we  send  a  Minister  to  La  Plata,  we  shall 
involve  ourselves  in  a  quarrel  with  Spain.  Be 
it  so.  Is  it  not,  then,  a  sufficient  reason  for  the 
expression  of  the  opinion  of  this  House,  the  im- 
mediate representative  of  the  people — the  con- 
stitutional organ  for  declaring  war — that  a  con- 
templated measure  may  lead  to  a  state  of  war  ? 
Is  it  fair  to  expect  the  Executive  branch  of  the 
Government  to  assume,  alone,  the  responsibility 
of  a  measure  involving  such  momentous  conse- 
quences, while  we  stand  silently  by,  unwilling 
to  share  the  hazard  of  expressing  an  opinion  ? 
Or,  is  it  consistent  with  the  spirit  of  our  consti- 
tution, that  the  Executive  should  pursue  a 
course  which  leads  to  hostilities,  without  an  in- 
timation of  the  opinion  and  wishes  of  the  nation, 
expressed  through  the  legislative  body,  on  so 
important  a  concern  ?  I  think  not,  sir ;  and  so 
far  from  censuring  the  forbearance  of  the  Exec- 
utive, hitherto  to  send  a  Minister  to  La  Plata, 
I  applaud  it ;  because,  although  I  do  not  think 
it  would  give  just  cause  of  war,  yet,  as  it  might 
lead  to  a  rupture  with  Spain,  a  proper  respect 
for  the  rights  of  this  body  required  that  they 
should  await  its  opinion  on  the  subject.  Nor 
ought  they  to  send  a  Minister,  or  to  receive  one, 
without  the  sanction  of  the  legislative  body, 
until  the  lapse  of  time  or  the  acquiescence  of 
Spain  shall  have  removed  every  hazard  of  hos- 
tility. It  is,  then,  with  a  view  of  expressing, 
at  this  time,  our  willingness  to  go  hand  in  hand 
with  the  Executive  in  this  affair,  whenever  it 
shall  think  it  advisable  to  act,  that  I  shall  give 
my  support  to  this  proposition. 

But,  gentlemen  seem  to  consider  this  an  in- 
terference with  the  constitutional  powers  of 
the  Executive.  I  do  not  think  so.  This  House 
has  at  all  times,  and  on  all  subjects,  a  right  to 
declare  its  opinions,  leaving  to  the  Executive  to 
act  upon  them  or  not,  according  to  its  pleasure. 
Nay,  it  has  often  done  more.  Wherever  the 
act  to  be  done  by  the  Executive  has  been  inti- 
mately connected  with  the  constitutional  pow- 
ers of  this  body,  it  has  always  deemed  itself 
competent  to  act.  Thus,  before  the  treaty  for 
the  purchase  of  Louisiana  was  made,  $2,000,000 
were  put  at  the  disposal  of  the  Government  for 
a  purchase  of  Southern  territory.  Here  there 
was  an  act  perfectly  analogous.  This  body  had 
no  right  to  make  a  purchase,  or  to  command 
the  President  to  do  so ;  but,  as  the  purchase,  if 
made,  would  have  called  upon  the  legislative 
body  for  an  appropriation,  it  was  thought  ad- 
visable to  make  it  beforehand,  and  thus  indicate 
a  correspondence  of  views  on  a  subject,  where 
correspondence  was  necessary.  Could  it  have 
been  said  at  this  time,  that  the  Executive  were 
censured  by  Congress  for  delaying  to  make  a 
purchase  the  interest  of  the  nation  called  for  ? 
Could  it  then  have  been  objected  that  we  were 
trenching  upon  the  constitutional  powers  of  the 
Executive  ?  Could  it  have  been  alleged  to  be 
useless  and  frivolous,  because  the  Executive 
could  make  the  purchase  without  a  law  ?  If 
not,  neither  can  it  be  said  now.  The  act  of  the 


Executive  there  would  only  have  called  for  a 
small  appropriation.  The  act  of  the  Executive 
here  might  have  the  effect  of  a  declaration  of 
war,  which  it  is  within  the  constitutional  pow- 
ers of  the  legislative  body  alone  to  make.  It 
would  appear  to  me  indeed  of  the  utmost  im- 
portance, that  this  correspondence  of  viewa 
should  be  preserved  between  these  two  branches 
of  the  Government.  How  embarrassing  to  the 
Executive  must  it  be,  if,  after  a  treaty  has  been 
made  calling  for  a  large  appropriation,  this 
body  should  refuse  to  make  it,  and  to  sanction  a 
contract  entered  into  with  a  foreign  State.  How 
much  more  embarrassing  if,  in  the  exercise  of 
its  constitutional  powers,  the  Executive  should 
involve  the  nation  in  a  war  against  the  wishes 
of  its  Representatives.  The  jarring  and  confu- 
sion, and  inefficiency  that  would  result,  might 
have  the  most  fatal  influence  on  the  national 
success.  No,  sir,  frankness  and  candor,  and  a 
free  and  unreserved  communication  of  the  feel- 
ings and  opinions  of  each  by  the  other,  can 
never  have  any  other  than  the  happiest  influ- 
ence upon  the  National  Councils. 

The  propriety  of  an  expression  of  an  opinion 
by  this  House  on  important  occasions  being  es- 
tablished, it  behooves  us  to  consider  the  neces- 
sity of  an  interference  at  this  time.  Although 
we  cannot  perhaps  speak  very  certainly  of  the 
situation  of  the  Spanish  provinces,  yet  no  doubt 
can  exist  that  a  civil  war  is  at  this  time  raging 
between  the  colonies  and  the  mother  country. 
Nor  can  there  be  more  reason  to  doubt  that  the 
power  de  facto  in  the  Spanish  province  of  Bue- 
nos Ayres  is  in  the  hands  of  the  revolutionary 
patriots.  And  what  is  the  principle  of  the  law 
of  nations  applicable  to  this  state  of  things? 
It  is,  that  all  foreign  nations  have  a  right  to 
consider  the  two  contending  parties  as  two  in- 
dependent nations  in  all  respects ;  that  foreign 
nations  have  no  right  to  judge  which  party  is  in 
the  right,  are  justified  in  looking  no  farther 
than  to  the  possession  of  the  power,  and  in  con- 
sidering those  who  are  possessed  of  the  power, 
de  facto,  as  the  Government  of  the  country.  It 
is  a  wise  and  natural  principle  of  the  law  of  na- 
tions. It  flows  from  the  source  of  all  national 
law :  the  rights  of  nations  to  protect  themselves 
and  to  seek  their  own  advantage  without  injury 
to  others.  Nations,  it  is  said,  treat  and  com- 
municate with  each  other  to  procure  commer- 
cial and  other  benefits;  to  obtain  redress  for 
injuries  sustained,  or  to  provide  against  their 
occurrence.  It  matters  not  to  the  neutral  na- 
tion whether  the  parties  at  war  are  right  or 
wrong ;  it  may  be  its  interest  to  make  arrange- 
ments with  both  ;  it  may  be  necessary  to  treat 
and  communicate  with  each,  to  obtain  satisfac- 
tion for  wrongs,  or  to  regulate  their  intercourse 
so  as  to  prevent  those  infractions  of  neutral 
right  so  common  in  a  state  of  war.  In  this 
view,  it  is  only  important  to  the  neutral  that 
the  parties  are  possessed  of  the  physical  power 
of  doing  injuries  or  conferring  benefits.  With  a 
people  possessed  of  the  physical  power,  or  power 
defaclo,  though  in  a  state  of  civil  war,  the  laws 


DEBATES  OF  CONGRESS. 


MARCH,  1818.] 


History  of  Congreu. 


[H.  OF  R. 


of  nations  admit  the  neutral  to  communicate  as 
with  an  independent  power.  They  consider 
them  in  all  respects  as  sovereign  for  the  time 
being,  and  of  course  they  justify  communications 
with  them  by  Ministers.  If  it  were  otherwise, 
nations  at  peace  might  suffer  the  direst  wrongs 
from  the  parties  in  a  civil  war,  without  the 
possibility  of  redress,  since  the  only  way  of  de- 
inanding'it  is  by  Ministers. 

An  application  of  these  principles  to  our  own 
case  will  show  the  reasonableness  of  the  rule. 
Spain  and  her  colonies  are  at  war ;  should  they 
continue  hostile  (as  Spain  did  with  the  Nether- 
lands for  half  a  century,  without  acknowledg- 
ing their  independence,  though  they  were  com- 
pletely sovereign)  can  it  be  believed  that, 
according  to  the  laws  of  nations,  all  other  pow- 
ers are  to  be  debarred  of  the  advantages  of 
trade  and  commerce  which  they  hold  out? 
And  how  shall  treaties  of  commerce  be  made 
without  Ministers?  Or,  suppose  the  Republic 
of  La  Plata  cruises  on  our  commerce,  or  takes 
our  shipping  under  illegal  blockades,  or  attempts 
to  enforce  improper  laws  of  contraband,  or 
throws  our  citizens  into  dungeons,  (as  Spain 
has  done  with  Mr.  Meade,)  shall  we  have  no  re- 
dress ?  Can  we  not  demand  satisfaction ;  the 
release  of  our  property ;  the  discharge  of  our 
citizens;  and  compensation  for  the  injury? 
And  how  is  this  to  be  done  without  a  Minister  ?• 
And  if  through  a  Minister  you  make  this  de- 
mand, is  it  not  a  demand  upon  them  as  sover- 
eigns for  the  time  being?  You  have  sent 
agents,  or  whatever  they  are  called — (for  gen- 
tlemen do  not  seem  to  agree  by  what  name 
they  are  to  be  styled ;  they  seem  to  be  consid- 
ered at  present  a  sort  of  nondescripts) — and  it 
is  contended  that  they  are  not  Ministers,  nor 
invested  with  the  mantle  of  ministerial  inviola- 
bility— suppose  they  are  seized  and  confined  as 
spies  ?  will  you  have  no  right  to  send  and  de- 
mand their  release  ?  And  if  you  send  another 
representative,  shall  he,  too,  be  unprotected  by 
the  laws  of  nations  ?  or  will  you  send  a  Minis- 
ter whom,  on  the  principles  of  all  civilized  peo- 
ple, they  will  be  bound  to  respect  ?  The  latter 
assuredly — the  laws  of  nations  would  justify 
you,  and  Spain  would  have  no  right  to  com- 
plain ;  because,  although  the  mission  would  ac- 
knowledge the  existence  of  civil  war,  and  that 
the  power  to  whom  you  sent,  held  for  the  time 
being  the  power  de  facto,  it  would  decide  noth- 
ing as  to  the  rights  of  the  parties  or  the  j  ustice 
of  their  cause ;  and  so  long  as  the  neutral  avoids 
this,  so  long  is  the  belligerent  without  just  cause 
of  complaint. 

The  debate  here  terminated ;  and,  the  ques- 
tion being  taken,  by  yeas  and  nays,  on  agreeing 
to  the  proposition  of  Mr.  CLAY  to  insert  in  the 
general  appropriation  bill  a  provision  for  an  out- 
tit  and  one  year's  salary  for  a  Minister  to  the 
United  Provinces  of  La  Plata,  it  was  decided  in 
the  negative. — For  the  motion  45,  against  it 
115. 


MONDAY,  March  30. 
History  of  Congress. 

Mr.  ROBERTSON,  of  Louisiana,  from  the 
committee  appointed  on  the  petition  of  Gales 
&  Seaton,  made  a  report  thereon,  which  was 
read  ;  when  Mr.  R.  reported  a  bill  authorizing 
a  subscription  to  the  History  of  Congress,  which 
was  read  twice,  and  committed  to  the  Commit- 
tee of  the  Whole,  to  which  is  committed  the 
bill  to  provide  for  the  publication  of  the  laws 
of  the  United  States,  and  for  other  purposes. 
The  report  is  as  follows: 

The  committee  to  whom  was  referred  the  memorial 
of  Gales  &  Seaton,  report :  That  the  memorialists 
are  engaged  in  publishing  a  history  of  the  Congress  of 
the  United  States,  from  the  commencement  of  the 
Government  to  the  present  day,  and  a  continuation  of 
the  same  history,  to  keep  pace  with  the  present  and 
future  transactions  of  that  body.  The  memorialists 
solicit  the  aid  of  the  Government  in  this  their  labori- 
ous and  expensive  undertaking.  The  committee  are 
fully  impressed  with  the  importance  of  this  work. 
Nothing  can  be  more  useful  than  a  correct  legisla- 
tive history  of  the  United  States.  It  is  a  source  of 
much  regret  that  one  has  not  heretofore  existed  ;  and 
now,  that  it  is  proposed  to  be  published,  there  can 
be  no  hesitation  in  giving  it  encouragement.  The 
views  and  opinions  of  the  great  actors  on  the  theatre 
of  government,  are  not  less  necessary  to  be  known 
than  their  acts  themselves.  The  utility  of  judicial 
reports  is  very  generally  admitted ;  and  if  the  reasons 
of  the  judge  ought  to  accompany  his  exposition  of 
the  law,  how  much  more  proper  is  it  that  this  should 
be  the  case  in  respect  to  the  views  of  the  legislator, 
the  author  of  the  law  itself.  To  a  right  understand- 
ing of  statutes,  nothing  is  more  essential  than  a 
knowledge  of  the  causes  and  motives  which  produced 
their  enactment ;  and  this  can  in  no  way  be  so  satis- 
factorily obtained  as  by  a  resort  to  contemporaneous 
debate. 

That  the  aid  of  Congress  is  necessary  to  this  work, 
arises  out  of  the  great  labor  and  expense  attending 
it,  whilst,  at  the  same  time,  no  adequate  remunera- 
tion can  be  expected  from  its  sale.  The  agricul- 
turist, the  merchant,  the  mechanic,  and  the  physician, 
who  purchase  other  books,  will  feel  comparatively 
but  little  interest  in  this,  however  useful  it  may  be 
to  the  politician,  the  historian,  and  the  law-giver. 
The  work  will  not  afford  amusement  to  the  general 
reader ;  but  without  it  the  archives  of  the  nation 
are  defective.  • 

Congress  has  not  been  backward  in  giving  aid  to 
publications  of  a  similar  character.  Of  the  new  edi- 
tion of  the  laws  of  the  United  States,  a  subscription 
was  directed  of  one  thousand  copies,  before  the  work 
was  commenced.  Three  or  four  hundred  have  been 
since  purchased  of  that  work,  and  it  is  now  proposed 
to  purchase  eight  hundred  copies  more.  A  subscrip- 
tion was,  in  like  manner,  authorized  to  Wait's  edition 
of  the  public  documents,  and  it  is  further  proposed  to 
purchase  an  equal  number  of  copies  of  an  additional 
volume  of  that  work,  about  to  be  published.  Tho 
policy  is  not  less  just  than  liberal,  which  provides  for 
the  widest  attainable  diffusion  of  whatever  concerns 
the  development  of  thp  springs  and  principles  of  our 
Government. 

With  such  views  it  is,  that  at  the  present  session, 
the  publication  of  the  journals  of  the  Convention,  and 


170 


ABRIDGMENT  OF  THE 


H.  OP  R.] 


Sword  to  Colonel  Johnson. 


[  APRIL,  1818. 


of  the  secret  journal  of  the  old  Congress  has  been  i  to  pay  the  claims  now  due  at  the  Treasury  ; 
authorized;  and,  with  such  views,  the  committee  ask  and  the  second,  of  $200,000,  to  meet  the  de- 
leave to  report  a  bill  "  authorizing  a  subscription  to  mands  that  will  be  made  under  existing  con- 


ave  to  report 
the  History  of  Congress." 

Spanish  American  Provinces. 

Mr.  ANDERSON,  of  Kentucky,  then  rose  and 
renewed  the  proposition  unsuccessfully  made  in 
Committee  of  the  Whole  by  Mr.  CLAY,  to  ap- 
propriate a  sum  not  exceeding  $18,000  "  for  an 
outfit  and  one  year's  salary  of  a  Minister  to  the 
United  Provinces  of  the  River  Plata,  the  out- 
fit to  be  paid  and  the  salary  to  commence  when- 
ever the  President  shall  deem  it  expedient  to 
send  a  Minister  to  the  Government  of  the  said 


pro  vinces. 

The  question  was  taken  on  the  motion,  and 
decided  in  the  negative,  by  yeas  and  nays,  by 

exactly  the  same  vote  as  decided  the  question       _ 

in  Committee  of  the  Whole,  viz:  yeas  45,  nays  mittee  of" the  Whole,"on  the  above  bill." 
115,  as  follows: 


existing 

tracts,    towards    completing    the  Cumberland 
road  — 

Mr.  SPENCER,  of  New  York,  rose,  and  moved 
that  the  Committee  of  the  whole  House  be  dis- 
charged from  the  consideration  of  the  bill,  and 
it  be  postponed  indefinitely. 

This  motion  brought  on  a  short  debate  on  the 
merits  of  the  bill  ;  in  which  the  postponement 
was  advocated  by  the  mover,  by  Mr.  BASSETT, 
and  Mr.  LIVERMORE  ;  and  opposed  by  Messrs. 
TUCKER  of  Virginia,  HARRISON,  TARR,  PINDALL, 
BEECHER,  TRIMBLE,  MERCER,  and  SMITH  of 


Maryland. 

The  question  on  postponing  the  bill  was  final- 
ly negatived  —  yeas  56,  nays  82. 

The  House  then  resolved  itself  into  a  Com- 


YEAS. —  Messrs.  Anderson  of  Pennsylvania,  Ander- 
son of  Kentucky,  Barber  of  Ohio,  Bellinger,  Bloom- 
field,  Blount,  Boden,  Claiborne,  Comstock,  Cook, 
Crawford,  Desha,  Drake,  Earle,  Floyd,  Gage,  Har- 
rison, Hcrkimer,  Herrick,  Holmes  of  Massachusetts, 
Johnson  of  Virginia,  Johnson  of  Kentucky,  Jones, 
Kinsey,  Merrill,  Murray,  New,  Ogle,  Owen,  Patter- 
son, Porter,  Quarles,  Robertson  of  Kentucky,  Robert- 
son of  Louisiana,  Rogers,  Shaw,  Spencer,  Tarr, 
Townsend,  Trimble,  Tucker  of  Virginia,  Upham, 
Walker  of  North  Carolina,  Walker  of  Kentucky,  and 
Whiteside. 

NAYS.  —  Messrs.  Abbott,  Adams,  Allen  of  Massa- 
chusetts, Allen  of  Vermont,  Austin,  Baldwin,  Ball, 
Barbour  of  Virginia,  Bassett,  Bateman,  Bayley, 
Beacher,  Bennett,  Boss,  Burwell,  Butler,  Campbell, 
Clagntt,  Cobb,  Colston,  Crafts,  Cruger,  Culbreth, 
Cushman,  Darlington,  Edwards,  P^llicott,  Ervin  of 
South  Carolina,  Folger,  Forney,  Forsyth,  Garnett, 
Hall  of  Delaware,  Hall  of  North  Carolina,  Hasbrouck, 
Herbert,  Hitchcock,  Hogg,  Holmes  of  Connecticut, 
Hopkinson,  Hubbard,  Hunter,  Huntington,  Irving  of 
New  York,  Kirtland,  Lawyer,  Linn,  Little,  Livermore, 
Lowndes,  W.  P.  Maclay,  McCoy,  Marr,  Mason  of 
Massachusetts,  Mason  of  Rhode  Island,  Mercer,  Mid- 
dleton,  Moore,  Morton,  Mosely,  Mmnford,  Jeremiah 
Nelson,  H.  Nelson,  Ogden,  Palmer,  Parrott,  Pawling, 
Pindall,  Pitkin,  Pleasants,  Poindexter,  Kead,  Rhea, 
Rice,  Rich,  Richards,  Ringgold,  Ruggles,  Sampson, 
Savage,  Schuyler,  Scudder,  Sergeant,  Settle,  Sey- 
bert,  Sherwood,  Silsbee,  Simkins,  Slocumb,  S.  Smith, 
Ballard  Smith,  Alexander  Smyth,  J.  S.  Smith,  Speed, 
Stewart  of  North  Carolina,  Strong,  Stuart  of  Mary- 
land, Tallmadge,  Taylor,  Terrill,  Terry,  Tompkins, 
Tucker  of  South  Carolina,  Tyler,  Wallace,  Wendover, 
Westerlo,  Whitman,  Williams  of  Connecticut,  Wil- 
liams of  New  York,  Williams  of  North  Carolina, 
Wilkin,  Wilson  of  Massachusetts,  and  Wilson  of 
Pennsylvania. 

The  bill  was  then  ordered  to  be  engrossed  for 
a  third  reading. 

TUESDAY,  March  31. 
The  Cumberland  Road. 
The  orders  of  the  day  being  announced,  on  the 
bill  making  appropriations  \   the  first,  $52,984, 


WEDNESDAY,  April  1. 

Cumberland  Road. 

An  engrossed  bill,  entitled  "  An  act  making 
further  appropriations,  for  the  construction  of 
the  Cumberland  road,"  was  read  the  third  time. 
And  on  the  question,  u  Shall  it  pass  ?"  it  was  de- 
termined in  the  affirmative — yeas  74,  nays  56. 

Sword  to  Colonel  Johnson. 

A  resolution  awarding  a  sword  to  Col.  Eich- 
ard  M.  Johnson,  in  consideration  of  his  valor 
and  good  conduct  at  the  battle  with  the  com- 
bined English  and  Indian  forces  on  the  river 
Thames,  in  Upper  Canada,  on  the  5th  of  Octo- 
ber, 1818,  was  read  twice  and  put  on  its  passage. 

Mr.  CLAIBORNE  rose  to  offer  an  amendment  to 
the  resolution.  While  the  House  was  dispens- 
ing rewards,  he  said,  for  meritorious  services,  he 
wished  to  introduce  to  attention  the  names  of 
two  other  characters.  One  was  Major  General 
Carroll,  of  Tennessee.  That  officer  was  engag- 
ed in  the  public  service  from  the  commence- 
ment of  the  late  war  to  its  glorious  termination 
at  New  Orleans.  Mr.  C.  briefly  recapitulated 
some  of  the  distinguished  services  which  this 
officer  had  rendered.  He  had  organized  the 
force  which  repaired  from  Tennessee  to  the  de- 
fence of  New  Orleans,  and  which  by  its  rapid 
march  under  the  direction  and  exertion  of  Gen. 
C.,  had  reached  that  place  in  time  to  save  the 
city  from  the  enemy;  and  he  had  rendered 
other  services  too  prominent  to  need  being  men- 
tioned, and  which  would  not  permit  him  to  be 
overlooked  on  this  occasion.  Mr.  C.  next  men- 
tioned Brigadier  General  Coffee,  whose  name 
was  familiar  to  every  one.  At  the  commence- 
ment of  the  war  that  officer  volunteered  his 
services,  and  by  his  zeal  and  influence  induced 
a  great  many  others  to  enter  the  service.  For 
his  merit  he  was  promoted  from  captain  of  a 
mounted  company  to  the  command  of  a  bri- 
gade ;  and  his  gallant  conduct  in  the  Creek  war, 
at  Talladega,  at  New  Orleans,  &c.,  had  proved 
him  worthy  of  the  distinction.  Mr.  C.  con- 


DEBATES  OF  CONGRESS. 


171 


APRIL,  1818.] 


Honors  to  the  Brave. 


[H.  OF  R. 


eluded  by  moving  to  insert  the  names  of  these 
officers  in  the  resolution. 

Mr.  POIXDEXTEB  rose  to  second  the  motion 
of  the  honorable  member  from  Tennessee.  The 
distinguished  services  of  General  Carroll,  from 
the  commencement  of  the  Creek  war  to  the 
close  of  the  late  contest  with  Great  Britain, 
Mr.  P.  said,  were  known  to  the  nation,  and  ap- 
preciated by  all  who  witnessed  his  meritorious 
conduct.  At  the  critical  and  interesting  period, 
when  a  powerful  and  well-disciplined  army  of 
the  enemy  invaded  the  State  of  Louisiana,  and 
menaced  the  city  of  New  Orleans,  the  exertions 
of  General  Carroll  were  particularly  conspicu- 
ous, and  eminently  contributed  to  the  glorious 
result  which  gave  security  to  that  city  and  re- 
nown to  the  arms  of  our  country.  The  divi- 
sion of  militia  from  the  State  of  Tennessee, 
under  his  command,  destined  to  participate  in 
the  defence  of  the  Southern  frontier,  descended 
from  Nashville  to  New  Orleans  with  unexampled 
rapidity,  and  arrived  at  a  moment  the  most 
auspicious  to  the  safety  of  that  important  point. 
"Without  this  reinforcement  General  Jackson 
would  have  been  destitute  of  the  force  called 
for  by  that  great  emergency.  The  consequences 
of  such  deficiency  might  be  imagined.  During 
that  memorable  campaign,  the  gallantry  of  this 
corps  and  of  its  intrepid  commander  elicited 
the  thanks  of  a  grateful  people,  and  of  the  illus- 
trious General  under  whom  they  fought  and  con- 
quered. I  accord  my  hearty  assent,  said  Mr. 
P.,  to  the  proposition  made  by  the  gentleman 
from  Tennessee  to  reward  these  services  by  a 
suitable  manifestation  of  the  national  gratitude. 
But  Mr.  P.  suggested  to  him  the  propriety  of 
presenting  it  in  a  distinct  resolution,  properly 
digested  and  matured. 

Mr.  DESHA  made  a  few  remarks  in  support  of 
the  expressions  of  the  resolution,  as  to  the  gal- 
lant conduct  of  Colonel  Johnson,  on  the  occa- 
sion referred  to.  He  was  present  when  those 
services  were  performed,  and  could  bear  testi- 
mony to  the  intrepidity  displayed  by  Col.  J. 

Mr.  CLAIBORNE,  according  to  the  suggestion 
of  Mr.  POIXDEXTER,  withdrew  his  proposition 
for  the  present ;  and  the  resolution  then  passed 


THURSDAY,  April  2. 
Honors  to  the  Brate. 

Mr.  CLAIBORNE,  agreeably  to  the  intimation 
•which  he  had  yesterday  given,  to  submit  a  res- 
olution for  awarding  to  certain  officers  testimo- 
nials of  the  respect  of  Congress  for  their  dis- 
tinguished services,  offered  the  following  joint 
resolution : 

JResolred,  by  the  Senate  and  House  of  Representatives 
of  the  United  States  of  America  in  Cungress  assembled, 
That  the  President  of  the  United  States  be  requeued 
to  cause  gold  medals  to  be  struck,  with  suitable  em- 
blems and  devices,  and  presented  to  Major  General 
"William  Carroll  and  Brigadier  General  John  Coffee, 
in  testimony  of  the  high  sense  entertained  by  Con- 


gress of  their  gallantry  and  good  conduct  in  the 
several  conflicts  during  the  late  war,  at  Talashatchie, 
Taladega,  Enotochopko,  Emuckfaw,  Teliopeka,  and 
New  Orleans. 

Resolved,  That  the  President  be  requested  to  cause 
a  gold  medal  to  be  struck,  with  suitable  emblems 
and  devices,  and  presented  to  Major  General  Joseph 
Desha,  in  testimony  of  the  high  sense  entertained  by 
Congress  of  his  gallantry  and  good  conduct  in  the 
conflict  of  the  river  Thames,  in  Upper  Canada. 

Mr.  CLAIBOENE  said  he  had  not  yesterday 
named  General  Desha,  in  the  remarks  he  then 
made ;  it  escaped  his  recollection  at  the  mo- 
ment ;  but  that  officer  was  well  entitled  to  the 
notice  of  the  House.  General  Desha,  it  would 
be  recollected,  had  left  his  seat  in  Congress,  in 
the  Summer  of  1813,  when  the  Northwestern 
campaign  was  a  subject  of  great  anxiety,  and 
joined  the  Northwestern  army,  as  commander 
of  a  division  of  Kentucky  troops,  and  to  his 
intrepidity  and  good  conduct  was  in  a  great  de- 
gree owing  the  result  of  the  battle  on  the 
Thames.  On  that  occasion  he  occupied,  with 
his  division,  a  situation  of  imminent  danger; 
and  at  a  moment  when  the  enemy  pressed  with 
great  force  on  that  part  of  the  line,  it  was  by 
General  Desha's  courage  and  example,  and  de- 
nouncing death  to  the  first  man  that  broke,  that 
the  ground  was  maintained,  the  tide  of  victory 
turned,  and  the  day  crowned  with  success.  Mr. 
C.  next  turned  to  the  services  of  Generals  Car- 
roll and  Coffee,  and  enforced  what  he  had  yes- 
terday said  of  them,  by  referring  again  to  the 
various  instances  of  the  zeal,  activity,  and  brav- 
ery which  had  characterized  their  conduct, 
and  which,  under  the  Almighty,  had  saved  the 
city  of  New  Orleans  from  a  ferocious  enemy. 

Mr.  HARBISON  said,  that  with  regard  to  the 
conduct  of  General  Desha,  in  the  action  on  the 
Thames,  he  had  mentioned  it  with  approbation 
in  his  official  report  of  the  action,  and  he  now- 
repeated  that  he  there  performed  his  duty,  and 
did  every  thing  that  he  could  do.  But,  so  did 
General  Henry,  who  was  third  in  command, 
whilst  General  Desha  was  fourth ;  they  stand 
in  that  respect,  perfectly  on  an  equality. 

Mr.  H.  moved,  therefore,  that  the  name  of 
General  William  Henry  be  inserted  in  the  sec- 
ond resolution.  Mr.  H.  gave  some  explanations 
of  the  positions  occupied  by  the  two  divisions 
in  the  action,  and  stated  that  it  was  the  division 
of  General  Henry  which  occupied  the  front 
line,  and  was  most  pressed  by  the  enemy ;  that 
of  General  Desha  formed  with  it  a  right  angle, 
and  though  less  exposed,  yet  General  Desha 
himself,  he  believed,  was  at  the  point  of  junc- 
tion where  the  fire  was  most  heavy. 

Mr.  CLAIBORXE  had  not  called  to  mind  the 
particular  circumstances  of  the  affair,  or  doubt- 
less he  should  have  recollected  the  name  of 
General  Henry,  and  would  have  included  him 
in  the  resolutions  which  ho  had  offered.  These 
were  honorary  rewards  that  cost  the  nation 
little,  and  he  was  always  willing  to  bestow  them 
upon  gallant  services.  He  had  intended  to  pro- 
pose swords  on  this  occasion,  but  he  found,  by 


172 


ABRIDGMENT  OF  THE 


H.  OF  R.] 


Honors  to  the  Brave. 


[APRIL,  1818. 


the  precedents,  that  medals  were  more  custom- 
ary, though  the  cost  of  the  latter  was  perhaps 
not  less. 

Mr.  OGLE  suggested  a  doubt  whether,  if  these 
resolutions  passed,  it  would  not  be  proper  also 
to  seek  out  the  meritorious  officers  of  the  Revo- 
lution. He  had  no  objection  to  voting  a  medal 
to  each  of  the  gallant  officers  named,  but  pro- 
tested against  selecting  the  officers  of  the  late 
army,  and  passing  by  those  of  the  Revolution, 
for,  if  the  former  merited  one  medal,  those  of 
the  latter  deserved  two,  and  he  moved  that  the 
subject  be  referred  to  the  Military  Committee, 
that  resolutions  might  be  reported  conformably 
to  his  ideas ;  or  at  least  that  the  distinguished 
officers  of  the  Revolutionary  Army  might  be 
included  in  these  honorary  rewards. 

Mr.  COLSTON,  though  feeling  the  highest  re- 
spect for  the  officers  mentioned,  and  for  their 
eminent  services,  yet  objected  to  these  resolu- 
tions on  the  ground  that  it  was  neither  custom- 
ary nor  proper,  in  voting  these  rewards,  to  go 
below  the  commander  of  an  army  who  had  to 
bear  the  disgrace  of  defeat,  and  who  it  was 
right  should  reap  the  rewards  of  success ;  that 
to  pursue  a  different  course  would  involve  the 
necessity  of  awarding  the  same  to  numerous 
other  cases,  as  there  were  at  least  fifty  others 
who  had  rendered  important  services  and  were 
entitled  to  notice ;  and  it  was  better  to  stop,  or 
Congress  would  be  overwhelmed  with  cases  of 
this  kind,  &c.  Mr.  C.  referred  to  the  evils 
which  he  had  witnessed  in  Virginia,  of  making 
these  rewards  too  common ;  and  referred  to  the 
circumstance  of  the  Legislature  of  that  State 
being  called  on  to  appropriate  fifteen  thousand 
dollars,  at  one  time,  for  the  purchase  of  medals, 
&c.,  which  had  been  voted  to  gallant  officers 
from  that  State.  He  had  opposed  the  practice 
then,  and  felt  himself  bound,  however  high  his 
sense  of  the  merits  of  the  distinguished  officers  in 
question,  to  do  it  here. 

Mr.  SMITH,  of  Maryland,  said  a  few  words  to 
Mr.  CLAIBORNE,  to  show  that  the  vote  of  a  gold 
medal  had  always  been  considered  a  higher  honor 
than  to  bestow  a  sword,  and  that  medals  had, 
therefore,  been  generally  given  to  the  Command- 
er-in-chief of  any  army,  and  swords  to  the  in- 
ferior officers. 

Mr.  CLAIBORNE  observed,  in  reply  to  Mr.  COL- 
STON, that  the  services  of  the  officer  named  in  the 
first  resolution  were  as  important  and  valuable 
as  those  of  any  Commander-in-chief  in  the  na- 
tion ;  and  if  these  distinctions  had  been  granted 
in  numerous  other  instances,  as  he  could  show 
they  had  been,  it  was  highly  proper  they  should 
be  in  this  case,  particularly  when  some  who  had 
received  the  honor  had  not  served  so  long,  nor 
rendered  services  half  so  important  as  the  officers 
he  now  brought  forward  in  the  first  resolution. 
Mr.  C.  then  referred,  severally,  to  the  resolu- 
tions voting  thanks  and  medals  to  General 
Brown,  to  General  Scott,  to  Generals  Ripley, 
Miller,  and  Porter,  to  General  Gaines,  and  to 
General  McConib,  accompanied  by  thanks  to 
their  officers  and  men,  and  relied  on  these  reso- 


lutions to  show  that  the  honors  of  Congress  had 
not  been  confined  to  the  Commanders-in -chief, 
but,  on  the  contrary,  they  were  nearly  all  sub- 
ordinate officers,  and  some  not  higher  than  the 
rank  of  Colonel.  Generals  Carroll  and  Coffee, 
if  they  had  not  the  reputation  of  Commanders- 
in-chief,  deserved  the  applause  of  saving  a  city 
from  a  merciless  enemy,  whose  rallying  words 
were  "  Beauty  and  Booty."  Mr.  C.  adverted  to 
the  circumstances  under  which  these  officers  re- 
ceived the  news  of  the  danger  of  New  Orleans, 
and  the  great  exertions  which  enabled  them  to 
reach  it  in  time.  Coffee  was  returning  home 
from  the  Creek  war,  with  an  exhausted  army, 
when  information  of  the  danger  of  New  Orleans 
reached  him  at  Baton  Rouge.  With  his  ex- 
hausted men  and  worn-down  horses  he  instantly 
started  for  the  scene  of  action.  No  rest  did  he 
permit  himself,  day  or  night,  but  hastened  with 
a  celerity  unexampled  and  astonishing,  and  ar- 
rived just  in  time  to  save  the  city,  and  win  a 
conquest  .which  will  ever  be  regarded  as  a  most 
important  and  most  glorious  one.  Would  the 
House  deny  to  such  men  as  these  the  poor  and 
pitiful  reward  now  proposed  ?  Carroll  had  been 
twice  wounded  in  the  Creek  war,  and  was  call- 
ed on,  at  a  moment's  warning,  to  repair  to  New 
Orleans.  He  hastily  collected  his  troops,  or- 
ganized them  for  the  field  in  less  time  than  was 
ever  known,  and  with  a  rapidity  never  witness- 
ed before,  by  his  unwearied  exertions  reached 
the  city  just  in  time  to  insure  the  victory  and 
share  in  its  glory.  Mr.  C.  agreed  to  what  had 
been  said  about  the  Revolutionary  veterans,  but 
hoped,  if  it  was  thought  proper  to  reward  them 
in  this  way,  that  gentlemen  would  bring  them 
forward  in  a  separate  proposition,  and  he  would 
cheerfully  support  it.  If  he  asked  for  what  was 
not  given  to  others,  turn  them  away.  If  he 
asked  for  what  they  did  not  deserve,  turn  them 
away.  But  if  he  asked  for  them  what  others 
had  received,  and  which  they  deserved  much 
more  than  some  who  had  received  this  distinc- 
tion, he  hoped  it  would  not  be  denied  to  them. 
Mr.  HOPKINSOX  made  a  few  remarks  to  dis- 
suade the  House  from  adopting  these  resolu- 
tions. It  was  a  pninful  task  to  urge  this  course ; 
but,  he  said  this  House  had  no  wealth  to  be- 
stow; these  honors  were  all  it  had  to  give; 
they  ought,  therefore,  to  be  given  sparingly, 
and  not  wasted.  The  honors  of  Congress  ought 
not  to  be  given,  he  said,  for  fidelity,  for  dili- 
gence, and  bravery,  because  these  were  to  be 
expected,  and  belonged  to  every  American 
officer;  but  were  intended  for  some  signal  ac- 
tion above  all,  to  be  rewarded  above  all.  Instead 
of  confining  these  marks  of  distinction  to  prop- 
er occasions,  all  history  did  not  furnish  as 
many  of  them  as  the  history  of  this  country  for 
the  last  two  or  three  years,  and  the  practice  was 
so  common  that  it  would  cease  to  be  any  dis- 
tinction at  all.  Mr.  H.  did  not  make  these  ob- 
jections from  any  insensibility  to  the  gallant 
services  of  the  officers  referred  to  by  Mr.  CLAI- 
BORNE ;  but,  besides  his  opposition  on  national 
grounds,  he  thought  that  delicacy  towards  these 


DEBATES  OF  CONGRESS. 


173 


APKIL,  1818.] 


State  of  Illinois. 


[H.  OF  R. 


officers  themselves  ought  to  forbid  the  passage 
of  the  resolutions.  It  was  now  three  years  since 
the  close  of  the  war,  and  the  public  would 
ask  why  these  officers  had  not  received  this  re- 
ward before ;  why,  for  the  first  time,  they  were 
brought  forward  at  this  late  day  ?  And,  after 
being  so  long  neglected,  might  not  the  proceed- 
ing now  be  imputed  to  personal  favor  ?  Mr. 
H.  concluded  by  moving  that  the  resolutions  lie 
on  the  fable. 

Mr.  POINDEXTEB  hoped  that  the  motion  to  lay 
the  resolutions  on  the  table  would  be  withdrawn, 
that  the  two  resolutions  might  be  separated,  and 
the  sense  of  the  House  taken  on  each  by  itself. 
The  subject  of  the  Northwestern  and  of  the 
Southern  officers  ought,  bethought,  to  be  intro- 
duced separately,  and  then  gentlemen  in  the 
House,  acquainted  personally  with  the  officers  in 
the  two  armies,  could  speak  of  them,  respect- 
ively, from  their  own  knowledge.  He  support- 
ed the  propriety  of  adopting  these  resolutions  by 
referring  to  the  votes  of  thanks,  &c.,  which  had 
been  passed  at  this  very  session,  and  the  sword 
which  only  yesterday  was  awarded  to  a  gallant 
officer.  To  reject  the  cases  now  before  the 
House,  under  those  circumstances,  would  be  in- 
vidious as  well  as  unjust. 

Mr.  RHEA  hoped  the  resolutions  would  not  be 
laid  on  the  table.  Had  they  not  been  brought 
forward  at  all  this  session  he  should  have  been 
satisfied,  because  the  reputation  of  these  gallant 
men  was  too  well  secured  to  make  this  distinc- 
tion necessary  ;  but  as  the  resolutions  had  been 
offered,  he  was  anxious  they  should  not  be  re- 
jected. These  brave  men  did  not  rest  when 
they  were  going  on  the  floods  to  meet  the  ene- 
mies of  their  country,  and  he  hoped  the  resolu- 
tions for  rewarding  them  would  not  be  allowed 
to  rest  on  the  table,  but  would  be  adopted. 

Mr.  HARRISON  again  rose  to  bear  testimony 
to  the  gallant  services  of  the  gentlemen  of  the 
Northwestern  army,  and  took  the  opportunity 
of  expressing  briefly  his  sense  of  the  distinguish- 
ed honor  which  he  had  recently  himself  receiv- 
ed at  the  hands  of  Congress — a  reward  more 
dear  to  him  than  any  other  that  could  be  con- 
ferred on  him,  but  which  he  must  look  on  as 
due  to  the  gallant  army  which  he  had  the 
honor  to  command,  rather  than  to  his  merits, 
&c. 

After  some  further  opposition  by  Mr.  CLAI- 
BORNE  to  laying  the  resolution  on  the  table,  the 
question  was  taken  on  that  motion  and  carried — 
ayes  58,  noes  5-i. 


FRIDAY,  April  3. . 
State  of  Illinois. 

The  House  resolved  itself  into  a  Committee  of 
the  Whole  on  the  bill  to  enable  the  people  of 
Illinois  Territory  to  form  a  constitution  and 
State  government,  and  for  the  admission  of 
such  State  into  the  Union  on  a  footing  with  the 
original  States. 
Mr.  POPE  moved  to  amend  the  bill  by  striking 


out  the  lines  defining  the  boundaries  of  the  new 
States,  and  to  insert  the  following : 

"Beginning  at  the  month  of  the  Wabixsh  river; 
hence  up  the  same,  and  with  the  line  of  Indiana  to 
the  northwest  corner  of  said  State ;  thence  east  with 
the  line  of  the  same  State  to  the  middle  of  Lake 
Michigan;  thence  north  along  the  middle  of  said 
lake  to  north  latitude  42  deg.  30  minutes ;  thence 
west  to  the  middle  of  the  Mississippi  river;  and 
thence  down  along  the  middle  of  that  river  to  its 
confluence  with  the  Ohio  river ;  and  thence  up  the 
latter  river  along  its  northwestern  shore  to  the  be- 
ginning." 

The  object  of  this  amendment,  Mr.  P.  said, 
was  to  gain,  for  the  proposed  State,  a  coast  on 
Lake  Michigan.  This  would  afford  additional 
security  to  the  perpetuity  of  the  Union,  inas- 
much as  the  State  would  thereby  be  connected 
with  the  States  of  Indiana,  Ohio,  Pennsylvania, 
and  New  York,  through  the  Lakes.  The  facil- 
ity of  opening  a  canal  between  Lake  Michigan 
and  the  Illinois  river,  said  Mr.  P.,  is  acknowl- 
edged by  every  one  who  has  visited  the  place. 
Giving  to  the  proposed  State  the  port  of  Chi- 
cago, (embraced  in  the  proposed  limits,)  will 
draw  its  attention  to  the  opening  of  the  com- 
munication between  the  Illinois  river  and  that 
place,  and  the  improvement  of  that  harbor.  It 
was  believed,  he  said,  upon  good  authority, 
that  the  line  of  separation  between  Indiana  and 
Illinois  would  strike  Lake  Michigan  south  of 
Chicago,  and  not  pass  west  of  it,  as  had  been 
supposed  by  some  geographers  who  had  favored 
us  with  maps  of  that  country;  and,  Mr.  P. 
added,  that  all  the  country  north  of  the  pro- 
posed State,  and  bounded  by  Lakes  Michigan, 
Huron,  Superior,  and  of  tha  Woods,  and  the 
Mississippi  river,  must  form  but  one  State,  Con- 
gress being  restricted,  by  the  ordinance  of 
1787,  from  erecting  more  than  five  States  in 
the  Northwestern  Territory. 

This  motion  was  agreed  to  without  a  division. 

Mr.  POPE  then  moved  further  to  amend  the 
bill  by  striking  out  that  part  which  appropri- 
ated the  State's  proportion  of  the  proceeds  of 
the  sales  of  the  public  lands  to  the  construction 
of  roads  and  canals  in  said  State,  and  to  insert 
the  following : 

"  For  the  purposes  following,  viz :  two-fifths  to  be 
disbursed,  under  the  direction  of  Congress,  in  making 
roads  leading  to  the  State  ;  the  residue  to  be  appro- 
priated by  the  Legislature  of  the  State  for  the  en- 
couragement of  learning,  of  which  one part 

shall  be  exclusively  bestowed   on  a  college  or  uni- 
versity." 

Mr.  P.  said  that  the  fund  proposed  to  be  ap- 
plied for  the  encouragement  of  learning  had,  in 
the  other  new  States,  been  devoted  to  roads; 
but  its  application  had,  it  was  believed,  not 
been  productive  of  the  good  anticipated;  on 
the  contrary,  it  had  been  exhausted  on  local 
and  neighborhood  objects,  by  its  distribution 
among  the  counties,  according  to  their  respec- 
tive representation  in  the  Legislature.  The  im- 
portance of  education  in  a  Republic,  he  said, 


174 


ABRIDGMENT  OF  THE 


H.  OF  R.] 


Case  of  R.  W.  Meade. 


[APRIL,  1818. 


was  universally  acknowledged ;  and  that  no  im- 
mediate aid  could  be  derived  in  new  counties 
from  waste  lands  was  not  less  obvious;  and 
that  no  active  fund  would  be  provided  in  a 
new  State,  the  history  of  the  Western  States 
too  clearly  proved.  In  addition  to  this,  Mr.  P. 
said,  nature  had  left  little  to  be  done  in  the 
proposed  State  of  Illinois,  in  order  to  have  the 
finest  roads  in  the  world.  Besides,  roads  would 
be  made  by  the  inhabitants  as  they  became 
useful,  because  the  benefits  are  immediate;  but 
not  so  with  endowments  to  schools.  The  effects 
of  these  institutions  were  too  remote.  Nor 
would  the  interest  of  the  United  States  be  im- 
paired by  this  plan.  The  land  on  the  roads  was 
generally  private  property  before  the  opening 
of  the  road ;  and  the  benefit  resulting  to  the 
United  States  from  the  stipulation  would  be 
found  alone  in  the  exemption  from  taxation, 
for  five  years,  of  lands  sold  in  the  State. 

This  motion  was  also  agreed  to  without  a  di- 
vision ;  and  after  receiving  some  further  amend- 
ments, the  most  important  of  which  was  one 
moved  by  Mr.  TAYLOR,  to  exempt  the  soldiers' 
bounty  lands  in  the  State  from  taxation  for 
three  years — 

The  committee  rose  and  reported  the  bill  to 
the  House,  and  it  was  ordered  to  be  engrossed, 
as  amended,  and  read  a  third  time,  nemine  con- 
tradicente. 

History  of  Congress. 

On  motion  of  Mr.  SERGEANT,  the  House  pro- 
ceeded, by  a  vote  of  60  to  58,  to  consider  the 
report  of  the  Committee  of  the  "Whole  on  the 
bill  authorizing  a  subscription  (of  one  thousand 
copies)  to  the  History  of  Congress,  proposed  to 
be  undertaken  by  Gales  &  Seaton. 

The  House  having  refused  to  concur  with 
the  Committee  of  the  Whole,  in  striking  out  the 
first  section  of  the  bill,  Mr.  S.  with  a  view  of 
removing  the  objections  made  by  some  gentle- 
men to  the  bill  in  its  present  shape,  moved  to 
add  to  the  first  section  the  following  proviso : 

Provided  further,  That,  before  receiving  any  pay- 
ment on  account  of  said  work,  the  publishers  shall 
enter  into  bond  in  a  penalty  of  twenty  thousand  dol- 
lars, with  security  to  be  approved  by  the  First  Comp- 
troller, that  the  said  work  shall  not  exceed  ten  vol- 
umes in  extent,  to  be  brought  up  to  the  end  of  the 
second  session  of  the  fourteenth  Congress,  and  shall 
be  completed  within  ten  years  from  the  day  on  which 
the  first  payment  on  account  thereof  is  demanded  : 
And  Provided,  also,  That  nothing  in  this  act  contain- 
ed shall  be  construed  to  preclude  Congress  from  re- 
scinding their  subscription  to  the  said  work,  when- 
ever it  shall  to  them  seem  expedient. 

_  This  amendment  was  agreed  to  without  a  di- 
vision ;  when  Mr.  HITCHCOCK  moved  to  reduce 
the  subscription  from  one  thousand  to  one  hun- 
dred copies ;  which  motion  he  afterwards  mod- 
ified, by  moving  two  hundred  and  fifty. 

This  motion  was  opposed  by  Mr.  SERGEANT, 
because,  he  argued,  it  would  be  equivalent  to 
a  rejection  of  the  bill ;  as  the  great  labor  of  the 


compilation,  the  expense  of  preparing  the  work 
for  the  presB,  the  expense  of  printing  volumes 
of  the  magnitude  proposed,  &c.,  could  not  bo 
undertaken  without  aid  from  Congress,  to  the 
extent  proposed  by  the  select  committee ;  and 
because  a  work  of  this  nature  could  not  depend 
on  private  subscription,  &c.  Mr.  S.  also  en- 
forced and  enlarged  on  the  national  importance 
of  the  work  proposed,  as  well  as  its  importance 
to  Congress  in  its  legislative  business,  &c. ;  in 
which  he  was  supported  by  Mr.  SIMKINS,  Mr. 
JOHNSON  of  Kentucky,  and  Mr.  LIVERMORE. 

The  bill  was  opposed  earnestly  by  Mr.  PITKIN, 
Mr.  HITCHCOCK,  and  Mr.  BUTLER,  principally  on 
the  ground  of  the  expense,  and  the  unimpor- 
tance of  the  work  compared  with  that  expense. 

Mr.  HITCHCOCK'S  motion  to  reduce  the  num- 
ber of  copies  to  be  subscribed  for  was  agreed  to 
— ayes  74,  noes  56 — when,  on  motion  by  Mr. 
BASSETT,  the  bill  was  ordered  to  lie  on  the 
table. 

THURSDAY,  April  9. 
Case  ofR.   W.  Meade. 

The  House,  on  motion  of  Mr.  TRIMBLE,  took 
up  the  report  of  the  select  committee  on  the 
resolution  of  the  12th  February,  and  the  me- 
morial of  sundry  citizens  of  Philadelphia,  re- 
specting the  imprisonment  of  Richard  W. 
Meade,  by  the  Spanish  Government.  The  re- 
port concludes  with  recommending  to  the  House 
the  adoption  of  the  following  resolution : 

Resolved,  That  the  House  is  satisfied  that  the  im- 
prisonment of  Richard  W.  Meade,  is  an  act  of  cruel 
and  unjustifiable  oppression ;  that  it  is  the  right  and 
duty  of  the  Government  of  the  United  States  to  afford 
to  Mr.  Meade  its  aid  and  protection ;  and  that  this 
House  will  support  and  maintain  such  measures  as 
the  President  may  hereafter  adopt,  to  obtain  the  re- 
lease of  the  said  R.  W.  Meade  from  confinement, 
should  such  measures  be  proper  and  necessary. 

The  resolution  having  been  read,  Mr.  TRIMBLE 
proposed  the  following  substitute  therefor,  by 
way  of  amendment : 

Resolved,  That  the  demand  made  by  the  President 
of  the  United  States  upon  the  King  of  Spain  for  the 
liberation  of  Richard  W.  Meade,  a  citizen  of  the 
United  States,  detained  in  confinement  at  the  Castle 
of  Santa  Catalina,  at  Cadiz,  ought  to  be  supported 
and  enforced,  by  vesting  in  the  President  an  author- 
ity to  make  a  reprisal  upon  a  Spanish  Consul,  in  the 
event  of  a  failure  on  the  part  of  Spain  promptly  to 
discharge  the  said  Meade. 

Mr.  TRIMBLE  rose  in  support  of  his  motion, 
and  addressed  the  House  as  follows : 

If  I  may  find  favor  in  the  sight  of  the  House, 
I  would  ask  a  short  indulgence  at  their  hands. 
I  know  how  much  they  are  exhausted  in  the 
consideration  of  various  complicated  questions, 
touching  our  internal  prosperity  and  exterior 
relations ;  and  I  am  more  than  sensible  of  my 
utter  inability  to  repay  their  attention  with  a 
fair  equivalent. 

The  resolution  reported  by  the  committee  is, 


DEBATES  OF  CONGRESS. 


175 


APRIL,  1818.] 


Case  of  R.  W.  Meade. 


[H.  OF  R. 


in  my  opinion,  unequal  to  the  emergency  of  the 
case — I  would  prefer  a  stronger  measure.  Had 
the  yindication  of  this  amendment  fallen  to  the 
lot  of  some  members  whom  I  could  designate, 
they  would  tell  us  a  round,  unvarnished  tale, 
that  would  nail  us  to  our  places — a  tale  that 
would  "  rouse  the  slumbering  dead  to  hear," 
They  would  show  you  a  captive  through  the 
gratings  of  his  prison  window;  that  captive  a 
citizen  and  brother,  your  agent  and  vice  consul, 
languishing  in  a  foreign  dungeon,  unpitied  and 
forgotten ;  secluded  from  the  cheerful  light  of 
day ;  bereft  of  all  the  endearments  of  social  life 
— the  solace  of  children,  wife,  and  friends,  and 
peaceful  home — pining  and  wasting  away  in 
misery  and  despair,  with  but  one  solitary  ray  of 
hope,  "  that  gleams  from  the  star-spangled  ban- 
ner which  waves  over  the  land  of  the  free  and 
the  home  of  the  brave."  But  I  have  no 
thoughts  that  scald,  or  words  that  burn,  or 
plaintive  tones  of  supplication,  that  would  wring 
reluctant  succor  and  compassion  from  Congress 
and  the  nation.  Mine  are  humble  powers,  that 
have  no  eloquence  of  speech,  save  what  the 
subject  lends  to  grace  its  memory.  Let  no  man 
judge  me  of  meaning  more  than  I  explain.  In 
the  full  spirit  of  candor,  I  declare,  before  the 
highest  of  all  tribunals — the  Judge  of  quick  and 
dead — that,  if  I  know  myself,  there  is  no  tempta- 
tion which  would  induce  me  to  do  a  deed  that 
would  bring  dishonor  on  my  country ;  and  I 
swear  by  all  that  is  sacred  in  me,  that  in  my 
opinion  we  are  bound  in  duty,  in  justice,  and  in 
honor,  to  give  this  citizen  immediate  succor, 
even  at  the  hazard  of  our  lives.  Suppose  a 
change  of  cases,  and  I  and  you,  and  all  of  us 
would  ask  it  and  expect  it.  Let  us  remember 
the  golden  rule  of  hku  who  spake  as  never  man 
spake — let  us  do  to  others  as  we  would  have 
them  do  to  us ;  for  on  this  hangs  the  duty  of 
the  nation.  If  the  measure  which  I  offer  and 
advocate  is  dangerous  or  premature,  there  is  a 
redeeming  spirit  in  the  superior  wisdom  and 
better  judgment  of  the  House,  which  will  shield 
us  from  its  consequences ;  and  I  am  sure  there 
is  afund  of  charity  within  these  walls  that  will 
forgive  the  well-meant,  but  mistaken  zeal, 
which  may  lead  me  beyond  the  boundary  of 
cold  caution. 

Permit  me  to  waste  a  few  moments  in  glanc- 
ing over  the  facts,  as  reported.  I  intend  to  rely 
entirely  on  the  evidence  of  the  Spanish  docu- 
ments, and  for  that  reason  shall  omit  many  con- 
siderations which  give  a  favorable  color  to  the 
case ;  as,  for  instance,  Mr.  Meade's  loan  of  forty 
thousand  dollars  in  cash  to  the  Regency,  to  as- 
sist them  in  suppressing  a  mutiny  of  the  troops 
at  Cadiz ;  the  enormous  sum  of  more  than  half 
a  million  which  they  owe  him  for  property  sold 
the  Government ;  and  the  fact  of  his  being  put 
Tinder  military  guard  until  his  warehouses  were 
pillaged  by  order  of  the  Regency,  because  he 
refused  to  sell  any  more  property,  flour,  to- 
bacco, &c.,  until  he  could  get  pay  for  what  they 
already  owed  him.  Let  these,  and  m.iny  others 
^ke  them,  pass  for  nothing.  The  naked  case  is 


this:  Mr.  Meade  held  in  his  hands  about  fifty- 
two  thousand  dollars,  as  trustee  under  the 
bankrupt  laws  of  Spain,  subject  to  the  direction 
and  control  of  the  Consulado  at  Cadiz.  One 
Glass  claimed  this  money  for  himself;  and  one 
Hunter,  by  his  agent,  (McDermot.)  also  claimed 
it.  The  Consulado  ordered  the  money  to  be 
paid  to  McDermot,  on  condition  that  .he  would 
give  security.  This  he  failed  to  do,  and  the 
Consnlado  suddenly  made  an  order,  directing 
Mr.  Meade  to  deposit  the  sum  in  the  King's 
Treasury.  He  made  the  deposit  in  "  effective 
specie,"  which  the  same  treasury  owed  him, 
viz  :  in  libramientos — that  is,  treasury  notes  or 
cash  scrip.  These  treasury  notes  may  have 
been  at  a  discount  in  the  market,  but  that  could 
make  no  difference;  for  it  would  have  been 
more  than  dishonest  in  the  treasury  to  refuse  its 
own  paper,  because  it  was  at  a  discount.  Be- 
tween Meade  and  the  treasury  there  was  no 
ground  of  complaint,  and  could  be  none ;  for,  if 
he  had  paid  the  deposit  in  specie,  the  treasurer 
must  have  instantly  repaid  it  to  him,  in  dis- 
charge of  the  libramientoe — that  is,  treasury 
notes — and  the  result  would  be  exactly  the 
same.  And  as  Meade  was  then  pressing  the 
treasurer  to  pay  his  cash  scrip,  it  is  easy  to  see 
that  the  treasurer  obtained  a  respite  from  fur- 
ther importunity,  until  Glass  or  Hunter  should 
call  for  the  money  at  the  end  of  their  lawsuit. 

Some  time  after  this,  McDermot  brought 
suit  against  Mr.  Meade  for  the  same  sum,  before 
the  same  court.  He  pleaded  then-  order  and  the 
deposit  in  the  King's  treasury,  and  vouched 
the  treasury  to  respond  the  money;  but  the 
court  gave  judgment  that  he  should  pay  again. 
He  appealed  at  the  Alzadas,  and  the  cause 
was  withdrawn  from  that  court  by  the 
Council  of  War,  at  the  instance  of  McDermot ; 
and  it  is  still  pending  before  the  Council  of 
War.  Mr.  Meade  petitioned  the  King  against 
the  oppressive  conduct  of  that  court,  and  the 
King  ordered  five  new  judges  to  be  associated 
with  the  old  ones,  and  directed  that  no  proceed- 
ings should  be  had  in  the  cause,  in  the  absence 
of  the  new  judges.  McDermot  suggested  to  the 
Council  of  War,  that  Meade  was  about  to  leave 
Spain,  and  the  old  judges,  in  the  absence  of  the 
new  ones,  and  contrary  to  the  King's  order, 
authorized  the  Consulado  at  Cadiz  to  hold 
Meade  to  security  for  the  money ;  and  the  Con- 
sulado resolved,that  the  only  security  they  would 
take  should  be  another  deposit  of  the  money 
in  their  Treasury.  This  Meade  refused  to  do,  and 
he  was  sent  to  the  castle,  and  put  in  the  felons' 
prison.  Other  aggravating  facts  and  circum- 
stances may  be  found  in  the  documents  sent 
by  the  President  in  his  Message  on  this  subject. 

Our  Minister  near  the  Court  of  Madrid  com- 
plained of  these  outrageous  proceedings,  as  a 
violation  of  the  7th  and  20th  articles  of  the 
treaty  of  1795,  and  also  a  violation  of  the  laws 
and  usages  of  Spain,  and  the  King  expressed  his 
entire  disapprobation  of  the  conduct  of  the 
courts,  and  ordered  that  justice  should  be  im- 
mediately done  in  the  cause ;  but  at  the  same 


176 


ABRIDGMENT  OF  THE 


H.  OF 


Case  of  R.  W.  Meade. 


[APRIL,  1818. 


time  issued  an  order,  directing  the  proceedings 
to  be  suspended  as  long  as  possible,  suggesting 
as  his  reason  for  this,  that  in  any  event,  his 
treasury  must  refund  the  deposit  as  soon  as 
the  cause  should  be  decided ;  and  that  he  had 
no  money  in  his  treasury  to  refund.  This  is 
said  at  the  time  when  his  Minister  of  Finance 
states  in  his  expose  to  the  King,  that  the  annual 
expense  of  the  King's  household  amounts  to 
seven  millions  of  dollars.  And  this  is  what 
Don  Onis  calls  "Immaculate  Purity,"  and  I 
would  say  that  it  caps  the  climax  of  Spanish 
villany  and  treachery.  I  challenge  all  history 
to  produce  its  parallel.  Are  we  not  bound  to 
protect  this  citizen  against  such  a  flagrant  out- 
rage ?  I  read  in  the  books  that  nations  are  in  a 
state  of  nature,  and  have  only  two  modes  of 
compelling  each  other  to  do  justice ;  war  and 
reprisal.  I  say  nothing  of  big  words  hung  up 
in  resolutions.  They  are  the  index  of  imbecility ; 
the  mask  of  cowardice.  I  abjure  all  hectoring, 
and  gasconading,  and  gostering  between  nations 
or  individuals.  In  this- case  war  would  only  in- 
crease the  injury  by  protracting  the  confine- 
ment. Eeprisal  is  the  only  efficient  remedy. 
The  amendment  before  you  proposes,  that  a 
law  be  passed,  authorizing  the  President  (in  the 
event  of  a  failure  on  the  part  of  Spain,  to  liberate 
this  citizen)  to  make  reprisal  by  seizing  a  Span- 
ish subject,  a  consul  or  vice  consul,  and  confine 
him  as  a  hostage.  This  will  support  the  Presi- 
dent in  his  late  demand,  and  put  a  weapon  in 
his  hand  to  chastise  the  insolence  which  Spain 
may  offer  to  this  Government  in  the  reply  which 
she  may  make.  So  far  as  precedent  goes,  this 
amendment  is  supported  by  the  law  of  1799, 
which  authorized  and  required  the  President, 
ADAMS,  to  make  reprisals  upon  French  citizens 
in  the  cases  there  mentioned.  If  examples  are 
called  for,  they  are  to  be  found  in  the  history  of 
every  nation.  The  world  would  never  be  at 
were  redressed 


by  war.  Humanity  and  sound  policy  approve 
the  practice  of  reprisals,  and  require  that  it 
should  sometimes  be  resorted  to.  Why  should 
a  nation  change  its  peaceful  habits,  and  gird  on 
the  armor  of  war,  and  waste  millions  to  obtain 
redress  for  an  injury,  which  can  be  redressed 
by  the  seizure  and  confinement  of  a  single  indi- 
vidual ?  "Would  you  spill  the  blood  and  squan-. 
der  the  treasure  of  your  own  people,  where  re- 
dress can  be  obtained  by  the  pressure  of  coer- 
cion on  the  people  of  your  adversary  ?  Shall 
this  outrage  be  placed  upon  the  calendar  of 
grievances,  to  be  discussed  upon  thirteen  years 
forbearance  ?  Promptitude  is  justice  in  a  case 
like  this.  If  it  must  terminate  in  a  war  of 
words,  we  have  proof  positive  that  Mr.  Adams 
can  drive  Don  Onis  from  the  field  of  battle; 
but,  in  my  opinion,  we  have  retreated  far  enough 
from  Spain ;  and  unless  we  make  a  stand  upon 
reprisal,  we  shall  take  shelter  behind  the  ram- 
parts of  disgrace. 

When  I  had  the  honor  of  presenting  the  res- 
olution for  reprisals,  some  objection  arose  be- 
cause it  did  not  define  the  nature  and  extent  of 


reprisals  meditated.  In  this  amendment  I  have 
attempted  to  obviate  the  objection.  But  it  is 
due,  in  candor  to  the  House  and  nation,  that  I 
should  so  explain  myself,  that  no  one  can  mis- 
take me.  In  the  event  of  a  failure  on  the  part 
of  Spain  to  surrender  Mr.  Meade,  upon  the  late 
demand,  I  would  seize  a  Spanish  subject  and 
Consul  of  equal  property  and  respectability,  as 
a  hostage  ;  confine  him  at  Castle  William  in  the 
harbor  of  Boston,  and  treat  him,  in  all  respects, 
as  it  shall  be  made  to  appear  that  our  citizen  is 
treated  at  the  Castle  of  Santa  Catalina.  That 
would  be  equal  justice — subject  for  citizen,  Con- 
sul for  Consul,  castle  for  castle,  and  treatment 
for  treatment.  No,  sir,  I  humbly  crave  the 
pardon  of  my  country — that  would  not  be  equal 
justice — for  as  "one  day,  one  hour,  of  virtuous 
liberty  is  worth  a  whole  eternity  of  bondage," 
so,  also,  one  honest,  upright,  independent  free- 
j  man  is  worth  a  kingdom,  an  empire,  of  servile, 
j  crouching,  sycophantic  Spanish  slaves. 

I  will  not  say  that  this  amendment  has  been 
drawn  up  with  all  the  skill  and  scholar-craft 
i  which  might  have  been  employed  in  its  produc- 
j  tion ;  but  I  will  boldly  affirm  that  the  redress 
which  it  indicates,  is  more  than  justified  by  the 
case,  and  fully  supported  by  the  laws  and  usages 
of  nations.    I  know  not  what  others  may  think 
I  on  this  subject,  but,  for  myself,  I  have  no  hope 
of  redress  but  from  coercion — for  that  sovereign 
who  forfeits  his  word  of  honor,  and  brings  his 
reputation  and  his  justice  into  question,  will 
not  easily  unhand  his  victim  or  forego  his  ven- 
geance.  I  am,  therefore,  bold  to  say  that  I  will 
use  retortion.     The  States  surrendered  to  the 
General  Government  the  right  of  making  re- 
prisals ;  and,  in  their  name,  I  ask  you  to  exer- 
cise the  power — I  demand  it  in  the  name  of  the 
I  people.     Gentlemen  may  shake  their  heads,  if 
i  they  mean  to  say  that  the  demand  is  too  broad 
— that  I  have  no  right  to  speak  for  them  and 
I  their  States.  Then,  sir,  I  demand  it  in  the  name 
!  of  the  people  whom  I  represent — in  the  name 
|  of  the  State  from  whence  I  come.   I  know  them, 
and  can  speak  for  them — I  know  their  love  of 
liberty  and  hatred  of  oppression,  and  will  answer 
for  their  readiness  to  support  the  honor  of  the 
j  country,  and  their  promptitude  in  chastising  all 
infractions  of  personal  liberty. 

Mr.  HOPKIXSOX,  of  Pennsylvania,  expressed 
his  belief  that  the  report  of  the  committee  went 
as  far  as  the  duty  of  this  House  required  it  to 
go  in  such  a  matter.  There  was  a  limit  beyond 
which  it  was  improper  to  go,  in  an  aft'air  in- 
trusted to  the  Executive ;  and  Mr.  H.  hoped, 
that  what  had  been  done  by  the  Executive 
would  be  found  amply  sufficient  for  all  the  pur- 
poses of  this  case.  The  first  movement  in  this 
business  had  been  made  by  this  House;  the 
President  had,  in  consequence  thereof,  opened  a 
correspondence  with  the  Spanish  Minister  in  a 
very  decided  and  dignified  manner;  and  the 
report  of  the  committee  is,  that  this  House  will 
support  the  Executive  in  any  further  measures 
to  obtain  the  release  of  Mr.  Meade,  which  shall 
be  just  and  necessary.  In  doing  more  than 


DEBATES  OF  CONGRESS. 


177 


APRIL,  1818.] 


Proceedings. 


[H.  OF  R 


this,  at  present,  Mr.  H.  asked  if  the  House 
might  not  proceed,  without  distinctly  seeing 
the  result  ?  But  Mr,  H.  wished  to  see  something 
of  the  practical  effect  of  the  proposition  ;  with 
that  the  gentleman  had  not  favored  the  House. 
The  resolution  offered  by  the  gentleman  from 
Kentucky  authorized  the  President  to  make  re- 
prisal for  the  imprisonment  of  Mr.  Meade — to 
seize  a  Spanish  subject,  and  confine  him  in  prison 
until  Meade  shall  be  released.  Now  Mr.  H. 
denied  that  this  Congress  could  give  the  Presi- 
dent any  such  despotic  power.  Every  man  in 
this  country,  whether  foreigner  or  citizen,  is 
under  the  protection  of  the  laws.  Who  was 
the  President  to  select  for  reprisal  ?  Shall  he, 
as  is  suggested,  by  some  unknown  process,  seize 
a  Consul,  living  under  our  laws,  and  lodge  him 
in  jail,  uncharged  with  debt,  or  crime,  or  any 
violation  whatever  of  the  laws  of  the  land  ?  If 
despotic  Governments  do  these  things,  we  should 
avoid,  not  follow,  the  example.  We.  said  Mr. 
H.,  must  follow  the  course  of  the  laws,  and  can- 
not depart  from  it.  There  was  no  process,  he 
said,  by  which  a  man  could  be  seized  and  im- 
prisoned in  this  country,  because  a  citizen  was 
improperly  imprisoned  in  a  foreign  country. 
There  was  nothing  in  the  laws  of  nations,  or 
our  own  laws,  to  justify  it.  The  case  quoted 
by  Mr.  TPJMBLE  was  an  authority  given  to  the 
President  to  make  reprisals  when  we  were 
actually  in  a  state  of  war.  Such  acts  might  be 
proper  in  a  time  of  war,  but  not  in  a  time  of 
peace  like  the  present.  Mr.  H.  admonished  the 
House  not  to  stretch  this  thing  too  far,  in  their 
anxiety  to  obtain  justice  for  the  citizen  in  ques- 
tion. He  knew  Mr.  Meade  and  his  family,  and 
his  feelings  were  as  strongly  excited  to  their 
sufferings  as  any  gentleman's ;  and  he  wished 
to  do  every  thing  to  produce  his  liberation  which 
was  consistent  with  propriety.  Did  the  gentle- 
man mean  to  make  this  a  subject  for  war  ?  Yet 
there  was  no  act  beyond  the  one  proposed  by 
him  but  war.  What  precedent,  or  law,  Mr.  H. 
asked,  could  the  gentleman  find  for  the  reprisal 
he  recommended,  and  what  would  prevent  the 
judges  from  discharging  any  man,  brought  up 
by  habeas  corpus,  from  such  an  arrest?  Mr. 
H.  contended,  that  the  report  of  the  com- 
mittee was  sufficient  for  the  present,  and  went 
far  enough.  Hereafter,  after  it  was  seen  what 
effect  the  President's  remonstrance  should  pro- 
duce, stronger  measures  might  be  taken,  if  it 
should  be  found  necessary — even  war  itself. 

The  question  was  then  taken  on  Mr.  TEIM- 
BLE'S  substitute,  and  decided  in  the  negative, 
only  about  fifteen  rising  in  its  favor ;  and  the 
resolution  reported  by  the  select  committee  was 
agreed  to  without  a  division. 


FEIDAY,  April  10. 

A  message  from  the  Senate  informed  the 

House  that  the  Senate  have  disagreed  to  the 

amendment  proposed  by  this  House  to  the  bill, 

entitled  "  An  act  to  make  valid  certain  acts  of 

VOL.  VI.— 12 


the  justices  of  the  peace  in  the  district  of  Co- 
lumbia." They  have  passed  the  bill,  entitled 
"  An  act  to  provide  for  the  publication  of  the 
laws  of  the  United  States,  and  for  other  pur- 
poses," with  amendments.  They  have  also  pass- 
ed bills  of  the  following  titles,  viz :  "  An  act  for 
the  relief  of  John  Hall,  late  a  major  of  marines;" 
and  "  An  act  in  addition  to  an  act  to  prohibit  the 
introduction  of  slaves  in  to  any  portor  place  with- 
in the  jurisdiction  of  the  United  States,  from  and 
after  the  first  day  of  January,  in  the  year  of  our 
Lord,  1808,  and  to  repeal  certain  parts  of  the 
same ;"  in  which  amendments  and  bills  they 
ask  the  concurrence  of  this  House. 

Fugitives  from  Justice  and  Service. 

A  motion  was  made  by  Mr.  PINDAXL,  that  the 
House  do  now  proceed  to  consider  the  amend- 
ments proposed  by  the  Senate,  to  the  bill,  en- 
titled "  An  act  to  provide  for  delivering  up  per- 
sons held  to  labor  or  service  in  any  of  the  States 
or  Territories,  who  shall  escape  into  any  other 
State  or  Territory."  And  the  question  being 
taken  thereon,  it  was  determined  in  the  negative 
— yeas  63,  nays  73,  as  follows : 

YEAS.— Messrs.  Abbott,  Austin,  Baldwin,  Bassett, 
Bloomfield,  Blount,  Colston,  Cook,  Culbreth,  Desha, 
Earle,  Floyd,  Forney,  Forsyth,  Garnett,  Hall  of  North 
Carolina,  Herbert,  Hogg,  Johnson  of  Virginia,  John- 
son of  Kentucky,  Linn,  Little,  Lowndes,  McCoy, 
Marchand,  Mason  of  Massachusetts,  Mercer,  Middle- 
ton,  Miller,  Moore,  Mumford,  H.  Nelson,  T.  M.  Nel- 
son, Ogle,  Owen,  Parrott,  Peter,  Pindall,  Pleasants, 
Poindexter,  Reed,  Rhea,  Ringgold,  Robertson  of  Lou- 
isiana, Ruggles,  Sampson,  Sawyer,  Settle,  Simkins, 
Slocumb,  S.  Smith,  Ballard  Smith,  Alexander  Smyth, 
J.  S.  Smith,  Speed,  Spencer,  Stewart  of  North  Caro- 
lina, Strother,  Trimble,  Tucker  of  South  Carolina, 
Tyler,  Walker  of  North  Carolina,  and  Williams  of 
North  Carolina. 

NAYS.— Messrs.  Adams,  Allen  of  Vermont,  Ball, 
Bateman,  Bennett,  Boden,  Boss,  Campbell,  Clagett, 
Crafts,  Cruger,  Darlington,  Drake,  Ellicott,  Gage, 
Hale,  Hall  of  Delaware,  Hasbrouck,  Hendricks,  Her- 
kimer,  Heister,  Hitchcock,  Holmes  of  Massachusetts, 
Holmes  of  Connecticut,  Hopkinson,  Hubbard,  Hunter, 
Huntington,  Ingham,  Irving  of  New  York,  Jones, 
Kinsey,  Kirtland,  Lawyer,  Livermore,  W.  Maclay,  W. 
P.  Maclay,  Mason  of  Rhode  Island,  Merrill,  Morton, 
Mosely,  Murray,  Jeremiah  Nelson,  Palmer,  Patter- 
son, Pawling,  Pitkin,  Porter,  Rice,  Rich,  Richards, 
Rogers,  Savage,  Scudder,  Sergeant,  Shaw,  Sherwood, 
Silsbee,  Tallmadge,  Tarr,  Taylor,  Tomkins,  Town- 
send,  Upham,  Wallace,  Wendover,  Westerlo,  White- 
side,  Whitman,  Williams  of  Connecticut,  Williams  of 
New  York,  Wilson  of  Massachusetts,  and  Wilson  of 
Pennsylvania.* 


MONDAY,  April  20. 
Six  o'clock,  P.  M. 

A  message  from  the  Senate  informed  the 
House  that  the  Senate  have  passed  a  resolution 


*  This  seems  to  have  been  the  eud  of  the  bill— the  House 
refusing,  at  the  end  of  the  session,  to  take  up  the  Senate 
amendments  for  consideration. 


178 


ABRIDGMENT  OF  THE 


H.  OF  R.] 


Proceedings. 


1818. 


for  the  appointment  of  a  joint  committee  to  wait 
on  the  President  of  the  United  States,  and  in- 
form him  of  the  approaching  recess  of  Con- 
gress ;  and  have  appointed  a  committee  on  their 
part. 

The  House  took  up  the  said  resolution,  and 
being  read,  it  was  concurred  in  by  the  House  ; 
and  Mr.  HARBISON  and  Mr.  PITKIN  were  ap- 


pointed  a  committee,  conformably  thereto,  on 
the  part  of  this  House. 

The  said  committee  having  reported  that  the 
President  had  no  further  communication  to 
make  to  Congress,  the  SPEAKER  adjourned  the 
House  until  the  third  Monday  in  November 
next,  the  day  fixed  by  law  for  the  next  meeting 
of  the  Congress  of  the  United  States. 


DEBATES  OF  CONGRESS. 


179 


NOVEMBER,  1818.] 


President's  Message. 


[SENAI 


FIFTEENTH  CONGRESS-SECOND  SESSION. 


BEGUN    AT    THE    CITY    OF    WASHINGTON,  NOVEMBER    16,   1818, 


PKOCEEDINGS  IN  THE  SENATE. 


MONDAY,  November  16, 1818. 
The  second  session  of  the  Fifteenth  Congress 
commenced  this  day  at  the  city  of  Washington, 
conformably  to  the  act  passed  the  18th  of  April, 
1818,  entitled  u  An  act  fixing  the  time  for  the 
next  meeting  of  Congress ;"  and  the  Senate  as- 
sembled. 

PRESENT  : 

DAVID  L.  MOERILL,  from  the  State  of  New 
Hampshire. 

PEENTISS  MELLEN,  from  Massachusetts. 

JAMES  BURRILL,  junior,  from  Ehode  Island  and 
Providence  Plantations. 

ISAAC  TICHENOR  and  WILLIAM  A.  PALMER, 
from  Vermont. 

DAVID  DAGGETT,  from  Connecticut. 

EUFUS  KING  and  NATHAN  SANFOBD,  from 
New  York. 

MAHLON  DIOKERSON  and  JAMES  J.  WILSON, 
from  New  Jersey. 

ABXER  LACOCK  and  JONATHAN  EGBERTS,  from 
Pennsylvania. 

EGBERT  H.  GOLDSBOEOTJGH,  from  Maryland. 

JAMES  BARBOUE  and  JOHN  W.  EPPES,  from 
Virginia. 

NATHANIEL  MAOON,  from  North  Carolina. 

JOHN  GAILLAED  and  WILLIAM,  SMITH,  from 
South  Carolina. 

JOHN  WILLIAMS  and  JOHN  HENRY  EATON, 
from  Tennessee. 

BENJAMIN  EUGGLES,  from  Ohio. 
•    ELEGIUS  FROMENTIN  and  HENRY   JOHNSON, 
from  Louisiana. 

JAMES  NOBLE  and  WALLER  TAYLOR,  from 
Indiana. 

WALTER  LEAKE  and  THOMAS  H.  WILLIAMS, 
from  Mississippi. 

JOHN  GAILLARD,  President  pro  tempore,  re- 
sumed the  Chair. 

PRENTISS  MELLEN,  appointed  a  Senator  by 
the  Legislature  of  the  State  of  Massachusetts, 
to  supply  the  vacancy  occasioned  by  the  resig- 
nation of  Eli  P.  Ashinun;  WILLIAM  A.  PALMER, 


appointed  a  Senator  by  the  Legislature  of  the 
State  of  Vermont,  to  supply  the  vacancy  occa- 
sioned by  the  resignation  of  James  Fisk ;  and 
JOHN  HENRY  EATON,  appointed  a  Senator  by  the 
Executive  of  the  State  of  Tennessee,  to  supply 
the  vacancy  occasioned  by  the  resignation  of 
George  W.  Campbell,  respectively  produced 
their  credentials,  were  qualified,  and  took  their 
seats  in  the  Senate. 

A  quorum  being  present,  a  message  was  sent 
to  the  House  of  Eepresentatives,  notifying  that 
body  of  the  fact. 

A  committee  was  appointed,  jointly  with  a 
committee  to  be  appointed  by  the  other  House, 
for  the  purpose  of  waiting  on  the  President  of 
the  United  States,  to  inform  him  that  the  two 
Houses  were  organized,  &c.  Messrs.  MAOON 
and  DAGGETT  were  appointed  of  the  committee 
on  the  part  of  the  Senate. 


TUESDAY,  November  IT. 
JEREMIAH  MORROW,  from  the  State  of  Ohio  ; 
and  ALEXANDER  C.  HANSON,  from  the  State  of 
Maryland,  attended  this  day. 

President's  Message. 

The  following  Message  was  received  from  the 
PRESIDENT  OF  THE  UNITED  STATES  : 
Fellouo-citizens  of  the  Senate 

and  of  the  House  of  Representatives : 

The  auspicious  circumstances  under  which  you 
will  commence  the  duties  of  the  present  session  will 
lighten  the  burdens  inseparable  from  the  high  trust 
committed  to  you.  The  fruits  of  the  earth  have  been 
unusually  abundant ;  commerce  has  flourished ;  the 
revenue  has  exceeded  the  most  favorable  anticipa- 
tion, and  peace  and  amity  are  preserved  with  foreign 
nations  on  conditions  just  and  honorable  to  our  coun- 
try. For  these  inestimable  blessings  we  cannot  but 
be  grateful  to  that  Providence  which  watches  over 
the  destiny  of  nations. 

As  the  term  limited  for  the  operation  of  the  com- 
mercial convention  with  Great  Britain  will  expire 
early  in  the  month  of  July  next,  and  it  was  deemed 


180 


ABRIDGMENT  OF  THE 


SENATE.] 


President's  Message. 


[NOVEMBER,  1818. 


important  that  there  should  be  no  interval,  during 
which  that  portion  of  our  commerce,  which  was  pro- 
vided for  by  that  convention,  should  not  be  regulated, 
either  by  arrangements  between  the  two  Govern- 
ments, or  by  the  authority  of  Congress,  the  Minister 
of  the  United  States  at  London  was  instructed,  early 
in  the  last  Summer,  to  invite  the  attention  of  the 
British  Government  to  the  subject,  with  a  view  to 
that  object  He  was  instructed  to  propose,  also,  that 
the  negotiation  which  it  was  wished  to  open,  might 
extend  to  the  general  commerce  of  the  two  countries, 
and  to  every  other  interest  and  unsettled  difference 
between  them ;  particularly  those  relating  to  impress- 
ment, fisheries,  and  boundaries,  in  the  hope  that 
an  arrangement  might  be  made,  on  principles  of  re- 
ciprocal advantage,  which  might  comprehend  and 
provide,  in  a  satisfactory  manner,  for  all  these  high 
concerns.  I  have  the  satisfaction  to  state,  that  the 
proposal  was  received  by  the  British  Government  in 
the  spirit  which  prompted  it,  and  that  a  negotiation 
has  been  opened  at  London  embracing  all  these  ob- 
jects. On  full  consideration  of  the  great  extent  and 
magnitude  of  the  trust,  it  was  thought  proper  to  com- 
mit it  to  not  less  than  two  of  our  distinguished  citi- 
zens, and,  in  consequence,  the  Envoy  Extraordinary 
and  Minister  Plenipotentiary  of  the  United  States  at 
Paris  has  been  associated  with  our  Envoy  Extra- 
ordinary and  Minister  Plenipotentiary  at  London ;  to 
both  of  whom  corresponding  instructions  have  been 
given ;  and  they  are  now  engaged  in  the  discharge 
of  its  duties.  It  is  proper  to  add,  that,  to  prevent 
any  inconvenience  resulting  from  the  delay  incident 
to  a  negotiation  on  so  many  important  subjects,  it 
was  agreed,  before  entering  on  it,  that  the  existing 
convention  should  be  continued  for  a  term  not  less 
than  eight  years. 

Our  relations  with  Spain  remain  nearly  in  the  state 
in  which  they  were  at  the  close  of  the  last  session. 
The  convention  of  1802,  providing  for  the  adjustment 
of  a  certain  portion  of  the  claims  of  our  citizens  for 
injuries  sustained  by  spoliation,  and  so  long  suspended 
by  the  Spanish  Government,  has  at  length  been  rati- 
fied by  it ;  but  no  arrangement  has  yet  been  made 
for  the  payment  of  another  portion  of  like  claims, 
not  less  extensive  or  well  founded,  or  for  other  classes 
of  claims,  or  for  the  settlement  of  boundaries.  These 
subjects  have  again  been  brought  under  considera- 
tion in  both  countries,  but  no  agreement  has  been 
entered  into  respecting  them.  lu  the  mean  time 
events  have  occurred,  which  clearly  prove  the  ill  ef- 
fect of  the  policy  which  that  Government  has  so 
long  pursued,  on  the  friendly  relations  of  the  two 
countries,  which,  it  is  presumed,  it  is  at  least  of  as 
much  importance  to  Spain,  as  to  the  United  States, 
to  maintain.  A  state  of  things  has  existed  in  the 
Floridas,  the  tendency  of  which  has  been  obvious  to 
all  who  have  paid  the  slightest  attention  to  the  pro- 
gress of  affairs  in  that  quarter.  Throughout  the 
whole  of  those  provinces  to  which  the  Spanish  title 
extends,  the  Government  of  Spain  has  scarcely  been 
felt  Its  authority  has  been  confined  almost  exclu- 
sively to  the  walls  of  Pensacola  and  St.  Augustine, 
within  which  only  small  garrisons  have  been  main- 
tained. Adventurers  from  every  country,  fugitives 
from  justice,  and  absconding  slaves,  have  found  an 
asylum  there.  Several  tribes  of  Indians,  strong  in 
the  number  of  their  warriors,  remarkable  for  their 
ferocity,  and  whose  settlements  extend  to  our  limits, 
inhabit  those  provinces.  These  different  hordes  of 
people,  connected  together,  disregarding,  on  the  one 


side,  the  authority  of  Spain,  and  protected,  on  the 
other,  by  an  imaginary  line,  which  separates  Florida 
from  the  United  States,  have  violated  our  laws  pro- 
hibiting the  introduction  of  slaves,  have  practised 
various  frauds  on  our  revenue,  and  committed  every 
kind  of  outrage  on  our  peaceable  citizens,  which 
their  proximity  to  us  enabled  them  to  perpetrate. 
The  invasion  of  Amelia  Island,  last  year,  by  a  small 
band  of  adventurers,  not  exceeding  one  hundred  and 
fifty  in  number,  who  wrested  it  from  the  inconsider- 
able Spanish  force  stationed  there  and  held  it  several 
months,  during  which,  a  single  effort  only  was  made 
to  recover  it,  which  failed,  clearly  proves  how  com- 
pletely extinct  the  Spanish  authority  had  become,  as 
the  conduct  of  those  adventurers,  while  in  possession 
of  the  island,  as  distinctly  shows  the  pernicious  pur- 
poses for  which  their  combination  had  been  formed. 

This  country  had,  in  fact,  become  the  theatre  of 
every  species  of  lawless  adventure.  With  little  popu- 
lation of  its  own,  the  Spanish  authority  almost  ex- 
tinct, and  the  colonial  governments  in  a  state  of 
revolution,  having  no  pretension  to  it,  and  sufficiently 
employed  in  their  own  concerns,  it  was  in  a  great 
measure  derelict,  and  the  object  of  cupidity  to  every 
adventurer.  A  system  of  buccaneering  was  rapidly 
organizing  over  it,  which  menaced,  in  its  conse"- 
quences,  the  lawful  commerce  of  every  nation,  and 
particularly  of  the  United  States  ;  while  it  presented 
a  temptation  to  every  people,  on  whose  seduction  its 
success  principally  depended.  In  regard  to  the  Unit- 
ed States,  the  pernicious  effect  of  this  unlawful  com- 
bination was  not  confined  to  the  ocean.  The  Indian 
tribes  have  constituted  the  effective  force  in  Florida. 
With  these  tribes  these  adventurers  had  formed  at  an 
early  period,  a  connection,  with  a  view  to  avail  them- 
selves of  that  force,  to  promote  their  own  projects  of 
accumulation  and  aggrandizement.  It  is  to  the  in- 
terference of  some  of  these  adventurers,  in  misrepre- 
senting the  claims  and  titles  of  the  Indians  to  land, 
and  in  practising  on  their  savage  propensities,  that 
the  Seminole  war  is  principally  to  be  traced.  Men 
who  thus  connect  themselves  with  savage  communi- 
ties, and  stimulate  them  to  war,  which  is  always  at- 
tended, on  their  part,  with  acts  of  barbarity  the  most 
shocking,  deserve  to  be  viewed  in  a  worse  light  than 
the  savages.  They  would  certainly  have  no  claim 
to  an  immunity  from  the  punishment  which,  accord- 
ing to  the  rules  of  warfare  practised  by  the  savages, 
might  justly  be  inflicted  on  the  savages  themselves. 

If  the  embarrassments  of  Spain  prevented  her  from 
making  an  indemnity  to  our  citizens,  for  so  long  a 
time,  from  her  treasury,  for  their  losses  by  spoliation 
and  otherwise,  it  _was  always  in  her  power  to  have 
provided  it,  by  the  cession  of  this  territory.  Of  this 
her  Government  has  been  repeatedly  apprised,  and 
the  cession  was  the  more  to  have  been  anticipated, 
as  Spain  must  have  known  that,  in  ceding  it,  she 
would,  in  effect,  cede  what  had  become  of  little  value 
to  her,  and  would  likewise  relieve  herself  from  the  im-* 
portant  obligation  secured  by  the  treaty  of  1795,  and 
all  other  compromitments  respecting  it.  If  the  Unit- 
ed States,  from  consideration  of  these  embarrassments, 
declined  pressing  their  claims  in  a  spirit  of  hostility, 
the  motive  ought,  at  least,  to  have  been  duly  appre- 
ciated by  the  Government  of  Spain.  It  is  well  known 
to  her  Government  that  other  powers  have  made  to 
the  United  States  an  indemnity  for  like  losses  sus- 
tained by  their  citizens  at  the  same  epoch. 

There  is,  nevertheless,  a  limit,  beyond  which  this 
spirit  of  amity  and  forbearance  can  in  no  instance  be 


DEBATES  OF  CONGRESS. 


181 


NOVEMBER,  1818.] 


President's  Message. 


[SENATE. 


justified.     If  it  was  proper  to  rely  on  amicable  nego-  |  that  combination,  and  justified  the  confidence  with 


tiation  for  an  indemnity  of  losses,  it  would  not  have 
been  so  to  have  permitted  the  inability  of  Spain  to 
fulfil  her  engagements,  and  to  sustain  her  authority 
in  the  Floridas,  to  be  perverted,  by  foreign  adven- 
turers and  savages,  to  purposes  so  destructive  to  the 
lives  of  our  fellow-  citizens,  and  the  highest  interests 
of  the  United  States.  The  right  of  self-defence  never 
ceases.  '  It  is  among  the  most  sacred,  and  alike  ne- 
cessary to  nations  and  individuals.  And,  whether 
the  attack  be  made  by  Spain  herself,  or  by  those  who 
abuse  her  power,  its  obligation  is  not  the  less  strong. 
The  invaders  of  Amelia  Island  had  assumed  a  popular 
and  respected  title,  under  which  they  might  approach 
and  wound  us.  As  their  object  was  distinctly  seen, 
and  the  duty  imposed  on  the  Executive,  by  an  exist- 
ing law,  was  profoundly  felt,  that  mask  was  not  per- 
mitted to  protect  them.  It  was  thought  incumbent 
on  the  United  States  to  suppress  the  establishment, 
and  it  was  accordingly  done.  The  combination  in 
Florida,  for  the  unlawful  purposes  stated,  the  acts 
perpetrated  by  that  combination,  and,  above  all,  the 
incitement  of  the  Indians,  to  massacre  our  fellow- 
citizens,  of  eveiy  age,  and  of  both  sexes,  merited  a 
like  treatment,  and  received  it.  In  pursuing  these 
savages  to  an  imaginary  line,  in  the  woods,  it  would 
have  been  the  height  of  folly  to  have  suffered  that 


line  to  protect  them. 


it  been  done,  the  war 


could  never  cease.  Even  if  the  territory  had  been, 
exclusively,  that  of  Spain,  and  her  power  complete 
over  it,  we  had  a  right,  by  the  law  of  nations,  to 
follow  the  enemy  on  it,  and  'to  subdue  him  there. 
But  the  territory  belonged,  in  a  certain  sense,  at  least, 
to  the  savage  enemy  who  inhabited  it ;  the  power  of 
Spain  had  ceased  to  exist  over  it,  and  protection  was 
sought,  under  her  title,  by  those  who  had  committed 
on  our  citizens  hostilities  which  she  was  bound  by 
treaty  to  have  prevented,  but  had  not  the  power  to 
prevent.  To  have  stopped  at  that  line  would  have 
given  new  encouragement  to  these  savages,  and  new 
vigor  to  the  whole  combination  existing  there,  in  the 
prosecution  of  all  its  pernicious  purposes. 

In  suppressing  the  establishment  at  Amelia  Island, 
no  unfriendliness  was  manifested  towards  Spain,  be- 
cause the  post  was  taken  from  a  force  which  had 
wrested  it  from  her.  The  measure,  it  is  true,  was 
not  adopted  in  concert  with  the  Spanish  Government, 
or  those  in  authority  under  it ;  because,  in  transac- 
tions connected  with  the  war  in  which  Spain  and  the 
colonies  are  engaged,  it  was  thought  proper,  in  doing 
justice  to  the  United  States,  to  maintain  a  strict  im- 
partiality towards  both  the  belligerent  parties,  with- 
out consulting  or  acting  in  concert  with  either.  It 
gives  me  pleasure  to  state,  that  the  Governments  of 
Buenos  Ayres  and  Venezuela,  whose  names  were  as- 
sumed, have  explicitly  disclaimed  all  participation  in 
those  measures,  and  even  the  knowledge  of  them, 
until  communicated  by  this  Government,  and  have 
also  expressed  their  satisfaction  that  a  course  of  pro- 
ceedings had  been  suppressed,  which,  if  justly  imput- 
able  to  them,  would  dishonor  their  cause. 

In  authorizing  Major  General  Jackson  to  enter 
Florida,  in  pursuit  of  the  Seminoles,  care  was  taken 
not  to  encroach  on  the  rights  of  Spain.  I  regret  to 
have  to  add,  that,  in  executing  this  order,  facts  were 
disclosed  respecting  the  conduct  of  the  officers  of 
Spain,  in  authority  there,  in  encouraging  the  war, 
furnishing  munitions  of  war,  and  other  supplies,  to 
carry  it  on,  and  in  other  acts,  not  less  marked,  which 
evinced  their  participation  in  the  hostile  purposes  of 


which  it  inspired  the  savages,  that,  by  those  officers 
they  would  be  protected.  A  conduct  so  incompatible 
with  the  friendly  relations  existing  between  the  two 
countries,  particularly  with  the  positive  obligation  of 
the  5th  article  of  the  treaty  of  1795,  by  which  Spain 
was  bound  to  restrain,  even  by  force,  those  savages, 
from  acts  of  hostility  against  the  United  States,  could 
not  fail  to  excite  surprise.  The  Commanding  Gen- 
eral was  convinced  that  he  should  fail  in  his  object ; 
that  he  should  in  effect  accomplish  nothing,  if  he  did 
not  deprive  those  savages  of  the  resource  on  which 
they  had  calculated,  and  of  the  protection  on  which 
they  had  relied  in  making  the  war.  As  all  the  docu- 
ments relating  to  this  occurrence  will  be  laid  before 
Congress,  it  is  not  necessary  to  enter  into  further 
detail  respecting  it 

Although  the  reasons  which  induced  Major  Gen- 
eral Jackson  to  take  these  posts  were  duly  apprecia- 
ted, there  was,  nevertheless,  no  hesitation  in  deciding 
on  the  course  which  it  became  the  Government  to 
pursue.  As  there  was  reason  to  believe  that  the  com- 
manders of  these  posts  had  violated  their  instructions, 
there  was  no  disposition  to  impute  to  their  Govern- 
ment a  conduct  so  unprovoked  and  hostile.  An  order 
was  in  consequence  issued  to  the  General  in  com- 
mand there  to  deliver  the  posts— Pensacola,  uncondi- 
tionally to  any  person  duly  authorized  to  receive  it ; 
and  St.  Marks,  which  is  in  the  heart  of  the  Indian 
country,  on  the  arrival  of  a  competent  force,  to  defend 
it  against  those  savages  and  their  associates. 

In  entering  Florida  to  suppress  this  combination, 
no  idea  was  entertained  of  hostility  to  Spain,  and, 
however  justifiable  the  Commanding  General  was,  in 
consequence  of  the  misconduct  of  the  Spanish  officers, 
n  entering  St.  Marks  and  Pensacola,  to  terminate  it, 
by  proving  to  the  savages  and  their  associates  that 
they  should  not  be  protected  even  there ;  yet  the 
amicable  relations  existing  between  the  United  States 
and  Spain  could  not  be  altered  by  that  act  alone.  By 
ordering  the  restitution  of  the  posts,  those  relations 
were  preserved.  To  a  change  of  them  the  power  of 
the  Executive  is  deemed  incompetent.  It  is  vested 
in  Congress  only. 

By  this  measure,  so  promptly  taken,  due  respect 
was  shown  to  the  Government  of  Spain.  The  mis- 
conduct of  her  officers  has  not  been  imputed  to  her. 
She  was  enabled  to  review  with  candor  her  relations 
with  the  United  States,  and  her  own  situation,  par- 
ticularly in  respect  to  the  territory  in  question,  with 
the  dangers  inseparable  from  it ;  and,  regarding  the 
losses  we  have  sustained,  for  which  indemnity  has 
been  so.  long  withheld,  and  the  injuries  we  have  suf- 
fered through  that  territory,  and  her  means  of  re- 
dress, she  was  likewise  enabled  to  take,  with  honor, 
the  course  best  calculated  to  do  justice  to  the  United 
States,  and  to  promote  her  own  welfare. 

Copies  of  the  instructions  to  the  Commanding 
General ;  of  his  correspondence  with  the  Secretary  of 
War,  explaining  his  motives,  and  justifying  his  con- 
duct, with  a  copy  of  the  proceedings  of  the  courts- 
martial,  in  the  trial  of  Arbuthnot  and  Ambrister ; 
and  of  the  correspondence  between  the  Secretary  of 
State  and  the  Minister  Plenipotentiary  of  Spain  near 
this  Government :  and  of  the  Minister  Plenipotentiary 
of  the  United  States,  at  Madrid,  with  the  Govern- 
ment of  Spain,  will  be  laid  before  Congress. 

The  civil  war,  which  has  so  long  prevailed  between 
Spain  and  the  provinces  in  South  America,  still  con- 
tinues without  any  prospect  of  its  speedy  termination. 


182 


ABRIDGMENT  OF  THE 


SENATE.] 


President's  Message. 


[NOVEMBER,  1818. 


The  information  respecting  the  condition  of  those 
countries,  which  has  heen  collected  by  the  Commis- 
sioners, recently  returned  from  thence,  will  be  laid 
before  Congress,  in  copies  of  their  reports,  with  such 
other  information  as  has  been  received  from  other 
agents  of  the  United  States. 

It  appears,  from  these  communications,  that  the 
Government  of  Buenos  Ayres  declared  itself  independ- 
ent in  July,  1816,  having  previously  exercised  the 
power  of  an  independent  Government,  though  in  the 
name  of  the  King  of  Spain,  from  the  year  1810:  that 
the  Banda  Oriental,  Entre  Rios,  and  Paraguay,  with 
the  city  of  Santa  Fe,  all  of  which  are  also  independ- 
ent, are  unconnected  with  the  present  Government 
of  Buenos  Ayres :  that  Chili  has  declared  itself  inde- 
pendent, and  is  closely  connected  with  Buenos  Ayres ; 
that  Venezuela  has  also  declared  itself  independent, 
and.  now  maintains  the  conflict  with  various  success  ; 
and  that  the  remaining  parts  of  South  America,  ex- 
cept Montevideo,  and  such  other  portions  of  the 
eastern  bank  of  the  La  Plata  as  are  held  by  Portugal, 
are  still  in  the  possession  of  Spain,  or,  in  a  certain 
degree,  under  her  influence. 

By  a  circular  note  addressed  by  the  Ministers  of 
Spain  to  the  allied  powers  with  whom  they  are  re- 
spectively accredited,  it  appears  that  the  allies  have 
undertaken  to  mediate  between  Spain  and  the  South 
American  provinces,  and  that  the  manner  and  extent 
of  their  interposition  would  be  settled  by  a  Congress, 
which  was  to  have  met  at  Aix-la-Chapelle  in  Sep- 
tember last.  From  the  general  policy  and  course  of 
proceeding  observed  by  the  allied  powers  in  regard  to 
this  contest,  it  is  inferred  that  they  will  confine  their 
interposition  to  the  expression  of  their  sentiments ; 
abstaining  from  the  application  of  force.  I  state  this 
impression,  that  force  will  not  be  applied,  with  the 
greater  satisfaction,  because  it  is  a  course  more  con- 
sistent with  justice,  and  likewise  authorizes  a  hope 
that  the  calamities  of  the  war  will  be  confined  to  the 
parties  only,  and  will  be  of  shorter  duration. 

From  the  view  taken  of  this  subject,  founded  on 
all  the  information  that  we  have  been  able  to  obtain, 
there  is  good  cause  to  be  satisfied  with  the  course 
heretofore  pursued  by  the  United  States,  in  regard  to 
this  contest,  and  to  conclude,  that  it  is  proper  to  ad- 
here to  it,  especially  in  the  present  state  of  affairs. 

I  have  great  satisfaction  in  stating,  that  our  rela- 
tions with  France,  Russia,  and  other  powers,  continue 
on  the  most  friendly  basis. 

In  our  domestic  concerns  we  have  ample  cause  of 
satisfaction.  The  receipts  into  the  Treasury,  during 
the  three  first  quarters  of  the  year,  have  exceeded 
seventeen  millions  of  dollars. 

After  satisfying  all  the  demands  which  have  been 
made  under  existing  appropriations,  including  the 
jinal  extinction  of  the  old  six  per  cent,  stock,  and  the 
redemption  of  a  moiety  of  the  Louisiana  debt,  it  is 
estimated  that  there  will  remain  in  the  Treasury,  on 
the  first  day  of  January  next,  more  than  two  millions 
Of  dollars. 

It  is  ascertained  that  the  gross  revenue  which  has 
accrued  from  the  customs  during  the  same  period 
amounts  to  twenty-one  millions  of  dollars,  and  that 
the  revenue  of  the  whole  year  may  be  estimated  at 
not  less  than  twenty-six  millions.  The  sale  of  the 
public  lands  during  the  year  has  also  greatly  ex- 
ceeded, both  hi  quantity  and  price,  that  of  any  for- 
mer year ;  and  there  is  just  reason  to  expect  a  pro- 
gressive improvement  in  that  source  of  revenue. 

It  is  gratii'ying  to  know,  that,  although  the  annual 


expenditure  has  been  increased  by  the  act  of  the  last 
session  of  Congress,  providing  for  Revolutionary  pen- 
sions, to  an  amount  about  equal  to  the  proceeds  of 
the  internal  duties,  which  were  then  repealed,  the 
revenue  for  the  ensuing  year  will  be  proportionally 
augmented,  and  that,  while  the  public  expenditure 
will  probably  remain  stationary,  each  successive  year 
will  add  to  the  national  resources,  by  the  ordinary 
increase  of  our  population,  and  by  the  gradual  devel- 
opment of  our  latent  sources  of  national  prosperity. 

The  strict  execution  of  the  revenue  laws,  resulting 
principally  from  the  salutary  provisions  of  the  act  of 
the  20th  of  April  last,  amending  the  several  collec- 
tion laws,  has,  it  is  presumed,  secured  to  domestic 
manufactures  all  the  relief  that  can  be  derived  from 
the  duties  which  have  been  imposed  upon  foreign 
merchandise,  for  their  protection.  Under  the  influ- 
ence of  this  relief,  several  branches  of  this  important 
national  interest  have  assumed  greater  activity,  and, 
although  it  is  hoped  that  others  will  gradually  revive, 
and  ultimately  triumph  over  every  obstacle,  yet  the 
expediency  of  granting  further  protection  is  submit- 
ted to  your  consideration. 

The  measures  of  defence,  authorized  by  existing 
laws,  have  been  pursued  with  the  zeal  and  activity 
due  to  so  important  an  object,  and  with  all  the  de- 
spatch practicable  in  so  extensive  and  great  an  under- 
taking. The  survey  of  our  maritime  and  inland  fron- 
tiers has  been  continued ;  and,  at  the  points  where  it 
was  decided  to  erect  fortifications,  the  work  has  been 
commenced,  and,  in  some  instances,  considerable  pro- 
gress has  been  made.  In  compliance  with  resolu- 
tions of  the  last  session,  the  Board  of  Commissioners 
were  directed  to  examine  in  a  particular  manner  the 
parts  of  the  coast  therein  designated,  and  to  report 
their  opinion  of  the  most  suitable  sites  for  two  naval 
depots.  This  work  is  in  a  train  of  execution.  The 
opinion  of  the  Board  on  this  subject,  with  a  plan  of 
all  the  works  necessary  to  a  general  system  of  defence, 
so  far  as  it  has  been  formed,  will  be  laid  before  Con- 
gress, in  a  report  from  the  proper  department,  as  soon 
as  it  can  be  prepared. 

In  conformity  with  the  appropriations  of  the  last 
session,  treaties  have  been  formed  with  the  Quapaw 
tribe  of  Indians,  inhabiting  the  country  on  the  Arkan- 
sas, and  with  the  Great  and  Little  Osages  north  of 
the  White  River ;  with  the  tribes  in  the  State  of  Indi- 
ana ;  with  the  several  tribes  within  the  State  of  Ohio, 
and  the  Michigan  Territory ;  and  with  the  Chicka- 
saws ;  by  which  very  extensive  cessions  of  territory 
have  been  made  to  the  United  States.  Negotiations 
are  now  depending  with  the  tribes  in  the  Illinois 
Territory,  and  with  the  Choctaws,  by  which  it  is  ex- 
pected that  other  extensive  cessions  will  be  made.  I 
take  great  interest  in  stating  that  the  cessions  already 
made,  which  are  considered  so  important  to  the 
United  States,  have  been  obtained  on  conditions  very 
satisfactory  to  the  Indians. 

With  a  view  to  the  security  of  our  inland  frontiers, 
it  has  been  thought  expedient  to  establish  strong  posts 
at  the  mouth  of  Yellow  Stone  River,  and  at  the  Man- 
dan  village,  on  the  Missouri :  and  at  the  mouth  of  St. 
Peters,  on  the  Mississippi,  at  no  great  distance  from 
our  northern  boundaries.  It  can  hardly  be  presumed, 
while  such  posts  are  maintained  in  the  rear  of  the  In- 
dian tribes,  that  they  will  venture  to  attack  our 
peaceable  inhabitants.  A  strong  hope  is  entertained 
that  this  measure  will  likewise  be  productive  of  much 
good  to  the  tribes  themselves  ;  especially  in  promot- 
ing the  great  object  of  their  civilization.  Experience 


DEBATES  OF  CONGKESS. 


183 


NOVEMBER,   1818.] 


Proceedings. 


has  clearly  demonstrated,  that  independent  savage 
communities  cannot  long  exist  within  the  limits  of  a 
civilized  population.  The  progress  of  the  latter  has, 
almost  invariably,  terminated  in  the  extinction  of 
the  former,  especially  of  the  tribes  belonging  to  our 
portion  of  this  hemisphere,  among  whom,  loftiness  of 
sentiment,  and  gallantry  in  action,  have  been  con- 
spicuous. To  civilize  them,  and  even  to  prevent  their 
extinction,  it  seems  to  be  indispensable  that  their  in- 
dependence, as  communities,  should  cease,  and  that 
the  control  of  the  United  States  over  them  should  be 
complete  and  undisputed.  The  hunter  state  will 
then  be  more  easily  abandoned,  and  recourse  will  be 
had  to  the  acquisition  and  culture  of  land,  and  to 
other  pursuits  tending  to  dissolve  the  ties  which  con- 
nect them  together  as  a  savage  community,  and  to 
give  a  new  character  to  every  individual.  I  present 
this  subject  to  the  consideration  of  Congress,  on  the 
presumption  that  it  may  be  found  expedient  and 
practicable  to  adopt  some  benevolent  provisions,  hav- 
ing these  objects  in  view,  relative  to  the  tribes  with- 
in our  settlements. 

It  has  been  necessary,  during  the  present  year,  to 
maintain  a  strong  naval  force  in  the  Mediterranean, 
and  in  the  Gulf  of  Mexico,  and  to  send  some  public 
ships  along  the  Southern  coast,  and  to  the  Pacific 
Ocean.  By  these  means,  amicable  relations  with 
the  Barbary  Powers  have  been  preserved,  our  com- 
merce has  been  protected,  and  our  rights  respected. 
The  augmentation  of  our  Navy  is  advancing,  with 
a  steady  progress,  towards  the  limit  contemplated  by 
law. 

I  communicate,  with  great  satisfaction,  the  acces- 
sion of  another  State,  Illinois,  to  our  Union ;  because 
I  perceive,  from  the  proof  afforded  by  the  additions 
already  made,  the  regular  progress  and  sure  consum- 
mation of  a  policy  of  which  history  affords  no  exam- 
ple, and  of  which  the  good  effect  cannot  be  too  highly 
estimated.  By  extending  our  Government,  on  the 
principles  of  our  constitution,  over  the  vast  territory 
within  our  limits,  on  the  lakes  and  the  Mississippi, 
and  its  numerous  streams,  new  life  and  vigor  are  in- 
fused into  every  part  of  our  system.  By  increasing 
the  number  of  the  States,  the  confidence  of  the  State 
governments  in  their  own  security  is  increased,  and 
their  jealousy  of  the  National  Government  propor- 
tionally diminished.  The  impracticability  of  one 
consolidated  Government  for  this  great  and  growing 
nation  will  be  more  apparent,  and  will  be  universally 
admitted.  Incapable  of  exercising  local  authority, 
except  for  general  purposes,  the  General  Government 
will  no  longer  be  dreaded.  In  those  cases  of  a  local 
nature,  and  for  all  the  great  purposes  for  which  it 
was  instituted,  its  authority  will  be  cherished.  Each 
Government  will  acquire  new  force  and  a  greater  free- 
dom of  action,  within  its  proper  sphere.  Other 
inestimable  advantages  will  follow  :  our  produce  will 
be  augmented  to  an  incalculable  amount,  in  articles 
of  the  greatest  value  for  domestic  use  and  foreign 
commerce.  Our  navigation  will,  in  like  degree,  be 
increased  ;  and,  as  the  shipping  of  the  Atlantic  States 
will  be  employed  in  the  transportation  of  the  vast 
produce  of  the  Western  country,  even  those  parts  of 
the  United  States  which  are  most  remote  from  each 
other,  will  be  further  bound  together  by  the  strongest 
ties  which  mutual  interest  can  create. 

The  situation  of  this  District,  it  is  thought,  requires 
the  attention  of  Congress.  By  the  constitution,  the 
power  of  legislation  is  exclusively  vested  in  the  Con- 
gress of  the  United  States.  In  the  exercise  of  this 


power,  in  which  the  people  have  no  participation, 
Congress  legislate  in  all  cases,  directly  on  the  local 
concerns  of  the  District.  As  this  is  a  departure,  for 
a  special  purpose,  from  the  general  principles  of  our 
system,  it  may  merit  consideration,  whether  an 
arrangement  better  adapted  to  the  principles  of  our 
Government,  and  to  the  particular  interests  of  the 
people,  may  not  be  devised,  which  will  neither  in- 
fringe the  constitution,  nor  affect  the  object  which 
the  provision  in  question  was  intended  to  secure. 
The  growing  population,  already  considerable,  and 
the  increasing  business  of  the  District,  which  it  is 
believed  already  interferes  with  the  deliberations  of 
Congress  on  great  national  concerns,  furnish  addi- 
tional motives  for  recommending  this  subject  to  your 
consideration. 

When  we  view  the  great  blessings  with  which  our 
country  has  been  favored,  those  which  we  now  enjoy, 
and  the  means  which  we  possess  of  handing  them 
down,  unimpaired,  to  our  latest  posterity,  our  atten- 
tion is  irresistibly  drawn  to  the  source  from  whence 
they  flow.  Let  us  then  unite  in  offering  our  most 
grateful  acknowledgments  for  these  blessings  to  the 
Divine  Author  of  all  Good. 

JAMES  MONROE. 

NOVEMBER  16,  1818. 

The  Message  was  read,  and  two  thousand 
copies  thereof  ordered  to  be  printed  for  the  use 
of  the  Senate. 


WEDNESDAY,  November  18. 
HARRISON  GRAY  OTIS,  from   the  State  of 
Massachusetts,  attended  this  day. 


THURSDAY,  November  19. 
JOHN  J.  CBITTENDEN,  from  the  State  of  Ken- 
tucky, attended  this  day. 


FRIDAY,  November  20. 
CLEMENT  STOKER,   from  the  State  of  New 
Hampshire,  attended  this  day. 


MONDAY,  November  23. 
NICHOLAS  VAN  DYKE,  from  the  State  of  Dela- 
ware, attended  this  day;  JOHN  FORSYTH,  ap- 
pointed a  Senator  by  the  Legislature  of  the 
State  of  Georgia,  to  supply  the  vacancy  occa- 
sioned'by  the  resignation  of  George  M.  Troup, 
produced  his  credentials,  was  qualified,  and 
took  his  seat  in  the  Senate. 


TUESDAY,  November  24 

Mr.  FROMENTIN  submitted  the  following  mo- 
tion for  consideration : 

Resolved,  That  the  President  of  the  United  States 
be  requested  to  cause  to  be  laid  before  the  Senate 
such  information  as  he  may  possess  touching  the  exe- 
cution of  so  much  of  the  first  article  of  the  late 
Treaty  of  Peace  and  Amity  between  His  Britannic 
Majesty  and  the  United  States  of  America  as  relates 
to  the  restitution  of  slaves,  and  which  has  not  hereto- 
fore been  communicated. 


184 


ABRIDGMENT  OF  THE 


SENATE.] 


Memorial  of  Matthew  Lyon. 


[DECEMBER,  1818. 


WEDNESDAY,  November  25. 

OUTERBRIDGE  HORSEY,  from  the  State  of  Del- 
aware, attended  this  day. 

Agreeably  to  notice  given,  Mr.  GOLDSBOEOTJGH 
asked  and  obtained  leave  to  introduce  a  resolu- 
tion to  erect  a  monument  over  the  remains  of 
the  late  General  GEORGE  WASHINGTON,  where 
they  now  lie ;  and  the  resolution  was  read,  and 
passed  to  the  second  reading. 


MONDAY,  November  30. 
ISHAM  TALBOT,  from  the  State  of  Kentucky, 
attended  this  day. 

TUESDAY,  December  1. 

Mr.  FORSYTE  submitted  the  following  motion 
for  consideration : 

Resolved,  That  the  Committee  on  Finance  be  in- 
structed to  inquire  into  the  expediency  of  prohibiting 
the  exportation  of  the  gold,  silver,  and  copper  coins 
of  the  United  States. 


WEDNESDAY,  December  2. 
MONTFORD  STOKES,  from  the  State  of  North 
Carolina,  attended  this  day. 


THURSDAY,  December  3. 
Deported  Slaves. 

The  following  Message  was  received  from  the 
PRESIDENT  OF  THE  UNITED  STATES  : 
To  the  Senate  of  the  United  States: 

In  compliance  with  the  resolution  of  the  Senate, 
of  the  25th  of  last  month,  requesting  to  be  furnished 
with  such  information  as  may  be  possessed  by  the 
Executive,  touching  the  execution  of  so  much  of  the 
first  article  of  the  late  Treaty  of  Peace  and  Amity 
between  His  Britannic  Majesty  and  the  United  States, 
as  relates  to  the  restitution  of  slaves,  and  which  has 
not  heretofore  been  communicated,  I  lay  before  the 
Senate  a  report  made  by  the  Secretary  of  State,  on 
the  1st  instant,  in  relation  to  that  subject. 

JAMES  MONEOE. 

DECEMBER  2,  1818. 

DEPARTMENT  OF  STATE,  Dec.  1,  1818. 

The  Secretary  of  State,  to  whom  has  been  referred 
the  resolution  of  the  Senate,  of  the  13th  ultimo,  re- 
questing information  not  heretofore  communicated, 
relating  to  restitution  of  slaves,  conformably  to  the 
first  article  of  the  late  Treaty  of  Peace  between  the 
United  States  and  Great  Britain,  has  the  honor  of 
reporting  to  the  President  of  the  United  States,  that 
the  difference  of  construction  given  by  the  two  Gov- 
ernments to  that  part  of  the  first  article  of  the 
Treaty,  and  the  claim  of  the  citizens  of  the  United 
States  to  indemnity  for  slaves  carried  away  contrary 
to  its  stipulations,  form  one  of  the  subjects  of  nego- 
tiation now  pending  in  England  ;  which  negotiation 
having  commenced  towards  the  close  of  the  month  of 
August,  no  report  of  its  progress  has  yet  been  re- 
ceived at  this  Department,  from  the  Plenipotentiaries, 
to  whom,  on  the  part  of  the  United  States,  it  has 
been  committed. 

JOHN  QUINCY  ADAMS. 

The  Message  and  documents  were  read,  and 
ordered  to  lie  on  the  table. 


FRIDAY,  December  4. 

WILLIAM  HUNTER,  from  the  State  of  Rhode 
Island  and  Providence  Plantations,  attended 
this  day. 

NINIAN  EDWARDS  and  JESSE  B.  THOMAS,  re- 
spectively appointed  Senators  by  the  Legisla- 
ture of  the  State  of  Illinois,  produced  their  cre- 
dentials, were  qualified,  and  took*  their  seats 
in  the  Senate. 


TUESDAY,  December  8. 
Memorial  of  Matthew  Lyon. 

The  Senate  resumed  the  consideration  of  the 
report  of  the  Committee  on  the  Judiciary,  to 
whom  was  referred  the  memorial  of  Matthew 
Lyon,  of  Eddyville,  in  the  State  of  Kentucky, 
praying  reimbursement  of  a  certain  fine,  im- 
posed in  the  year  1798,  at  the  suit  of  the  Unit- 
ed States,  together  with  the  costs  and  other 
losses  attending  the  same,  to  wit:  "That  the 
prayer  of  the  petition  ought  not  to  be  granted." 
Whereupon, 

Mr.  CRITTENDEN  submitted  the  following  mo- 
tion as  an  amendment : 

Resolved,  That  all  persons,  who  were  prosecuted 
and  fined  under  and  by  virtue  of  the  second  section 
of  the  act  of  Congress,  commonly  called  the  sedition 
law,  approved  the  14th  day  of  July,  1798,  and  en- 
titled "  An  act  in  addition  to  the  act  entitled  '  An  act 
for  the  punishment  of  certain  crimes  against  the 
United  States,'  "  ought  to  be  reimbursed  and  indem- 
nified out  of  the  public  Treasury,  to  the  amount  of 
the  fines  imposed  upon,  and  paid  by  them,  respect- 
ively. 

Mr.  CHITTENDEN  said  he  considered  the  sedi- 
tion act  as  having  been  unconstitutional,  not 
only  from  a  defect  of  power  in  Congress  to  pass 
such  a  law,  but  because  its  passage  was  ex- 
pressly forbidden  by  the  constitution.  The 
sense  of  the  nation  had  unquestionably  pro- 
nounced it  unconstitutional,  and  that  opinion 
being  generally  entertained,  it  ought  to  be  sol- 
emnly pronounced  by  the  Legislature,  that  his- 
tory and  the  records  of  the  country  may  not 
hand  it  down  to  posterity  as  a  precedent  for 
acts  of  similar  usurpation.  If  a  revision  of  the 
proceedings  in  that  case  was  important  in  a 
public  point  of  view,  it  was  certainly  so  as  it 
related  to  the  individuals  who  became  the  sub- 
jects of  prosecution  under  that  act.  To  each 
of  them,  and  to  every  citizen  of  the  United 
States,  the  Constitution  of  the  United  States  had 
guaranteed  certain  rights,  which  had  been  vio- 
lated by  that  law.  This  guarantee  entitled 
them  to  indemnity  in  cases  wherein  those  rights 
were  violated ;  of  this  indemnity,  the  decision 
of  courts  ought  not  to  deprive  them.  If  they 
did,  he  said,  there  is  no  redeeming  spirit  in  the 
constitution.  Legal  sanctions  cannot  viti'ite 
constitutional  provisions.  The  Judiciary  is  a 
valuable  part  of  Government,  and  ought  to  be 
highly  respected;  but  is  not  infallible.  The 
constitution  is  our  guide — our  supreme  law. 
Blind  homage  can  never  be  rendered  by  freemen 
to  any  power.  In  all  cases  of  alleged  violations 


DEBATES  OF  CONGRESS. 


185 


DECEMBER,  1818.] 


Memorial  of  Matthew  Lyon. 


[SENATE. 


of  the  constitution,  it  was  for  Congress  to  make 
a  just  discrimination.  In  doubtful  cases,  he 
said,  he  would  iiot  interfere ;  but,  when  the 
constitution  forbade  a  law,  he  would  not  hesi- 
tate to.  interpose  for  the  relief  of  those  who 
suffered  by  its  inflictions.  The  case  now  before 
the  Senate,  he  considered  a  fair  case  for  the  in- 
terposition of  Congress.  It  had  a  peculiar  char- 
acter. The  individual  had  a  right  to  remunera- 
tion ;  this  right  ought  not  to  be  sacrificed  to 
contingencies,  or  to  speculative  opinions.  We 
may  not  do  wrong  that  right  may  come  of  it. 
Justice  to  the  individuals,  to  the  constitution, 
to  the  country,  all  required  this  course.  Let  us 
add,  said  Mr.  C.,  new  defences  and  guards  to 
the  constitution  in  this  assailable  point.  Let  us 
secure  it,  as  far  as  in  our  power,  from  future 
infraction  on  the  ground  of  precedent. 

Mr.  BUEBILL  sa_id  he  hoped  the  amendment 
•would  not  prevail.  If  it  was  negatived,  the 
gentleman  would  yet  have  it  in  his  pow«r  to 
try  the  general  question  by  introducing  a  bill 
embracing  his  proposition.  But,  Mr.  B.  said, 
not  a  fact  alleged  in  the  petition  now  before  the 
Senate  was  supported  by  any  proof,  though  the 
facts  were  extraordinary  in  then*  nature,  and 
not  to  be  believed  without  proof.  The  peti- 
tioner had  asked  relief  from  Congress,  on  the 
ground  of  not  having  had  a  fair  trial.  Ought 
not  this  to  be  proved,  instead  of  being  merely 
asserted?  He  had  called  Judge  Patterson  a 
second  Jeffries,  himself  an  Algernon  Sydney ; 
but  this  was  not  a  ground  on  which  the  Senate 
could  found  a  legislative  act.  The  question  re- 
garding the  constitutionality  of  the  act  of  Con- 
gress, which  had  been  agitated,  Mr.  B.  said  he 
would  not  argue ;  not  that  he  had  any  doubts 
on  the  subject,  but  because  it  was  unnecessary 
now  to  discuss  it.  The  question  really  before 
the  Senate  was  one  which  could  be  discussed 
without  reference  to  the  character  of  Judge 
Patterson,  and  without  reflecting  on  the  admin- 
istration of  justice  in  the  courts  of  our  country. 
The  facts  alleged  were  not  proved,  and  Mr.  B. 
believed  they  were  not  susceptible  of  proof. 

Mr.  BAEBOTJE  said  he  had  not  intended  to 
speak  on  this  question,  unless  impelled  by  an 
imperious  sense  of  duty.  He  was  happy,  he 
said,  that  the  question  presented  to  the  Senate, 
instead  of  being  decided  on  the  merit  or  de- 
merit of  an  individual,  was  to  be  decided  on 
the  broad  ground  of  principle.  "Was  the  course 
proposed  in  the  amendment,  he  asked,  an  un- 
usual course  ?  Was  it  not  a  daily  practice  to 
include  all  who  were  in  the  same  predicament 
in  the  same  remedy  ?  An  individual,  Mr.  B. 
said,  was  responsible  for  any  charges  he  made  ; 
and  they  are  not  to  be  received  as  facts  until 
satisfactorily  proved.  Let  not,  therefore,  the 
great  constitutional  question  now  presented  rest 
on  the  merit  of  the  claim  of  a  single  individual, 
or  be  encumbered  by  questions  of  fact  peculiar 
to  an  isolated  case.  The  true  question  now  to 
be  decided,  was,  did  the  Government,  by  the 
sedition  act  of  1798,  from  improper  motives  of 
party  feelings,  violate  the  constitution  and  op- 


press individuals?  If  they  did,  ought  not  the 
new  trustees  to  whom  the  people  had  confided 
their  authority,  to  remedy  the  evil  as  far  as  in 
their  power?  The  public  sentiment,  he  said, 
called  upon  Congress  to  repair  the  wrongs  which 
had  been  inflicted,  and  to  administer,  like  the 
good  Samaritan,  the  healing  balm  to  every 
wound.  This,  he  thought,  was  a  propitious 
moment  to  retrace  the  former  steps,  in  deference 
to  the  opinion  of  the  people,  and  erect  a  barrier 
against  the  recurrence  of  similar  aggressions  of 
power  on  inherent  and  constitutional  right. 
This,  he  said,  was  not  the  tribunal  to  take  cog- 
nizance of  judicial  delinquency :  that  was  the 
province  of  the  other  House.  But  it  was  quite 
within  the  power  of  this  body,  as  one  branch  of 
the  Legislature,  to  pronounce  that  those  who 
gave  the  authority  exercised  by  the  judiciary 
had  no  right  to  do  so,  and  that,  therefore,  the 
judiciary  had  proceeded  unconstitutionally  in 
executing  the  law,  the  constitution  being  the 
paramount  law.  He  believed,  he  said,  our 
courts  were  the  purest  in  the  world ;  but  those 
who  composed  them  were  mere  men,  and  some 
of  them,  possibly,  bad  men.  Was  there  any 
thing,  he  asked,  in  the  ermine  robe,  which  con- 
ferred on  the  wearer  exemption  from  human 
frailties  ?  It  was  rather  calculated  to  inflate  the 
vanity,  and  increase  the  confidence  of  the  judge 
in  his  own  infallibility.  He  would  not,  he  said, 
act  indelicately  towards  the  judiciary,  or  any 
member  of  it ;  but,  in  regard  to  the  violation  of 
the  constitution,  in  the  passage  and  execution 
of  the  sedition  law,  a  tribunal  from  which  there 
was  no  appeal,  had  decided  on  it.  There  was 
among  the  people,  at  this  day,  scarcely  a  dis- 
sentient voice  on  that  subject.  Would  the  de- 
cision of  four  or  five  individuals  counterbalance 
this  unanimous  opinion  ?  The  sedition  act,  Mr. 
B.  proceeded  to  say,  was  one  of  the  most  con- 
spicuous among  the  acts  of  misrule,  in  conse- 
quence of  which  the  party  who  then  held  the 
reins  of  Government  was  precipitated  from 
power.  The  law,  he  said,  was  unconstitutional, 
and  Congress  ought  to  say  so,  and  to  repair  the 
ravages  made  under  color  of  its  authority. 

Mr.  OTIS  said,  this  debate  was  wholly  unex- 
pected by  him,  until  the  gentleman  from  Ken- 
tucky gave  him  an  intimation  a  day  or  two  ago, 
that  he  intended  to  oppose  the  report  of  the 
committee.  He  did  not  then  intend  to  inter- 
fere, as  he  believed  the  few  observations  he 
might  make  would  be  wholly  unprofitable ;  and 
nothing  but  some  allusions  which  had  been 
made,  would  induce  him  to  address  the  Senates 
He  was  the  only  member  of  Congress,  now  in 
the  Senate,  who  voted  for  the  sedition  law ;  and 
there  were  but  four  or  five  in  the  other  House, 
who  had  aided  in  passing  this  law.  It  might 
be  expected  he  would  let  the  world  see  he  was 
not  ashamed  of  his  old  friends,  nor  of  his  old 
principles.  He  was  not  now  an  advocate  for  ft 
sedition  law.  The  public  opinion,  as  clearly 
ascertained,  forbade  it.  He  respected  this 
opinion  as  sincerely  as  those  who  much  oftener 
referred  to  it.  It  was  his  inclination,  as  well 


186 


ABRIDGMENT  OF  THE 


SENATE.] 


Memorial  of  Matthew  Lyan. 


[DECEMBER,  1818. 


as  his  duty,  to  conform  to  it.  But,  though  he 
would  not  repeat  the  offence,  he  could  not  re- 
pent it.  In  supporting  that  law  on  its  passage, 
he  acted  from  a  sense  of  duty.  Those  who 
acted  with  him,  were  governed  by  motives 
equally  honorable.  He  admitted  the  law  was 
inexpedient,  but  he  thought  gentlemen  mistaken 
when  they  pronounced  it  unconstitutional.  This 
question  had  been  ably  discussed,  as  well  by 
those  who  were  opposed  to  the  law,  as  by  those 
who  advocated  it ;  and  he  should  not  now  enter 
deeply  into  the  subject.  Every  Government 
had  an  inherent  right  to  punish  offences  which 
endangered  its  existence  ;  and  on  this  definition 
he  relied  for  a  justification  of  the  law.  If  the 
President  and  Congress  were  convinced  there 
was  a  necessity*  for  such  a  law,  they  had  a 
right  to  enact  it.  It  was  passed  in  a  period  of 
great  danger  and  alarm.  It  was  true,  it  had 
been  said  these  were  chimerical.  He  trusted 
this  would  not  now  be  said.  It  was  a  period  of 
war,  and  of  threatened  invasion.  Our  ministers 
of  peace  had  been  spurned  by  the  French  Ke- 
public,  who  had  demanded  more  money.  The 
nation  was  preparing  to  resist.  At  this  mo- 
ment the  law  was  passed.  It  was  a  measure  of 
defence — a  part  of  the  general  system.  Of  this 
system  WASHINGTON  approved,  and  accepted 
the  command  of  the  army.  Mr.  O.  did  not  wish 
to  excite  unpleasant  feelings,  and  would  en- 
deavor to  avoid  it.  There  was  one  argument 
more  he  would  urge.  Had  gentlemen  lately 
read  the  law  ?  If  they  had,  they  would  remem- 
ber that  its  second  section  only  punished  the 
publication  of  false,  scandalous,  and  malicions 
matter,  and  admitted  the  truth  to  be  given  in 
the  defence.  He  had  always  been  surprised 
that  this  section  was  found  fault  with,  while 
the  first  section,  defining  a  conspiracy,  and  pre- 
scribing its  punishment,  had  been  passed  over 
without  animadversion.  The  law  was  doubt- 
less inexpedient,  but  it  was  not  new  in  princi- 
ple. Similar  provisions  existed  in  several  of 
the  States ;  and  this  act  was  deemed  essential 
for  the  defence  of  the  constitution  and  its  au- 
thorities. It  was  not  intended  to  affect  the 
poor  individuals  who  became  its  victims ;  but 
it  was  thought  that  France,  who  was  every- 
where endeavoring  to  extend  her  influence  by 
intrigue  and  corruption,  would,  by  her  agents, 
busy  herself  in  our  concerns,  and  that  the  pro- 
visions of  this  act  were  necessary  to  defeat  their 
efforts,  and  preserve  the  Government.  No 
matter  whether  those  apprehensions  were  un- 


*  This  assumed  source  of  power— necessity— constituted 
the  main  dividing  line  between  the  Federalists  and  Repub- 
licans in  the  beginning  of  the  Government,  and  was  the  ar- 
gument on  which  their  support  or  opposition  to  measures 
enlarging  the  powers  of  Congress  so  often  turned— the  Fed- 
eral party  for  it,  the  Republicans  against  it  But  at  a  later 
period— the  time  of  the  establishment  of  the  second  National 
Bank,  and  the  commencement  of  federal  internal  improve- 
ment, the  Republicans  fell  into  the  same  doctrine— and  with 
the  same  fate ;  experience  showing  that  each  did,  under  the 
plea  (,(  necessary,  what  was  not  so. 


founded  or  not — they  existed.  Nor  need  it  be 
wondered  at.  We  had  since  seen  and  heard  it 
asserted,  that  the  finger  of  Great  Britain  was 
discovered  in  the  proceedings  of  men,  whose 
principles,  services,  lives,  families,  and  fortunes 
were  certain  pledges  of  their  fidelity  to  their 
country.  But,  admitting  that  gentlemen  are 
correct,  and  that  indelible  stigma  should  bo 
stamped  on  the  law  and  its  authors,  can  Con- 
gress remedy  the  wrong  done?  We  have  no 
constitutional  power  to  declare  any  law  uncon- 
stitutional, in  any  other  mode  than  by  repealing 
it.  If  gentlemen  thought  we  had,  he  would 
thank  them  to  point  out  the  clause.  They  could 
not  do  it.  We  have  no  such  power.  The  Ju- 
diciary could  do  justice  in  such  cases,  but  the 
Legislature  cannot. 

Mr.  SMITH  said,  that,  being  of  the  committee 
who  reported  against  the  petition,  and  of  opinion 
that  the  prayer  of  it  ought  not  to  be  granted,  he 
deemed  it  a  duty  to  offer  his  reasons  for  differ- 
ing from  the  gentlemen  from  Kentucky  and 
Virginia.  He  was  in  favor  of  the  report,  and 
against  the  amendment.  His  political  principles 
were  and  always  had  been  republican  or  (as  they 
had  been  formerly  called,  by  way  of  reproach) 
democratic.  His  principles  had  never  changed, 
nor  was  it  probable  they  ever  would,  lie  was 
sorry  gentlemen  had  gone  so  deep  into  the  ques- 
tion, as  it  might  awaken  feelings  which  had  bet- 
ter be  permitted  to  slumber.  When  the  sedi- 
tion law  passed,  public  opinion  revolted  a^ain^t 
its  principles  and  provisions,  not  because  it  was 
unconstitutional,  but  because  of  the  temper 
manifested  in  enacting  and  executing  it,  -winch 
induced  a  belief  that  the  object  was  to  crush  all 
opposition  to  the  party  in  power.  That  party 
were  continually  pouring  in  addresses  upon  the 
President,  applauding  his  measures,  and  de- 
nouncing those  who  differed  from  them  in  opin- 
ion. The  very  children  presented  their  adula- 
tory offerings ;  and  it  was  remarked  by  some 
one  at  the  time,  that  the  President  had  as  many 
addresses  in  his  bureau  as  James  the  First  had. 
The  Democrats  were  denounced,  and  the  Pres- 
ident called  on  to  remove  them  all  from  office ; 
and  on  every  removal  of  one  of  them,  addresses 
were  sent  to  the  President  approbating  his  con- 
duct. This  created  the  alarm.  To  this  violence 
the  sedition  law  owed  the  opposition  it  experi- 
enced, and  not  to  the  belief  that  it  was  uncon- 
stitutional. The  times  were  not  now  what  they 
were  in  1798.  The  Government  now  admitted 
its  opponents  to  a  participation  in  its  offices, 
and  its  friends  did  not  clamor  for  their  dis- 
missal. 

But  he  would  drop  this  subject,  and  return  to 
the  question.  The  gentlemen  from  Massachu- 
setts and  Rhode  Island  justly  opposed  the  as- 
sumption by  Congress  to  decide  on  the  consti- 
tutionality of  a  law.  Our  constitution  had  very 
properly  separated  the  powers  of  Government 
— the  Executive,  Legislative,  and  Judicial.  They 
should  be  kept  separate.  The  Judiciary  was  to 
construe  laws.  Congress  could  not  reverse  their 
decisions,  nor  repair  their  injuries.  When  they 


DEBATES  OF  CONGRESS. 


187 


DECEMBER,  1818.] 


Memorial  of  Matthew  Lyon. 


[SENATE. 


had  passed  a  law,  and  the  President  signed  it, 
they  could  not  touch  it,  unless  to  repeal  or 
amend  it.  The  opinions  of  legal  men  ought  to 
have  great  weight.  The  Judiciary  was  com- 
posed of  such.  They  were  selected  for  their 
legal  acquirements.  They  deliberated  well  be- 
fore they  decided.  They  would  not  have  stoop- 
ed to  party  purposes,  but  they  gave  the  law  its 
full  operation.  This  could  give  Congress  no 
right  to  interfere.  Are  you  to  presume  the 
judges  were  perjured  and  prostituted?  We 
ought  not  to  do  so  without  proof;  and  we  have 
here  only  the  suggestions  and  recollections  of 
eighteen  or  twenty  years  ago.  And  he  must 
here  say,  the  petitioner  had  here  given  evidence 
that  he  can  now  write  bitterly,  if  he  did  not 
then.  He  appealed  to  gentlemen  who  had  pro- 
fessionally studied  law,  whether  the  sedition  act 
was  unconstitutional.  He  was  not  satisfied  it 
was  so,  but  inclined  to  think  otherwise.  In  this 
case  at  least,  the  applicant  ought  not  to  be 
believed,  as  there  was  no  evidence  of  the  truth 
of  his  allegations.  In  the  infancy  of  our  Gov- 
vernment,  the  common  law  of  England  was 
adopted.  This  forbade  the  proof  of  any  fact 
alleged,  and  was  much  more  severe  than  the 
sedition  law.  Under  the  common  law,  instead 
of  admitting  the  truth  as  a  justification,  "  The 
greater  the  truth,  the  greater  the  libel."  The 
jury  could  only  decide  on  the  fact  of  publica- 
tion, and  the  court  could  fine  and  imprison  at 
their  discretion.  There  was  no  offence  punish- 
able by  the  sedition  act  but  was  indictable  &t 
common  law,  save  perhaps  in  a  single  case  ;  and 
while  under  the  former  the  truth  might  be  given 
in  evidence,  and  the  jury  had  cognizance  both 
of  law  and  fact,  under  the  latter  the  truth  but 
aggravated  the  offence,  and  the  offender  was  at 
the  mercy  of  the  court.  The  sedition  law  was 
therefore  an  amelioration  of  the  common  law. 
But  the  great  evil  was  in  the  spirit  which  pre- 
vailed in  its  enaction  and  administration. 

Mr.  MACON  had  hoped  the  resolution  would  be 
discussed  on  its  merits,  as  it  did  not  even  men- 
tion Matthew  Lyon's  name.  The  true  question 
was,  will  you  review  the  proceedings  under  the 
sedition  law,  now,  while  party  spirit  is  hushed, 
and  all  is  calm  ?  This  calm  he  did  not  wish  to 
disturb.  But  if  you  agree  to  the  report,  and  re- 
ject the  petition,  how  will  you  bring  the  ques- 
tion before  you  ?  He  was  told  the  precedent 
would  be  dangerous.  He  would  meet  this  at 
once.  If  any  party  in  power  thought  it  their 
duty  to  follow  it,  let  them  do  so.  He  did  not 
admire  precedent  more  than  the  gentleman  from 
South  Carolina,  but,  when  wrong  was  done,  it 
ought  to  be  righted.  The  adoption  of  the  con- 
stitution, and  the  state  of  things  abroad  and  at 
home,  which  ensued,  had  excited  heats  in  the 
country;  and  he  supposed  both  parties  \vi-iv 
sometimes  wrong.  The  country  is  now  peace- 
ful, and  we  can  act  free  from  prejudice  or  party. 
He  should  not  attempt  to  discuss  the  constitu- 
tionality of  the  sedition  law.  He  had  often 
been  heard  on  this  subject,  and  he  supposed 
every  man  had  made  up  his  mind  on  the  ques- 


tion. If  the  Senate  was  satisfied  the  law  was 
unconstitutional,  they  ought  to  adopt  the  reso- 
ution ;  if  they  had  doubts,  they  ought  to  re- 
ect  it.  Some  facts  were  stated  in  the  petition 
lot  known  to  him;  but  he  believed  Matthew 
Lyon  had  remunerated  all  the  members  who  ad- 
vanced money  to  relieve  him  from  his  fine.  Ac- 
ording  to  some  gentleman  we  were  to  regard 
the  judiciary  more  than  the  law,  and  both  more 
than  the  constitution.  It  was  a  misfortune  the 
udges  were  not  equal  in  infallibility  to  the  God 
who  made  them.  The  truth  was,  if  the  judge 
was  a  party  man  out  of  power,  he  would  be  a 
party  man  in.  The  office  would  not  change 
tmman  nature.  He  had  no  doubt  that  the  sedi- 
tion law,  and  the  proceedings  under  it,  had  more 
effect  in  revolutionizing  the  Government  than 
all  its  other  acts.  He  well  remembered  the 
language  of  the  times — pay  your  taxes,  but 
don't  speak  against  Government.  The  gentle- 
man from  Massachusetts  admits  the  inexpe- 
diency of  the  law,  but  not  its  unconstitution- 
ality.  This  was  of  itself  a  great  concession. 
Would  he,  or  the  gentleman  from  South  Caro- 
lina, put  his  finger  on  the  clause  of  the  consti- 
tution which  authorized  that  law  ?  He  would 
not  impute  evil  motives — he  had  nothing  to  do 
with  them,  but  with  acts.  He  would  have  pre- 
ferred a  silent  vote ;  but,  being  referred  to  in 
the  petition,  he  could  not  be  silent.  Money  is 
paid  back  daily  from  the  Treasury  to  individu- 
als, without  its  being  called  revising  the  decision 
of  the  judges.  He  did  not  agree  with  the  gen- 
tleman from  Massachusetts  about  the  powers  of 
the  Government.  That  gentleman  thought  it 
might  do  any  act  necessary  to  its  preservation. 
He,  Mr.  M.,  believed  it  could  not  go  beyond  the 
constitution.  We  have  in  this  country  two  gov- 
ernments. The  constitution  defines  the  powers 
of  the  General  Government,  and  leaves  the  State 
governments  untouched.  He  thought  the  po- 
sition clear,  that  if  there  was  no  constitutional 
power  to  pass  the  law,  the  money  was  taken 
wrongfully,  and  ought  to  be  restored.  Mr.  MA- 
CON  was  sorry  the  names  of  judges  had  been 
introduced.  We  ought  to  pass  lightly  over  the 
ashes  of  the  dead.  Let  them  sleep  quietly  with 
their'  fathers — he  would  not  disturb  them. 

The  Senate  adjourned,  without  taking  the 
question. 

WEDNESDAY,  December  9. 
Memorial  of  Matthew  Lyon. 

The  Senate  resumed  the  consideration  of  the 
report  of  the  Judiciary  Committee  unfavorable 
to  the  petition  of  Matthew  Lyon ;  Mr.  CRITTEN- 
DEN'S  motion  to  re  verse  the  report,  and  to  make 
general  provision  for  the  indemnification  of  all 
similar  cases  occurring  under  the  sedition  law, 
being  yet  under  consideration : 

Mr.'MoRRiLL  said,  the  discussion  had  taken  a 
course  which  was  unexpected ;  and  he  felt  it  a 
duty  to  make  some  remarks,  and  assign  the  rea- 
sons which  would  govern  his  vote.  The  ques- 
tion turned  on  the  constitutionality  of  the  sedi- 


188 


ABRIDGMENT  OF  THE 


SENATE.] 


General  John  Stark. 


[DECEMBER,  1818. 


tion  law.  He  was  opposed  to  the  resolution, 
because  he  believed  the  law  constitutional.  The 
law  only  punished  false,  licentious,  and  mali- 
cious writings.  The  constitution  did  not  mean 
to  prohibit  a  law  to  punish  these.  It  was  in- 
tended to  cherish  virtue  and  morality,  and  to 
preserve  our  rights  and  privileges  ;  and  which 
of  these  did  we  esteem  higher  than  reputation  ? 
The  constitution  prohibited  any  law  abridging 
the  free'dom  of  speech  or  of  the  press.  Now, 
freedom  and  liberty  are  synonymous  and  con- 
vertible terms.  The  law  was  not  intended  to 
abridge  the  liberty  of  the  press,  but  its  licen- 
tiousness. The  second  section  allowed  the  truth 
to1  be  given  in  evidence.  If  the  publication  was 
licentious,  the  charge  could  not  be  supported, 
and  the  offender  would  be  punished.  If  it 
contained  facts,  they  could  be  maintained,  and 
an  acquittal  would  take  place.  He  was  opposed 
to  the  resolution  on  another  ground — this  was 
not  the  proper  tribunal  to  decide  the  question 
of  unconstitutionality.  The  judiciary  was  the 
proper  tribunal.  If  Congress  should  indemnify 
in  one  case,  they  might  in  others — and  where 
•would  we  stop  ?  All  would  be  confusion  and  un- 
certainty. 

Mr.  CBITTENDEN  felt  himself  bound  to  reply 
to  some  observations  which  had  been  made. 
The  public  voice  had  determined  the  unconsti- 
tutionality of  the  sedition  law  :  it  had  removed 
one  party  from  power,  and  elevated  another. 
He  had  expected  Congress  would  confirm  the 
decision  of  the  people.  He  should  be  sorry  if 
he  were  disappointed ;  but  it  would  be  a  great 
consolation  that  the  opinion  of  the  nation  was 
with  him.  If  the  law  was  a  violation  of  the 
national  compact,  -which  guaranteed  to  every 
dividual  freedom  to  speak  and  to  publish  what 
he  chose,  could  we  retain  fines  incurred  under 
this  law  ?  In  a  moral  point  of  view,  the  money 
ought  to  be  refunded;  and  he  knew  not  on 
what  ground  the  claim  could  be  resisted.  For 
the  judiciary  he  felt  a  proper  respect ;  but  he 
would  not  bow  submissively  to  every  thing  the 
judiciary  should  say.  As  a  man,  and  as  a  mem- 
ber of  the  Senate,  he  had  a  right  to  form  opin- 
ions for  himself.  The  constitution  he  regarded 
as  the  supreme  law,  and  entitled  to  our  first  at- 
tention and  respect.  By  this  resolution  we 
should  cast  no  stigma  on  any  judge  or  court :  it 
was  not  revising  any  judicial  decision ;  it  was  no 
indelicacy  to  the  judiciary.  The  blame  attach- 
ed to  Congress  more  than  to  the  judiciary.  We 
ourselves  have  done  an  injurious  act ;  it  is  for 
us  to  repair  the  wrong.  There  was  no  more  in- 
delicacy in  the  present  case,  than  there  would 
be  in  moving  the  repeal  of  a  law.  He  thought 
gentlemen  quite  too  sensitive  on  this  subject.  He 
had  no  wish  to  cast  a  stigma  on  either  the  judi- 
ciary or  Congress — no  desire  to  impute  impure 
motives  to  either ;  but  purity  of  motive  could 
not  make  the  law  constitutional.  Victorious 
parties  might  pursue  their  adversaries  too  far, 
as  well  in  the  Senate  as  in  the  field;  hence 
arose  the  act  in  question.  The  stability  of  the 
judiciary  was  not  to  be  affected  by  this  resolu- 


tion. He  judged  the  law  by  the  constitution. 
He  did  not  like  the  judiciary  less  than  others, 
but  he  loved  the  constitution  more. 

Mr.  OTIS  said  he  should  not  enter  into  the  ar- 
gument of  the  question  ;  but  would  merely  sug- 
gest a  fact  which  he  had  before  omitted.  He 
believed  the  people  of  the  United  States  had 
never  demonstrated  their  opinion  that  the  sedi- 
tion law  was  unconstitutional.  After  the  Vir- 
ginia Legislature  had  passed  their  resolutions, 
denouncing  this  law,  and  circulars  enclosing 
their  proceedings  were  sent  to  the  Legislatures- 
of  the  several  States,  those  of  New  England  unan- 
imously declined  expressing  their  disapproba- 
tion of  the  law,  and  so  far  gave  their  sanction 
to  it.  Virginia  again  took  up  the  subject,  and 
gave  a  comprehensive  view  of  all  the  arguments 
against  the  law  ;  and  this  was  carried  through 
the  Legislature  but  by  about  two  to  one.  He 
thought  at  least  one-half  of  the  people  of  the 
United  States  might  be  considered  as  having 
expressed  their  opinion  that  the  law  was  con- 
stitutional ;  yet,  he  would  not  at  this  time  so 
far  outrage  public  opinion  as  to  vote  for  a  re- 
newal of  this  law.  He  hoped  it  might  be  done 
without ;  but  it  might  have  to  be  recurred  to 
in  times  of  imminent  public  danger.  A  crisis 
might  arrive,  when  it  would  not  be  safe  to  let 
the  press  denounce  the  President  of  the  United 
States  as  a  usurper  and  highwayman,  and  the 
Congress  as  swindlers,  and  participators  in  his 
plunder ;  and  to  declare  that  the  people  had  no 
resource  but  in  a  convention  of  delegates. 

The  question  was  taken  on  Mr.  CRITTENDEN'S 
proposition,  and  decided  in  the  negative — yeas 
17,  nays,  20,  as  follows  : 

YEAS. — Messrs.  Barbour,  Crittenden,  Edwards, 
Eppes,  Forsyth,  Lacock,  Macon,  Morrow,  Palmer, 
Roberts,  Ruggles,  Sanford,  Stokes,  Talbot,  Thomas, 
Williams  of  Mississippi,  and  Wilson. 

NAYS. — Messrs.  Burrill,  Daggett,  Fromentin,  Gail- 
lard,  Hanson,  Hunter,  Johnson,  King,  Leake,  Mellen, 
Merrill,  Noble,  Otis,  Smith,  Storer,  Taylor,  Tichenor, 
Van  Dyke,  and  Williams  of  Tennessee. 

The  report  of  the  committee  was  then  con- 
curred in — ayes  20. 


FRIDAY,  December  11. 

CHABLES  TAIT,  from  the  State  df  Georgia,  at- 
tended this  day. 


WEDNESDAY,  December  16. 
General  JoJm  StarJc. 

The  Senate  proceeded  again  to  the  considera- 
tion of  the  bill  for  the  relief  of  General  Stark, 
an  amendment  having  been  heretofore  agreed 
to,  on  motion  of  Mr.  TICIIENOR,  to  change  the 
commencement  of  the  pension  from  the  4th  of 
July,  1817,  to  the  16th  of  August,(the  anniver- 
sary of  the  battle  of  Bennington,  in  which 
General  Stark  so  greatly  signalized  himself,) 
and  the  question  was  on  ordering  it  to  a  third 
reading. 

Mr.  KOBEBTS  commenced  a  brief  debate  on 


DEBATES  OF  CONGRESS. 


189 


DECEMBER,  1818.] 


Illegal  Transportation  of  Slaves. 


[SENATE. 


the  bill,  by  objecting  to  its  passage,  though 
under  the  highest  sense  of  General  Stark's 
merits,  on  the  general  ground  of  being  adverse 
to  a  system  of  pensions,  when  not  justified  by 
disability  incurred  in  the  public  service ;  that, 
if  a  pension  were  granted  in  this  case,  the  same 
argument  would  justify  pensions  in  numerous 
other  cases ,  and  because,  in  this  instance,  the 
relief  was  not  solicited  by  General  Stark  him- 
self, but  by  others  for  him. 

Mr.  FROMENTIN  replied  to  Mr.  ROBERTS,  and 
advocated  the  bill  with  much  earnestness,  re- 
marking, in  substance,  that  he  would  act  on 
this  single  case,  without  extending  his  views  to 
other  possible  cases  to  which  his  attention  was 
not  called;  that  the  very  silence  of  General 
Stark  was  the  most  eloquent  appeal  he  could 
possibly  make  for  support,  because  age  and  in- 
firmity had  rendered  him  incapable  of  making 
his  own  petition ;  that,  on  the  score  of  expense, 
there  was  little  to  apprehend  on  that  account; 
for,  so  far  from  the  probability  that  General 
Stark  would  be  a  burden  to  the  Treasury,  there 
was  danger  that,  ere  the  present  bill  could  re- 
ceive the  approbation  necessary  to  make  it  a 
law,  the  object  of  it  (now  ninety  odd  years  of 
age)  would  have  descended  to  the  tomb,  as  was 
almost  the  fact  in  the  case  of  General  St.  Clair, 
who  did  not  enjoy  his  pension  more  than 
three  months,  when  he  became  a  tenant  of  the 
grave. 

Mr.  KINO>  rose  merely  to  remark  that,  if  the 
Senate  were  composed  altogether  of  men  of  his 
age,  he  believed  there  would  not  be  a  dissent- 
ing voice  heard  against  the  bill;  because  they 
would  all  have  then,  as  he  had,  a  personal  re- 
collection of  the  singular  and  extraordinary 
Revolutionary  services  of  General  Stark.  Mr. 
K.  mentioned,  as  particular  examples,  the  un- 
rivalled conduct  and  services  of  General  Stark 
at  the  battle  of  Bunker  Hill ;  his  subsequent 
success  in  arresting  the  triumphant  progress  of 
Burgoyne ;  the  feelings  of  joy  and  encourage- 
ment in  the  cause,  which  were  diffused  through- 
out all  the  northern  section  of  the  States,  by  the 
achievements  and  success  of  Stark,  and  which, 
if  every  member  were  old  enough  to  remember, 
as  he  did,  there  would,  he  repeated,  be  not  a 
solitary  objection  to  this  bill. 

Mr.  SMITH  followed  in  opposition  to  the  bill. 
He  argued,  in  reply  to  its  advocates,  that  if 
General  Stark  was  so  near  his  end  as  was  repre- 
sented, there  was  the  less  necessity  for  this  bill, 
because  he  could  not  live  to  enjoy  it,  and  the 
doctrine  was  long  since  exploded  that  a  man 
had  use  for  money  after  his  decease — passage- 
money  was  no  longer  deemed  necessary.  If  it 
was  for  relief,  it  was  unnecessary ;  but,  if  it  was 
intended  as  a  compliment,  that  was  another 
question.  In  either  view  he  was  opposed  to  it. 
Mr.  S.  denied  the  power  of  giving  pensions  for 
the  purpose  of  distinction,  and  he  had  therefore 
never  given  his  assent  to  any  pension  not  pre- 
viously provided  for  by  law.  He  did  by  no 
nu-aii^  deny  the  great  merits  of  General  Stark  ; 
but  this  being  another  case  in  the  improper 


system  of  pensions,  now  becoming  common, 
he  was  opposed  to  it,  and  hoped  it  would  not 
pass. 

Mr.  MORRILL  made  a  few  remarks  in  reply  to 
some  of  the  observations  made  by  gentlemen  on 
this  subject,  when  before  under  consideration, 
and  added  a  few  words  on  the  uncommon 
merits  of  General  Stark — briefly  noticing  his 
gallant  conduct  at  Bunker  Hill,  at  Bennington, 
at  Trenton,  at  Princeton,  &c.,  adducing  the 
voluntary  letters  of  compliment  from  Mr.  Jef- 
ferson and  Mr.  Madison,  respectively,  on  their 
succeeding  to  the  Presidency,  and  concluded  by 
saying,  that  if  merit  was  to  be  estimated  by 
services  rendered  to  one's  country,  there  was 
none  so  deserving  as  the  veteran  hero  the  Senate 
was  now  called  on  to  relieve  from  penury. 

The  question  was  then  taken  on  ordering  the 
bill  to  a  third  reading,  and  decided  in  the 
affirmative,  as  follows : 

YEAS. — Messrs.  Burrill,  Crittenden,  Dickerson, 
Eaton,  Edwards,  Forsyth,  Fromentin,  Gaillard,  Hor- 
sey, Hunter,  Johnson,  King,  Leake,  Mellen,  Morrill, 
Morrow,  Otis,  Palmer,  Ruggles,  Sanford,  Stokes, 
Storer,  Talbot,  Taylor,  Thomas,  Tichenor,  Williams 
of  Mississippi,  Williams  of  Tennessee,  and  Wilson 
—29. 

NAYS. — Messrs.  Eppes,  Lacock,  Macon,  Noble, 
Robertson,  and  Smith — 6. 


FRIDAY,  December  18. 
Illegal  Transportation  of  Slates. 

Mr.  WILSON,  of  New  Jersey,  rose  to  offer  a 
resolution.  He  observed  that  the  resolution  he 
was  about  to  submit  required  a  few  words  of 
explanation.  The  traffic  in  slaves  and  servants 
of  color  had  been  carried  on  to  considerable 
extent  from  the  State  of  New  Jersey ;  and, 
under  color  of  this  traffic,  it  was  believed  many 
free  persons,  or  who  were  soon  to  become  free, 
had  been  consigned  to  slavery  for  life.  The 
Legislature  of  New  Jersey,  at  its  late  session, 
had  unanimously  passed  a  law  to  prevent  this 
traffic ;  but  it  was  feared  this  law  could  not  be 
carried  into  complete  effect,  without  the  co-op- 
eration of  the  revenue  officers  of  the  United 
States,  authorized  by  an  act  of  Congress.  The 
Legislature  had  therefore  instructed  their  Sena- 
tors, and  requested  their  Representatives  in 
Congress,  to  use  their  endeavors  to  procure  the 
passing  of  an  act  to  prevent  the  transportation 
of  slaves,  or  servants  of  color,  from  any  State 
to  any  other  part  of  the  United  States,  in  cases 
where,  by  the  laws  of  such  State,  such  trans- 
portation is  prohibited.  In  conformity  with 
these  instructions,  as  well  as  agreeably  to  his 
own  feelings  and  principles,  he  therefore  begged 
leave  to  submit  the  following  resolution  : 

Resolved,  That  the  committee  on  the  subject  of 
the  slave  trade  be  instructed  to  inquire  into  the  ex- 
pediency of  making  provision,  by  law,  "  to  prevent 
the  transportation  of  slaves,  and  servants  of  color, 
from  any  one  State  to  any  other  part  of  the  United 
States,  in  cases  where,  by  the  laws  of  such  State, 
such  transportation  is  prohibited." 


190 


ABRIDGMENT  OF  THE 


SENATE.] 


Exportation  of  Domestic  Coins. 


[JANUARY,  1819. 


General  Jacfaon  and  the  Seminole   War. 

The  Senate  resumed  the  consideration  of  the 
motion  of  the  4th  instant,  for  referring  to  a  select 
committee  the  Message  from  the  President, 
and  documents,  relative  to  the  Seminole  war ; 
and,  on  motion  by  Mr.  EATON,  the  same  having 
been  amended,  was  agreed  to  as  follows  : 

Resohed,  That  the  Message  of  the  President, 
and  documents,  relative  to  the  Seminole  war, 
be  referred  to  a  select  committee,  who  shall 
have  authority,  if  necessary,  to  send  for  persons 
and  papers:  that  said  committee  inquire  rela- 
tive to  the  advance  of  the  United  States  troops 
into  West  Florida;  whether  the  officers  in 
command  at  Pensacola  and  St.  Marks  were 
amenable  to,  and  under  the  control  of  Spain ; 
and,  particularly,  what  circumstances  existed, 
to  authorize  or  justify  the  Commanding  General 
in  taking  possession  of  those  posts. 

Messrs.  LACOCK,  EATON,  FORSYTH,  KING,  and 
BURRILL,  were  appointed  the  committee. 


THURSDAY,  December  24. 
Mr.  SANFORD  presented  the  memorial  of  the 
New  York  Society  for  promoting  the  manumis- 
sion of  slaves,  and  for  protecting  such  of  them 
as  have  been,  or  may  be,  liberated;  and  the 
memorial  was  read,  and  referred  to  the  com- 
mittee on  that  subject. 

THURSDAY,  December  31. 

A  message  from  the  House  of  Representatives 
informed  the  Senate  of  the  death  of  the  honor- 
able GEORGE  MUMFORD,  late  a  member  of  the 
House  of  Representatives  from  the  State  of 
North  Carolina,  and  that  his  funeral  will  take 
place  to-morrow  morning  at  10  o'clock. 

On  motion  by  Mr.  MAOON, 

Resolved  unanimously,  That  the  Senate  will 
attend  the  funeral  of  the  honorable  George 
Mumford,  late  a  member  of  the  House  of  Rep- 
resentatives from  the  State  of  North  Carolina, 
to-morrow  morning  at  10  o'clock;  and  as  a 
testimony  of  respect  for  the  memory  of  the 
deceased,  they  will  go  into  mourning,  and  wear 
a  black  crape  round  the  left  arm  for  thirty 
days. 

The  Senate  adjourned  to  Monday  morning. 


WEDNESDAY,  January  6,  1819. 
DANIEL  D.  TOMPKINS,  Vice  President  of  the 
United  States,  and  President  of  the  Senate,  at- 
tended, and  took  the  Chair. 

FRIDAY,  January  8. 
Monument  to  Washington. 
The  Senate  then  resumed  the  consideration 
of  the  bill  providing  for  the  erection  of  a  mon- 
ument over  the  remains  of  General  GEOKGE 
WASHINGTON,  where  they  now  lie. 

Mr.  BARBOUR  moved  that  the  bill  be  recom- 
mitted, with  instructions  to  report  a  bill  appro- 


priating money  for  the  erection  of  an  equestrian 
statue  of  General  WASHINGTON,  in  conformity 
with  the  resolution  of  Congress  of  1783. 

[This  resolution  was  passed  on  the  7th  of 
August,  1783,  and  directs  substantially  that  an 
equestrian  statue  of  bronze  be  erected  at  the 
Seat  of  Government ;  that  the  General  be  rep- 
resented in  a  Roman  dress,  holding  a  truncheon 
in  his  right  hand,  his  head  encircled  by  a  laurel 
wreath ;  that  the  pedestal  be  of  marble,  on 
which  to  be  represented  in  relief,  the  following 
principal  events  of  the  war  in  which  General 
WASHINGTON  commanded  in  person,  viz:  the 
evacuation  of  Boston  ;  the  capture  of  the  Hes- 
sians at  Trenton ;  the  battle  of  Princeton ;  the 
battle  of  Monmouth,  and  the  surrender  of  York- 
town.  The  resolution  directed  also  the  inscrip- 
tions ;  that  it  shall  be  executed  by  the  best 
artists,  &c.] 

The  motion  produced  a  short  debate,  and  was 
finally  decided  in  the  affirmative,  as  follows : 

YEAS. — Messrs.  Barbour,  Burrill,  Crittenden,  Dag- 
gett,  Eaton,  Edwards,  Forsyth,  Fromentin,  Gail- 
lard,  Goldsborough,  Horsey,  Hunter,  Johnson,  King, 
Leake,  Macon,  Mellen,  Morrill,  Otis,  Palmer,  San- 
ford,  Stokes,  Storer,  Tait,  Talbot,  Taylor,  Thomas, 
Tichenor,  Van  Dyke,  and  Williams  of  Tennessee — 
30. 

NAYS.— Messrs.  Lacock,  Morrow,  Noble,  Roberts, 
Ruggles,  and  Smith — 6. 


MONDAY,  January  25. 
Exportation  of  Domestic  Coins. 

Mr.  TALBOT,  from  the  Committee  on  Finance, 
to  whom  was  referred  a  resolution  of  the  Senate 
to  inquire  into  the  expediency  of  prohibiting  by 
law  the  exportation  of  the  gold,  silver,  and  cop- 
per coins  of  the  United  States,  made  the  follow- 
ing report,  wbich  was  read : 

The  Committee  on  Finance,  to  whom  was  referred 
a  resolution  to  inquire  into  the  expediency  of  prohib- 
iting by  law,  the  exportation  of  the  gold,  silver,  and 
copper  coins  of  the  United  States,  report : 

That,  the  measure  contemplated  in  the  resolution 
intimately  connecting  itself  with  the  fiscal  concerns 
of  the  nation,  the  committee,  through  their  chairman, 
addressed  a  note  to  the  Secretary  of  the  Treasury, 
requesting  his  opinion  of  the  propriety  of  adopting 
measures  for  the  attainment  of  the  object  in  contem- 
plation, from  whom  they  received  in  reply  a  commu- 
nication, which  accompanies  this  "report,  with  the 
arguments  and  opinions  expressed,  in  wbich  those  of 
your  committee  substantially  correspond. 

Of  the  inefficiency,  if  not  entire  impotence  of  legis- 
lative provisions  to  prevent  the  escape  of  the  precious 
metals  beyond  the  territorial  limits  of  the  Government, 
the  history  of  all  countries  in  which  the  power  of  leg- 
islation has  been  thus  exercised,  bears  testimony. 
And,  if  all  the  efforts  of  arbitrary  power  in  despotic 
Governments,  if  regulations  dictated  by  the  most 
cautious  and  jealous  policy,  guarded  by  penalties  and 
punishments  the  most  cruel  and  sanguinary,  and 
enforced  with  a  rigor  which  knows  no  mitigation, 
have  been  in  vain,  what  hope  can  be  indulged  that  a 
Government  like  ours — the  genius  and  spirit  of  which 
breathes  mildness  and  moderation — a  country  in 


DEBATES  OF  CONGRESS. 


191 


FEBRUARY,  1819.] 


Sales  of  Public  Lands. 


[SENATE. 


which  cruel  and  unusual  punishments  are  unknown — 
could  find  the  means  of  obtaining,  by  this  mild  spirit 
of  legislation,  this  desirable  end  ?  Indeed,  no  error 
seems  more  entirely  renounced  and  exploded,  if  not 
by  the  practice  of  all  nations,  at  least  in  the  dis- 
quisitions of  political  economists,  than  that  which 
supposed  that  an  accumulation  of  the  precious  metals 
could  be  produced  in  the  dominions  of  one  sovereign  j 
by  regulations  prohibiting  their  exportation  to  those 
of  any  other.  The  evils  resulting  to  the  community 
from  a  scarcity,  or  too  small  a  portion  of  the  precious 
metals,  seem  to  your  committee  to  be  too  deeply 
seated  to  yield  to  any  remedies  within  the  compe- 
tency of  legislation  to  afford.  It,  is  a  malady  which 
admits  of  no  cure  but  that  of  time,  patient  industry, 
and  persevering  economy.  As  long  as  the  balance 
of  trade  is  against  us,  so  long  will  a  constant  efflux 
of  the  precious  metals  be  required  for  the  discharge 
of  such  balance. 

From  this  axiom  in  commerce,  the  correctness  of 
which,  it  is  believed,  never  was  questioned,  it  follows 
that  it  remains  with  the  people  themselves  to  adjust 
this  balance,  and  to  produce  a  preponderance  in  favor 
of  our  own  country.  Highly  favored  as  they  are  by 
the  bounty  of  Providence  ;  blessed  with  a  conntry  of 
unparalleled  fertility ;  with  soil,  climate,  and  situa- 
tion almost  infinitely  diversified ;  with  capacities  of 
rivalling  every  quarter  of  the  globe  in  the  agricul- 
tural productions,  as  well  as  in  the  perfection  of  their 
manufactures,  raw  materials  for  which  are  so  abun- 
dantly furnished  them  within  the  bosom  of  their  own 
country ;  aided  by  a  moderate  and  wise  economy  in 
a  limited  enjoyment  of  foreign  luxuries — with  these 
advantages,  duly  appreciated  and  fully  improved,  to 
what  elevated  condition  in  their  intercourse  with 
foreign  nations  may  they  not  aspire  ?  To  the  pro- 
tection of  our  domestic  manufactures  by  the  imposi- 
tion of  duties  on  foreign  importations,  the  National  I 
Government  seemed  to  have  gone  as  far  as  sound  j 
policy  would  warrant  or  permit ;  the  present  tariff  i 
having  been  framed  with  a  view  as  well  of  raising  j 
the  requisite  supply  of  revenue  for  the  support  of  j 
Government,  as,  by  the  amount  of  the  duties  imposed 
on  foreign  articles  of  manufacture,  to  enable  our  own 
manufacturer  of  similar  articles  to  meet  the  importer 
of  such  foreign  manufacture,  in  our  own  market,  on 
terms  of  fair  and  equal  competition. 

Further  than  this,  it  would  seem  to  your  com- 
mittee, the  Congress  of  the  United  States  ought  not 
to  go.  To  commercial  enterprise,  to  the  sagacity  of 
this  class  of  the  community,  sharpened  by  the  keen 
sense  of  interest,  and  enlightened  by  long  experience, 
it  should  be  left  to  explore  the  old,  or,  seeking  new 
channels  of  commerce,  find  out  the  most  profitable 
markets  for  the  productions  of  our  imtive  and  domes- 
tic industry,  and  to  bring  us  in  exchange  such  of  the 
productions  of  foreign  climates,  and  of  foreign  labor, 
as  our  citizens  are  willing  to  purchase.  In  short,  it 
is  the  opinion  of  your  committee,  that  commerce  is 
always  destined  to  flourish  most  where  it  is  permitted 
to  pursue  its  own  paths,  marked  out  by  itself,  embar- 
rassed as  little  as  possible  by  legislative  regulations 
or  restrictions. 

From  these  considerations  your  committee  are  in- 
duced to  recommend  the  adoption  of  the  following 
resolution : 

Resolved,  That  it  is  not  expedient  for  Congress  to 
adopt  any  regulations  for  preventing  the  exportation 
of  the  gold,  silver,  or  copper  coins  of  the  United 
States. 


TUESDAY,  February  9. 
Sales  of  Public  Lands. 

Mr.  MORROW,  from  the  Committee  on  Public 
Lands,  who  were  instructed  "to  inquire  into 
the  expediency  of  so  altering  the  laws  respect- 
ing the  sale  of  the  public  lands,  that,  from  and 

after  the day  of next,  credit  shall  not 

be  given  on  such  sales,"  made  a  report,  accom- 
panied by  a  bill,  making  further  provision  for 
the  sale  of  public  lands;  and  the  report  and 
bill  were  read,  and  the  bill  passed  to  the  second 
reading. 

The  report  is  as  follows : 

That  a  view  to  the  extensive  territory  placed  at 
the  disposal  of  the  Government,  the  increasing  de- 
mand for  new  lands  for  cultivation,  arising  from  the 
progressive  augmentation  of  the  population  in  the 
United  States,  and  the  influence  which  the  proposed 
alteration  in  the  system  for  the  sale  of  public  lands, 
must  produce  on  the  interests  of  a  large  portion  of 
the  community,  give,  in  the  opinion  of  the  commit- 
tee, more  than  ordinary  importance  to  the  inquiry 
which  they  are  instructed  to  make. 

From  the  connection  that  the  terms  of  credit  have 
with  the  other  provisions  and  conditions  provided  for 
the  sale  of  the  public  lands,  a  correspondent  alteration 
in  the  price  and  size  of  the  tracts  offered  for  sale,  will 
be  necessary,  when  the  credit  is  discontinued  on  fu- 
ture sales.  That  provision,  alone,  would  virtually 
operate  an  enhancement  of  the  price,  and  lessen  the 
facility  to  men  of  limited  capital,  of  acquiring  new 
lands  for  settlement  and  cultivation. 

In  this  view,  the  committee  have  considered  the 
expediency  of  providing  for  the  discontinuance  of 
credit,  a  reduction  of  the  price,  and  a  subdivision  of 
tracts  in  future  sales.  The  provisions  for  the  sale 
of  public  lands  now  in  force,  with  some  subsequent 
alterations,  were  adopted  by  the  act  of  the  10th  day 
of  May,  1800.  By  its  general  regulations,  a  credit 
is  allowed  on  three-fourths  of  the  purchase-money  for 
the  lands  sold.  The  moneys  credited  may  be  retain- 
ed by  incurring  the  charge  of  simple  interest,  for  five 
years,  from  the  time  of  purchase.  It  would  appear 
that,  at  the  first  sales  under  this  law,  the  long  term 
of  credit  allowed  had  induced  excessive  purchases. 
The  term  of  credit  on  these  sales  expired  in  the  year 
1805 ;  and  in  1806,  it  became  necessary  for  Congress 
to  interpose  for  relief  of  the  purchasers,  to  prevent 
extensive  forfeitures  for  failure  in  payment;  and, 
since  that  period,  nine  several  acts  have  been  passed 
for  the  relief  of  the  purchasers  of  public  lands ;  and 
these  acts  for  mitigating  the  operation  for  the  general 
provision  of  the  law  have  been  in  force  more  than  one-* 
half  of  the  whole  time  since  the  system  was  first  or- 
ganized. The  inducements  of  a  long  credit,  which 
encourage  purchases  beyond  the  means  for  making 
payment,  the  general  disposition  in  men  to  anticipate 
the  most  favorable  results  from  the  products  of  their 
labor,  and  the  frequent  unfavorable  fluctuations  in 
commerce,  which  cannot  be  foreseen  by  the  most  dis- 
cerning, are  the  principal  causes  of  the  failures  in 
payment  by  purchasers  of  public  lands.  It  must  ap- 
pear from  the  Treasury  statement^  at  the  present 
session,  of  the  amount  of  outstanding  balances,  on 
account  of  the  sales  of  public  lands,  with  the  em- 
barrassments arising  from  the  deranged  state  of  the 
currency,  that  any  degree  of  punctuality  in  the  pay- 
ment of  the  debts  now  due  is  highly  improbable.  If 
the  laws  were  left  to  operate  in  the  rigid  exactions  of 


192 


ABRIDGMENT  OF  THE 


SENATE.] 


Duelling. 


[FEBRUARY,  1819. 


the  penalties  and  forfeitures,  the  most  serious  injuries 
(in  the  present  circumstances  of  the  country)  must 
follow  to  a  large  class  of  the  community ;  and  the 
effect  of  relief,  by  an  extension  for  the  time  for  pay- 
ment, while  the  sales  continue  to  progress,  may  pro 
duce  an  accumulation  of  the  deht,  and  increase  the 
difficulty  in  making  the  final  payments. 

The  experience  for  several  years  of  the  effects  of 
this  system,  the  frequent  recurrence  of  circumstances 
which  render  necessary  the  interposition  of  the  Legis- 
lature to  mitigate  the  general  operation  of  law,  and 
the  extensive  forfeitures  which  have  been  incurred, 
notwithstanding  the  aid  of  frequent  remedial  laws  for 
the  relief  of  the  purchasers,  seem  to  forbid  any 
calculation  on  a  successful  operation  of  the  same  sys- 
tem in  future  sales.  It  cannot  be  correct  policy  to 
persist  in  the  continuance  of  a  system  so  much  affect- 
ed by  circumstances,  as  that  under  consideration ; 
which  requires  the  frequent  aid  of  mitigating  expe- 
dients to  preserve  its  existence,  and  to  prevent  its 
oppressive  effects  on  a  considerable  portion  of  the 
community.  It  is  not  believed  that  any  of  the  acts 
for  the  relief  of  the  purchaser  of  public  lands  were 
unnecessary  indulgences.  The  unfavorable  state  of 
things,  during  the  restrictions  on  our  commerce,  and 
the  late  war,  rendered  such  measures  necessary ;  and 
the  present  state  of  the  currency  presents  claims  for 
indulgence  still  more  imperative.  Judging  from  the 
experience  of  the  past,  without  any  assurance  of  a 
more  favorable  state  of  things  in  future,  it  may  be 
concluded  that  the  system  of  credit  is  not  well  adapt- 
ed to  the  circumstances  of  the  country,  and  will  be 
injurious  so  long  as  commerce  is  liable  to  fluctua- 
tion. The  allowance  of  credit  on  the  sales  of  the 
public  lands,  could  not  have  been  adopted  for  the 
benefit  of  capitalists  ;  to  them  it  is  unnecessary,  and 
for  them  it  ought  not  to  have  been  provided.  And 
yet  it  is  believed  that  it  has  operated  most  to  the 
disadvantage  of  men  destitute  of  capital.  An  indi- 
vidual who  takes  the  whole  term  of  credit  allowed  by 
law,  on  the  three  last  instalments  of  purchase  money, 
is  charged  on  the  moneys  credited  more  than  ten  per 
cent,  per  annum  above  the  purchaser  who  makes 
prompt  payment ;  and,  in  many  instances,  if  he  pos- 
sess no  other  resources  than  those  arising  from  the 
land  itself,  he  incurs  a  forfeiture  of  the  money  paid, 
and  the  land,  with  its  improvements.  If  the  allow- 
ance of  credit  on  future  sales  was  abolished,  every 
subsequent  purchaser  would,  without  any  liability  to 
error,  be  able  to  calculate  his  means  for  payment ; 
and  if  his  purchase  should  not  be  so  extensive,  he 
would  at  once  become  an  independent  landholder, 
secure  and  quiet  in  his  possession.  In  future,  those 
fertile  sources  of  discontent  and  disquietude,  which 
arise  from  disappointment,  and  from  the  exercise  of 
measures  necessary  to  enforce  the  payments,  as  also 
the  frequent  distress  occasioned  by  the  forfeiture  of 
lands  on  which  settlements  have  been  made,  would 
be  avoided ;  and  (as  will  be  proposed)  were  the  public 
lands  offered  for  sale  in  tracts  of  eighty  acres,  at  one 
dollar  and  fifty  cents  per  acre,  then  any  individual, 
on  the  payment  of  one  hundred  and  twenty  dollars, 
might  acquire  a  freehold  estate,  without  encumbering 
himself  with  any  debt  whatever.  It  is  believed  that 
an  advantage  to  the  general  interest  of  the  districts 
in  which  the  public  lands  are  sold,  would  result  from 
discontinuing  the  credit  on  the  sales.  The  purchaser 
is  in  possession  of  the  lands  purchased,  for  four  or  five 
years  before  the  completion  of  his  payment.  The 
product  of  his  labor,  for  that  time,  is  applied  in  dis- 


charge of  his  debt,  and  passes  into  the  public  Treas- 
ury. In  as  far  as  the  instalments  are  collected  in 
the  district,  it  operates  on  the  principle  of  rents  col- 
lected, and  withdrawn  from  circulation,  or  of  a  par- 
tial tax  on  that  part  of  the  community.  The  drain 
of  money  from  circulation,  thus  occasioned,  has  been 
sensibly  felt ;  and  the  balance  in  exchange  against 
the  western  country,  may,  on  this  principle,  be  ac- 
counted for.  In  case  of  cash  payments,  the  resources 
for  payment  would  be  drawn  from  other  parts  of  the 
country,  in  as  far  as  emigrants  are  the  purchasers. 
In  a  more  general  point  of  view,  the  proposed  meas- 
ure appears  important.  The  accumulation  of  debt, 
in  particular  districts,  where  the  mass  of  citizens  are 
the  debtors,  is  a  consequence  attending  the  credit 
system.  The  principles  of  general  policy  require 
that  charges  on  the  people,  for  the  necessary  supply 
of  revenue,  should  be  diffused  over  the  whole  society ; 
by  adopting  cash  payments,  this  evil  would  be  avoided ; 
and  the  interest  of  subsequent  purchasers  would  then 
be  identified  with  that  of  the  Government. 

From  the  foregoing  consideration  it  is  respectfully 
proposed  that  credit  on  future  sales  shall  not  be  al- 
lowed ;  that  the  price  of  the  public  lands  be  fixed  at 
one  dollar  and  fifty  cents ;  and  that  the  lands  be  of- 
fered for  sale  in  tracts  of  eighty  acres. 

And  for  that  purpose  they  ask  leave  to  report  a  bill. 
Duelling. 

The  Senate  resumed  the  consideration  of  the 
motion,  submitted  yesterday  by  Mr.  MOREILL,  to 
request  the  President  to  dismiss  certain  officers 
from  service. 

Mr.  MOERILL  addressed  the  Chair  as  follows  : 

Mr.  President,  it  is  with  no  ordinary  degree 
of  sensation  that  I  invite  the  attention  of  the 
Senate  to  the  consideration  of  the  resolution 
which  I  had  the  honor  to  present.  The  nature 
and  enormity  of  the  transaction  can  require  but 
little  illustration.  It  is  not  my  intention  to  en- 
ter into  a  minute  detail  of  the  horror  or  magni- 
tude of  the  crime ;  but,  as  I  had  the  honor  to 
offer  the  resolution,  it  may  be  expected  that  I 
assign  some  reasons  in  justification  of  the  propo- 
sition. In  the  first  place,  sir,  I  consider  the 
practice  of  duelling  as  inhuman.  What  can  be 
more  repulsive  to  the  philanthropic  breast  than 
to  place  before  a  musket,  charged  with  a  ball, 
at  the  distance  of  twelve  or  fifteen  feet,  a  fellow- 
citizen  for  a  mark  ?  Humanity  shudders,  every 
tender  feeling  of  the  heart  recoils,  and  Pagan 
barbarity  itself  is  put  to  the  blush.  But,  sir,  it 
is  immoral.  It  tends  to  demoralize  society  and 
corrupt  the  community.  It  banishes  accounta- 
bility from  the  human  mind.  It  represents  life 
and  death  as  of  no  consequence,  and  immaterial. 
It  may  sometimes  deprive  society  of  its  useful 
members. 

The  practice  is  unjust  and  wicked.  In  conse- 
quence of  capital  offences,  by  a  legal  tribunal 
life  may  be  taken.  But  shall  one  citizen,  for 
any  trivial  offence,  take  the  life  of  his  fellow  ? 
It  cannot  be  justified  upon  any  correct  principle 
whatever,  either  Christian,  humane,  or  civil. 
Christianity  breathes  a  better  spirit ;  humanity 
retires  with  disgust ;  the  civil  code  condemns 
and  executes  the  offender.  What  law,  human 
or  divine,  will  sustain  the  act  ?  The  articles  of 


DEBATES  OF  CONGKESS. 


193 


FEBRUARY,  1819.] 


Duelling. 


[SENATE. 


war  forbid  it ;  State  laws  forbid  it ;  Virginia 
herself  has  forbidden  it. 

But,  sir,  General  Mason  has  fallen.  A  hus- 
band, a  father,  a  son,  thus  prematurely  ushered 
into  eternity.  And,  unless  invention  and  vice 
are  more  than  ordinarily  active,  he  received  en- 
couragement to  the  sad  catastrophe  in  this  city ; 
and  the  more  to  be  lamented,  for,  is  this  the 
case,  his  blood  must,  at  least  in  part,  rest  upon 
the  heads  of  his  guilty  abettors  and  counsellors. 

Lamentable  fact !  that  a  gentleman  of  high 
standing,  who  had  been  a  member  of  this  hon- 
orable body,  and  probably  would  have  been  the 
next  Governor  of  Virginia,  should  be  so  over- 
come with  pride  or  with  passion  as  to  fall  a  sac- 
rifice to  sentiments  so  absurd.  And,  sir,  what 
plausible  apology  is  offered  to  mitigate  the 
crime  ?  The  only  plea  which  ingenuity  itself 
can  invent,  is  grounded  upon  a  false  notion  of 
honor.  A  gentleman  is  bound  by  his  honor  to 
commit  an  act  of  murder.  His  honor  must  be 
sustained  by  the  commission  of  an  offence  be- 
neath the  dignity  of  the  human  species.  If  this 
be  a  correct  mode  of  sustaining  a  gentleman's 
honor,  why  is  it  prohibited  in  your  army  ?  Why 
are  laws  against  it  ?  If  it  will  sustain  the  honor 
of  an  individual,  it  will  sustain  the  honor  of  the 
community ;  the  honor  of  your  country ;  and 
why  do  your  laws  condemn  that  on  which  your 
country's  glory  is  erected  ? 

But,  sir,  it  is  a  gentleman's  way  of  deciding  a 
controversy.  Yes,  and  the  servants ;  the  boys 
in  the  street,  by  this  practice,  learn  high  notions 
of  honor,  and,  to  display  them,  must  fight  a 
duel.  Base  practice,  indeed ;  repugnant  to  all 
the  refined  feelings  of  a  cultivated  mind.  The 
better  feelings  of  man  revolt  at  the  act.  Con- 
science condemns  it,  and  it  must,  in  time  and 
eternity.  From  this  view  of  the  subject,  sir,  I 
am  induced  to  offer  the  resolution,  and  am  led 
to  hope  it  will  be  adopted  by  the  Senate.  Let 
this  be  as  it  may,  I  have  discharged  my  duty  ; 
I  have  expressed  my  opinion  without  reserve. 

Mr.  BARBOTJE  addressed  the  Senate  as  fol- 
lows : 

Mr.  President,  the  event  to  which  the  resolu- 
tion relates  has  filled  me  with  the  deepest  afflic- 
tion. I  claim  the  melancholy  privilege  of  being 
the  chief  mourner  here.  Mason  was  my  friend 
—a  long  and  intimate  acquaintance,  ripened 
into  a  Bincere  friendship  by  an  association  in 
this  body  for  several  years,  gave  me  an  oppor- 
tunity of  appreciating  his  distinguished  worth. 
Virginia  loved  him  as  one  of  her  favorite  sons 
— in  war  her  shield,  her  ornament  in  peace. 
With  her  the  very  name  had  been  consecrated 
to  patriotism,  through  successive  generations. 
Its  lustre  lost  nothing  in  the  person  of  the  de- 
ceased, lie  united  the  amiable  qualities  of  the 
man  to  the  higher  virtues  of  the  patriot.  His 
loss  will  be  mourned  by  his  country  as  a  public 
calamity.  In  the  vigor  of  life,  uniting  bojh  the 
affection  and  confidence  of  all,  and  surrounded 
with  every  blessing  that  promised  happiness,  he 
has  suddenly  fallen  the  victim  of  a  barbarous 
practice.  Cut  off  in  the  commencement  of  a 
VOL.  VI.— 13 


splendid  career,  he  leaves  a  wretched  mother, 
a  disconsolate  widow,  a  fatherless  child,  and  a 
weeping  country. 

Oh,  what  a  scene  was  there !  But  yesterday 
Selma  was  the  abode  of  happiness ;  to-day  it  is 
wrapped  in  mourning.  See  on  yesterday  the  af- 
fectionate husband,  the  amiable  wife,  the  ten- 
der infant — the  pledge  and  cement  of  their  hap- 
piness,. To-day,  behold  that  husband  carried 
into  the  presence  of  his  wife,  bathed  in  gore. 
See  her,  frantic  with  despair,  precipitating  her- 
self upon  the  corpse  of  her  bleeding  husband, 
mingling  her  tears  with  his  flowing  blood,  and 
contending  with  the  icy  arms  of  death  for  the 
lifeless  prize.  She  lifts  her  eyes  to  heaven,  the 
last  refuge  of  the  wretched,  and  in  tones  of  ag- 
ony cries  out,  my  God,  my  God,  restore  my 
husband !  Her  prayers  are  given  to  the  winds"; 
his  disembodied  spirit  has  found  its  refuge  and 
its  home  in  the  bosom  of  its  God,  while  his 
earthly  remains  are  consigned  to  the  cold  and 
narrow  house  appointed  for  all  the  living.  Peace 
be  to  his  ashes !  And  may  a  kind  Providence 
become  the  friend  of  the  widow;  pour  balm 
into  her  afflicted  bosom,  and  bind  up  the  broken 
heart;  be  the  father  of  the  fatherless,  and  let 
him  be  the  mother's  prop  ;  rock  the  cradle  of 
her  declining  years,  and  be  a  consolation  in  her 
dying  hour  !  If  any  thing  can  now  administer 
to  the  affliction  of  his  surviving  friends,  it  will 
be  the  knowledge  that  Virginia,  this  day, 
through  all  her  borders,  weeps  his  untimely 
fall. 

As  to  the  practice  of  duelling,  I  have  already, 
long  since,  given  proofs  of  my  sentiments,  more 
substantial  than  mere  professions.  "Whatever 
credit,  if  any,  be  due  to  it,  to  me  it  belongs,  of 
having  first  presented  to  the  Legislature  of  my 
native  State  the  law  against  duelling.  "What 
will  be  its  result  on  society,  all-trying  time  must 
decide.  The  best  hopes  of  humanity  are  con- 
nected with  its  success ;  nor  is  it  presumptuous 
to  hope  that  Heaven  may  smile  on  our  efforts. 

And  yet,  sir,  with  these  sentiments,  I  must 
still  be  opposed  to  the  resolution  under  consid- 
eration. As  to  the  rumors  to  which  the  mover 
refers,  and  on  which  he  rests,  in  part,  at  least^. 
the  success  of  this  motion,  they  may  or  may  not 
be  true.  Incidents  of  this  kind  are  generally  at- 
tended with  the  most  exaggerated  statements. 
If,  indeed,  they  be  true,  as  represented,  I  should 
feel  no  hesitation  in  pronouncing  them  as  de- 
serving the  deepest  abhorrence.  Of  some  of 
the  persons  concerned  in  this  melancholy  to 
dy,  I  know  nothing ;  with  others  I  have  a  slight 
acquaintance.  Their  characters  forbid  the  " 
lief  that  they  have  acted  dishonorably, 
statement  made  by  the  mover,  unsustained  by 
proof,  furnishes  a  strong  reason  against  the 
adoption  of  the  resolution.  For  it  is  palpably 
an  ex  parte  proceeding,  and  we  are  called  upon 
to  consign  to  infamy  men  who  have  had  no  op- 
portunity of  being  heard  in  their  deefnce.  Let  us 
not  multiply  the  regrets  already  attending  this 
melancholy  event,  by  doing  an  act  of  injustice. 
Let  us  not  commit  the  dignity  of  the  Senate  by 


194 


ABRIDGMENT  OF  THE 


SENATE.] 


Statue  of  Washington. 


[FEBRUARY,  1819. 


taking  cognizance  of  a  subject  which  belongs  to  < 
others.     If  a  crime  has  been  committed,  the  of-  , 
fenders  are  subject,  if,  as  the  resolution  sup-  j 
poses,  they  be  military  men,  to  trial  by  court-  i 
martial,  and,  in  any  event,  by  a  civil  tribunal.  \ 
To  the  President,  as  Commander-in-chief,  be-  j 
longs  the  former ;  the  latter  to  the  civil  magis- 
trate.   By  this  irregular  proceeding,  should  it  | 
prevail,  we  depart  from  our  own  duty  in  pre- 
scribing to  others,  to  whom  of  right  the  subject 
belongs,  and  of  whose  remissness  there  is  no 
imputation.     The  crime  of  duelling  is  not  to  be 
corrected  by  a  proceeding  of  this  kind.    The 
roots  of  the  evil  are  too  deep  to  be  extirpated 
by  a  solitary  paroxysm  of  zeal.    Public  opinion 
is  the  only  corrective.     No  matter  what  may 
be  the  number  or  severity  of  penalties  that  are 
denounced  against  this  ferocious  practice,  they, 
as  experience  has  evinced,  are  inoperative,  un- 
less their  enforcement  can  be  secured  by  the  co- 
incidence of  public  sentiment,  or  unless,  as  with 
us,  the  law  executes  itself  by  disfranchising  the 
offender.     So  long  as  public  opinion  requires  of 
an  individual  a  submission  to  what  is  most  im- 
properly called  the  laws  of  honor,  to  maintain 
his  grade  in  society,  it  is  as  capricious  as  unjust 
to  anathematize  those  who  submit  to  its  de- 
crees.   Let  the  press,  let  your  schools,  let  the 
pulpit,  let  your  Legislatures,  throughout  the 
nation,  make  a  simultaneous  effort,  and  continue 
it  with  zeal  and  perseverance,  to  extirpate  this 
practice,  the  undisputed  progeny  of  a  barbarous 
age.     Upon  such   an  undertaking,  let  us  hope 
for  the  blessing  of  Heaven. 

After  other  gentlemen  had  spoken — 
Mr.  MORRILL  made  the  following  remarks  : 
Mr.  President,  I  learn  with  pleasure,  from 
what  honorable  gentlemen  have  advanced  on 
this  subject,  there  is  but  one  sentiment  with  re- 
epect  to  the  nature  and  atrocity  of  the  act.    A 
difference  of  opinion  as  to  the  expediency  and 
policy  of  the  measure  proposed,  is  the  only  dif- 
ficulty to  be  encountered. 

The  honorable  gentleman  from  Kentucky  in- 
timates a  want  of  information,  and  an  apprehen- 
sion that  no  guilt  can  be  attached  to  any  impli- 
cated in  this  affair.  It  is  very  desirable,  sir,  that 
this  should  be  the  fact.  If  no  guilt,  no  blame ; 
and,  of  course,  no  injury,  can  be  sustained  by 
the  innocent ;  and  no  evil  is  to  be  apprehended. 
But  the  gentleman  suggests  that  favorable  ex- 
pressions have  fallen  from  gentlemen  on  the 
floor  of  the  other  House.  Is  this  a  fact,  sir  ?  it 
is  the  more  to  be  lamented,  and  furnishes  an- 
other reason  why  this  House  should  express  an 
fopinion  on  the  subject.  But,  sir,  the  honorable 
gentleman  from  Virginia,  with  whose  eloquence 
I  am  generally  captivated,  and  by  whose  argu- 
ments I  am  commonly  drawn  into  his  mode  of 
thinking,  has  expressed  the  generous  feeling  of 
his  heart,  on  the  nature  of  the  act,  in  a  manner 
in  perfect  coincidence  with  my  views  of  the 
subject.  The  spontaneous  effusions  of  his  heart, 
thus  exhibited,  I  can  by  no  means  doubt,  and 
can  hardly  suppose  the  social  intercourse  which 
he  has  holden  in  this  House  wifh  the  unfortu- 


nate sufferer  should  not  have  created  a  more  than 
ordinary  attachment.  But,  sir,the  honorable  gen- 
tleman intimates  several  reasons  why  this  resolu- 
tion should  not  be  adopted.  It  is  assuming  the  ex- 
ercise of  a  power  vested  in  another  department. 
Your  articles  of  war  do  not  reach  the  case.  They 
provide  for  the  punishment  of  those  who  give  or 
accept  a  challenge,  but  not  those  who  are  ac- 
cessory thereto.  As  to  the  civil  authority,  sir, 
crimes  of  this  kind,  in  this  region,  have  passed 
too  long  unobserved  to  justify  the  most  remote 
expectation  that  cognizance  will  be  taken  of 
this  transaction.  But,  says  the  gentleman,  it 
may  consign  to  infamy  individuals.  If  guilty, 
be  it  so  ;  to  this  I  have  no  objection.  Would 
to  God  that  all  who  are  guilty  of  duelling  might, 
by  public  disapprobation,  be  consigned  to  infa- 
my as  lasting  as  time  itself.  This  would  be  the 
roost  successful  and  sure  way  to  suppress  the 
practice.  The  honorable  gentleman  intimates, 
the  public  opinion  is  incorrect,  and  this  is  the 
best  corrective ;  and  it  is  hard  to  criminate  a 
person  for  committing  a  crime  when  public 
opinion  requires  him  so  to  do  to  maintain  his 
grade  in  society.  Admit,  sir,  the  public  opinion 
is  the  best  corrective,  and  that  public  opinion  is 
incorrect — I  would  ask  that  honorable  gentle- 
man, what  is  the  best  method  to  correct  public 
opinion  ?  Will  resolutions  passed  in  private  cir- 
cles effect  the  object  ?  Would  not  the  opinion 
of  the  President  have  more  influence  upon  so- 
ciety than  that  of  an  obscure  individual  ?  Would 
the  gentleman,  to  purify  a  stream,  cast  his  cor- 
rective into  the  ocean  where  it  empties,  or  into 
the  fountain  where  it  originated?  I  presume, 
into  the  fountain.  And,  sir,  upon  the  same  prin- 
ciple, if  the  public  opinion  is  corrupt,  let  the 
correction  commence  here — in  the  Senate  of 
the  United  States.  Let  the  stream  be  purified. 
Here,  I  wish  to  record  my  vote  against  an  act 
so  inhuman  and  wicked.  A  crime  which  I  de- 
test with  all  the  powers  of  my  soul.  But,  sir, 
as  my  desire  is  to  accommodate  the  feelings  of 
gentlemen,  I  will  withdraw  the  resolution  and 
submit  a  substitute. 

Mr.  M.  then  offered  the  following,  which  was 
agreed  to  : 

Resolved,  That  the  Committee  on  the  Judiciary  be 
instructed  to  inquire  into  the  expediency  of  providing, 
by  law,  for  the  punishment  of  all  persons  concerned 
in  duelling  within  the  District  of  Columbia. 


WEDNESDAY,  February  10. 

The  bill  more  effectually  to  provide  for  the 
punishment  of  certain  crimes  against  the  United 
States,  and  for  other  purposes,  was  read  a  third 
time,  and  passed. 

Statue  of  Washington. 

The  Senate  then  resumed  the  consideration 
of  the  bill  providing  for  the  erection  of  an 
equestrian  statue  of  General  WASHINGTON,  in 
pursuance  of  the  resolution  of  the  Congress  of 
1783. 

Considerable  discussion  took  place  on  this 
subject;  in  the  course  of  which  Mr.  WILSON 


DEBATES  OF  CONGRESS. 


195 


FEBRUARY,  1819.] 


Committee  on  the  Seminole  War. 


moved  to  postpone  the  bill  to  the  5th  of  March, 
(to  reject  it,)  with  a  view  of  then  moving  for 
estimates  of  expense,  &c.,  to  be  reported  to  the 
House  at  the  next  session  ;  which  motion  was 
decided  by  yeas  and  nays,  as  follows  : 

YEAS.— Messrs.  Barbour,  Burrill,  Crittenden,  Dick- 
erson,  Edwards,  Eppes,  Lacock,  Leake,  Macon,  Mor- 
row, Noble,  Palmer,  Roberts,  Ruggles,  Tait,  Taylor, 
Williams  of  Massachusetts,  and  Wilson— 18. 

NAYS. — Messrs.  Daggett,  Eaton,  Forsyth,  Fromen- 
tiu,  Goldsborough,  Horsey,  Hunter,  Johnson,  King, 
Mellen,  Morriil,  Otis,  Sanford,  Stokes,  Talbot,  Tich- 
enor,  Van  Dyke,  and  Williams  of  Tennessee — 18. 


THURSDAY,  February  11. 
Statue  of  Washington. 

The  Senate  resumed  the  consideration  of  the 
bill  for  the  erection  of  an  equestrian  statue  of 
General  GEOEGE  WASHINGTON,  in  the  Capitol 
square. 

Mr.  OTIS  moved  to  postpone  the  bill  to  the 
5th  day  of  March,  (to  reject  it ;)  which  motion 
was  decided  in  the  negative,  by  yeas  and  nays, 
as  follows : 

YEAS. — Messrs.  Barbour,  Burrill,  Crittenden,  Dick- 
erson,  Eppes,  Lacock,  Leake,  Macon,  Morrow,  No- 
ble, Otis,  Roberts,  Tait,  Taylor,  and  Wilson— 15. 

NAYS. — Messrs.  Daggett,  Eaton,  Forsyth,  Fromen- 
tin,  Goldsborough,  Horsey,  Hunter,  Johnson,  King, 
Mellen,  Morriil,  Sanford,  Stokes,  Storer,  Talbot,  Tich- 
enor,  Van  Dyke,  and  Williams  of  Tennessee — 18. 

On  motion  of  Mr.  DAGGETT,  the  bill  was 
amended,  by  adding  a  proviso,  that,  if  the  Pres- 
ident should  find  that  the  monument  would 
cost  more  than  $150,000,  the  sum  appropriated, 
he  should  not  proceed  to  execute  the  act,  but 
make  a  report  of  the  estimated  cost  to  the  next 
session  of  Congress. 

The  question  was  then  taken  on  ordering  the 
bill,  as  amended,  to  be  engrossed  and  read  a 
third  time,  and  decided  affirmatively,  by  yeas 
and  nays,  as  follows: 

YEAS. — Messrs.  Barbour,  Burrill,  Crittenden,  Dag- 
gett, Dickerson,  Fromentin,  Goldsborough,  Horsey, 
Hunter,  Johnson,  King,  Leake,  Mellen,  Morriil,  Otis, 
Sanford,  Stokes,  Storer,  Talbot,  Thomas,  Tichenor, 
Van  Dyke,  and  Williams  of  Tennessee — 23. 

N.u>. — Mc-ssrs.  Eaton,  Edwards,  Eppes,  Forsyth, 
Lacock,  Macon,  Morrow,  Palmer,  Roberts,  Rug- 
gles, Tait,  Taylor,  Williams  of  Mississippi,  and  Wil- 
son—14. 


WEDNESDAY,  February  17. 

The  PRESIDENT  communicated  a  letter  from 
JOHN  FOESYTH,  notifying  the  resignation  of  his 
seat  in  the  Senate;  and  the  letter  was  read; 
and,  on  motion  by  Mr.  TAIT,  the  President  was 
iv<|i:c4ed  to  notify  the  Executive  of  the  State 
of  Georgia  of  this  resignation. 

Missouri  State  Bill. 

A  message  from  the  House  of  Representatives 
informed  the  Senate  that  the  I  louse  have  passed 
a  bill,  entitled  "  An  act  to  authorize  the  people 
of  the  Missouri  Territory  to  form  a  constitution 


and  State  government,  and  for  the  admission  of 
such  State  into  the  Union  on  an  equal  footing 
with  the  original  States." 

The  two  bills  last  mentioned  were  read,  and 
passed  to  the  second  reading. 

On  motion,  by  Mr.  TALBOT,  the  bill  to  author- 
ize the  people  of  the  Missouri  Territory  to  form 
a  constitution  and  State  government  was  read 
the  second  time,  by  unanimous  consent,  and  re- 
ferred to  the  committee  on  the  memorial  of  the 
Legislative  Council  and  House  of  Representa- 
tives of  the  Alabama  Territory,  praying  admis- 
sion into  the  Union  as  a  State. 

The  bill  for  the  relief  of  David  Henley  was 
read  a  third  time,  and  passed. 

Committee  on  the  Seminole  War. 

Mr.  LACOCK  submitted  the  following  motion : 

Resolved,  That  a  member  be  added  to  the  com- 
mittee already  appointed  on  the  subject  of  the  Semi- 
nole war,  in  the  place  of  the  honorable  Mr.  FOR- 
SYTH, who  has  recently  been  appointed  to  a  foreign 
mission. 

After  considerable  debate,  Mr.  EATON  moved 
to  postpone  the  motion  to  the  5th  day  of  March 
next,  [to  defeat  it,]  on  the  ground  that  it  would 
be  an  unnecessary  consumption  of  the  time  of 
the  Senate,  if  not  a  deviation  from  the  line  of 
its  duty,  to  enter  at  this  late  period  of  the  ses- 
sion into  an  investigation  and  debate  on  this 
subject,  which,  after  a  debate  of  unexampled 
length,  had  been  solemnly  decided  on  in  the 
House  of  Representatives.  To  this  it  was  re- 
plied, that  nothing  more  was  proposed,  in  this 
instance,  than  was  on  other  occasions  considered 
as  matter  of  course.  When  an  inquiry  into  the 
conduct  of  a  public  officer  or  officers,  was  asked 
from  a  respectable  source,  it  was  invariably 
granted ;  and  it  would  be,  it  was  said,  no  more 
than  consistent  with  self-respect,  to  prosecute 
to  some  result  the  inquiry  already  commenced 
in  this  case.  This  motion  to  postpone  was 
negatived,  by  yeas  and  nays,  21  to  16,  as  fol- 
lows: 

YEAS.— Messrs.  Crittenden,  Dickerson,  Eaton,  Ed- 
wards, Fromentin,  Johnson,  King,  Leake,  Morrow, 
Otis,  Ruggles,  Sanford,  Stokes,  Storer,  Williams  of 
Mississippi,  and  Wilson. 

NAYS. — Messrs.  Barbour,  Burrill,  Daggett,  Eppes, 
Gaillard,  Goldsborough,  Horsey,  Hunter,  Lacock, 
Macon,  Mellen,  Noble,  Palmer,  Roberts,  Tait,  Tal- 
bot, Taylor,  Thomas,  Tichenor,  Van  Dyke,  and  Wil- 
liams of  Tennessee. 

The  motion  of  Mr.  LACOCK  to  fill  up  the  com- 
mittee was  opposed,  and  of  Mr.  EATON  to 
postpone  the  proceedings,  was  supported  by 
Messrs.  OTIS,  EATON,  and  FEOMENTIN;  on  the 
other  side  were  Messrs.  LACOCK,  EPPES,  BUB- 
RILL,  TALBOT,  GOLDSBOROUGU,  and  MACON.  It 
was  contended  by  the  former,  that,  without  de- 
ciding upon  the  right  of  the  Senate,  abstractly, 
to  institute  inquiries  into  the  conduct  of  public 
officers,  or  to  exercise  a  censorial  power  in  other 
cases  than  those  of  impeachment,  it  was  suffi- 
cient to  show  that,  in  this  instance,  such  an  in- 
terference would  be  entirely  inexpedient.  For, 


196 


ABRIDGMENT  OF  THE 


SENATE.] 


Public  Lands. 


[FEBRUARY,  1819. 


that  the  conduct  of  the  commanding  officer  in  the 
Serninole  war  had  been  at  least  excused  by  the 
President  of  the  United  States,  and  that,  so  far 
as  that  general  officer  was  censured,  there  was 
no  difference  between  the  previous  orders  and  a 
subsequent  excuse  or  justification.  In  either 
case,  the  mantle  of  his  superior  officer  was  a 
screen  for  him  ;  and,  if  the  Executive  govern- 
ment had  thus  assumed  the  responsibility  with- 
out sufficient  motives  and  reasons,  persons  other 
than  General  Jackson  might  be  held  to  answer 
before  the  Senate  in  another  capacity,  and  that 
this  body  might  thus  be  placed  in  a  situation  of 
embarrassment,  unfavorable  to  a  just  and  im- 
partial discharge  of  judicial  duties.  That  if 
this  were  true  in  ordinary  cases,  it  was  most 
emphatically  so  in  the  present  instance.  The 
House  of  Kepresentatives  was  the  great  inquest 
and  constitutional  accuser  of  the  nation.  And, 
after  a  most  laborious  investigation  and  debate, 
had  decided  in  favor  of  a  nol.  pros.  It  would 
seem  then  to  betray  a  great  eagerness  to  exer- 
cise the  faculty  of  censure  and  condemnation,  to 
pursue  a  supposed  delinquent  after  that  House 
had  rejected  a  bill  of  indictment.  The  Senate 
would  be  placed  in  an  unfavorable  and  undigni- 
fied attitude — be  chargeable  with  a  spirit  of 
persecution,  and  would  separate  themselves,  not 
only  from  the  House  of  Eepresentatives,  but 
from  the  people,  and  excite,  in  favor  of  the 
principal  party,  feelings  of  sympathy  that  would 
defeat  the  object  of  exhibiting  the  triumph  of 
the  civil  over  the  military  power.  Many  re- 
marks were  also  added  to  show  that  to  refuse 
to  fill  up  the  committee,  or  to  postpone  gener- 
ally, or  to  discharge  the  committee,  were  equiv- 
alent motions,  and  all  in  perfect  conformity 
with  correct  and  dignified  proceedings. 

On  the  other  hand,  the  filling  up  the  com- 
mittee was  supported  and  the  postponement  re- 
sisted, upon  the  suggestion  that  the  committee, 
after  making  progress  in  their  inquiries,  and 
after  much  laborious  research,  and  after  a  ma- 
jority of  them  were  agreed  on  many  points, 
were  divided  upon  others,  and  that  the  Senate 
was  bound  by  the  respect  due  to  itself  to  fill  up 
the  vacancy  and  not  stifle  the  report ;  and  that 
afterwards,  upon  a  motion  to  discharge  the 
committee,  if  it  should  be  offered,  conclusive 
reasons  should  be  shown  against  that  measure. 
To  decline  replacing  a  member,  whose  senti- 
ments were  known  to  be  unfavorable  to  the 
proceedings  in  the  Seminole  war,  and  who  had 
received  an  Executive  appointment,  would  be 
to  expose  the  motives  of  the  Executive  to  mis- 
construction. That  the  Senate  possessed  a  con- 
current right  with  the  House  of  Kepresentatives 
to  originate  any  investigation  into  the  proceed- 
ings of  public  officers,  or  the  conduct  of  public 
affairs,  and  was  bound  as  an  independent  branch 
of  the  Legislature  to  discharge  its  duty,  without 
any  reference  to  the  proceedings  of  the  House, 
to  which  all  allusions  were  unparliamentary 
and  improper.  It  was  denied  to  be  the  correct 
doctrine  that  a  military  officer  is  in  all  caees 
protected  by  the  command  or  justification  of 


his  superior ;  and,  if  it  were  true,  it  might  be 
better  to  disband  the  army.  That  the  present 
moment  was  favorable  to  sustaining  and  defin- 
ing the  rights  of  the  Senate.  And,  finally,  that 
it  would  not  follow  of  course  that  the  present 
proceedings  would  involve  a  question  of  censure 
or  approbation  of  any  officer ;  but  the  commit- 
tee might  possess  evidence  (and  it  was  suggested 
that  they  did)  of  irregularities  not  exhibited  to 
the  House,  which  might  demand  legislative  in- 
terposition and  reform. 

The  motion  of  Mr.  LACOCK  was  then  agreed 
to,  and  Mr.  EPPES  was  appointed  the  member. 

THTTBSDAY,  February  18. 
Public  Lands. 

The  Senate  resumed,  as  in  Committee  of  the 
Whole,  the  consideration  of  the  bill  making  fur- 
ther provision  respecting  the  sale  of  the  public 
lands. 

[For  the  following  remarks,  made  by  Mr. 
CBITTENDEN,  in  conclusion  .of  a  speech  in  sup- 
port of  the  bill,  we  are  obliged  to  a  friend  who 
was  present  at  the  debate,  for  being  enabled  to 
lay  before  our  readers. — Editors."] 

Mr.  President,  I  must  acknowledge  to  you 
that  I  feel  a  peculiar  sort  of  partiality  for  this 
bill ;  and  that,  independent  of  the  reasons  which 
I  have  had  the  honor  of  submitting,  I  am  influ- 
enced by  feelings  somewhat  of  a  personal  char- 
acter to  desire  its  passage.  It  is  the  work  of 
the  honorable  gentleman  from  Ohio,  (Mr.  MOR- 
EOW,)  who  is  so  soon  to  be  finally  separated 
from  us.  He  has  long  been  our  Palimirus  in 
every  thing  that  related  to  this  important  sub- 
ject. He  has  steered  us  safely  through  all  its 
difficulties,  and,  with  him  for  our  helmsman, 
we  have  feared  neither  Scylla  nor  Charybdis. 
"We  have  heretofore  followed  him  with  increas- 
ing confidence.  We  have  never  been  deceived 
or  disappointed.  The  bill  now  before  you  is 
probably  the  last,  the  most  important,  act  of  his 
long  and  useful  political  life.  If  it  shall  pass, 
sir,  it  will  identify  his  name  and  his  memory  with 
this  interesting  subject.  It  will  be  his  "  peren- 
nius  sere."  A  noble  monument !  which,  whilst 
t  guides  the  course  of  future  legislation,  shall 
perpetuate  the  remembrance  of  an  honest  man. 
Sir,  if  the  ostracism  of  former  times  prevailed 
with  us,  I  do  not  know  the  individual  whose 
virtues  would  more  expose  him  to  its  envious  and 
jealous  sentence.  The  illustrious  Greek  himself, 
who  derived  such  unfortunate  distinction  from 
that  ancient  usage,  did  not  better  deserve  the 
epithet  of  "  just."  Mr.  President,  I  do  not  in- 
iend  to  flatter  the  honorable  gentleman  from 
Ohio.  Flattery  is  falsehood.  I  burn  no  such 
incense  at  the  shrine  of  any  man.  The  sincere 
homage  of  the  heart  is  not  flattery.  I  have 
spoken  the  spontaneous  feelings  of  my  own 
Breast.  I  am  confident,  too,  that  I  have  spoken 
the  sentiments  of  the  Senate.  But  yet,  sir,  I 
ought,  perhaps,  to  beg  pardon  of  the  honorable 
jentleman.  For,  I  have  much  cause  to  fear 
;hat  the  gratification  I  have  had  in  offering  this 


DEBATES  OF  CONGRESS. 


197 


FEBRUARY,  1819.J 


Report  on  the  Seminole  War. 


[SENATE. 


poor  tribute  of  my  respect,  is  more  than  coun- 
terbalanced by  the  pain  it  has  inflicted  on  him. 


FEIDAT,  February  19. 
British  Colonial  Trade. 

In  Executive  session — 

Mr.  MACON,  from  the  Committee  on  Foreign 
Relations,  to  whom  was  referred  so  much  of 
the  documents  accompanying  the  Commercial 
Convention  with  Great  Britain,  as  relates  to  the 
colonial  trade,  made  the  following  report,  which 
was  read : 

That  the  object  of  the  negotiation  with  Great 
Britain,  respecting  the  colonial  trade,  is  the  estab- 
lishment of  a  regulation  whereby  a  trade  in  articles 
of  the  produce  and  manufacture  of  the  United  States, 
and  of  the  British  Colonies,  may  be  carried  on  be- 
tween them  ;  and  secondly,  a  regulation  whereby 
the  shipping  of  the  two  countries  may  be  placed  on 
an  equal  footing  in  the  carrying  on  of  this  trade. 

In  respect  to  the  articles  of  the  trade,  the  United 
States  would  agree  that  all  articles  of  the  produce 
and  manufacture  of  the  United  States,  and  of  the 
respective  colonies,  should  be  included,  and  all  other 
articles  excluded.  But  as  Great  Britain  probably 
would  not  consent  to  this  arrangement,  the  United 
States  would  not  object  to  the  catalogue  of  articles  of 
the  produce  and  manufactures  of  the  United  States, 
and  of  the  said  colonies,  enumerated  in  the  British 
act  of  Parliament,  and  according  to  which  the  trade 
has  heretofore  been  carried  on  in  British  bottoms. 

As  respects  duties  and  charges,  they  should  be 
placed  on  a  footing  of  reciprocal  equality :  if  Great 
Britain  would  consent  to  impose  no  higher  or  other 
duties  on  articles  of  the  produce  and  manufacture  of 
the  United  States  imported  into  the  colonies,  than 
upon  the  like  articles  imported  from  her  continental 
colonies,  (whence  only  they  can  be  obtained,)  the 
United  States  might  agree  to  impose  no  greater  or 
other  duties  and  charges  on  articles  the  produce  and 
manufacture  of  her  colonies,  than  on  the  like  articles 
from  other  countries.  To  this  adjustment  Great 
Britain  will  probably  disagree  :  in  lieu  thereof,  and 
as  a  compensation  for  the  stipulation  not  to  impose 
greater  or  other  duties  on  the  colonial  articles  of 
Great  Britain,  than  on  the  like  articles  of  other 
countries,  it  might  be  stipulated,  on  the  part  of  Great 
Britain,  that  the  duties  and  charges  on  articles  of  the 
produce  and  manufacture  of  the  United  States,  should 

not  exceed  by  more  than per  cent,  those  which 

should  be  imposed  on  the  like  articles  imported  from 
the  British  continental  colonies. 

In  no  event  should  articles  of  the  produce  and  man- 
ufacture of  the  United  States  pay  higher  duties  and 
charges  in  the  direct  voyage  from"  the  United  States 
than  in  the  indirect  or  circuitous  voyage  through 
New  Brunswick,  Nova  Scotia,  Bermudas,  or  other 
intermediate  ports ;  and  as  the  direct  trade  should 
not  be  more  restrained  in  respect  to  the  articles 
thereof,  than  the  indirect  or  circuitous  trade,  no  arti- 
cle should  be  allowed  to  go  or  come  indirectly  or 
circuitously,  which  might  not  go  or  come  directly. 

There  is  nothing  in  principle  or  policy  that  forbids 
the  confining  of  this  trade  to  articles  of  the  produce 
or  manufacture  of  the  respective  countries ;  that  is, 
of  the  United  States  and  of  the  British  colonies ;  ar- 
ticles of  produce  and  manufacture  of  other  portions 
of  the  British  territories  coming  through  these  colo- 


nies being  excluded  from  the  United  States,  as  arti- 
cles not  of  the  produce  and  manufacture  of  the  Unit- 
ed States  are  excluded  from  Great  Britain,  and  would 
be  excluded  from  the  British  colonies. 

As  respects  the  shipping  employed  in  this  trade,  it 
must  be  placed  on  a  footing  of  practical  and  recipro- 
cal equality,  both  as  respects  duties  and  charges,  and 
the  equal  participation  of  the  trade ;  on  this  adjust- 
ment, even,  there  will  exist  an  advantage  in  favor  of 
the  English  navigation ;  as  it  will  be  exclusively 
employed  in  the  transportation  of  articles  of  the  pro- 
duce and  manufacture  of  the  United  States,  between 
the  intermediate  colonies  aforesaid  and  the  West  In- 
dia Colonies,  and  likewise  in  a  disproportioned  degree, 
in  the  distribution  of  these  articles  among  the  British 
West  India  Colonies. 

Furthermore,  as  the  voyage  from  the  United  States 
to  New  Brunswick,  Nova  Scotia,  and  Bermuda,  is  a 
short  one,  and  would  yield  but  little  profit,  the  da- 
ties  and  charges  must  be  as  great  on  the  British  ships, 
and  the  articles  of  the  produce  and  manufacture  of 
the  United  States  composing  their  cargoes,  arriving 
in  the  British  West  India  Colonies,  through  these  in- 
termediate colonies,  as  on  the  same  ships  and  articles 
arriving  directly  from  the  United  States ;  otherwise 
the  direct  trade  will  be  deserted  in  favor  of  the  cir- 
cuitous trade,  and  thereby  the  object  of  the  arrange- 
ment, an  equality  hi  the  employment  of  the  shipping 
of  the  two  countries,  will  be  defeated.  So  far  as  the 
operation  of  the  late  navigation  law  is  understood,  it 
seems  to  have  been  advantageous,  and  especially  in 
the  increase  of  the  American  shipping  engaged  in  the 
direct  trade  between  the  United  States  and  Great 
Britain,  and  the  corresponding  decrease  of  that  of 
Great  Britain — but  sufficient  time  has  not  yet  been 
afforded  satisfactorily  to  ascertain  this  point,  or  to  de- 
termine other  questions  that  are  in  a  course  of  solution. 

Perhaps  it  would  be  prudent  to  allow  time  for  this 
important  experiment,  and  to  suffer  the  negotiation 
on  this  subject  to  remain  where  it  is  for  the  present. 
It  ought  not  to  be  forgotten,  that  without  cutting  off 
the  trade  with  New  Brunswick,  Nova  Scotia,  and 
Bermuda,  this  experiment  cannot  be  fairly  made. 
Whether  it  would  be  expedient  at  the  present  session 
to  adopt  this  measure,  is  perhaps  doubtful. 

If  the  effect  of  our  navigation  law,  reinforced  ac- 
cording to  the  above  suggestion,  should  prove  to  be 
such  as  it  not  improbably  will  be,  it  might,  and  prob- 
ably would  be  our  true  footing  to  adhere  to  the  law, 
and  decline  any  convention  with  Great  Britain, 
touching  the  colonial  trade. 

MONDAY,  February  22. 
SAMUEL  W.  DANA,  from  the  State  of  Connec- 
ticut, attended  this  day. 

TUESDAY,  February  23. 
The  PRESIDENT  communicated  the  credentials 
of  WALLER  TAYLOR,  appointed  a  Senator  by  the 
Legislature  of  the  State  of  Indiana,  for  the  term 
of  six  years,  commencing  on  the  fourth  day  of 
March  next ;  which  were  read,  and  laid  on  tile. 

WEDNESDAY,  February  24. 

Report  on  the  Seminole  War. 

Mr.  LACOCK,  from  the  committee  appointed 

in  pursuance  of  a  resolution  of  the  Senate  of 

the  18th  December  last,  "  That  the  Message  of 


198 


ABRIDGMENT  OF  THE 


SENATE.] 


Senate  adheres  to  its  Amendment. 


the  President  and  documents,  relative  to  the 
Seminole  war,  be  referred  to  a  select  commit- 
tee, who  shall  have  authority,  if  necessary,  to 
send  for  persons  and  papers ;  that  said  commit- 
tee inquire  relative  to  the  advance  of  the  United 
States  troops  into  West  Florida ;  whether  the 
officers  in  command  at  Pensacola  and  St.  Marks 
were  amenable  to,  and  under  the  control  of, 
Spain;  and,  particularly,  what  circumstances 
existed,  to  authorize  or  justify  the  commanding 
general  in  taking  possession  of  those  posts,"  re- 
ported, &c. 

THTTESDAT,  February  25. 
The  PEESIDENT  communicated  the  credentials 
of  JOHN  GAILLAHD,  appointed  a  Senator  by  the 
Legislature  of  the  State  of  South  Carolina,  for 
the  term  of  six  years,  commencing  on  the  fourth 
day  of  March  next ;  which  were  read,  and  laid 
on  file. 


SATURDAY,  February  27. 
Missouri  State  Mil 

The  bill  from  the  other  House  to  authorize 
the  people  of  Missouri  to  form  a  constitution, 
&c.,  was  resumed;  and,  with  the  various  mo- 
tions relative  to  it,  gave  rise  to  a  long  and  ani- 
mated debate. 

Mr.  WILSON  moved  to  postpone  the  further 
consideration  of  the  bill  to  a  day  beyond  the 
session,  which  motion  was  decided  as  follows  : 

YEAS. — Messrs.  Burrill,  Daggett,  Dickerson,  King, 
Lacock,  Mellen,  Merrill,  Otis,  Roberts,  Sanford,  Sto- 
rer,  Tichenor,  Van  Dyke,  and  Wilson — 14. 

NAYS. — Messrs.  Barbour,  Crittenden,  Dana,  Eaton, 
Edwards,  Eppes,  Fromentin,  Gaillard,  Goldsborough, 
Horsey,  Johnson,  Leake,  Macon,  Morrow,  Noble, 
Palmer,  Ruggles,  Stokes,  Tait,  Talbot,  Thomas,  Wil- 
liams of  Mississippi,  and  Williams  of  Tennessee — 23. 

So  the  question  was  negatived. 

On  the  question  to  agree  to  a  proposition  to 
strike  out  the  restriction  against  the  introduc- 
tion or  toleration  of  slavery  in  said  new  State,  a 
division  of  the  question  was  called  for,  and  the 
question  was  taken  on  striking  ont  the  latter 
clause  of  said  restriction,  as  follows :  "  And 
that  all  children  of  slaves,  born  within  the  said 
State,  after  the  admission  thereof  into  the 
Union,  shall  be  free,  but  may  be  held  to  service 
until  the  age  of  twenty-five  years."  And  de- 
cided as  follows : 

YEAS. — Messrs.  Barbour,  Crittenden,  Daggett, 
Dana,  Eaton,  Edwards,  Eppes,  Fromentin,  Gaillard, 
Goldsborongh,  Horsey,  Johnson,  King,  Lacock,  Leake, 
Macon,  Morrow,  Otis,  Palmer,  Roberts,  Sanford, 
Stokes,  Storer,  Tait,  Talbot,  Thomas,  Tichenor,  Van 
Dyke,  Williams  of  Mississippi,  and  Williams  of  Ten- 
nessee— 31. 

NAYS. — Messrs.  Burrill,  Dickerson,  Mellen,  Morrill, 
Noble,  Ruggles,  and  Wilson— 7. 

So  it  was  agreed  to  strike  out  that  clause. 

The  question  was  then  taken  to  strike  out  the 
first  clause  of  said  restriction,  in  the  words  fol- 
lowing: "And  provided  also,  That  the  further 
introduction  of  slavery  or  involuntary  servitude 


be  prohibited,  except  for  the  punishment  of 
crimes,  whereof  the  party  shall  have  been  duly 
convicted ;  "  and  decided  as  follows : 

YEAS.— Messrs.  Barbour,  Crittenden,  Eaton,  Ed- 
wards, Eppes,  Fromentin,  Gaillard,  Goldsborough, 
Horsey,  Johnson,  Lacock,  Leake,  Macon,  Olis,  Pal- 
mer, Stokes,  Tait,  Talbot,  Tliomas,  Van  Dyke,  Wil- 
liams of  Mississippi,  and  Williams  of  Tennessee — 22. 

NAYS. — Messrs.  Burrill,  Daggett,  Dana.  Dickerson, 
King,  Mellen,  Morrill,  Morrow,  Noble,  Roberts,  Rug- 
gles, Sanford,  Storer,  Taylor,  Tichenor,  Wilson — 16. 

So  it  was  decided  to  strike  out  this  clause 
also;  when,  before  finally  acting  on  the  bill, 
the  Senate  adjourned. 


MONDAY,  March  1. 
Territory  of  Arkansas. 

The  Senate  resumed  the  bill,  entitled  "An 
act  establishing  a  separate  Territorial  govern- 
ment in  the  southern  part  of  the  Territory  of 
Missouri;"  it  having  been  previously  read  a 
third  time. 

On  motion  by  Mr.  BURRILL, 

"  That  the  said  bill  be  recommitted  to  the  commit- 
tee to  whom  the  same  was  first  referred,  with  instruc- 
tions so  to  amend  tbe  same,  that  the  further  intro- 
duction of  slavery  or  involuntary  servitude  within  the 
said  Territory,  except  for  the  punishment  of  crimes, 
be  prohibited." 

It  was  determined  in  the  negative — yeas  14, 
nays  19,  as  follows: 

YEAS. — Messrs.  Burrill,  Daggett,  Dana,  Dickerson, 
King,  Lacock,  Mellen,  Noble,  Roberts,  Ruggles,  San- 
ford, Storer,  Tichenor,  and  Wilson. 

NAYS. — Messrs.  Barbour,  Crittenden,  Eaton,  Ed- 
wards, Eppes,  Fromentin,  Gaillard,  Goldsborough, 
Johnson,  Leake,  Macon,  Morrow,  Stokes,  Tait,  Tal- 
bot, Taylor,  Thomas,  Williams  of  Mississippi,  and 
Williams  of  Tennessee. 

On  the  question,  "  Shall  this  bill  pass  ? "  it 
was  determined  in  the  affirmative.  So  it  was 
resolved  that  this  bill  pass. 


TUESDAY,  March  2. 
Missouri   State    Bill — House    non-concurs    in 

Senate  Amendment. 

A  message  from  the  House  of  Eepresentatives 
informed  the  Senate  that  they  have  concurred  in 
all  the  amendments  of  the  Senate  to  the  bill, 
entitled  "  An  act  to  authorize  the  people  of  the 
Missouri  Territory  to  form  a  constitution  and 
State  government,  and  for  the  admission  of  such 
State  into  the  Union  on  an  equal  footing  with 
the  original  States,"  except  the  eleventh,  and 
to  that  they  disagree. 

Senate  adheres  to  its  Amendment. 

The  Senate  proceeded  to  consider  the  elev- 
enth amendment,  disagreed  to  by  the  House  of 
Representatives.  [This  amendment  struck  out 
the  prohibitory  clause  concerning  the  toleration 
of  slavery  in  said  State.] 

Whereupon,  on  motion  of  Mr.  TAIT,  the  Sen- 
ate resolved  to  adhere  to  their  said  amendment 


DEBATES  OF  CONGRESS. 


199 


MARCH,  1819.] 


Proceedings. 


[SENATE. 


WEDNESDAY,  March  3. 

The  credentials  of  WILIIAM  A.  PALMER,  ap- 
pointed a  Senator  by  the  Legislature  of  the 
State  of  South  Carolina,  for  the  term  of  six 
years,  commencing  on  the  fourth  day  of  March 
instant,  were  communicated  and  read,  and  laid 
on  file. 

Missouri  State  Bill — House  adheres  to  its  Bill. 
A  message  from  the  House  of  Representatives 
informed  the  Senate  that  the  House  adhere  to 
their  disagreement  to  the  eleventh  amendment 
proposed  and  adhered  to  hy  the  Senate  to  the 
bill,  entitled  "  An  act  to  authorize  the  people  of 
the  Missouri  Territory  to  form  a  constitution 
and  State  government,  and  for  the  admission  of 
such  State  into  the  Union  on  an  equal  looting 
with  the  original  States."  * 

1  Six  o'clock  in  the  Evening. 

On  motion  by  Mr.  MACON,  a  committee  was 
appointed  on  the  part  of  the  Senate,  jointly 
•with  such  committee  as  may  be  appointed  on 
the  part  of  the  House  of  Representatives,  to 
•wait  on  the  President  of  the  United  States,  and 
notify  him,  that  unless  he  may  have  other  com- 
munications to  the  two  Houses  of  Congress, 
they  are  ready  to  adjourn.  Mr.  MACOX  and 
Mr.  DAGGETT  were  appointed  the  committee. 

On  motion  by  Mr.  BUKBILL, 

Resolved,  unanimously,  That  the  thanks  of  the  Sen- 
ate be  presented  to  the  honorable  JAMES  BARBOUR, 
Senator  from  Virginia,  for  the  dignified  and  impartial 
manner  in  which  he  has  discharged  the  important 
duties  of  the  President  of  the  Senate,  since  he  was 
called  to  the  Chair. 

Resolved,  vnanimovsly,  That  the  thanks  of  the  Sen- 
ate be  also  presented  to  the  honorable  JOHN  GAILLARD, 
Senator  from  South  Carolina,  for  the  dignified  and 
impartial  manner  in  which  he  discharged  the  impor- 


*  The  two  Houses  adhering— one  to  its  bill,  the  other  to 
Its  amendment— the  bill  was  consequently  lost. 


tant  duties  of  President  of  the  Senate  during  the  time 
he  presided  therein. 

Whereupon  Mr.  BAREGCE  addressed  the  Sen- 
ate as  follows : 

Gentlemen :  The  sensibility  produced  by  this  new 
evidence  of  your  kindness  and  approbation,  is  beyond 
my  power  to  express.  I  would  rather  refer  to  yonr 
own  bosoms  as  furnishing  a  more  correct  standard  by 
which  to  appreciate  it.  I  have  the  consolation  to  re- 
flect, that  whatever  of  zeal  or  capacity  I  possess,  has 
been  devoted  to  the  discharge  of  the  duties  of  my 
station ;  your  approbation  is  more  than  an  ample  re- 
ward. Permit  me,  as  the  moment  of  separating  is 
approaching,  from  all  for  a  season,  from  some  per- 
haps forever,  to  tender  you  all  an  affectionate  fare- 
well, and  to  pray  that  upon  your  return  to  yonr  re- 
spective homes,  your  reception  may  be  such,  in  all 
your  relations,  as  may  make  you  happy. 

Mr.  GAILLAED  then  rose  and  made  the  follow- 
ing address : 

Mr.  President :  Next  to  the  satisfaction  arising  from 
the  consciousness  of  faithfully  performing  our  duty 
the  favorable  opinion  of  those  with  whom  we  are  as  - 
sociated  affords  the  highest  gratification  that  can  be 
received ;  and  the  present  vote  of  approbation,  to- 
gether with  the  many  acts  of  kindness  I  have  expe- 
rienced from  this  honorable  body,  have  excited  in  my 
mind  feelings  of  gratitude  which  neither  time  nor 
circumstances  can  ever  efface. 

A  message  from  the  House  of  Representatives 
informed  the  Senate  that  the  House,  having  fin- 
ished the  business  before  them,  are  about  to  ad- 
journ. 

Mr.  MACON  reported,  from  the  joint  commit- 
tee, that  they  had  waited  on  the  President  of 
the  United  States,  who  informed  them  that  he 
had  no  further  communication  to  make  to  the 
two  Houses  of  Congress. 

The  Secretary  was  then  directed  to  inform 
the  House  of  Representatives  that  the  Senate, 
having  finished  the  legislative  business  before 
them,  are  about  to  adjourn. 

The  PRESIDENT  then  adjourned  the  Senate 
sine  die. 


200 


ABRIDGMENT  OF  THE 


H.  OF  R.] 


Proceedings. 


[NOVEMBER,  1818. 


FIFTEENTH  CONGRESS -SECOND  SESSION, 


•PROCEEDINGS  AND  DEBATES 


THE    HOUSE    OF    REPRESENTATIVES. 


MONDAY,  November  16, 1818. 

This  being  the  day  fixed  by  law  for  the  meet- 
ing of  Congress,  HENRY  CLAY,  the  Speaker, 
THOMAS  DOUGHERTY,  the  Clerk,  and  the  follow- 
ing members  of  the  House  of  Representatives, 
appeared  and  took  their  seats,  to  wit : 

From  New  Hampshire — Josiah  Butler,  Clifton 
Clagett,  Samuel  Hale,  Arthur  Livermore,  John  F. 
Parrott,  and  Nathaniel  Upham. 

From  Massachusetts — Benjamin  Adams,  Joshua 
Gage,  John  Holmes,  Jonathan  Mason,  Marcus  Mor- 
ton, Benjamin  Orr,  Thomas  Rice,  Nathaniel  Ruggles, 
Zabdiel  Sampson,  Henry  Shaw,  Nathaniel  SUsbee, 
and  Ezekiel  Whitman. 

From  Rhode  Island — John  L.  Boss,  jun. 

From  Connecticut — Ebenezer  Huntington,  Jona- 
than O.  Mosely,  Timothy  Pitkin,  Nathaniel  Terry, 
and  Thomas  S.  Williams. 

From  Vermont — Heman  Allen,  Samuel  C.  Crafts, 
William  Hunter,  Orsamus  C.  Merrill,  Charles  Rich, 
and  Mark  Richards. 

From  New  York — Oliver  C.  Comstock,  John  P. 
Cushman,  Josiah  Hasbrouck,  John  Herkimer,  Thomas 
H.  Hubbard,  William  Irving,  Dorrance  Kirtland, 
Thomas  Lawyer,  John  Palmer,  John  Savage,  Philip 
J.  Schuyler,  Tredwell  Scudder,  Henry  R.  Storrs, 
James  Tallmadge,  jun.,  John  W.  Taylor,  George 
Townsend,  Rensselaer  Westerlo,  James  W.  Wilkin, 
and  Isaac  Williams. 

From  New  Jersey — Ephraim  Bateman,  Benjamin 
Bennett,  Joseph  Bloomfield,  Charles  Kinsey,  John 
Linn,  and  Henry  Southard. 

From  Pennsylvania — William  Anderson,  Henry 
Baldwin,  Andrew  Boden,  Isaac  Darlington,  Joseph 
Hopkinson,  William  P.  Maclay,  David  Marchand, 
Robert  Moore,  John  Murray,  Alexander  Ogle, 
Thomas  Patterson,  Thomas  J.  Rogers,  John  Ser- 
geant, Adam  Seybert,  Christian  Tarr,  James  M. 
Wallace,  John  Whiteside,  and  William  Wilson. 

From  Maryland — Thomas  Bayley,  Thomas  Cul- 
breth,  John  C.  Herbert,  Peter  Little,  George  Peter, 
Philip  Reed,  Samuel  Smith,  and  Philip  Stuart. 

From  Virginia — Archibald  Austin,  Philip  P.  Bar- 
hour,  Wiliiam  A.  Burwell,  John  Floyd,  Robert  S. 
Garnett,  William  J.  Lewis,  William  McCoy,  Charles 
F.  Mercer,  Hugh  Nelson,  Thomas  Newton,  James 
Pindall,  James  Pleasants,  Alexander  Smyth,  and 
Henry  St.  George  Tucker. 


From  North  Carolina— Weldon  N.  Edwards,  Thos. 
H.  Hall,  George  Mumford,  Lemuel  Sawyer,  Thomas 
Settle,  Jesse  Slocumb,  James  S.  Smith,  James 
Stewart,  Felix  Walker,  and  Lewis  Williams. 

From  South  Carolina — Joseph  Bellinger,  Henry 
Middleton,  and  Sterling  Tucker. 

From  Georgia — Zadock  Cook,  Joel  Crawford, 
John  -Forsyth,  and  William  Terrell. 

From  Kentucky — Joseph  Desha,  Richard  M.  John- 
son, Anthony  New,  Tunstall  Quarles,  George  Rob- 
ertson, Thomas  Speed,  David  Trimble,  and  David 
Walker. 

From  Tennessee — Thomas  Claiborne,  Francis 
Jones,  and  John  Rhea. 

From  Ohio — John  W.  Campbell,  and  William 
Henry  Harrison. 

From  Indiana — William  Hendricks. 

From  Mississippi — George  Poindexter. 

The  following  members  elected  to  supply 
vacancies  in  the  House,  also  appeared,  were 
qualified,  and  took  their  seats,  viz : 

From  Massachusetts,  ENOCH  LINCOLN,  vice 
Mr.  Parris,  resigned. 

From  Connecticut,  SYLVESTER  GILBERT,  vice 
Mr.  Holmes,  resigned. 

From  Pennsylvania,  SAMUEL  MOORE,  vice  Mr. 
Ingham,  resigned,  and  JACOB  HOSTETTER,  vice 
Mr  Spangler,  resigned. 

From  Virginia,  JOHN  PEGRAM,  vice  Mr.  Good- 
wyn,  deceased. 

From  Louisiana,  THOMAS  BUTLER,  vice  Mr. 
Eobertson,  resigned. 

JOHN  SCOTT,  the  delegate  from  the  Territory 
of  Missouri,  and  JOHN  CROWEL,  the  delegate 
from  the  Territory  of  Alabama,  also  appeared 
and  took  their  seats. 

A  quorum  being  present,  messages  were  ex- 
changed with  the  Senate  to  that  effect. 

Messrs.  TAYLOE  and  BALDWIN  were  appoint- 
ed on  the  part  of  this  House,  on  the  joint  com- 
mittee for  waiting  on  the  President. 

The  SPEAKER  laid  before  the  House  a  copy 
of  the  constitution  of  the  State  of  Illinois,  adopt- 
ed in  convention  at  Kaskaskia,  on  the  26th  day 
of  August,  1818 ;  which  was  ordered  to  lie  on 
the  table. 


DEBATES  OF  CONGRESS. 


201 


NOVEMBER,  1818.]  State  of  Illinois— Question  of  Swearing  in  its  Representative. 


[H.  OF  R. 


TUESDAY,  November  17. 

Several  other  members,  to  wit :  from  Massa- 
chusetts, WALTEB  FOLGER,  jr.,  and  JOHN  WIL- 
SON; from  New  York,  BENJAMIN  ELLICOTT  and 
DAVID  A.  OGDEN;  from  Delaware,  Louis  MO- 
LANE  ;  from  Virginia,  THOMAS  M.  NELSON,  BAL- 
LAED  SMITH,  and  EDWARD  COLSTON  ;  from  North 
Carolina,  JAMES  OWEN;  from  Georgia,  THOMAS 
W.  COBB  ;  from  Tennessee,  SAMJJEL  HOGG  ;  and 
from  Ohio,  PHILEMON  BEECHER  and  LEVI  BAR- 
BER, appeared,  and  took  their  seats. 

Mr.  TAYLOR,  from  the  joint  committee  ap- 
pointed to  wait  on  the  President  of  the  United 
States,  reported  that  they  had  discharged  that 
duty,  and  that  the  President  informed  the  com- 
mittee he  would  this  day  make  a  communica- 
tion to  the  two  Houses  of  Congress. 

WEDNESDAY,  November  18. 
Several  other  members,  to  wit:  from  New 
York,  JOHN  R.  DRAKE,  JAMES  PORTER,  and 
JOHN  C.  SPENCER;  from  Virginia,  BTJRWELL 
BASSETT;  and  from  Tennessee,  WILLIAM  G. 
BLOUNT,  appeared,  and  took  their  seats. 

THURSDAY,  November  19. 

Three  other  members,  to  wit :  from  Massachu- 
setts, JEREMIAH  NELSON;  from  Pennsylvania, 
WILLIAM  MACLAY  ;  and  from  Kentucky,  RICH- 
ARD C.  ANDERSON,  jr.,  appeared,  and  took  their 
seats. 

The  SPEAKER  laid  before  the  House  a  letter 
from  the  Governor  of  the  State  of  Pennsylvania, 
enclosing  the  credentials  of  SAMUEL  MOORE,  as 
a  member  of  this  House,  in  the  room  of  Samuel 
D.  Ingham,  resigned;  which  was  referred  to 
the  Committee  of  Elections. 

State  of  Illinois — Question  of  Swearing  in  its 
Representative. 

Mr.  MoLEAN,  Representative  from  the  new 
State  of  Illinois,  being  in  attendance — 

The  SPEAKEE  stated  to  the  House  a  difficulty 
which  he  felt  in  deciding  upon  the  propriety  of 
administering  the  oath  to  him,  in  consequence 
of  Congress  not  having  concluded  the  act  of 
admission  of  the  State  into  the  Union.  Under 
this  difficulty,  he  submitted  the  question  to  the 
decision  of  the  House. 

Mr.  POINDEXTER,  of  Mississippi,  said  he 
thought  it  incumbent  on  the  House,  before  ad- 
mitting the  Representative  to  a  seat,  to  examine 
the  constitution  just  laid  before  it,  to  see,  first, 
whether  the  requisitions  of  the  act  of  last  ses- 
sion were  complied  with ;  and,  secondly,  whether 
the  form  of  government  established  was  repub- 
lican, which  the  United  States  were  bound  to 
guarantee.  He  illustrated  the  irregularity  of  a 
din'erent  procedure,  by  putting  the  case  that 
the  member  was  admitted  to  a  seat,  allowed  to 
vote  on  important  questions,  and  the  constitu- 
tion subsequently  rejected. 

Mr.  HARRISON,  of  Ohio,  wished  a  different 
course  to  be  pursued,  and  one  for  which  he  ad- 


duced precedent,  in  the  case  of  the  Representa- 
tive from  one  of  the  States  lately  admitted. 
The  House  had  taken  for  granted  the  fact  of  ft 
compliance  with  the  law,  and  of  the  republican 
form  of  government  established,  and  had  ad- 
mitted the  member  without  question  to  his 
seat.  In  the  present  case,  Mr.  H.  was  unwill- 
ing to  depart  from  the  precedent,  for  mere 
form's  sake. 

Mr.  PITKIN,  of  Connecticut,  said  that  this 
was  a  question  which,  he  believed,  had  never 
before  been  presented  to  the  House.  He 
thought,  for  himself,  that,  before  admitting  a 
Representative  to  a  seat,  the  question,  whether 
the  people  who  elected  him  were  a  State,  ought 
to  be  decided.  To  the  decision  of  this  ques- 
tion, several  things  were  necessary ;  for  in- 
stance, the  law  of  last  session  required  that 
the  Territory  in  question  should  havo  had  a 
certain  population,  to  justify  its  forming  a  con- 
stitution and  State  government.  This  fact 
ought  to  be  officially  established,  &c.,  and  the 
resolution  of  admission  passed,  before  a  Repre- 
sentative took  his  seat. 

The  question  having  been  put,  it  was  decided 
apparently  by  a  large  majority  that  the  SPEAKER 
should  not  at  this  time  administer  the  oath  of 
office. 

Ordered,  That  the  constitution  of  the  State  of 
Illinois  be  referred  to  a  select  committee ;  and 
Messrs.  ANDERSON,  of  Kentucky,  POINDEXTER, 
and  HENDRICKS,  were  appointed  the  said  com- 
mittee. 


FRIDAY,  November  20. 

The  SPEAKER  presented  a  memorial  and  peti- 
tion of  Matthew  Lyon,  formerly  a  member  of 
the  House  of  Representatives  from  the  State  of 
Vermont,  detailing  the  circumstances  attending 
his  prosecution  for  sedition,  in  the  year  1798, 
and  complaining  of  the  unconstitutionality  of 
the  act  under  which  he  was  prosecuted,  of 
illegality  in  the  proceedings  of  the  court,  and 
of  the  fine  which  he  was  compelled  to  pay,  and 
the  imprisonment  he  suffered;  and  also  set- 
ting forth  the  iniquity  of  the  motives  which 
prompted  the  said  prosecution;  and  praying 
that  the  amount  of  the  said  fine,  with  the  interest 
thereon,  may  be  granted  to  him,  together  with 
such  sum  as  Congress  may  think  a  just  indem- 
nity for  his  being  dragged  from  his  home,  his 
family,  friends,  and  business,  and  thrown  into 
a  loathsome  dungeon,  where  he  suffered  every 
speoies  of  hardship  and  indignity,  which  the 
most  prosecuting  spirit  could  devise,  for  four 
months. 

Mr.  WILLIAMS,  of  North  Carolina,  moved  to 
refer  the  petition  to  the  Judiciary  Committee. 

Mr.  EDWARDS,  of  North  Carolina,  thought, 
that,  as  this  petition  embraced  a  claim,  it  would 
be  proper  to  let  it  take  the  course  of  all  other 
claims,  by  referring  it  to  the  Committee  of 
Claims. 

Mr.  WILLIAMS  said,  though  it  was  a  claim,  it 
was  a  claim  arising  from  the  operation  of  a  law 


202 


ABKIDGMENT  OF  THE 


H.  OF  R.] 


District  of  Columbia. 


[NOVEMBER,  1818. 


of  the  country  supposed  by  the  petitioner  to  be 
unconstitutional.  Who  could  so  well  deter- 
mine a  question  with  regard  to  the  constitution- 
ality or  unconstitutionality  of  a  law,  as  the  Ju- 
diciary Committee  ?  Such  cases  had  been  usu- 
ally referred  to  that  committee ;  and  even  at 
the  last  session  that  committee  had  been  direct- 
ed to  inquire  into  a  fraud,  said  to  have  been 
committed  in  one  of  the  courts  of  the  United 
States. 

On  motion  of  Mr.  SPENCEB,  of  New  York, 
the  petition  was  read  through,  and  was  then 
referred  to  the  Committee  on  the  Judiciary. 

State  of  Illinois. 

Mr.  ANDERSON,  of  Kentucky,  from  the  select 
committee,  to  whom  was  referred  the  constitu- 
tion of  the  State  of  Illinois,  reported  a  resolu- 
tion, declaring  the  admission  of  the  State  of 
Illinois  into  the  Union,  on  an  equal  footing  with 
the  original  States. 

The  resolution  was  read  a  first  and  second 
time.— Mr.  ANDERSON  proposed  that  it  should 
be  engrossed  for  a  third  reading. 

Mr.  SPENCER,  of  New  York,  inquired  whether 
it  appeared,  from  any  documents  transmitted 
to  Congress,  that  the  State  had  the  number  of 
inhabitants  required  by  the  law  of  the  last  ses- 
sion, as  a  preliminary  to  its  formation  of  a  con- 
stitution. 

Mr.  ANDERSON  said  that  the  committee  had 
no  information  on  that  subject  before  them,  be- 
yond what  was  contained  in  the  preamble  to 
the  constitution,  which  states,  that  the  requisi- 
tions of  the  act  of  Congress  had  been  complied 
with,  and  that  the  convention  had  therefore 

exceeded  to  the  formation  of  a  constitution, 
r.  A  said,  the  committee  had  considered  that 
evidence  sufficient;  and  he  had,  in  addition, 
himself  seen,  in  the  newspapers,  evidence  suffi- 
cient to  satisfy  him  of  the  fact,  that  the  popula- 
tion did  amount  to  forty  thousand  souls,  the 
number  required. 

The  resolve  was  then  ordered  to  be  engrossed 
for  a  third  reading. 


MONDAY,  November  23. 

Several  other  members,  to  wit :  from  New 
York,  DANIEL  CRUGEE,  PETER  H.  .WEXDOVEB, 
and  CALEB  TOMPKINS;  from  South  Carolina, 
JAMES  ERVIN,  ELIAS  EARLE,  and  ELDRED  SIM- 
KINS,  appeared,  and  took  their  seats. 

Mr.  HUGH  NELSON  presented  a  memorial  of 
"William  Lambert,  accompanied  with  abstracts 
of  astronomical  calculations,  to  ascertain  the 
longitude  of  the  Capitol  in  this  city,  from  the 
observatory  of  Greenwich  in  England,  solicit- 
ing the  adoption  of  measures  authorizing  addi- 
tional observations  to  be  made  to  test  the  accu- 
racy of  the  result  already  obtained ;  which  was 
referred  to  a  select  committee;  and  Messrs. 
HUGH  NELSON,  FOLGER,  SEYBERT,  CRAWFORD, 
and  BATEMAN,  were  appointed  the  said  com- 
mittee. 


District  of  Columbia. 

The  SPEAKER  also  laid  before  the  House  a 
letter  from  William  Cranch,  Chief  Justice  of 
the  circuit  court  of  the  United  States,  for  the 
District  of  Columbia,  transmitting  a  code  of 
jurisprudence  for  the  said  district,  prepared 
(by  him)  under  the  authority  of  the  act  of  tho 
29th  of  April,  1816,  entitled  "An  act  author- 
izing the  Judge|  of  the  circuit  court,  and  the 
Attorney  for  the  District  of  Columbia,  to  pre- 
pare a  code  of  jurisprudence  for  the  said  dis- 
trict," which  was  referred  to  a  select  commit- 
tee; and  Messrs.  HERBERT,  CULBRETJI,  GAB- 
NETT,  WILLIAMS  of  Connecticut,  and  ADAMS, 
were  appointed  the  said  committee.  The  letter 
is  as  follows : 

NOVEMBER  9,  1818. 

SIR  :  The  undersigned,  one  of  the  Judges  of  the 
circuit  court  for  the  District  of  Columbia,  has  the 
honor  to  present,  for  the  consideration  of  Congress,  a 
Code  of  Jurisprudence  for  that  district,  prepared  un- 
der the  authority  of  the  act  of  the  29th  of  April, 
1816,  entitled  "An  act  authorizing  the  Judges  of  the 
circuit  court,  and  the  Attorney  for  the  District  of  Co- 
lumbia, to  prepare  a  Code  of  Jurisprudence  for  the 
said  district." 

It  is  to  be  regretted,  that  the  engagements  of  the 
gentlemen  intended  by  that  act  to  have  been  associated 
with  him  in  the  business,  have  deprived  the  public  of 
the  benefit  of  their  labors.  This  circumstance  will 
in  part  account  for  the  lateness  of  the  period  at  which 
the  report  is  made.  It  is,  however,  a  work  which 
could  not  have  been  hastily  done ;  for,  although  the 
district  is  small,  yet  almost  every  case  requiring  the 
interposition  of  law,  which  can  arise  in  tbe  largest 
nation,  may  arise  in  this  district,  and  ought  to  be 
provided  for. 

In  preparing  a  substitute  for  the  existing  statute 
law  it  was  necessary,  if  possible,  to  ascertain  what 
that  law  was.  This  was  not  an  easy  task. 

By  the  act  of  Congress,  of  the  27th  of  February, 
1801.  the  laws  of  Virginia,  as  they  then  existed,  were 
to  remain  in  force  in  that  part  of  the  district  which 
was  ceded  by  Virginia,  and  the  laws  of  Maryland  in 
that  port  which  was  ceded  by  Maryland.  The  laws 
thus  adopted,  consisted  of  so  much  of  the  common 
law  of  England  as  was  applicable  to  the  situation  of 
this  country ;  of  the  bills  of  rights,  constitution,  and 
statutes  of  Virginia  and  Maryland,  modified  by  the 
Constitution  and  laws  of  the  United  States,  and,  also, 
(in  regard  to  that  part  of  the  district  which  was  ceded 
by  the  State  of  Maryland,)  of  such  of  the  English 
statutes  as  existed  at  the  time  of  the  first  emigration 
to  Maryland,  "  and  which,  by  experience,  had  been 
found  applicable  to  their  local  and  other  circumstan- 
ces, and  of  such  others  as  had  been  since  made  in 
England  or  Great  Britain,  and  had  been  introduced, 
used,  and  practised  by  the  courts  of  law  or  equity " 
of  that  State. 

To  ascertain,  therefore,  what  was  the  existing  stat- 
ute law,  it  was  necessary  to  know  what  statutes  of 
England,  enacted  before  the  first  emigration  to  Ma- 
ryland, had  by  experience  been  found  applicable  to 
tbe  local  and  other  circumstances  of  the  country,  and 
what  statutes  since  made  in  England  or  Great  Brit- 
ain, had  been  introduced,  used,  and  practised  by  tbe 
courts  of  law  or  equity  in  that  State  :  and  also  what 
statutes  of  England  or  Great  Britain  had  been  ex- 
pressly re-enacted  by  the  State  of  Virginia. 


DEBATES  OF  CONGRESS. 


203 


NOVEMBER,  1818.] 


Annual  Treasury  Report. 


[H.  OF  B. 


To  obtain  this  knowledge  with  as  much  certainty 
ns  the  nature  of  the  case  would  permit,  it  was  neces- 
sary to  examine  minutely  the  English  and  British 
statutes,  and  compare  them  with  the  statutes  enacted 
by  Virginia  and  Maryland. 

From  these  three  systems  of  statutes,  to  select 
such  as  were  most  important  and  best  adapted  to  the 
circumstances  of  the  district ;  to  supply  such  defects 
as  were  -discovered,  and  to  combine  the  whole  into 
one  code — required  more  deliberation,  and  occupied 
more  time,  than  was  anticipated. 

These  circumstances  must  account  for  the  appar- 
ent delay  in  making  the  present  report,  which  is 
even  now  submitted  with  much  diffidence. 

With  high  consideration,  the  undersigned  has  the 
honor  to  be,  sir,  your  obedient  servant, 

W.  CRANCH. 

Hon.  HENTIY  CLAY, 

Speaker  House  of  Representatives. 

Annual  Treasury  Report. 
The  SPEAKER  laid  before  the  House  a  letter 
from  the  Secretary  of  the  Treasury,  transmit- 
ting his  annual  report  upon  the  state  of  the 
finances;  which  was  ordered  to  lie  on  the  table. 
The  report  is  as  follows  : 

TREASDBY  DEPARTMENT,  Nov.  21,  1818. 
In  obedience  to  the  directions  of  the  "  Act  supple- 
mentary to  the  Act  to  establish  the  Treasury  De- 
partment," the  Secretary  of  the  Treasury  respectfully 
submits  the  following  report  and  estimates  : 

Revenue. 

The  net  revenue  arising  from  duties  upon  imports 
and  tonnage,  internal  duties,  direct  tax,  public  lands, 
postage,  and  incidental  receipts,  during  the  year  1816, 
amounted  to  $36,743,574  07,  viz  : 
Customs  -----  $27,569,769  71 
Internal  duties  -  -  -  -  4,396,133  25 
Direct  tax  -  -  -  -  2,785,34320 

Public    lands,   exclusive  of  Missis- 
sippi stock         _        ...       1,754,487  38 
Postage  and  incidental  receipts       -          237,840  53 


$36,743,574  07 


And  that  which  accrued  from  the 

same  sources  during  the  year  1817, 

amounted  to  §24,387,993  08,  viz  : 
Customs  (see  statement  A)     -         -  $17,547,540  89 
Internal  duties  and  direct  tax  (see 

statement  B)     -         -         -         -       4,512,287  81 
Public  lands  exclusive  of  Mississippi 

stock  (see  statement  C)       -         -       2,015,977  00 
Postage  and  incidental  receipts       -          312,187  38 


$24,387,993  08 


It  is  ascertained  that  the  gross  amount  of  duties 
on  merchandise  and  tonnage,  which  have  accrued 
during  the  three  first  quarters  of  the  present  year  ex- 
ceeds si>  1,000, 000,  and  that  the  sales  of  the  public 
lands,  during  the  same  period,  greatly  exceed,  both 
iu  quantity  and  value,  those  of  the  corresponding 
quarter  of  last  year. 

The  payments  into  the  Treasury  during  the  three 
first  quarters  of  the  year,  are  estimated  to  amount  to 
|17,1(J7,862  26,  viz: 


Customs $13,401,409  65 

Internal  revenue  and  direct  tax  -  993,574  36 
Public  lands,  exclusive  of  Missis- 
sippi stock  -  1,875,731  20 
Interest  upon  bank  dividends  -  525,000  00 
Postage  and  incidental  receipts  -  49,438  19 
Repayments  into  the  Treasury  -  322,708  86 


And  the  payments  into  the  Treasu- 
ry during  the  fourth  quarter  of 
the  year,  from  the  same  sources, 
are  estimated  at 


$17,167,862  26 


6,000,000  00 


Making  the  total  amount  estimated 
to  be  received  into  the  Treasury 
during  the  year  1818  -  22,167,862  26 

Which  added  to  the  balance  in  the 
Treasury  on  the  1st  day  of  Janu- 
ary last,  exclusive  of  $8,809,- 
872  10  in  Treasury  notes  amount- 
ing to  6,179,883  38 

Makes  the  aggregate  amount  of     -  $28,347,745  64 

The  application  of  this  sum,  for  the 
year  1818,  is  estimated  as  follows : 
To  the  30th  September  the  pay- 
ments(exclusive  of £9,148,237  40 
of  Treasury  notes,  which  had  been 
drawn  from  the  Treasury  and  can- 
celled) have  amounted  to  $16,760,- 
337  05,  viz : 

Civil,  diplomatic,  and  miscellaneous 
expenses  -  $3,289,806  28 

Military  service,  in- 
cluding arrearage  5,620,263  08 

Naval  service,  includ- 
ing the  permanent 
appropriation  for 
the  gradual  in- 
crease of  the  Navy  2,383,000  00 

Public  debt,  exclu- 
sive of  the  $9,148,- 
237  40  of  Treasury 
notes,  which  have 
been  drawn  out  of 
the  Treasury  and 
cancelled  -  5,467,267  69 

During  the  4th  quar- 
ter it  is  estimated 
that  the  payments 
will  amount  to  $9,- 
475,000,  viz: 

Civil,  diplomatic,  mis- 
cellaneous expenses  520,000  00 

Military  service         -  1,175,000  00 

Naval  service  -      575,000  00 

Public  debt  to  1st  of 

January,  1819      -  7,205,000  00 

Making  the   aggregate  amount   of  $26,235,337  05 

And  leaving,  on  tho  1st  day  of  Jan- 
uary, 1819,  a  balance  iu  the 
Treasury,  estimated  at  -  -  $2,112,408  59 

Of  the  Estimates  of  the  Public  Revenue  and  Expendi- 
tures for  the  year  1819. 

In  the  annual  report  of  tho  state  of  the  Treasury 
of  the  6th  of  December,  1817,  the  permanent  revenue 


204 


ABRIDGMENT  OF  THE 


H.  OP  R. 


Stale  of  Illinois— Slavery. 


[NOVEMBER,  1818. 


was  estimated  at  $ 24,525,000  per  annum ;  and  the 
annual  expenditure,  according  to  the  then  existing 
laws,  was  stated  at  $21,946,351  74.  By  the  acts  of 
the  last  session  of  Congress,  the  internal  duties,  esti- 
mated at  $2,500,000  per  annum,  were  repealed, 
whilst  the  expenditure  was  augmented  to  nearly 
$ 25,000,000 ;  and  that  of  the  ensuing  year  is  esti- 
mated at  not  less  than  $24,515,219  76. 

The  apparent  deficit  produced  by  these  acts,  and 
by  the  application  of  more  than  $2,500,000  to  the 
payment  of  the  interest  and  redemption  of  the  prin- 
cipal of  the  public  debt,  beyond  the  annual  appropri- 
ation of  $10,000,000  for  that  object,  has  been  sup- 
plied by  the  receipts  into  the  Treasury  on  account  of 
the  arrearage  of  the  direct  tax  and  internal  duties, 
and  by  the  balance  of  more  than  $6,000,000,  which 
was  in  the  Treasury  on  the  first  day  of  January, 
1818. 

These  temporary  sources  of  supply  being  nearly 
exhausted,  the  expenditure  of  the  year  1819  must 
principally  depend  upon  the  receipts  into  the  Treas- 
ury from  the  permanent  revenue  during  that  year. 
As  was  anticipated  in  the  last  annual  report,  the  re- 
action produced  by  the  excessive  importations  of  for- 
eign merchandise,  during  the  years  1815  and  1816, 
acquired  its  greatest  force  in  the  year  1817. 

It  is  presumed  that  the  revenue  which  shall  accrue 
during  the  present  year  from  imports  and  tonnage, 
may  be  considered  as  the  average  amount  which 
will  be  annually  received  from  that  source  of  the 
revenue. 

It  is  ascertained  that  the  bonds  taken  for  securing 
duties  which  were  outstanding  on  the  30th  day  of 
September  last,  exceeded  $23,000,000,  and  the  re- 
ceipts into  the  Treasury  from  that  source  of  revenue 
during  the  year  1819,  are  estimat- 
ed at  -----  $21,000,000  00 
Public  lands  -  1,500,000  00 

Direct  tax  and  internal  duties  -  750,000  00 
Bank  dividends  at  six  per  cent.  -  •  420,00000 
First  payment  of  bonus  due  by 

Bank  of  the  United  States  -         500,000  00 

Postage  and  incidental  receipts        -  50,000  00 


Amounting  together  to  -  $24,220,000  00 

Which,  added  to  balance  in  the 
Treasury  on  the  first  day  of 
January,  1819,  estimated  at  -  2,112,408  59 

Makes  the  aggregate  amount  of  $26,232,408  59 


In  presenting  this  estimate  of  receipts  for  the  year 
1819,  it  is  necessary  to  premise  that  the  sum  to  be  re- 
ceived from  the  customs  is  less  than  what,  from  the 
amount  of  the  outstanding  bonds,  would  under  ordi- 
nary circumstances  be  received.  The  amount  of  the 
sales  of  public  lands  during  the  last  year,  and  the  sum 
due  at  this  time  by  the  purchasers,  would  justify  a 
much  higher  estimate  of  the  receipts  from  that  im- 
portant branch  of  revenue,  if  the  most  serious  diffi- 
culty in  making  payments  was  not  known  to  exist. 
The  excessive  issues  of  the  banks  during  the  suspen- 
sion of  specie  payments,  and  the  great  exportation  of 
the  precious  metals  to  the  East  Indies  during  the  pres- 
ent year,  have  produced  a  pressure  upon  them  which 
has  rendered  it  necessary  to  contract  their  discounts 
for  the  purpose  of  withdrawing  from  circulation  a 
large  proportion  of  their  notes.  This  operation,  so 
oppressive  to  their  debtors,  but  indispensably  neces- 
sary to  the  existence  of  specie  payments  must  be  con- 


tinued until  gold  and  silver  shall  form  a  just  propor- 
tion of  the  circulating  currency.  In  passing  through 
this  ordeal,  punctuality  in  the  discharge  of  debts,  both 
to  individuals  and  to  the  Government,  will  be  consid- 
erably impaired,  and  well-founded  apprehensions  are 
entertained  that,  until  it  is  passed,  payments  in  some 
of  the  land  districts  will  be  greatly  diminished. 

The  extent  to  which  the  payments  into  the  Treas- 
ury, during  the  year  1819,  will  be  affected  by  the 
general  pressure  upon  the  community,  which  has 
been  described,  and  which  is  the  inevitable  conse- 
quence of  the  overtrading  of  the  banks  and  the 
exportation  of  specie  to  the  East  Indies,  n^<rra- 
vated  by  the  temporary  failure  of  the  ordinary  supply 
of  the  precious  metals  from  the  Spanish  American 
mines,  cannot,  at  this  time,  he  correctly  appreciated. 
Should  it  exceed  what  has  been  contemplated  in  this 
report,  the  appropriations  must  be  diminished,  the 
revenue  enlarged  by  new  impositions,  or  temporary 
loans  authorized  to  meet  the  deficiency.  As  the  ex- 
penditure of  the  year  1820  will  be  greatly  reduced  by 
the  irredeemable  quality  of  the  public  debt,  after  the 
redemption  of  the  remaining  moiety  of  the  Louisiana 
stock,  which  may  be  effected  on  the  21st  day  of  Octo- 
ber, 1819,  a  resort  to  temporary  loans,  oi;to  the  issue 
of  Treasury  notes,  to  the  amount  of  the  deficiency, 
should  any  occur,  is  believed  to  be  preferable  to  the 
imposition  of  new  taxes,  which  would  not  be  required 
after  that  year. 

All  which  is  respectfully  submitted. 

WM.  H.  CRAWFORD. 

State  of  Illinois — Slavery. 

The  engrossed  resolution  declaring  the  admis- 
sion of  the  State  of  Illinois  into  the  Union,  on 
an  equal  footing  with  the  original  States,  was 
read  a  third  time ;  and  on  the  question,  "  Shall 
it  pass  ?" 

Mr.  TALLMADGE,  of  New  York,  assigned  the 
reasons  why,  in  his  opinion,  the  resolution  ought 
not  to  be  adopted.  It  appeared  to  him,  in  the 
first  place,  he  said,  there  ought  to  be  before 
Congress  some  document,  showing  that  the 
Territory  had  the  population  required  by  the 
law  of  last  session.  The  recitation  of  the  fact 
in  the  preamble  of  the  constitution  he  did  not 
consider  as  the  proper  sort  of  evidence.  It  was 
not,  however,  upon  this  point  that  he  meant  to 
rest  his  opposition  to  the  adoption  of  the  resolu- 
tion. The  principle  of  slavery,  if  not  adopted  in 
the  constitution,  was  at  least  not  sufficiently 
prohibited.  The  ordinance  for  the  government 
of  the  territory  northwest  of  the  Ohio,  which 
was  in  the  nature  of  a  convention  between  the 
United  States  and  the  people  of  the  States  and 
Territories  to  be  formed  out  of  that  territory, 
contained  some  provisions  applicable  to  this 
subject.  The  sixth  article  of  that  ordinance 
provided  that,  in  the  cession  of  territory  ac- 
cepted by  the  United  States  from  Virginia,  and 
comprising  the  whole  north-western  territory, 
there  should  be  neither  slavery  nor  involuntary 
servitude,  otherwise  than  as  a  punishment  for 
the  commitment  of  crimes;  with  a  proviso,  that 
this  provision  should  not  be  construed  to  pre- 
vent the  reclamation  of  runaway  slaves.  If  the 
constitution  was  found  to  comport  with  that 
provision,  it  ought  to  be  received  by  Congress ; 


DEBATES  OF  CONGRESS. 


205 


NOVEMBER,  1818.] 


State  of  Illinois— Slavery. 


[H.  OF  R 


if  not,  it  ought  to  be  rejected.  The  sixth  article  of 
the  constitution  of  the  new  State  of  Illinois,*  in 
each  of  its  three  sections,  Mr.  T.  contended,  con- 
travened this  stipulation,  either  in  the  letter  or 
the  spirit.  These  sections  he  separately  examined, 
as  to  their  construction  and  bearing,  and  felt  him- 
self constrained  to  come  to  the  conclusion  that 
they  embraced  a  complete  recognition  of  existing 
slavery,  if  not  provisions  for  its  future  introduc- 
tion and  toleration ;  particularly  in  the  passage 
wherein  they  permit  the  hiring  of  slaves,  the 
property  of  non-residents,  for  any  number  of 
years  consecutively.  If  Congress  would  observe 
in  good  faith  the  terms  of  the  convention,  he 
said,  they  were  bound,  under  this  circumstance, 
to  reject  the  constitution  of  Illinois,  or  at  least 
this  feature  of  it.  The  State  of  Virginia,  he 
said,  had  ceded  the  territory  out  of  which  this 
State  was  formed,  on  certain  conditions,  to  the 
United  States  ;  one  of  which  was  that  to  which 
he  had  just  adverted,  and  it  was  a  monument  to 
the  fame  of  Virginia.  It  had  often  been  cast  as 
a  reproach  on  this  nation,  that  we,  who  boast 
our  freedom,  and  pride  ourselves  on  our  inde- 
pendence, yet  hold  our  fellow-beings  in  service. 
Americans  had  been  represented,  indeed,  with 
one  hand  exhibiting  the  declaration  of  independ- 
ence, and  with  the  other  brandishing  the  lash 
of  despotism.  "When  this  stigma  was  attempted 
to  be  fixed  on  our  country,  it  was  a  consolation 
to  him,  he  said,  that  we  have  it  in  our  power 
to  cast  it  back  again  on  the  country  from  which 
we  are  severed — hers  was  the  original  sin, 
which  we  found  in  existence  on  our  emancipa- 
tion, and  which  it  had  been  impossible  to  eradi- 
cate— we  could  do  no  more  than  control  and 
regulate  the  evil.  So  far  from  wishing  to  in- 
vade the  rights  of  the  slaveholding  States,  or  to 
assail  their  prerogatives,  he  believed  they  were 


*  ART.  6.  Neither  slavery  nor  involuntary  servitude  shall 
hereafter  be  introduced  into  this  State,  otherwise  than  for  the 
punishment  of  crimes,  whereof  the  party  shall  have  been 
duly  convicted ;  nor  shall  any  male  person,  arrived  at  the 
age  of  twenty-one  years,  nor  female  person  arrived  at  the 
age  of  eighteen  years,  be  held  to  serve  any  person  as  a 
servant,  under  any  indenture  hereafter  made,  unless  such 
person  shall  enter  into  such  indenture  while  in  a  state  of 
perfect  freedom,  and  on  condition  of  a  bonajide  considera- 
tion received,  or  to  be  received,  for  that  service.  Nor  shall 
any  indenture  of  any  negro  or  mulatto,  hereafter  made  and 
executed  out  of  this  State,  or,  if  made  in  this  State,  where 
the  term  of  service  exceeds  one  year,  be  of  the  least  validity, 
except  those  given  in  cases  of  apprenticeship. 

SEC.  2.  No  person  bound  to  labor  in  any  other  State  shall 
be  hired  to  labor  in  this  State,  except  within  the  tract  reserv- 
ed for  the  salt  works,  near  Shawneetown  ;  nor  even  at  that 
place  for  a  longer  period  than  one  year  at  any  one  time ;  nor 
shall  it  be  allowed  there  after  the  year  one  thousand  eight 
hundred  and  twenty-five ;  any  violation  of  this  article  shall 
effect  the  emancipation  of  such  person  from  his  obligation  to 
service. 

SEC.  3.  Each  and  every  person  who  has  been  bound  to 
service  by  contractor  indenture,  in  virtue  of  the  laws  of  the 
Illinois  Territory,  heretofore  existing,  and  in  conformity  to 
the  provisions  of  the  same,  without  fraud  or  collusion,  snail 
be  held  to  a  specific  performance  of  their  contracts  or  inden- 
tures ;  and  such  negroes  and  mulattoes  as  have  been  regis- 
tered in  conformity  with  the  aforesaid  laws,  shall  serve  out 
tho  time  appointed  by  said  laws  :  Provided,  however.  That 
the  children  hereafter  born  of  such  persons,  negroes,  or 
muluttoes,  shall  li.-c.niu-  live,  the  males  at  the  age  of  twcnty- 
.  tli«-  females  at  the  age  of  eighteen  years.  Each 
and  every  child  born  of  indentured  parents  shall  be  entered 
•with  the  clerk  of  the  county  in  which  they  reside,  by  their 
owner?,  within  six  months  after  the  birth  of  said  child.— 
Constitution  of  lUinoit. 


equally  sensible  with  him  of  the  evils  of  slavery, 
and  did  what  they  conld  to  control  and  regulate 
them.  But,  Mr.  T.  said,  if  Congress  should 
voluntarily  recognize  this  feature  in  a  constitu- 
tion submitted  for  their  decision,  and  in  viola- 
tion, too,  of  a  compact  forbidding  it,  they  would 
take  upon  themselves  the  unjust  imputation  he 
had  alluded  to.  Mr.  T.  referred  to  the  consti- 
tution of  the  State  of  Indiana,  a  State  already 
admitted  from  the  same  territory,  to  show  how 
carefully  and  scrupulously  it  had  guarded  against 
slavery  in  any  shape,  and  in  the  strongest  terms 
reprobated  it ;  and  lest  at  some  future  day  amend- 
ments to  the  constitution  should  admit  its  intro- 
duction, a  clause  of  that  constitution  forbade 
any  amendment  of  that  sort  to  be  made.  These 
sentiments  of  the  State  of  Indiana,  Mr.  T.  said, 
he  reciprocated.  Our  interest  and  our  honor, 
said  he,  calls  on  us  rigidly  to  insist  on  the  ob- 
servance of  good  faith  under  the  article  of  the 
ordinance  I  have  referred  to,  so  far  as  that  no 
involuntary  service  be  permitted  to  be  recog- 
nized in  the  constitution  of  any  State  to  be 
formed  out  of  that  territory. 

Mr.  PonfDEXTEB,  of  Mississippi,  said  he  fully 
concurred  with  the  gentleman  from  New  York, 
in  his  solicitude  to  expel  from  our  country,  when 
ever  practicable,  any  thing  like  slavery.  It  is  not 
with  us,  said  he,  a  matter  of  choice  whether  we 
will  have  slaves  among  us  or  not:  we  found 
them  here,  and  we  are  obliged  to  maintain  and 
employ  them.  It  would  be  a  blessing  could  we 
get  rid  of  them ;  but  the  wisest  and  best  men 
among  us  have  not  been  able  to  devise  a  plan 
for  doing  it.  The  only  question  at  present  is 
whether  the  State  of  Illinois  has  virtually  com- 
plied with  her  contract,  and  followed  the  ex- 
ample of  the  two  other  States  already  erected 
from  the  same  territory.  To  illustrate  that  fact, 
Mr.  P.  referred  to  the  constitution  of  Ohio,  the 
erection  of  which  State,  from  the  Northwestern 
Territory,  the  gentleman  appeared  to  have  over- 
looked ;  and  showed  that  the  article  on  the  sub- 
ject of  slaves  was  almost  literally  copied  from 
the  constitution  of  Ohio  into  that  of  Illinois. 
The  third  section  of  the  article  in  question,  in 
the  latter,  was  the  only  variation,  and  the  ne- 
cessity of  that  additional  provision  would  be 
obvious  to  any  gentleman  who  would  examine 
and  reflect  upon  the  subject.  By  an  antecedent 
law  of  the  territorial  government,  all  persons, 
slaves  or  under  indenture,  in  the  territory,  were 
required  to  be  registered,  as  the  only  way  in 
which  they  could  be  discriminated  from  fugi- 
tives, &c.  The  constitution  directs  that  their 
children  also  shall  be  registered,  that  they  may 
be  secure  of  enjoying"  their  freedom,  when  by  the 
constitution  they  become  entitled.  From  their 
color,  (being  prima  facie  slaves  in  other  States,) 
was  it  not  more  secure  to  the  freedom  of  the 
people  of  color,  that  their  births,  parentage,  &c., 
should  be  recorded  in  the  new  State,  than  other- 
wise ?  So  far  from  constituting  an  objection  to 
it,  Mr.  P.  said,  lie  considered  this  a  valuable  part 
of  the  constitution  of  Illinois.  As  to  children, 
born  of  slaves,  not  being  free  until  eighteen  or 


206 


ABRIDGMENT  OF  THE 


H.  OF  R.] 


State  of  Illinois— Slavery. 


[NOVEMBER,  1818. 


twenty-one  years  of  age,  Mr.  P.  said  that  would 
be  no  great  hardship,  seeing  it  was  as  soon  as 
•white  persons  were  free  from  their  parents,  or 
from  their  indentures,  if  apprenticed.  With  re- 
spect to  constitutional  provisions  on  this  subject, 
Mr.  P.  said,  after  all,  it  would  he  found  impracv 
tlcable,  after  admitting  the  independence  of  a 
State,  to  prevent  it  from  framing  or  shaping  its 
constitution  as  it  thought  proper.  As  to  a  con- 
stitution like  that  of  Indiana,  prohibiting  the 
introduction  of  an  amendment  to  it,  of  whatever 
nature,  if  the  people  were  to  form  a  convention 
to-morrow,  that  provision  would  be  of  no  force : 
the  whole  power  would  be  with  the  people,  whom, 
in  their  sovereign  capacity,  no  provision  of  that 
nature  can  control.  Nor  could  Congress  prevent 
them.  Various  attempts  had  already  been  made 
in  Ohio  to  alter  that  feature.  In  the  nature  of 
free  governments,  no  law  could  be  irrepealable ; 
though  on  this  head  he  observed,  he  hoped  that 
neither  Ohio,  Indiana,  nor  Illinois  would  ever 
permit  the  introduction  of  slavery  within  their 
limits.  He  hoped,  as  far  as  we  could,  we  should 
expel  slavery  from  the  country.  At  the  same 
time,  he  thought  that  Illinois,  so  far  as  she  had 
gone,  had  done  better  than  the  States  which  had 
preceded  her  in  the  same  quarter,  because  she 
had  provided  for  the  security  of  the  freedom  of 
negroes,  mulattoes,  &c.,  and  to  prevent  them 
from  being  kidnapped,  by  causing  them  to  be 
registered. 

Mr.  ANDERSON,  of  Kentucky,  repeated  what 
he  had  said  on  Friday  last,  respecting  the  pop- 
ulation of  Illinois,  and  his  own  conviction  that 
it  was  of  the  required  amount.  If  on  this  sub- 
ject Congress  had  been  very  scrupulous,  Mr.  A. 
said,  he  would  have  directed  a  census  of  the 
population  to  be  taken  by  persons  appointed  by 
the  United  States  for  that  purpose ;  but  they 
had  always  heretofore  in  like  cases  submitted  to 
Territorial  counts  and  Territorial  results,  and  he 
did  not  see  why  they  should  not  do  the  same  in 
the  present  case.  All  that  was  necessary  was 
that  they  should  be  reasonably  satisfied  of  their 
accuracy.  With  respect  to  the  other  objection 
of  the  gentleman,  he  thought  he  could  satisfy 
him  that  his  position  was  manifestly  incorrect. 
It  would  be  seen,  on  reading  the  articles  of  ces- 
sion by  Virginia,  that  no  condition,  such  as  the 
gentleman  supposed,  was  annexed  to  it,  respect- 
ing slavery.  The  conditions  she  required  were 
of  a  different  character,  and  this  provision  re- 
specting slavery  had  been  prescribed  by  Con- 
gress, among  other  articles  framed  for  the  gov- 
ernment of  the  Territory  thus  ceded.  Virginia 
had  no  concern  in  it,  except  so  far  as  she  was 
represented  on  the  floor  of  Congress,  when  the 
ordinance  was  passed.  Still  less  were  the  peo- 
ple of  the  Northwestern  Territory  a  party  to 
the  compact,  as  the  gentleman  supposed  it,  not 
being  represented  at  all,  nor  consulted  on  the 
occasion.  Congress  then  are  not  in  this  respect 
bound  by  any  pledge,  nor  by  any  thing  but  a 
sense  of  expediency,  co-operating  with  the  like 
sense  of  the  people  of  Illinois.  The  conditions 
reserved  by  Virginia  on  making  the  cession 


were  that  a  certain  number  of  States  should  be 


far  from  Virginia  requiring  the  abolition  of 
slavery,  doubts  had  arisen  whether,  under  the 
stipulations  she  made  on  ceding  the  Territory 
to  the  United  States,  Congress  should  JKISS  the 
ordinance  which  they  subsequently  enacted. 
Serions  doubts  had  arisen,  after  stipulating  to 
make  three  States,  whether  Congress  had  a 
right  to  prescribe  any  condition  respecting 
slavery,  &c. ;  not,  Mr.  A.  said,  that  he  would 
destroy  the  ordinance,  but  ho  meant  to  state 
only  how  far  its  scope  extended.  There  was 
nothing  unconstitutional,  in  any  view,  in  Con- 
'gress  accepting  what  the  people  of  Illinois  have 
done,  if  they  thought  proper ;  since  the  consent 
of  the  two  contracting  parties  (supposing  the 
ordinance  to  be  a  compact)  would  thus  be  given. 
With  respect  to  the  nature  of  the  provisions  re- 
ferred to  in  the  constitution,  the  gentleman  who 
preceded  him  had  clearly  shown  that  they  had 
been  misunderstood  by  the  gentleman  from  New 
York. 

Mr.  TALLMADGE  replied. — In  referring  to  the 
ordinance,  as  binding  Congress  not  to  permit 
slavery,  in  any  of  the  States  formed  from  the 
Northwestern  Territory,  he  conceived  Congress 
to  be  bound  by  a  tie  not  to  be  broken  :  but,  if 
in  this  he  was  wrong,  and  Congress  are  bound 
by  nothing  but  their  sense  of  expediency,  that 
tie  became  ten  thousand  times  more  strong. 
Are  we,  said  he,  to  be  drawn  into  a  discussion 
of  slavery,  its  merits  and  demerits,  on  abstract 
principles?  He  would  not  enter  into  such  a 
discussion  ;  but  must  persist  in  stating  it  as  his 
opinion,  that  the  interest,  honor,  and  faith  of 
the  nation,  required  it  scrupulously  to  guard 
against  slavery's  passing  into  a  territory  where 
they  have  power  to  prevent  its  entrance.  Mr.  T. 
again  enumerated  the  provisions  in  the  consti- 
tution of  Illinois,  to  which  he  objected,  and 
made  further  remarks  on  them.  He  consider- 
ed it  such,  that  to  accept  it,  would  be  to  violate 
a  pledge  solemnly  given,  and,  if  not  a  stipula- 
tion, yet,  so  simultaneously  given,  as  to  amount 
to  a  compact  with  Virginia.  With  respect  to 
the  power  of  a  State  to  change  its  constitution, 
ho  was  not  prepared  to  say  that  a  State  was,  in 
that  respect,  under  no  restraint.  Would  gentle- 
men admit  a  State  into  the  Union  to-day  under 

to  call  a  convention  to-morrow,  and  change  its 
form  of  government  to  a  monarchy  ?  That 
State  would  cease,  by  the  very  act,  to  be  a 
component  part  of  the  Union,  and  the  same  re- 
sult would  follow,  he  presumed,  if  a  State  were 
to  violate  the  condition  on  which  it  was  ad- 
mitted into  this  Union,  by  admitting  the  intro- 
duction of  slavery. 

Mr.  LIVEUMOEE  requested  the  yeas  and  nays 
on  the  decision  of  this  question. 

Mr.  HARBISON  said,  that,  as  a  Representative 
of  Ohio,  he  protested  against  the  doctrine  of  the 
gentleman  from  New  York.  He  could  assure 


DEBATES  OF  CONGRESS. 


207 


NOVEMBER,  1818.] 


Bank  of  the  United  States. 


[H.  OF  R. 


the  gentleman  that  the  people  of  that  State 
were  fully  aware  of  their  privileges,  and  would 
never  come  to  this  House,  or  to  the  State  of 
New  York,  for  permission  so  to  alter  their  consti- 
tution as  to  admit  the  introduction  of  slavery, 
the  object  of  the  gentleman's  abhorrence,  as, 
said  Mr.  II.,  it  is  of  mine.  They  had  entered 
into  no  compact  which  had  shorn  the  people  of 
their  sovereign  authority.  Mr.  H.  proceeded 
to  make  some  remarks  respecting  the  operation 
of  the  ordinance,  cessions,  &c.  Though  there 
we:v  -laves  iu  that  country  when  ceded,  there 
had  been  none  in  that  part  of  it  from  which  the 
State  of  Ohio  had  been  formed,  so  that  no  pro- 
vision had  been  necessary  respecting  them  in 
the  constitution  of  that  State.  In  Indiana,  the 
question  relating  to  this  description  of  property 
had  been  reserved  for  the  decision  of  the  courts 
of  justice,  &c.,  and  he  sincerely  wished  that 
Illinois  had  either  emancipated  its  slaves  or  fol- 
lowed the  example  of  Indiana.  In  regard  to 
the  supposed  compact,  however,  and  its  efficacy, 
Mr.  II.  said,  he  had  always  considered  it  a  dead 
letter.  He  could  not  put  his  hand  on  the  page, 
or  on  the  letter,  but  he  believed  it  would  be 
found  that,  in  one  of  the  pages  of  the  Federalist, 
the  authority  of  which  he  presumed,  at  least, 
the  gentleman  from  New  York  would  respect, 
Alexander  Hamilton  had  expressly  declared  the 
same  opinion.  He  could  not  believe,  he  said, 
that  Congress  would  refuse  to  accept  the  State 
of  Illinois  on  the  ground  of  that  compact :  for 
his  part,  he  wished  to  see  that  State,  and  all 
that  Territory,  disenthralled  from  the  effect  of 
articles  to  which  they  never  gave  their  assent, 
and  to  which  they  were  not  properly  subject. 
This  much  he  wished,  however  he  was  opposed 
to  slavery,  and  should  lament  its  introduction 
into  any  part  of  the  Territory. 

After  a  few  further  remarks,  from  Mr.  TALL- 
MADGE,  Mr.  ANDERSON,  and  Mr.  STORES,  the 
question  on  the  passage  of  the  resolution  was 
decided  in  the  affirmative — yeas  117,  nays  34, 
us  follows : 

YKAS. — Messrs.  Anderson  of  Pennsylvania,  Ander- 
son of  Kentucky,  Austin,  Baldwin,  Barbour  of  Vir- 
ginia, Bateman,  Bayley,  Beecher,  Bellinger,  Bloom- 
field,  Blount,  Boden,  Bryan,  Burwell,  Butler  of  New 
York,  Butler  of  Louisiana,  Campbell,  Claiborne, 
Cobb,  Colston,  Cook,  Crawford,  Cruger,  Culbreth, 
Cushman,  Desha,  Drake,  Edwards,  Ervin  of  South 
Carolina,  Floyd,  Garnett,  Hall  of  North  Carolina, 
Harrison,  Hendricks,  Herbert,  Hogg,  Holmes,  Hop- 
kinson,  Hostetter,  Hubbard,  Irving  of  New  York, 
Johnson  of  Kentucky,  Jones,  Kinsey,  Kirtland,  Lawyer, 
Lewis,  Lincoln,  Linn,  Little,  McLane  of  Delaware, 
McCoy,  Marchand,  Mason  of  Massachusetts,  Mercer, 
Middleton,  Robert,  Moore,  Samuel  Moore,  Mosely, 
Mumford,  H.  Nelson,  T.  M.  Nelson,  New,  Newton, 
Ogden,  Ogle,  Owen,  Palmer,  Patterson,  Pegram, 
Peter,  Pindall,  Pitkin,  Pleasants,  Poindexter,  Porter, 
Quarles,  Rhea,  Rice,  Robertson,  Rogers,  Rnggles, 
Sampson,  Sawyer,  Schuyler,  Scudder,  Settt 
Sherwood,  Silsbee,  Simkins,  Slocumb,  S.  Smith, 
Ballard  Smith,  Alexander  Smith,  J.  S.  Smith,  Speed, 
Spencer,  Stewart  of  North  Carolina,  Storrs,  Stuart  of 
Maryland,  Tarr,  Terrell,  Terry,  Tompkins,  Trimble, 


Tucker  of  South  Carolina,  Upham,  Walker  of  North 
Carolina,  "Walker  of  Kentucky,  Wallace,  Westcrlo, 
Whiteside,  Wilkin,  Williams  of  Connecticut,  Williams 
of  New  York,  Williams  of  North  Carolina— 117. 

NAYS. — Messrs.  Adams,  Bennett,  Boss,  Clagett, 
Crafts,  Darlington,  Ellicott,  Folger,  Gage,  Gilbert, 
Hale,  Hasbronck,  Hunter,  Huntington,  Livermore, 
Wm.  Maclay,  Wm.  P.  Maclay,  Merrill,  Morton,  Mur- 
ray, Jeremiah  Nelson,  Orr,  Reed,  Rich,  Richards, 
Savage,  Seybert,  Southard,  TaUmadge,  Taylor, 
Wendover,  Whitman,  Wilson  of  Massachusetts,  and 
Wilson  of  Pennsylvania— 34. 

The  resolution  was  passed,  and  sent  to  the 
Senate  for  concurrence. 


TUESDAY,  November  24. 
Another  member,  to  wit,  from  Massachusetts, 
SAMUEL  0.  ALLEN,  appeared,  and  toot  his  seat. 

WEDNESDAY,  November  25. 
Several  other  members,  to  wit :  from  Virginia, 
JOHN  TYLER,  JAMES  JOHNSON,  and  GEOBGE  F. 
STROTHER  ;  and,  from  South  Carolina,  WILLIVM 
LOWXDES,  appeared,  and  took  their  seats. 

Bank  of  the  United  States. 

Mr.  SPENCER,  of  New  York,  offered  for  con- 
sideration the  following  resolution : 

Resolved,  That  a  committee  be  appointed  to  inspect 
the  books  and  examine  into  the  proceedings  of  the 
Bank  of  the  United  States,  and  to  report  whether  the 
provisions  of  its  charter  have  been  violated  or  not; 
and  particularly  to  report  whether  the  instalments 
of  the  capital  stock  of  the  said  bank  have  been  paid 
in  gold  or  silver  coin,  and  in  the  funded  debt  of  the 
United  States,  or  whether  they  were,  in  any  instance, 
and  to  what  amount,  paid  by  the  proceeds  of  the 
notes  of  stockholders,  discounted  for  that  purpose; 
and  also  to  report  die  names  of  those  persons  who 
now  own,  or  who  have  owned,  any  part  of  the  capital 
stock  of  the  said  bank,  and  the  amount  of  discounts, 
if  any,  to  such  persons  respectively,  and  when  made ; 
and  also  to  report  whether  the  said  bank,  or  any  of 
its  offices  of  discount  and  deposit,  have  refused  to  pay 
the  notes  of  the  bank  in  specie  on  demand,  and  have 
refused  to  receive  in  payment  of  debts  due  to  them,  or 
either  of  them,  the  notes  of  the  bank,  and  whether  the 
bank  or  any  of  its  offices  of  discount,  or  any  of  their 
officers  or  agents  have  sold  drafts  upon  other  offices,  or 
upon  the  bank,  at  an  advance,  and  have  received  a 
premium  for  such  drafts ;  also,  the  amount  of  the 
notes  issued  payable  at  Philadelphia,  and  at  each 
office  of  discount  respectively,  and  the  amount  of 
capital  assigned  to  each  office,  together  with  the 
amount  of  the  public  deposits  made  at  the  bank 
and  at  each  office,  and  an  account  of  the  transfers 
thereof,  and  the  total  amount  of  bills  and  notes  dis- 
counted at  the  bank  and  its  several  offices  since  its 
organization ;  that  the  said  committee  have  leave  to 
meet  in  the  city  of  Philadelphia,  and  to  remain  there  as 
long  as  may  be  necessary ;  that  they  shall  have  power 
to  send  for  persons  and  papers,  and  to  employ  the  re- 
quisite clerks,  the  expense  of  which  shall  be  audited 
and  allowed  by  the  Committee  of  Accounts,  and 
paid  out  of  the  contingent  fund  of  this  House. 

Mr.  SPENCEE  remarked,  on  introducing  this 
motion,  that  it  was  with  considerable  reluctance 
he  had  submitted  it  to  the  House — a  reluctance, 


208 


ABRIDGMENT  OF  THE 


H.  OP  R.] 


Claim  of  Beaumarchais. 


[NOVEMBER,  1818. 


however,  proceeding  solely  from  his  inability  to 
do  justice  to  the  subject,  and  not  from  any  doubt 
of  the  necessity  or  of  the  propriety  of  the  pro- 
ceeding. Ho  had  waited  till  this  day,  in  the 
hope  that  some  member,  whose  experience  was 
more  extensive  than  his  own,  would  have 
moved  the  inquiry ;  but,  having  been  in  this 
respect  disappointed,  he  had  felt  it  his  im- 
perious duty  to  do  it.  As  to  the  authority  of 
this  House  to  make  the  investigation,  he  thought 
there  could  be  little  doubt.  If  there  should  be 
any  doubt  on  the  mind  of  any  gentleman  on 
this  subject,  he  referred  him  to  the  23d  section 
of  the  act  establishing  the  bank,  which  express- 
ly authorized  an  examination  of  the  books  of 
the  bank  when  required,  by  a  committee  of 
Congress.  As  to  the  necessity  of  the  inquiry 
proposed,  he  presumed  there  were  few  of  those 
near  him  who  were  not  aware  of  the  agitation 
which  exists  in  the  public  mind  on  this  subject, 
and  who  did  not  perceive  that,  from  one  end  of 
the  country  to  the  other,  loud  complaints  were 
made  against  the  conduct  of  the  officers  of  the 
bank.  It  was  necessary  for  him  to  state,  Mr. 
S.  said,  as  he  did  explicitly  state,  that  he  meant 
to  implicate  the  conduct  of  the  bank  in  no  re- 
spect ;  on  that  point  he  had  formed  no  opinion, 
and  would  form  none,  until  the  facts  reported 
by  the  committee  should  justify  him  in  drawing 
his  conclusions  on  the  subject.  He  was  neither 
hostile  to  the  bank,  nor  particularly  friendly ;  he 
owed  nothing  to  it ;  he  was  the  proprietor  of 
none  of  its  stock,  nor,  that  he  knew  of,  were 
any  of  his  friends.  Bat,  that  complaints  existed 
against  the  bank,  he  well  knew  ;  and,  whether 
well  or  ill-founded,  it  was  equally  due  to  the 
nation  and  to  the  bank  that  a  fair  inquiry  should 
take  place,  and  such  a  report  be  made  as  would 
show  that  the  complaints  were  unjust,  if  such 
should  prove  to  be  the  fact,  or,  if  otherwise, 
should  exhibit  the  specific  instances  of  miscon- 
duct which  the  committee  should  be  able  to  dis- 
cover. The  objects  specified  in  the  resolve, 
Mr.  S.  said,  were  all  those  respecting  which,  to 
his  knowledge,  complaints  had  been  made ;  and 
they  were  subjects  respecting  which  it  was  at 
least  certain  that  the  nation  required  informa- 
tion. The  friends  of  the  bank,  he  thought, 
ought  to  solicit  the  inquiry  proposed;  they 
should  be  anxious  that  a  full  investigation  should 
take  place,  and  that,  too,  by  a  committee  having 
no  resentments  against  the  bank  to  gratify,  nor 
any  feelings  of  friendship  or  attachment  to  bias 
them  against  it — by  a  committee,  depending  on 
their  own  inspection  for  facts,  and  not  on  infor- 
mation of  a  general  nature  derived  from  the 
officers  of  the  bank.  A  full  and  fair  view  of 
the  whole  subject,  thus  obtained,  would  be  at- 
tended with  the  most  happy  consequences  to  the 
nation  and  to  the  bank.  If  it  should  be  shown 
that  immense  discounts  had  not  been  made  to 
particular  persons,  for  the  purpose  of  speculation 
merely ;  that,  by  this  means,  the  stock  of  the 
bank  had  not  been  blown  up  into  a  bubble 
which  had  now  burst ;  that  the  bank  had  dis- 
tributed its  accommodations  with  a  view  to  the 


accommodation  of  the  community  rather  than 
of  individuals  ;  that  it  had  used  its  best  exer- 
tions to  accomplish,  what  was  one  of  the  objects 
of  its  establishment,  the  equalization  of  the 
currency,  as  far  as  practicable ;  if  it  had  done 
all  this,  and  fairly  endeavored  to  meet  the  public 
expectations,  although  it  may  have  failed  in 
that  object,  it  would  become  an  act  of  justice 
to  rally  around  the  institution,  to  sustain  and 
give  it  credit,  because  no  one  could  doubt 
the  utility  of  such  an  institution  to  the  nation, 
if  properly  conducted.  "With  these  observa- 
tions, Mr.  S.  submitted  the  resolution  to  the  will 
of  the  House. 

Mr.  MoLANE,  of  Delaware,  rose,  he  said,  not  to 
offer  any  opposition  to  the  inquiry,  but  merely 
to  request  time  to  give  to  the  subject  of  the  res- 
olution such  a  consideration  as  its  importance 
deserved.  It  would  be  recollected  by  the  House, 
that  a  resolution  had  passed  the  Senate  during 
the  last  session,  calling  on  the  Secretary  of  the 
Treasury  to  lay  before  Congress  a  particular 
account  of  the  state  and  transactions  of  the 
bank.  This  report  might  be  expected  shortly 
to  be  laid  before  Congress ;  and  in  that  report 
would,  perhaps,  be  embraced  all  the  informa- 
tion required  by  the  resolve.  Although  rumors 
had  existed,  Mr.  McL.  said,  with  regard  to  cer- 
tain transactions  in  the  bank,  he  thought  it 
would  be  well  not  to  institute  an  inquiry  hastily 
on  the  foundation  of  mere  rumor.  He  wished 
the  resolution  to  lie  on  the  table  for  a  day,  or 
for  a  longer  time,  that  the  House  might  have 
time  to  reflect  on  it.  He,  therefore,  moved  that 
it  lie  on  the  table,  and  be  printed. 

Mr.  SPENCER  said  he  had  no  sort  of  objection 
to  this  course  ;  but  he  hoped  that,  after  gentle- 
men should  have  reflected  on  it,  they  would  be 
disposed  to  take  it  up  and  act  on  it  at  an  early 
day. 


THTJESDAY,  November  26. 
Another  member,  to  wit,  from  Ohio,  SAMTIEL 
HEEEICK,  appeared,  and  took  his  seat. 

Claim  of  Beaumarchais. 

The  House  then  resolved  itself  into  a  Commit- 
tee of  the  Whole,  Mr.  SMITH  of  Maryland  in 
the  chair,  on  the  bill  for  the  relief  of  the  heirs 
and  representatives  of  Caron  de  Beaumarchais. 

[The  magnitude  of  this  claim  makes  it  an 
important  one,  and  the  long  interval  of  time 
which  has  elapsed  since  the  debt  was  contracted, 
has  at  once  trippled  the  amount  of  the  debt, 
and  involved  in  some  obscurity  the  question  of 
the  justice  of  the  claim.  In  the  report  of  the 
committee  to  whom  the  subject  was  referred 
at  the  last  session,  and  on  which  this  bill  is 
founded,  the  members  of  the  committee  were 
unanimous.  This  report,  which  is  an  elaborate 
and  able  one,  was  read  through  to-day  by  the 
Clerk.  A  report  of  a  committee  of  a  former 
Congress,  adverse  to  the  claim,  and  equally 
elaborate,  was  also  read  through.] 

After  the  reading  of  these  documents — 


DEBATES  OF  CONGRESS. 


209 


NOVEMBER,  1818.] 


Bank  of  the  United  States. 


[H.  OF  R. 


Mr.  BASSETT  made  a  few  remarks  on  the 
merits  of  this  claim,  impressively  urging  on  the 
House  the  j  ustice  of  giving  to  the  claim  a  liberal 
and  serious  consideration.  He  stated  the  im- 
portant services  rendered  to  the  United  States 
by  M.  Beaurnarchais,  and  the  reduced  fortunes 
of  his  heirs.  After  reading  the  -warm  expres- 
sion of  thanks  to  that  gentleman  by  the  Con- 
tinental Congress,  and  stating  that  his  aid  had 
essentially  contributed  to  some  of  the  most  im- 
portant and  successful  events  of  the  Eevolution- 
ary  war,  Mr.  B.  expressed  his  hope  that  the 
door  would  not  be  closed  in  the  face  of  his  rep- 
resentatives, suing  for  a  debt  justly  due  by 
the  United  States,  and  the  want  of  which  had 
impoverished  them. 

Mr.  PITKIX  said  that  this  claim  was  of  that 
nature,  and  of  that  amount,  too,  which  required 
a  cool  consideration  of  its  nature  ;  and  that  the 
House  should  closely  examine  into  its  merits  for 
themselves.  With  regard  to  this  claim,  some 
of  the  documents  unfavorable  to  it  had  been 
destroyed  at  the  time  of  the  invasion  of  1814; 
others  were  not  generally  accessible,  or  not 
generally  understood.  As  gentlemen  could  not 
have  had  time  to  look  over  the  papers  at  the 
present  session,  and  it  was,  withal,  growing  late, 
he  moved  that  the  committee  should  rise, 
that,  on  meeting  again,  gentlemen  might  be 
better  prepared  than  at  present  to  go  into  a  con- 
sideration of  the  question. 

Whereupon  the  committee  rose,  and  obtained 
leave  to  sit  again. 

FBIDAY,  November  27. 
Another  member,  to  wit,  from  Virginia,  WIL- 
LIAM LEE  BAIL,  appeared,  and  took  his  seat 

Claim  of  Beaumarchais. 

The  House  then  again  resolved  itself  into  a 
Committee  of  the  Whole  on  the  bill  for  the  re- 
lief of  the  heirs  of  Caron  de  Beaumarchais. 

Mr.  PITKLN-,  of  Connecticut,  opened  the  de- 
bate, in  opposition  to  the  bill,  in  a  speech  which 
occupied  in  the  delivery  the  whole  of  the  day's 
sitting.  In  the  outset,  he  remarked  on  the  im- 
portance of  the  subject  in  hand ;  the  interest  it 
had  excited,  and  the  feeling  it  had  produced  in 
the  old  Congress,  as  well  as  under  the  present 
Government,  whenever  it  had  presented  itself 
for  consideration.  During  the  existence  of  the 
war  of  the  Revolution,  some  of  the  documents 
relating  to  it  had  miscarried,  and  some  had  been 
stolen  in  their  transmission;  others  had  been 
since  destroyed  by  fire,  or  overlooked  in  the  mass 
of  public  papers.  Hence  the  claim  had  been 
involved  in  much  mystery,  requiring  close  in- 
vestigation to  unravel  it.  Mr.  P.  then  proceed- 
ed to  the  examination  of  the  subject,  as  it  had 
been  viewed  by  the  Commissioners  of  the  I'nited 
States  at  Paris,  by  the  French  Government,  and 
by  the  claimants.  In  the  course  of  his  argu- 
ment, he  read  extracts  from  letters  of  Arthur 
Lee,  Benjamin  Franklin,  and  Silas  Deane;  from 
the  American  and  French  diplomatic  volumes ; 
VOL.  VI  — U 


from  Gordon's  history,  and  from  various  other 
sources.  From  all  these  documents,  and  con- 
necting all  the  facts  disclosed  by  them  together, 
Mr.  P.  thought  the  conclusion  irresistible,  that 
the  supplies  furnished  by  Caron  de  Beaumarchais 
had  been  a  gratuitous  aid  by  the  Government 
of  France,  and  not  a  private  transaction  of 
Beaumarchais.  The  French  Government,  which 
had  always  disclaimed  all  expectation  of  re- 
payment of  the  aid  thus  afforded,  under  the 
critical  circumstances  hi  which  it  was  then 
placed,  Mr.  P.  contended,  had  availed  itself  of 
the  cover  of  a  mercantile  transaction,  and  of 
the  agency  of  Beaumarchais  as  the  ostensible 
shipper  of  supplies ;  that  it  had  done  so,  the 
public  disavowal  of  any  agency  in  this  matter 
was  no  proof  to  the  contrary,  being  a  part  of 
the  policy  of  concealment  which  dictated  the 
employment  of  mercantile  agency  in  the  first 
instance.  This  claim,  therefore,  Mr.  P.  consider- 
ed as  wholly  unsustained,  and  founded  on  an 
attempt  on  the  part  of  Beaumarchais  to  aggran- 
dize himself  and  family,  by  taking  advantage 
of  the  secret  agency  in  which  his  name  had 
been  employed,  and  that  of  the  Government 
and  its  officers  wholly  concealed,  to  claim  re- 
muneration from  the  United  States  for  the  sup- 
plies sent,  as  if  the  matter  had  been  a  specula- 
tion of  his  own. 

After  Mr.  P.  had  concluded  his  remarks, 
the  committee  rose,  and  obtained  leave  to  sit 
again. 


MONDAY,  November  30. 
Two  other  members,  to  wit :  JAMES  B.  MASOX, 
from  Ehode  Island,  and  JOEL  ABBOTT,  from 
Georgia,  appeared,  and  took  their  seats. 

Bank  of  the  United  States. 

The  House  having  agreed  now  to  proceed  to 
the  consideration  of  the  resolution  moved  by 
Mr.  SPENCEE,  of  New  York,  a  few  days  ago, 

Mr.  McLAXE,  of  Delaware,  said,  he  had  no 
objection  to  the  object  of  the  proposed  inquiry, 
though  he  had  some  objection  to  the  form  given 
to  it.  He  thought  it  contemplated  a  wider 
scope  of  inquiry  than  was  within  the  power  of 
Congress.  He  referred  to  the  act  incorporat- 
ing the  bank,  and  quoted  so  much  of  it  as  re- 
served to  Congress  the  power  to  appoint  a  com- 
mittee to  examine  its  books,  &c.,  for  the  pur- 
pose of  ascertaining  whether  or  not  the  bank 
has  violated  its  charter.  He  drew  a  distinction 
between  this  power  and  that  of  appointing  a 
committee  to  inspect  the  books  and  proceedings 
of  the  bank,  for  the  purpose  of  reporting  to  this 
House  and  publishing  to  all  the  world  all  its 
transactions,  of  whatever  nature.  The  specifi- 
cation of  the  objects  of  inquiry  was  so  little  ne- 
cessary to  the  main  object  of  the  resolution, 
that  it  would  lose  nothing  of  its  effect  by  strik- 
ing them  all  out.  The  inquiry  into  the  amount 
of  discounts  to  a  particular  class  of  individuals, 
for  example,  he  considered  as  exceptionable. 
The  right  of  lending  money  is  vested  in  the 


210 


ABRIDGMENT  OF  THE 


H.  OF  R.] 


Bank  of  the  United  States. 


[NOVEMBER,  1818. 


bank,  at  its  discretion,  to  whomsoever  it  shall 
choose.  If  it  have  even  exercised  that  power 
indiscreetly,  it  is  immaterial  to  this  House,  with 
reference  to  a  violation  of  its  charter,  (the  ob- 
ject of  inquiry,)  to  whom  discounts  have  been 
made.  If  the  House  went  so  far  as  was  pro- 
posed in  this  respect,  it  should  go  further.  It 
should  authorize  a  report  to  be  made  of  the 
names  of  all  those  who  have  applied  for  dis- 
counts at  the  bank,  and  been  refused ;  and  also 
an  inquiry  into  the  character  and  solvency  of 
all  those  persons,  in  order  to  make  that  branch 
of  the  inquiry  effectual.  The  necessary  powers 
in  this  respect,  Mr.  McL.  said,  the  committee  of 
this  House  would  have,  under  the  charter, 
without  a  specification  of  the  objects  of  inquiry ; 
if  the  committee  had  not,  under  the  charter, 
the  powers  proposed  to  be  given  to  it,  the  spe- 
cification would  not  confer  them.  Since,  then, 
the  specification  was  unnecessary,  and  the  res- 
olution, divested  of  it,  would  answer  every  ob- 
ject the  gentleman  had  in  view,  Mr.  McL. 
moved  to  amend  the  resolution,  by  striking  out 
all  that  part  of  it  after  the  words  "  violated  or 
not,"  near  the  beginning,  to  the  word  "organ- 
ization," near  the  end  of  it,  inclusive.  This 
would  leave  the  inquiry  as  broad  and  compre- 
hensive as  the  nature  of  the  subject  would 
permit,  and  would  divest  the  resolve  of  its  ob- 
jectionable features. 

Mr.  SPENOEE  opposed  the  amendment  moved 
by  Mr.  MOLANE.  As  to  the  powers  of  the 
House,  the  language  of  the  resolution  was  that 
of  the  charter,  respecting  the  power  of  inquiry 
reserved  to  Congress.  The  gentleman  seemed 
to  suppose  that  a  committee  of  Congress,  ap- 
pointed for  the  purpose,  might  report  whether 
the  charter  was  violated  or  not,  but  were  not 
at  liberty  to  report  the  facts  on  which  that 
opinion  was  founded.  But,  Mr.  S.  said,  when 
a  power  is  given,  the  means  of  carrying  that 
power  into  execution  are  also  given.  If  the 
power  were  given  to  inquire  whether  the  char- 
ter of  the  bank  had  been  violated  or  not,  it  irre- 
sistibly followed,  that  the  power  was  also  given 
to  report  the  facts  which  had  led  to  that  con- 
clusion. But  the  gentleman  objected,  that  such 
a  report  would  involve  the  exposure  of  private 
accounts.  Mr.  S.  said  he  thought  he  had  not 
examined  the  resolution  with  his  usual  atten- 
tion ;  if  he  would  read  it  again,  he  would  find 
that  no  private  account  whatever  was  proposed 
to  be  examined,  except  the  accounts  of  the 
stockholders,  so  far  as  to  the  amount  of  dis- 
counts which  they  may  have  received.  No  in- 
quiry was  proposed  as  to  the  balance  of  private 
individuals'  accounts ;  none  as  to  their  deposits ; 
none  as  to  the  amount  of  the  debts  which  they 
may  now  owe  to  the  bank,  but  the  aggregate 
amount  of  discounts  to  the  individual  stock- 
holders since  the  commencement  of  the  opera- 
tions of  the  bank.  The  resolution  does  not 
imply  that  the  stockholders  were  not  justly  en- 
titled to  the  accommodation  they  have  received, 
nor  does  it  question  their  solvency;  but  the 
particular  inquiry  objected  to  is  essential,  said 


Mr.  S.,  to  enable  us  to  make  up  our  minds  whe- 
ther the  bank  has  acted  correctly  or  not.  The 
object  of  the  resolution,  Mr.  S.  went  on  to  say, 
did  not  appear  to  be  precisely  understood,  per- 
haps owing  to  his  own  neglect  not  more  care- 
fully to  explain  it.  Its  object  was  twofold ;  to 
inquire,  first,  whether  there  had  been  a  viola- 
tion of  the  charter  or  not ;  and,  secondly,  whe- 
ther improper  discounts  had  not  been  made  to 
stockholders,  &c.  The  mode  of  violation  of 
the  charter  being  pointed  out  in  that  instrument, 
needed  no  more  precise  definition  than  that  con- 
tained in  the  first  clause  of  the  resolve.  Then 
followed,  however,  in  the  resolution,  other  ob- 
jects of  inquiry,  regarding  the  particular  in- 
stances of  alleged  misconduct  to  which  the 
attention  of  the  public  has  been  directed.  To 
accomplish  this  object  another  power  had  been 
given,  to  send  for  persons  and  papers.  It  did 
not  follow,  because  the  committee  was  to  re- 
port on  these  particular  instances,  that  the  com- 
mittee was  to  derive  its  information  from  the 
books  of  the  bank  alone.  There  were  other 
means  at  their  disposal ;  they  might  examine 
papers  not  belonging  to  the  bank,  and  persons 
having  personal  knowledge  of  its  transactions. 
An  objection  had  been  raised,  as  he  had  un- 
derstood, and  to  which  (though  not  yet  urged 
in  this  House)  he  would  advert,  that  this  speci- 
fication of  particular  points  of  inquiry  appeared 
to  contain  a  censure  upon  the  bank,  or  on  the 
conduct  of  its  officers.  It  was  not  so  intended, 
Mr.  S.  said,  nor  did  he  think  such  an  inference 
could  be  fairly  drawn  from  the  words  of  the 
resolve.  It  embraced  some  points  of  inquiry 
involving  no  misconduct  in  their  result — that, 
for  example,  respecting  the  refusal  of  the  bank 
to  pay  specie  for  the  notes  of  its  branches,  &c. 
There  were  few  who  would  say  that  that  meas- 
ure was  an  evidence  of  misconduct  on  the  part 
of  the  bank,  much  less  that  it  was  a  violation 
of  its  charter ;  because  such  a  measure  may 
have  been  necessary  and  unavoidable  in  the 
present  state  of  the  money  concerns  of  the 
country.  The  resolution  was  not  intended  to 
convey  charges  against  the  bank,  but  to  embrace 
all  the  topics  respecting  which  the  public  mind 
had  been  agitated,  and  to  obtain  a  report  there- 
on from  a  respectable  committee  of  this  House. 
As  to  the  facts  which  rendered  such  an  inquiry 
necessary,  it  had  been  suggested  that  mere 
general  rumor  was  not  a  sufficient  foundation 
for  this  House  to  act  upon.  Mr.  S.  said,  he 
had  meant  to  be  understood  as  having  intro- 
duced this  resolution,  not  under  the  influence 
of  general  rumor  merely,  but,  as  he  now  stated, 
he  had  individual  information  which  left  him 
no  doubt  of  the  truth  of  most  of  the  allegations 
which  he  had  heard  on  this  subject.  With  re- 
spect to  the  fact  of  the  payment  of  the  second 
instalment  by  discounts  to  the  stockholders,  the 
letter  of  Mr.  Lloyd  to  a  committee  of  this  House, 
and  now  on  its  files,  established  that  fact ;  and 
from  the  circular  letters  of  the  cashiers  of  the 
bank  and  its  branches,  published  for  informa- 
tion in  the  public  prints,  he  had  evidence  of  the 


DEBATES  OF  CONGRESS. 


211 


NOVEMBER,  1818.] 


Bank  of  the  United  States. 


[H.  OF  R. 


refusal  to  pay  the  notes  of  the  bank  or  its 
branches,  except  where  issued.  There  seem- 
ed, therefore,  to  be  sufficient  information  to  au- 
thorize an  inquiry — sufficient,  at  least,  to  induce 
a  belief  that  there  was  something  to  excite  the 
agitation  which  all  knew  to  exist  in  the  public 
mind.  It  had,  indeed,  appeared  to  him  to  be 
due  from  him  to  the  House,  to  state  what 
charges  he  had  heard  against  the  bank,  and 
what  were  the  objects  to  which  he  was  led  to 
direct  the  inquiries  of  the  committee.  It  had 
appeared  to  him  proper,  also,  to  let  the  bank 
and  the  community  know  to  what  objects  the 
inquiry  was  pointed.  He  could  see  no  harm 
from  the  specific  designation  of  the  objects  of 
the  inquiry  ;  but,  on  the  contrary,  he  said,  good 
might  be  anticipated,  for  the  reasons  already 
stated.  "With  these  views  he  could  not  assent 
to  the  modification  proposed,  and  should  feel  it 
to  be  his  duty  to  vote  against  it. 

Mr.  LOWNDES,  of  South  Carolina,  commenced 
his  remarks  in  favor  of  the  proposed  amend- 
ment, by  saying  that  he  should  not  vote  for  it 
from  any  apprehension  of  defect  of  power  in  the 
House  to  prosecute  the  inquiry  in  the  terms 
proposed.  He  had  no  doubt  of  the  power  of 
the  House,  if  the  public  interest  required  it, 
to  direct  a  committee  to  make  such  a  report. 
He  decidedly  objected,  however,  to  the  specifi- 
cations proposed  to  be  stricken  out,  on  the 
ground  that,  if  retained,  the  inference  would 
follow,  that  certain  allegations  were  therein 
embraced,  the  truth  of  which  being  confirmed 
by  inquiry,  the  censure  of  Congress  if  not  the 
penalty  due  to  a  violation  of  the  charter,  would 
follow  of  course.  If  a  committee  should  be 
directed  to  inquire  whether  the  bank  has  viola- 
ted its  charter,  and,  particularly,  whether  it  has 
paid  its  instalments  by  discounts,  &c.,  the  im- 
pression would  be  made  on  the  mind  of  every 
man  that  the  committee  had  nothing  to  do  but 
to  ascertain  these  facts,  to  prove  the  charter  of 
the  bank  to  have  been  violated.  It  did  not 
comport  with  justice,  nor,  Mr.  L.  thought,  with 
the  dignity  of  the  House ;  in  a  case,  too,  where 
the  gentleman  himself  knew  the  principles  in- 
volved to  be  susceptible  of  much  argument  and 
discussion  for  and  against  them,  to  force  the 
public  mind,  as  it  were,  to  the  conclusion  that, 
certain  facts  being  proved,  the  charter  of  the 
bank  will  be  proved  to  have  been  violated. 
Therefore,  he  was  in  favor  of  excluding  the 
specifications :  with  regard  to  the  objects  of 
them,  he  had  no  objection  whatever  to  an  in- 
quiry on  those  and  all  others  that  might  be  sug- 
gested. The  nation,  said  he,  has  a  deep  interest 
in  the  conduct  and  management  of  the  bank ; 
our  duty  to  the  people  whom  we  represent,  the 
national  interest  as  owners  of  a  large  portion  of 
the  stock,  its  interest  in  the  revenues  being 
wholly  payable  in  the  notes  of  that  bank,  will 
justify  us  in  a  constant  and  vigilant  attention  to 
its  proceedings.  If  there  had  been  a  doubt 
whether  the  conduct  of  the  bank  had  been 
proper  or  not,  Mr.  L.  said,  the  House  was  fully 
justified  in  investigating  into  the  facts,  and  in- 


quiring whether  abuses  had  been  committed  or 
not.  Such  an  investigation  he  considered  at 
present  not  only  interesting  to  the  public,  but 
necessary  to  the  bank.  Many  imputations  had 
been  thrown  on  the  bank,  the  result  of  disap- 
pointed expectations,  where  the  expectations 
themselves  had  been  unreasonable ;  and  it  was 
the  interest  of  the  bank  that  a  full  inquiry  should 
take  place.  Recurring  to  the  observation  of 
the  effect  the  specifications  in  the  resolution 
would  have  on  the  public  mind,  Mr.  L.  said, 
while  he  would  therefore  exclude  them,  at  the 
same  time  voting  for  any  inquiry  in  its  broadest 
shape,  he  would  remind  gentlemen  of  some  cir- 
cumstances connected  with  the  contents  of  the 
resolve.  The  mover  of  it  had  himself  referred 
to  a  report  made  by  a  committee  of  this  House 
appointed  to  inquire  into  the  subject  of  the 
payment  of  the  second  instalment  on  the  stock 
of  the  bank  by  discounts — a  report  made  at  a 
time  when,  if  that  course  had  been  wrong,  it 
was  in  the  power  of  Congress  to  have  prevented 
it.  The  fact  of  a  general  regulation  having  been 
adopted  for  discounting  notes  for  payment  of 
the  second  instalment,  was  acknowledged  to 
the  committee,  who  yet  reported  to  this  House 
a  recommendation  that  the  committee  be  dis- 
charged from  the  further  consideration  of  the 
subject. 

Mr.  L.  said  he  would  not  now  enter  into  an 
investigation  of  the  conduct  of  the  bank  on 
that  occasion ;  his  impression  at  the  tune  had 
been,  that  the  arrangement  was  beneficial  to 
the  community,  by  facilitating  and  expediting 
the  organization  of  the  bank,  &c. ;  but  that  it 
was  an  imprudent  one,  on  the  part  of  the  di- 
rectors of  that  institution,  whose  object  it  should 
be  to  adhere  to  the  very  line  of  their  duty,  as 
pointed  out  by  the  charter.  The  point,  how- 
ever, to  which  he  desired  to  call  the  attention 
of  the  House,  was,  that  when  the  corrective  and 
remedy  were  in  their  hands,  if  the  act  was 
wrong,  a  committee  having  been  instructed  to 
inquire  into  it,  and  having  reported  the  fact, 
the  House  had  not  thought  proper  to  interfere 
at  all  in  the  business.  Under  these  circum- 
stances, said  he,  it  would  be  harsh  indeed,  at 
this  late  hour,  availing  ourselves  of  the  new 
lights  which  experience  has  afforded  us,  to  cen- 
sure the  bank  for  having  done  that  to  which,  at 
the  time,  we  tacitly  consented.  A  distinction, 
of  course,  must  be  drawn  between  the  second 
and  third  instalments,  in  regard  to  the  mode  of 
payment ;  the  payment  of  the  latter  by  notes, 
discounted  for  that  purpose,  every  body  antici- 
pated. The  bank  was  then  in  full  operation, 
discounting  all  good  paper  offered  to  it,  and 
could  not  be  expected  to  pass  a  law  of  exclusion 
in  regard  to  its  own  stockholders,  who  had  as 
fair  a  claim  at  least  as  others  to  accommodation ; 
indeed,  there  never  perhaps  had  gone  a  bank 
into  operation  in  which  the  same  thing  had  not 
occurred ;  it  was  therefore  expected  of  the  Bank 
of  the  United  States  in  regard  to  the  third  in- 
stalment on  its  stock,  and  could  not  be  consid- 
ered as  forming  a  ground  of  complaint  against 


212 


ABRIDGMENT  OF  THE 


H.  OF  R] 


Bank  of  the  United  States. 


[NOVEMBEU,    1818. 


it.  Another  specific  object  of  the  inquiry  was, 
whether  the  bank  or  its  branches  had  sold  drafts 
and  received  a  premium  thereon.  The  gentle- 
man from  New  York  had  stated,  with  great 
candor,  as  he  understood  him,  that  he  did  not 
consider  it  an  imputation  on  the  bank  that  it 
had  refused  to  pay  specie  for  its  notes  at  any 
other  branch  than  that  from  which  they  issued ; 
and  that  he  therefore  did  not  mean  to  contend 
that  the  bank  ought  to  have  made  its  paper  and 
that  of  its  branches  payable  indifferently  at  the 
bank  or  at  any  and  all  of  its  branches.  Con- 
nected very  closely  with  this  subject,  Mr.  L. 
said,  was  the  practice  of  selling  drafts  on  dis- 
tant banks  for  a  premium.  He  knew,  he  said, 
that  much  of  the  disapprobation  of  the  conduct 
of  the  bank  proceeded  from  the  disappoint- 
ment of  an  expectation  that  it  would  emit 
and  sustain  a  currency  which  should  be  of  equal 
value  throughout  the  Union ;  and,  it  might  be 
of  some  importance,  as  many  of  the  members  of 
the  present  Congress  were  not  members  of  the 
last,  to  advert  to  circumstances  which  proved 
that  the  expectation  referred  to  was  never  en- 
tertained in  this  House  at  the  time  the  bank 
was  incorporated.  The  Congress  which  preceded 
that  by  which  the  bank  was  established,  Mr. 
L.  said,  had  had  under  its  consideration  a  bill  for 
establishing  a  bank,  one  clause  of  which  did 
provide  that  the  bank  and  all  its  branches  should 
be  obliged  to  pay  the  notes  of  each  other ;  by 
which  means,  if  practicable,  the  paper  of  all 
would  have  been  everywhere  of  an  equal  value. 
That  clause,  however,  was  not  inserted  in  the 
bill  which  actually  passed.  If  there  were  no 
other,  this  would  be  sufficient  proof,  from  the 
records  of  the  House,  that  it  was  not  expected 
that  a  currency  that  should  be  everywhere  of 
equal  value  would  be  established.  But,  further: 
in  the  act  of  incorporating  the  bank,  there  is  a 
provision  that  the  bank  shall  charge  nothing  to 
the  Government  for  difference  of  exchange. 
Was  this  not,  Mr.  L.  asked,  positive  proof  that 
it  was  expected  that  the  bank  would  charge  in 
some  cases  the  difference  of  exchange  ?  Was  it 
not  proof  that  it  was  the  expectation  of  the 
framers  of  the  law  that  the  present  state  of 
things  would  result  ?  He  would  not  enter  at 
all  into  the  general  question  whether  it  would 
or  would  not  be  possible  for  the  Bank  of  the 
United  States  to  equalize,  without  great  loss, 
the  exchange  between  different  sections  of  the 
country,  if  by  their  charter  they  were  bound  to 
do  so.  If  it  were  practicable,  it  would  be  even 
now  their  interest  to  do  it ;  but,  Mr.  L.  said,  he 
believed  it  would  be  wholly  impracticable.  The 
question  was  not,  however,  whether  it  was 
possible  for  the  United  States  to  effect  it,  whe- 
ther it  would  be  beneficial  to  the  country  or 
to  the  institution,  but  Avhether  the  bank  was 
bound  to  effect  the  object.  The  exclusion  of 
the  clause  having  this  object,  after  it  had 
been  included  in  a  like  bill  before  Congress, 
at  the  preceding  session,  and,  in  addition,  the 
express  exception  of  the  Government  from  all 
charge  for  difference  of  exchange,  showed  that 


it  was  not  expected  of  the  bank.  If,  however, 
he  were  to  go  into  the  discussion  of  the  practi- 
cability of  establishing  a  circulating  medium  of 
equal  value  in  every  part  of  the  country,  it 
would  appear  not  only  that  in  the  reason  of 
the  thing  it  was  not  practicable,  but  experience 
also  would  show  that  in  a  large  empire  it  is 
visionary  to  look  for  it.  Even  in  England,  as 
gentlemen  well  knew,  when  the  bank  paid  in 
specie,  the  value  of  a  bank  note  in  different 
parts  of  the  country  was  not  the  same.  There 
was  a  settled  rate  of  exchange  between  Edin- 
burgh and  London,  and  between  all  the  impor- 
tant towns  in  Great  Britain ;  and  the  Bank  of 
England,  with  every  advantage,  improved  by 
a  hundred  years  of  experience,  had  never  been 
able  to  accomplish  that  object.  The  inquiry, 
however,  was  not  whether  the  object  was  prac- 
ticable or  possible,  but  whether  the  bank  was 
bound  to  effect  it ;  and  he  bad  shown  that  it 
was  not.  Objections  of  a  similar  nature  might 
be  urged  to  most  of  the  specifications  in  the  re- 
solve ;  but  it  was  sufficient  to  say  that,  if  neces- 
sary, the  committee,  under  the  general  terms  of 
inquiry,  would  feel  themselves  at  liberty  to  in- 
quire and  report  on  any  of  the  points  in  ques- 
tion ;  that  no  additional  power  could  be  confer- 
red on  the  committee  by  descending  to  particu- 
lars ;  and  that  to  retain  the  specification  might 
produce  an  impression  that  the  House  had  de- 
termined certain  facts,  if  proved  to  be  conclu- 
sive against  the  bank,  whilst  the  House  had,  in 
fact,  expressed  no  opinion  upon  them.  There 
was  another  objection,  of  a  different  kind,  to 
the  terms  of  the  resolve  as  it  now  stood :  that 
it  specified  certain  objects,  to  which  it  in  a  man- 
ner thus  limited  the  proposed  inquiry,  whilst, 
in  his  opinion,  there  were  many  facts  not  re- 
ferred to,  equally  if  not  more  important  to  the 
bank,  and  to  the  public  interests,  than  those 
which  were.  Without  justifying  or  censuring 
the  conduct  of  the  bank,  without  expressing,  in 
a  parenthesis,  or  by  inuendo,  an  opinion  unfa- 
vorable to  it,  Mr.  L.  said  he  thought  it  would 
be  proper  to  institute  a  committee  of  inquiry. 
and  leave  them,  on  their  own  responsibility,  to 
settle  the  principles  on  which  they  should  pro- 
ceed in  it,  and  to  report  accordingly.  He  was 
in  favor  of  leaving  the  committee  wholly  un- 
fettered, except  by  their  own  opinion  of  what 
was  required  by  the  public  good ;  and  therefore 
hoped  the  amendment  would  be  agreed  to. 

The  question  was  then  taken  on  the  resolu- 
tion as  amended,  BO  as  to  read  as  follows : 

Resolved,  That  a  committee  be  appointed  to  in- 
spect the  books  and  examine  into  the  proceedings  of 
the  Bank  of  the  United  States,  to  report  thereon,  and 
to  report  -whether  the  provisions  of  its  charter  have 
been  violated  or  not ;  that  the  said  committee  have 
leave  to  meet  in  the  city  of  Philadelphia,  and  remain 
there  as  long  as  may  be  necessary ;  that  they  shall 
have  power  to  send  for  persons  and  papers,  and  to 
employ  the  requisite  clerks ;  the  expense  of  which 
shall  be  audited  and  allowed  by  the  Committee  of 
Accounts,  and  paid  out  of  the  contingent  fund  of  this 
House. 


DEBATES  OF  CONGRESS. 


213 


DECEMBER,  1818.] 


General  John  Stark. 


[H.  OF  R. 


And  it  was  passed  in  the  affirmative. 
Messrs.  SPENCEB,  LOWNDES,  MoLANE,  BRYAN, 
and  TYLER,  were  appointed  the  said  committee. 


TUESDAY,  December  1. 
Mr.  MIDDLETON  presented  the  petition  of  the 
Marquis  cle  Vienne,  stating,  that  he  served  as  a 
Colonel  in  the  service  of  the  United  States,  in 
the  Revolutionary  war ;  that  he  was  then  rich 
and  refused  to  receive  any  compensation,  but 
that,  having  been  reduced  to  poverty  by  the 
revolutions  in  France,  he  is  now  compelled  to 
seek  a  remuneration  for  his  said  services,  from 
Congress,  and  praying  to  be  paid  such  sum  as 
may  be  thought  a  just  equivalent  therefor; 
which  petition  was  referred  to  a  select  commit- 
tee ;  and  Mr.  MIDDLE-TON,  Mr.  HAEHISON,  and 
Mr.  COLSTON,  were  appointed  the  said  commit- 
tee. 

Migration  of  Slaves. 

Mr.  LINN,  of  New  Jersey,  offered  the  follow- 
ing resolution : 

"  Resolved,  That  the  committee  appointed  on  so 
much  of  the  Message  of  the  President  of  the  United 
States  as  relates  to  the  unlawful  introduction  of 
slaves  into  the  United  States,  be  instructed  to  inquire 
into  the  expediency  of  passing  a  law  prohibiting  the 
migration  or  transportation  of  slaves  .or  servants  of 
color  from  any  State  to  any  other  part  of  the  United 
States,  in  cases  where,  by  the  laws  of  such  State, 
such  transportation  is  prohibited ;  and  that  they  have 
leave  to  report  by  bill  or  otherwise." 

Mr.  LINN  said,  in  introducing  his  resolution, 
that  it  related  to  a  subject  of  much  interest  in 
his  part  of  the  country,  and,  as  the  resolution 
only  proposed  an  inquiry,  he  hoped  it  would 
not  be  objected  to. 

Mr.  POINDEXTER,  of  Mississippi,  objected  to 
it.  Any  man,  he  said,  had  a  right  to  remove 
his  property  from  one  State  to  another,  and 
slaves  as  well  as  any  other  property,  if  not  pro- 
hibited from  doing  so  by  the  State  laws.  With 
tin iso  laws,  whatever  they  were,  the  United 
Stutos,  he  said,  had  no  right  to  interfere. 
The  idea  was  a  perfectly  novel  one,  that  there 
should  be  a  double  set  of  penal  statutes  on  the 
same  subject — one  set  by  the  States,  and  one 
by  the  United  States — and  that  the  military 
force  of  the  United  States  should  be  employed 
to  carry  into  effect  the  penal  statute  of  any 
State.  How  were  the  United  States  to  inter- 
fere on  this  subject?  What  judicial  tribunal 
would  they  resort  to,  to  effect  the  object  con- 
templated ?  Any  penal  statute  they  could  pass 
on  the  subject,  Mr.  P.  said,  would  be  entirely 
nugatory,  as  it  could  not  be  carried  into  effect ; 
and  he  was  therefore  opposed  even  to  an  in- 
quiry into  the  matter. 

Mr.  COLSTON,  of  Virginia,  in  addition  to  what 
had  fallen  from  Mr.  POINDEXTEE  in  opposition 
to  tho  resolution,  suggested  that  it  was  perfectly 
within  the  power  of  the  State  sovereignties  to 
execute  any  law  they  might  enact  on  this  sub- 


ject, more  effectually  than  they  could  do  by  the 
aid  of  the  authority  of  the  United  States. 

The  question  on  the  passage  of  the  resolve 
was  then  taken,  and  decided  in  the  negative. 

General  John  Stark. 

The  bill  for  granting  a  pension  of  sixty  dol- 
lars per  month  to  Major  General  John  Stark, 
was  read  a  third  time. 

On  the  question,  "  Shall  the  bill  pass?" 

Mr.  W.  P.  MACLAY  asked  for  information  of 
the  committee  who  reported  the  bill,  as  no 
written  report  had  accompanied  it,  on  what 
grounds  it  stood ;  whether  the  pension  was 
granted  because  of  indigence  on  the  part  of 
General  Stark,  or  for  what  other  reason? 

Mr.  HARBISON,  of  Ohio,  said  his  friend  from 
Georgia,  (Mr.  COBB,)  could  not  have  been  present 
when  this  subject  was  before  the  House  at  the 
last  session,  or  he  would  not  have  asked  the  infor- 
mation which  he  now  desired.  He  had  supposed 
his  friend  from  Georgia  was  better  acquainted 
with  the  history  of  his  country,  than  not  to  know 
the  merits  and  distinguished  Revolutionary  ser- 
vices of  this  hoary  veteran.  At  the  darkest 
period  of  the  Revolution,  General  Stark  had 
rendered  the  most  important  services  to  his 
country ;  and  those  services  were  not  occasion- 
al, but  were  prolonged  to  the  close  of  the  con- 
test. It  was  now  said  that  this  worthy  was  in 
indigent  circumstances,  and  debilitated  by  old 
age ;  that,  if  not  soon  bestowed,  he  would  not 
live  to  enjoy  the  aid  about  to  be  afforded  to 
him.  Was  it  possible,  Mr.  H.  asked,  that  an 
American  Congress  could  behold  so  distinguish- 
ed a  patriot,  as  he  is,  sinking  into  the  grave  in 
the  want  of  every  necessary  of  life,  or  that  they 
would  coldly  place  him  among  the  mass  of  pen- 
sioners under  the  general  act  of  last  session  ? 
For  his  part,  he  would  give  out  the  last  dollar 
in  the  Treasury  for  the  relief  of  General  Stark. 
With  him,  he  said,  it  was  not  a  matter  of  choice 
to  vote  for  the  bill ;  it  was  an  imperious  duty. 

Mr.  LIVEBMORE  said,  that  as  a  member  of  this 
House,  and  as  a  citizen  of  New  Hampshire,  he 
was  grateful  to  the  gentleman  from  Ohio  for 
the  manner  in  which  he  had  expressed  himself 
on  this  occasion.  He  would  only  add  that,  as 
to  the  circumstances  of  General  Stark,  they 
were,  to  his  personal  knowledge,  very  reduced. 
He  was,  as  to  personal  exertion  for  his  support, 
at  the  age  of  ninety  years,  wholly  helpless. 
He  might  or  might  not  be  owner  of  a  small 
farm ;  but,  if  so,  it  was  an  unproductive  one. 
He  was,  and  had  been  for  some  time,  dependent 
for  support  on  his  children,  themselves  in  very 
moderate  circumstances.  This  was  the  true 
situation  of  General  Stark. 

Mr.  COBB  said,  if  it  was  true,  as  suggested  by 
the  gentleman  from  Ohio,  that  he  was  not  well 
versed  in  the  Revolutionary  history,  should  he 
want  information  on  that  head,  he  should  know 
where  to  apply ;  for  the  gentleman  himself  was 
a  living  chronicle  of  the  occurrences  of  that 
day.  He  did  not,  he  said,  doubt  the  merits  of 
General  Stark;  but  he  had  yet  no  evidence 


214 


ABRIDGMENT  OF  THE 


H.  OF  R] 


Surviving  Revolutionary  Officers. 


[DECEMBER,  1818 


that  the  pension  ought  to  be  granted.  The 
House  had  been  told  he  was  very  old  and  in- 
firm. But,  if  the  House  were  to  grant  pensions 
to  the  old  and  infirm,  where  would  they  draw 
the  line  at  which  they  would  stop  ?  Are  we 
to  be  told,  said  he,  that  it  is  to  Eevolutionary 
officers  only  that  pensions  are  to  be  granted? 
Some  twenty  or  forty  years  hence,  may  not  the 
same  argument,  by  the  aid  of  this  precedent, 
be  applied  to  General  Jackson,  General  Brown, 
General  Scott,  or  any  other  general  who  dis- 
tinguished himself  during  the  late  war?  He 
was  free  to  say,  for  himself,  that  he  thought  the 
pension  list  had  already  been  swelled  to  an 
amount  which  absolutely  jeopardized  the  Treas- 
ury, or  soon  would  at  the  rate  at  which  it  still 
increased. 

_  Mr.  LIVEBMOBE  said,  General  Stark  had  worn 
himself  out  in  the  service  of  his  country,  in  his 
youth,  and  had  since  supported  himself  as  well 
as  he  could.  He  was  in  service  before  the  Rev- 
olution, and  during  that  trial  he  did  the  nation 
great  service  and  himself  great  honor.  At  an 
early  period  of  the  Rovolution,  when  every 
patriot  was  called  a  traitor,  Stark  was  in  the 
foremost  rank.  He  was  in  the  field  at  Benning- 
ton,  and  animated  the  courage  of  others  by  his 
conduct  and  example.  All  the  inhabitants  of 
New  Hampshire,  and  of  the  Green  Mountains, 
flocked  where  Stark  was;  where  he  fought, 
they  fought  and  bled  ;  had  he  died,  they  would 
have  died  with  him. 

Mr.  BUTLEB,  of  New  Hampshire,  gave  some 
further  information  respecting  General  Stark. 
He  was,  he  said,  the  only  surviving  general 
officer  of  the  Revolution,  now  declining  in  old 
age,  extremely  poor,  and  long  supported  by  his 
sous,  who  were  not  very  well  able  to  do  it. 
This,  Mr.  B.  said,  might  be  the  last  opportunity 
Congress  could  have  of  contributing  to  the  re- 
lief of  his  wants.  As  a  precedent  had  been 
demanded,  Mr.  B.  quoted  the  pension  granted 
at  the  last  session  to  General  St.  Clair  as  di- 
rectly in  point.  General  Stark,  he  added,  had 
served  during  the  whole  French  war,  and  no 
man  had  afterwards  done  more  than  him  to 
assert  and  establish  the  independence  of  his 
country. 

The  question  on  the  passage  of  the  bill  was 
decided  in  the  affirmative,  without  division. 


WEDNESDAY,  December  2. 

Another  member,  to  wit,  from  Pennsylvania, 
JOSEPH  HEISTEE,  appeared,  and  took  his  seat. 

A  new  member,  to  wit,  from  North  Carolina, 
WILLIAM  DAVIDSON,  elected  to  supply  the  va- 
cancy occasioned  by  the  resignation  of  Daniel 
M.  Forney,  also  appeared,  was  qualified,  and 
took  his  seat. 

THURSDAY,  December  3. 
Another  member,  to  wit,  from  Pennsylvania, 
LEVI  PAWLING,  appeared,  and  took  his  seat. 


FEIDAY,  December  4. 

Another  member,  to  wit,  from  Massachu- 
setts, TIMOTHY  FULLEB,  appeared,  and  took  his 
seat. 

Mr.  JOHN  MoLEAN  appeared,  produced  his 
credentials,  was  qualified,  and  took  his  seat  as 
the  Representative  of  the  State  of  Illinois  in 
this  House. 

Claim  of  Beaumarchais. 

The  House  again  resolved  itself  into  a  Com 
mittee  of  the  Whole,  on  the  bill  reported  by 
the  select  committee  for  the  relief  of  the  heirs 
of  Caron  de  Beaumarchais. 

Mr.  TALLMADGE  resumed  the  debate  on  this 
subject,  and  spoke  about  an  hour  in  opposition 
to  the  claim  and  the  bill.  He  was  followed  by 
Mr.  BASSETT,  in  a  speech  of  about  the  same 
length,  in  support  of  the  claim,  and  in  defence 
of  the  report  of  the  committee  thereon. 

Mr.  BALDWIN  added  some  remarks  on  the 
same  side,  and  in  reply  to  gentlemen  who  had 
opposed  the  claim ;  after  which,  the  committee 
rose,  and  reported  the  bill  without  amendment 
to  the  House ;  when  the  question  was  taken 
whether  the  bill  should  be  engrossed  and  read  a 
third  time  and  decided  in  the  negative. 

And  so  the  said  bill  was  rejected.  The  House 
adjourned  to  Monday. 


MONDAY,  December  Y. 

To  other  members,  to  wit :  from  Maryland, 
SAMUEL  RINGGOLD,  and  from  Ohio,  PETEK 
HITCHCOCK,  appeared,  and  took  their  seats. 

Surviving  Revolutionary  Officers. 

Mr.  JOHNSON,  of  Kentucky,  from  the  com- 
mittee appointed  on  the  petition  of  William 
Jackson,  solicitor  for  the  surviving  officers  of 
the  Revolutionary  Army,  and  to  which  were 
referred  sundry  petitions  of  said  officers,  and  of 
inhabitants  of  the  United  States  on  their  behalf, 
made  a  detailed  report  upon  said  petitions; 
which  was  read,  and  committed  to  a  Committee 
of  the  Whole.  It  is  as  follows : 

That,  on  the  21st  of  October,  1780,  by  resolution 
of  Congress,  it  was  provided  that  the  officers  who 
shonld  continue  in  service  to  the  end  of  the  war, 
should  be  entitled  to  half-pay  during  life,  to  com- 
mence from  the  time  of  reduction.  This  stipulation 
emanated  from  a  previous  resolution  of  Congress, 
which,  promised  seven  years'  half-pay  to  the  same 
class  of  officers,  excepting  those  who  might  hold  any 
office  of  profit  under  the  United  States,  or  any  of  the 
States. 

By  another  resolution  of  Congress,  in  January, 
1781,  the  stipulation  was  so  extended  as  to  embrace 
the  hospital  department  and  medical  staff.  In  tlje 
beginning  of  the  year  1783,  a  memorial  was  pre- 
sented to  Congress,  from  a  committee  of  the  officers 
of  the  army  under  the  immediate  command  of  Gen- 
eral WASHINGTON,  proposing  relinquishment  of  the 
half-pay  for  life,  on  condition  that  an  equivalent 
should  be  provided,  either  by  the  payment  of  a  gross 
sum  or  by  a  full  compensation  for  a  limited  time. 
This  proposition,  which  originated  with  officers  of  the 


DEBATES  OF  CONGRESS. 


215 


DECEMBER,  1818.] 


Surviving  Revolutionary  Officers. 


[H.  OP  R. 


army,  grew  out  of  a  conviction  that  the  half-pay  fo 
life  was  regarded  by  their  fellow-citizens  as  savoring 
too  much  of  the  spirit  of  a  privileged  order,  whicl 
rendered  the  measure  unpopular  with  many  of  th 
community  ;  and  the  proposition,  on  the  part  of  th 
officers,  to  relinquish  the  payment  for  life,  was,  anc 
ever  will  be,  viewed  as  an  act  of  the  most  distin- 
guished patriotism,  in  perfect  accordance  with  tha 
entire  devotion  to  the  country,  which  is  so  strikingly 
manifested  in  all  their  sufferings,  sacrifices,  anc 
services. 

Congress,  well  apprised  of  the  prevailing  objection 
to  the  allowance  for  life,  which  had  been  adoptee 
only  from  necessity,  readily  embraced  the  occasion  o 
removing  a  measure  objectionable  in  its  principles 
by  a  commutation  of  five  years'  full  pay  in  lieu  of  the 
half  pay  for  life,  in  a  resolution  of  March  22d,  1783, 
which  provided  that  such  officers  as  were  then  in 
service,  and  should  continue  therein  to  the  end  of  the 
war,  should  be  entitled  to  receive  the  amount  of  five 
years'  full  pay  in  money,  or  securities  on  interest,  a 
six  per  cent,  per  annum,  as  Congress  should  find  most 
convenient,  instead  of  the  half-pay  promised  for  life 
by  the  resolution  of  October  21st,  1780;  the  said 
securities  to  be  such  as  should  be  given  to  other  cred- 
itors of  the  United  States,  provided  it  should  be  at 
the  option  of  the  lines  of  the  respective  States,  and 
not  of  officers  individually  of  those  lines,  to  refuse  or 
accept  the  same.  The  commutation  was  acceded  to 
by  the  officers  generally,  in  the  manner  pointed  out ; 
and,  at  the  reduction  of  the  army,  they  received  com- 
mutation certificates  for  the  amount  prescribed.  The 
memorialists  state  a  variety  of  facts,  and  present 
many  considerations,  to  prove  that,  by  the  commu- 
tation, great  injustice  has  been  done  to  the  officers 
originally  entitled  to  half-pay  for  life,  and  their  ob- 
ject is  to  induce  the  Government  to  resume  the  orig- 
inal contract  of  half-pay  for  life  upon  certain  terms 
therein  expressed ;  and  the  memorial  concludes  with 
a  specific  prayer,  that  an  act  may  be  passed  direct- 
ing the  accounting  officers  of  the  Treasury  to  adjust 
'"the  claim  of  each  surviving  officer  of  the  Revolu- 
tionary Army  of  the  United  States,  who,  by  the  re- 
solves of  Congress,  was  entitled  to  half-pay  for  life, 
calculating  the  amount  of  the  principal  of  the  ar- 
rearages from  the  time  of  his  reduction,  and  deduct- 
ing therefrom  five  years'  full  pay ;  and  the  balance 
of  arrearages  being  thus  ascertained,  to  issue  a  cer- 
tificate, bearing  an  interest  of  six  per  centum  per 
annum,  to  the  officer  for  the  amount  of  said  balance ; 
and  the  officer  to  be  thenceforth  entitled  to  receive 
half-pay,  in  half-yearly  payments,  for  and  during  the 
term  of  his  natural  life.  The  committee  have  en- 
deavored to  investigate  the  subject  with  all  the  can- 
dor and  attention  which  its  merits  require  ;  and  in 
any  point  of  view,  difficulties  of  no  ordinary  magni- 
tude presented  themselves. 

When  contemplating  the  eminent  services  and  gen- 
erous sacrifices  of  that  illustrious  band,  the  commit- 
tee could  not  withhold  a  favorable  report  to  the  full 
extent  of  the  prayer  of  the  petitioners,  could  they  be 
governed  alone  by  feeling.  The  resources  of  the  na- 
tion would  never  repay  the  debt  of  gratitude  which  is 
due  to  the  patriots  and  sages  of  the  Revolution,  whose 
counsels  and  achievements  so  essentially  contributed 
to  the  establishment  of  that  freedom  and  independ- 
ence, from  which  so  many  blessings  flow.  AY.-is  tin- 
prayer  of  the  petitioners  asked  as  a  gratuity  only, 
new  difficulties  would  arise ;  other  classes  of  citizens, 
equally  meritorious,  and  much  more  numerous, 


whose  sacrifices  were  not  less  extensive,  would  have 
equal  claims,  and  merit  equal  attention.  The  whole 
Revolutionary  struggle  was  marked  with  public  sac- 
rifices and  public  devotion ;  every  class  of  citizens 
endured  with  cheerfulness  the  privations  and  losses 
to  which  those  trying  times  subjected  them,  and  in 
the  happiness  and  independence  of  the  country  which 
followed  every  member  of  the  community  found  its 
best  reward ;  and  however  desirable  it  may  be  that 
every  sacrifice,  in  time  of  great  public  calamity,  may 
receive  a  pecuniary  requital,  the  American  Revolu- 
tion demonstrates  its  impracticability,  and  necessity 
requires  that  the  munificence  of  Government  should 
have  some  limitation.  Well  aware  of  this  view  of 
the  subject,  the  claim  of  the  memorialists  is  predica- 
ted upon  contract  and  legal  obligation.  In  the  light 
of  justice,  therefore,  the  committee  have  also  con- 
sidered this  subject ;  and  it  is  with  feeh'ngs  of  ex- 
treme regret  they  find  themselves  compelled,  in  duty, 
to  differ  in  opinion  with  the  memorialists  in  the 
prayer  of  the  petition. 

The  resolution  of  Congress,  under  which  the  claim 
for  the  half-pay  was  commuted,  was  proposed  by  the 
officers,  and  the  commutation  voluntarily  accepted  by 
them  in  the  manner  specified.  The  memorialists 
also  urge  their  claim  upon  the  supposition  that  the 
commutation  was  not  an  equivalent  for  the  original 
stipulation,  that  more  than  five  years'  full  pay  was 
then  equitably  due.  The  committee,  on  this  point, 
are  of  opinion,  that  a  just  estimate  was  made  by  the 
parties  when  the  commutation  was  agreed  upon,  un- 
der all  the  circumstances  of  the  case,  and  ought  not 
to  be  revised  at  this  day.  But,  if  it  were  necessary 
to  look  for  relief,  by  reviewing  the  comparative 
amount,  it  will  be  found  that  the  interest  of  five 
years'  full  pay,  at  six  per  cent  per  annum,  is  equal 
to  three-fifths  of  the  whole  amount  of  half-pay  for 
life :  for  example,  take  the  advance  to  a  captain,  of 
five  years'  full  pay,  at  forty  dollars  per  month,  $2,400, 
the  annual  interest  on  which  would  make  the  sum  of 
B144,  at  six  per  centum,  and  the  whole  amount  of 
half-pay  would  make  the  sum  of  $240  per  annum. 

The  advance  of  five  years'  full  pay  will  also  be 
xrand  equal  to  the  present  worth  of  half-pay  for  more 
than  fifteen  years.  The  committee  cannot,  therefore, 
discover  such  a  great  inadequacy  in  the  amount  stip- 
ulated. The  resolution  of  March,  1783,  provided 
that  the  five  years'  full  pay  should  be  in  money,  or 
securities  on  interest  at  six  per  cent,  per  annum,  as 
Congress  should  find  most  convenient ;  the  said  se- 
curities being  such  as  should  be  given  to  the  other 
creditors  of  the  United  States. 

Congress  found  it  most  convenient  to  pay  in  secu- 
rities on  interest,  and  for  this  purpose  gave  certifi- 
cates conformable  to  the  stipulation  ;  the  only  evi- 
dence of  debt  in  their  power,  and  the  same  as  were 
given  to  other  creditors  of  the  United  States ;  the 
"aith  of  the  nation  was  pledged  for  the  payment  of 
these  certificates,  and  the  pledge  was  subsequently 
•edeemed  by  the  payment  of  the  nominal  amount, 
vith  interest,  in  gold  or  silver,  or  equivalents,  in  the 
lands  of  the  officer  or  his  assignee.  If  the  officers 
jould  not  command  the  money  in  hand  for  these 
sertificates,  neither  could  they  have  done  so  at  that 
ay  for  their  half-pay,  had  there  been  no  commuta- 
ion :  gold  and  silver  were  not  in  the  reach  of  Gov- 
•nment  at  that  period.  This  is  suggested  only  to 
how  that  the  mode  of  payment  alone  was  changed, 
nd  that  the  commutation  was  granted  as  a  fair 
equivalent. 


216 


ABRIDGMENT  OF  THE 


H.  OF  R] 


Foreign  Merchant  Seamen. 


[DECEMBER,  1818. 


Upon  the  view  taken  by  the  memorialists,  the 
committee  could  not  see  any  justice  in  confining  the 
prayer  of  the  petitioners  to  those  only  who  still  sur- 
vive. To  provide  for  those,  upon  the  principle  of 
justice  and  legal  obligation,  and  suffer  the  dead  to 
be  forgotten,  would  be  but  a  partial  remuneration ; 
the  heirs  of  the  deceased  would  have  equal  claims 
upon  the  Government  as  the  officer  who  survives. 
Again,  the  memorialists  ask  a  resumption  of  the 
original  contract,  to  which  the  same  objections  may 
be  urged  as  in  the  year  1783.  If  then  deemed  ob- 
jectionable, because  not  in  accordance  with  the  gen- 
ius of  our  institutions,  nor  congenial  with  the  senti- 
ments of  the  American  people,  it  may  be  equally  so 
at  this  day.  Upon  the  most  extensive  view  which 
the  committee  have  taken  of  this  subject,  they  have 
found  difficulties  still  thickening,  and,  to  answer  the 
prayer  of  the  petition  to  its  extent,  would,  in  the 
opinion  of  the  committee,  go  to  establish  a  principle 
fraught  with  much  evil  Conscious,  at  the  same 
time,  of  the  merits  and  worth  of  these  distinguished 
heroes,  whose  devotion  and  deeds  have  given  such 
glory  and  such  happiness  to  our  country :  conscious 
of  their  patriotism  and  valor,  which  have  imposed 
lasting  obligations  upon  the  grateful  remembrance 
of  the  nation,  the  committee  could  not  reconcile  to 
their  feelings  or  duty,  an  entire  rejection  of  the  me- 
morial :  and  they  have  looked  for  a  combination  of 
the  principles  of  equity  and  of  gratitude,  on  which 
might  be  rewarded,  in  some  little  degree,  the  labor 
and  sufferings  of  the  memorialists,  without  involving 
future  difficulties,  in  the  establishment  of  a  dangerous 
precedent :  this  principle  has  been  found  in  the  de- 
preciation of  the  commutation  certificate,  and  the 
losses  sustained  by  the  untimely  sale  of  these  certifi- 
cates. It  is  a  well-attested  fact,  that  most  of  those 
certificates  were  sold  at  an  amount  of  not  more  than 
from  one-fifth  to  one-tenth  of  their  nominal  value. 
Gold  and  silver  not  being  in  the  power  of  the  Gov- 
ernment, the  pressing  and  immediate  want  of  the 
holders  rendered  it  necessary  for  them  to  dispose  of 
their  certificates  at  any  price ;  and,  upon  this  view 
of  the  subject,  the  committee  recommend  the  follow- 
ing resolution : 

Re solved,  That  each  officer  of  the  Revolutionary 
army  who  was  entitled  to  half-pay  for  life  under  the 
several  resolves  of  Congress  upon  that  subject,  and 
afterwards,  in  commutation  thereof,  received  the 
amount  of  five  years'  full  pay,  in  certificates  or  secu- 
rities of  the  United  States,  shall  now  be  paid,  by  the 
United  States,  the  nominal  amount  of  such  certificates 
or  securies,  without  interest,  deducting  therefrom 
one-eighth  part  of  the  said  amount. 

Foreign  Merchant  Seamen. 

The  House  then  resolved  itself  into  a  Com- 
mittee of  the  Whole,  on  the  bill  to  authorize 
the  apprehension  of  foreign  seamen  desertinj 


States.     The  bill  having  been  read  through — 

Mr.  SMITH,  of  Maryland,  briefly  explained  the 
object  of  the  bill.  He  stated  the  nature  of  con- 
tracts made  by  seamen  with  captains  for  voy- 
ages ;  which,  being  violated  by  the  desertion  of 
seamen  in  the  port  of  destination,  or  at  any 
time  before  the  termination  of  the  voyage,  some- 
times broke  up  the  whole  voyage,  and  ruined 
those  concerned  in  it.  He  further  stated  that 
in  all  other  countries  there  were  regulations  for 


enforcing  the  observance  of  these  contracts,  of 
which  we,  in  common  with  others,  enjoyed  the 
benefit.  These  regulations  the  present  bill  pro- 
posed to  reciprocate,  by  establishing  similar 
regulations  on  our  part. 

Mr.  NEWTON,  as  chairman  of  the  committee 
who  reported  the  bill,  further  explained  its  ob- 
ject. To  obtain  information  on  the  subject,  he 
said,  a  letter  was  at  the  last  session  addressed 
to  the  Secretary  of  State,  to  inquire  whether 
the  captains  of  American  vessels  had  in  foreign 
ports  the  same  privileges  granted  them,  to  en- 
able them  to  recover  their  seamen,  which  were 
Sroposed  to  be  allowed  by  this  bill  to  foreigners 
i  our  ports.  To  this  letter  an  answer  had 
been  received,  which  Mr.  N.  read  to  the  House, 
and  which  had  satisfied  the  committee,  as  he 
presumed  it  would  the  House,  of  the  propriety 
of  passing  the  bill* 

On  motion  of  Mr.  WHITMAN,  an  amendment 
was  made  to  the  details  of  the  bill,  the  effect  of 
which  was  to  extend  the  power  of  carrying  the 
law  into  execution,  to  all  civil  magistrates. 

The  question  being  then  about  to  be  put  on 
the  committee's  rising  and  reporting  the  bill — 

Mr.  CLAY  (Speaker)  said  he  was  not  prepared 
to  say  that  this  bill  ought  to  be  reported  to  the 
House.  If  the  principle  of  it  was  correct,  the 
details  were  exceptionable.  The  principle  was, 
that  if  a  seaman,  arriving  in  the  ports  of  the 
United  States,  quits  the  service  of  the  master  of 
the  vessel  with  whom  he  has  contracted,  with- 
out permission,  he  should  be  surrendered  with- 
out trial  to  the  captain.  The  pretext  for  estab- 
lishing this  principle  was,  that  other  States  ex- 
tend to  us  the  privilege  now  proposed  to  be 
granted  to  them.  Mr.  C.  said  he  was  by  no 
means  satisfied  of  the  propriety  of  this  excep- 
tion of  seamen  from  the  rules  applying  to  all 
other  citizens  of  foreign  countries.  He  was  not 
satisfied  that  a  seaman,  having  contracted  to 
perform  a  voyage,  should,  under  no  possible  cir- 
cumstances, be  excused  from  the  performance 
of  that  contract.  Yet,  according  to  this  bill, 
without  inquiry  into  the  facts,  without  exami- 
nation into  the  treatment  the  seaman  may  have 


*  The  letter  is  as  follows: 

DEPABTMENT  OP  STATE,  Jan.  3, 1818. 

SIB  :  In  answer  to  the  inquiries  in  your  letter  of  the  25th 
ultimo,  with  reference  to  the  subject  of  the  resolution  en- 
closed in  it,  I  have  the  honor  to  state,  that  in  all  the  mari- 
time States  of  Europe,  with  which  I  have  been  personally 
conversant,  there  are  magistrates  invested  with  authority  to 
arrest  seamen,  deserters  from  foreign  merchant  vessels  in 
their  ports,  and  to  restore  them  to  the  masters  of  the  vessels 
to  which  they  belong,  conformably  to  their  contracts  in  the 
shipping  papers.  The  process  in  such  cases  is,  as  by  their 
nature  it  must  be,  to  prove  efficacious,  immediate,  and  sum- 
mary ;  and  the  masters  Of  American  vessels  have  the  benefit 
of  it,  in  common  with  others.  In  the  city  of  London,  the 
authority  is  vested  in  the  Lord  Mayor ;  and,  at  other  places 
in  Great  Britain,  in  the  ordinary  police  magistrates.  I  do 
not  recollect  having  ever  known  an  instance  in  which  mas- 
ters of  American  vessels  were  denied  the  benefit  of  such 
processes,  unless  in  coses  when,  by  the  laws  of  the  country, 
the  deserting  seaman  was,  on  other  accounts,  liable  to  be 
detained.  The  practice  is,  so  far  as  I  have  known,  the  same 
very  part  of  the  European  continent. 

I  am,  with  great  respect,  sir,  your  very  humble  and  obe- 
dient servant,"  '     JOHN  QflXCY  ADAMS. 

THOMAS  NEWTON,  ESQ.,  Chairman,  <&c. 


DEBATES  OF  CONGRESS. 


217 


DECEMBER,  1818.] 


Foreign  Merchant  Seamen. 


[H.  OF  R. 


received  on  the  voyage,  the  seaman  was  to  be 
bound  hand  and  foot,  and  delivered  over  to  the 
captain  whose  service  he  had  perhaps  been  com- 
pelled by  tyranny  or  abuse  to  quit.  I  care  not, 
said  Mr."  C.,  Avhat  is  done  in  other  countries  on 
the  subject;  then-  regulations  in  this  respect 
form  in  my  mind  no  justification  of  the  pro- 
visions of  this  bill.  The  details  of  the  bill,  he 
said,  were  moreover  objectionable.  The  deli- 
cate class  of  cases  arising  out  of  our  naturaliza- 
tion laws  would  be  seriously  affected  by  its  pro- 
visions. Suppose  a  person  who,  naturalized 
according  to  our  laws,  would  prima  facie  be 
considered  by  ninety-nine  out  of  a  hundred  as  a 
foreigner,  to  be  demanded  by  a  foreign  captain 
as  a  deserter — he  would,  on  his  affirmation,  be 
given  up,  and  thus  an  American  citizen  would 
be  subjected  to  this  odious  provision.  Gentle- 
men might  say,  they  did  not  mean  to  carry  the 
principle  so  far ;  but,  Mr.  C.  said,  such  an  in- 
terpretation might  be  given  by  the  magistrate 
before  whom  the  seaman  was  brought.  He 
never  could  consent,  that,  in  every  case  of  a 
seaman  leaving  his  ship,  or  of  any  other  descrip- 
tion of  persons,  because  a  contract  has  been  al- 
leged to  be  violated,  without  inquiry  into  the 
ground  of  complaint,  however  just  it  might  be, 
the  alleged  offender  should  be  surrendered.  If 
the  bill  was  adverted  to,  it  would  be  found  that 
two  facts  only  were  necessary  to  authorize  the 
surrender:  first,  that  the  party  should  have 
made  a  contract ;  and,  secondly,  that  he  should 
have  quitted  the  service  of  the  master  within 
the  limits  of  the  United  States.  Were  gentle- 
men prepared  to  say,  that  in  no  possible  case  a 
seaman  might  be  justified  in  quitting  the  mer- 
chant service  ?  If  there  was  a  possibility  of 
such  j  ustification,  Mr.  C.  said,  they  ought  not  to 
give  their  assent  to  this  bill.  He  knew,  he  said, 
that  commerce  and  navigation,  to  a  certain  ex- 
tent, make  slaves ;  but  that  slavery  should  not 
be  made  unnecessarily  severe.  If  in  every  in- 
stance we  are  to  follow  foreign  examples  in  our 
statutes  and  usage,  to  what  lengths  may  we  not 
go  ?  Impressment  of  seamen  for  national  ships, 
said  he,  is  a  foreign  practice  :  we  may  be  called 
upon,  on  the  principles  of  imitation,  to  sanction 
that  practice.  But,  said  Mr.  0.,  if  our  Navy 
could  be  maintained  only  by  impressment,  dear 
as  I  consider  that  Navy  to  the  interest  and  to 
the  glory  of  the  country,  I  would  see  it  annihi- 
lated before  I  would  sanction  such  a  practice. 
Gentlemen,  therefore,  he  said,  would  not  get 
his  assent  to  the  bill  by  telling  him  what  was 
dene  in  foreign  countries.  Over  our  country  a 
particular  genius  of  liberty  presided :  we  must 
take  care  not  to  banish  it  by  following,  step  by 
step,  in  the  wake  of  other  nations,  and  justify- 
ing ourselves  for  what  we  do  only  by  exhibiting 
a  precedent  in  what  they  have  done  before  us. 
Mr.  C.  had  other  objections  to  the  bill.  If  there 
were  cases  in  which  it  was  found  necessary  to 
reciprocate  provisions  with  foreign  powers  for 
the  security  of  navigation,  and  such  cases  there 
might  be,  let  them  be  settled  by  treaty,  by  iv- 
ciprocal  stipulation.  If  they  extend  in  their 


ports  but  bare  civility  to  us,  let  us  do  the  same 
to  them.  On  what  foundation  was  the  House 
invited  to  pass  a  bill  involving  so  many  delicate 
considerations,  and  objectionable  provisions  ? 
Why,  on  the  ground  of  a  letter — and,  with- 
out any  disrespect  to  the  author  of  it,  a  very 
loose  letter,  from  the  Secretary  of  State.  Mr. 
C.  here  read  some  passages  of  the  letter.  The 
honorable  Secretary,  he  said,  had  not  told  the 
House  how  far  his  personal  acquaintance  with 
foreign  countries  extended,  nor  what  was  the 
nature  of  the  provisions  in  that  country,  analo- 
gous to  those  of  this  bill ;  whether  in  every  pos- 
sible instance  a  surrender  is  to  take  place; 
whether  in  all  cases  the  seaman  is  inextricably 
yielded  up  to  the  captain  claiming  him.  Mr. 
0.  said  he  wished,  before  he  could  act  on  this 
subject,  to  see  the  laws  of  foreign  countries, 
and  not  on  such  a  vague  indefinite  account  of 
them  to  bottom  such  severe  provisions.  We 
have  just  learnt,  too,  said  he,  that,  with  regard 
to  that  power  with  which  we  have  had  the 
greatest  difficulty  respecting  seamen,  an  ar- 
rangement had  been  made,  such  as  to  remove 
all  causes  of  complaint  against  her.  I  should 
like  to  see  that  arrangement,  and  examine  its 
provisions,  before  acting  on  this  subject.  He 
hoped,  he  said,  the  honorable  chairman  of  the 
Committee  of  Commerce  and  Manufactures 
would  not  hurry  this  bill  to  a  decision.  Let  us 
first  know,  said  he,  the  provisions  of  the  foreign 
States  with  which  the  honorable  Secretary  has 
been  personally  conversant.  Let  us,  above  all, 
recollect,  whatever  foreign  nations  do,  that  here 
alone  liberty  flourishes,  and  personal  rights  are 
fully  enjoyed ;  and  that  whatever  we  do  should 
have  reference  to  this  peculiarly  happy  condi- 
tion of  our  country,  and  be  conformable  to  it. 

Mr.  NEWTOX  said  he  had  not  the  least  objec- 
tion that  time  should  be  given  to  the  Speaker, 
and  to  all  the  House,  to  obtain  any  information 
they  might  desire  on,  this  subject.  But,  he 
said,  he  did  not  view  the  provisions  of  the  bill 
in  the  light  which  the  gentleman  had  viewed 
them.  The  bill  was  a  transcript  of  the  act 
which  passed  as  long  ago  as  the  year  1790,  for 
securing  to  masters  the  services  of  American 
seamen  engaging  with  them.  Thus,  it  appeared, 
that  it  was  no  new  principle  the  bill  proposed 
to  introduce  into  legislation,  but  as  old  as  since 
January  20,  1790.  Mr.  N.  said  he  knew  that 
the  practice  of  impressment  existed  in  some 
foreign  countries.  No  one  had  a  greater  abhor- 
rence of  it  than  he ;  and  the  Speaker  would 
perceive  the  bill  proposed  to  confer  no  power  to 
take  up  deserters  from  the  British  or  any  other 
navy,  and  restore  them  to  their  ships.  It  em- 
braced the  case  of  seamen  deserting  merchant 
vessels  only,  in  violation  and  disregard  of  a  vol- 
untary contract.  The  captain,  however,  must 
also  fulfil  his  part  of  the  contract,  and  the  mag- 
istrate before  whom  the  seamen  is  brought  may, 
if  he  choose,  require  proof  of  the  fact,  and  de- 
cide upon  the  case  according  to  his  own  dis- 
cretion. Contenting  himself  at  the  present 
time  with  having  nuido  the  suggestions,  and  de- 


218 


ABRIDGMENT  OF  THE 


H.  OF  R.] 


Pensions  to  Widows  and  Orphans. 


[DECEMBER,  1818. 


siring  the  subject  should  be  well  understood, 
and  the  information  upon  it  be  as  full  as  pos- 
sible, he  had  no  objection  that  the  bill  should  lie 
on  the  table. 

Mr.  WHITMAN  defended  the  bill.  The  same 
provisions  which  it  contains,  he  said,  had  been 
in  operation  in  regard  to  our  own  seamen  for 
twenty-eight  years  past,  and  are  yet  in  force. 
In  every  seaport  of  the  United  States  persons 
have  been  apprehended  who  have  been  alleged 
to  have  violated  their  contracts,  committed  to 
prison,  and  there  detained  until  the  vessel  to 
which  they  belong  was  bound  to  sea,  and  no  in- 
convenience had  ever  been  felt  from  the  ex- 
ecution of  the  law.  With  regard  to  their  being 
delivered  to  the  captain  claiming  them,  without 
a  hearing,  the  Speaker  was  mistaken  in  that 
particular.  The  act  required  examination  be- 
fore decision,  and  applied  the  same  rules  to  this 
description  of  contract  which  prevailed  in  regard 
to  all  civil  contracts.  The  gentleman's  nice 
scruples  on  the  subject  would  apply  to  any  case 
in  which  individuals  had  by  contract  a  right  to 
the  personal  service  of  any  other  individuals. 

Mr.  W.  said  he  should  suppose  the  gentleman 
would  be  as  tender  of  the  liberties  of  our  native 
seamen  as  of  foreign  seamen  resorting  to  our 
ports ;  and  it  appeared  that  similar  provisions 
had  existed  for  near  thirty  years  in  regard  to 
American  seamen,  without  exciting  any  appre- 
hension in  regard  to  our  liberties,  and  without 
endangering  the  rights  of  a  single  individual. 
And  are  we  now,  said  he,  to  be  frightened  by 
bugbears,  if  the  Speaker  will  excuse  the  remark, 
which  could  alarm  only  the  most  timid  imagi- 
nation ?  With  respect  to  the  reported  treaty, 
Mr.  W.  said  that  the  treaty  could  have  no  bear- 
ing on  this  question.  He  never  knew  a  treaty 
to  contain  provisions  for  compelling  seamen  in 

•the  merchant  service  to  return  on  board  their 
vessels  after  deserting  them.  Heretofore,  it  had 
been  supposed  that  the  act  of  1790,  which  was 
rather  obscurely  worded,  did  apply  to  foreign 
captains  and  foreign  seamen  as  well  as  to  those 
of  the  United  States;  and  the  magistrates 
throughout  the  country  had  so  executed  it.  But, 
of  late,  the  question  had  been  examined,  and 
the  act  had  received  a  different  construction. 
It  had,  therefore,  become  necessary  to  supply 
an  obvious  defect  in  the  law  ;  in  doing  which, 
Mr.  W.  said,  he  could  not  see  the  danger  to  the 
natural  rights  of  man,  or  the  liberties  of  the 
citizen  or  foreigners,  which  the  Speaker  ap- 
peared to  apprehend.  With  respect  to  natural- 
ized foreigners,  there  could  be  no  difficulty :  the 
seamen  would  have  only  to  produce  to  the  mag- 
istrate the  evidence  of  his  naturalization,  and 
the  magistrate  could  not  do  otherwise  than  in- 
stantly liberate  him.  Apprehensions  of  abuse 
of  power  were,  he  said,  no  argument  against 
necessary  grants  of  it ;  and  the  argument  from 
possible  abuse  would  apply  equally  well  to  any 

,  other  powers  possessed  by  our  magistrates  as 
to  this.  When  it  was  considered  that,  in  all  for- 
eign ports,  we  enjoyed  the  right  proposed  by 
the  bill  to  be  allowed  to  foreigners  in  our  ports, 


it  was  a  sort  of  comity  due  to  others  to  adopt 
this  measure.  Was  it,  he  asked,  to  be  consider- 
ed a  reprehensible  principle,  because  foreign 
Governments  had  adopted  it,  when  we  our- 
selves have  for  many  years  acted  on  it  ?  Mr. 
W.  could  not  see  any  reason  why  the  subject 
should  be  deferred.  The  bill,  he  said,  did  not 
affect  British  sailors  only,  but  the  sailors  of 
every  nation.  Therefore  nothing  which  is  in 
the  expected  treaty,  or  is  not  in  it,  could  ob- 
viate the  necessity  of  a  general  provision  which, 
if  not  necessary  as  to  British  seamen,  would  be 
necessary  as  to  all  other  foreign  seamen  visit- 
ing our  seaports.  There  never,  however,  had 
been  any  negotiation  between  nations,  that  he 
knew  of,  in  regard  to  provisions  such  as  those 
of  this  bill ;  and  how  there  could  be  any  thing 
in  the  reported  British  Treaty  about  the  sub- 
ject, he  could  not  conceive. 


WEDNESDAY,  December  9. 
Another  member,  to  wit,  from  Massachusetts, 
ELIJAH  H.  MILLS,  appeared,  and  took  his  seat. 

Pensions  to  Widows  and  Orphans. 

The  House  resumed  the  consideration  of  the 
bill  allowing  half-pay  pensions  of  five  years  to 
the  widows  and  orphans  of  those-soldiers  enlist- 
ed for  twelve  months,  for  eighteen  months,  and 
of  the  militia  who  died  within  four  months  after 
their  return  home,  of  sickness  contracted  while 
in  service. 

On  the  question  of  ordering  the  bill  to  be  en- 
grossed for  a  third  reading,  a  debate  of  consid- 
erable length  took  place,  in  which  Messrs.  BAR- 
BOTJB,  HABEISON,  T.  M.  NELSON,  of  Virginia, 
JOHNSON,  of  Kentucky,  and  COMSTOOK,  very 
earnestly  advocated  the  bill,  supporting  it  chief- 
ly on  the  ground  that  it  was  required  not  only 
by  humanity,  but  by  equal  justice,  as  the  ob- 
jects to  be  relieved  by  the  bill  were  as  much 
entitled  to  relief  as  the  widows  and  orphans  of 
those  who  died  after  their  return  home,  ot 
wounds  received  in  service ;  that  the  expense 
was  inconsiderable  compared  with  the  object, 
particularly  as  much  larger  sums  were  lavished 
on  objects  of  comparative  insignificance. 

The  bill  was  as  earnestly  opposed  by  Messrs. 
SMITH,  of  Maryland,  TAYLOB,  TEREELL,  SIMKINS, 
and  LIVEEMOEE,  on  different  grounds ;  but  prin- 
cipally for  the  reasons  that  the  Government  had 
already  gone  far  enough — much  farther  than  any 
other  Government — in  relieving  the  individual 
distresses  consequent  on  the  war ;  that,  admit- 
ting the  provision  to  be  proper  at  all,  it  would  be 
opening  the  door  too  wide  to  extend  it  to  cases 
of  death  within  four  months  after  the  return  of 
the  soldier  to  his  home;  that  the  expense 
would  be  enormous ;  that  feelings  of  humanity 
ought  to  have  some  limit  in  public  expenditures, 
and  that  such  feelings,  if  always  obeyed,  would 
find  the  whole  Treasury  insufficient;  that  it 
was  time  to  draw  some  line  of  limitation,  &c. 

Mr.  HARRISON  said  that  he  should  be  among 
the  last  men  who  would  attempt  to  introduce 


DEBATES  OF  CONGRESS. 


219 


DECEMBER,  1818.] 


Pension?  to  Widows  and  Orphans. 


[H.  OF  R. 


into  this  country  that  system  of  sinecures  and 
pensions  which  had  produced  so  much  misery  in 
the  other  hemisphere  of  the  world,  dividing  al- 
most the  whole  population  of  Europe  into  two 
very  unequal  divisions — the  one  extremely  rich, 
the  other  miserably  poor.  There  could,  how- 
ever, he  said,  be  no  danger  of  this  as  long  as 
our  free -constitution  remains.  As  long  as  the 
money  of  the  people  is  appropriated  by  the  real 
Representatives  of  the  people,  it  will  be  given 
only  for  an  equivalent  public  service,  or  for  some 
suffering  in  that  service,  claiming  the  public  be- 
neficence. An  examination  of  one  of  the  pension 
lists  of  a  modern  European  Government  would 
present  a  very  different  aspect  from  that  on 
your  table.  Not  moderate  allowances  for  real 
services,  but  enormous  grants  for  nominal  du- 
ties, or  for  services  to  a  Government  whose  in- 
terests are  in  direct  hostility  to  the  interests  of 
the  nation.  It  is  not  even  the  constant  and  un- 
necessary wars  in  which  these  Governments 
are  engaged  that  have  rendered  their  subjects 
miserable,  but  the  wild  profusion  and  extrava- 
gance of  their  corrupt  Courts.  It  is  this  which, 
in  the  language  of  our  great  countryman, 
"  obliges  the  European  laborer  to  go  supperless 
to  bed,  and  moisten  his  bread  with  the  sweat  of 
his  brow." 

There  are  two  kinds  of  suffering,  said  Mr.  H., 
in  the  public  service,  which  are  recognized  by 
our  laws  as  giving  a  claim  to  the  public  bounty. 
The  one,  in  the  case  of  wounds  or  disability  in- 
curred in  the  Army  or  Navy  of  the  United 
States.  The  other,  an  indirect  suffering,  as  in 
the  case  of  widows  or  children,  who  had  lost 
their  husbands  or  parents  in  that  way.  The 
claims  of  the  first  are  not  questioned.  It  is  ad- 
mitted by  all,  that  the  man  who  has  lost  a  leg 
or  an  arm  in  serving  the  nation,  as  it  lessens  his 
ability  to  maintain  himself,  should  be  provided 
for  during  the  continuance  of  his  disability.  But 
what  appears  to  me,  said  Mr.  H.,  to  be  a  singu- 
lar inconsistency ;  to  the  woman  who  has  lost 
her  husband  who  supported  her,  the  child  its 
parent,  on  whose  exertions  alone  it  depended 
for  maintenance  and  education,  our  laws  allow 
a  limited  assistance,  leaving  the  sufferers  often 
in  a  worse  situation  than  it  found  them. 

I  consider  this  difference,  said  Mr.  H.,  at  war 
with  the  dictates  of  justice,  of  sound  policy,  and 
the  first  republican  principles.  Permit  me,  Mr. 
Speaker,  said  Mr.  H.,  to  ask  what  Avas  the  mo- 
tive for  the  enactment  of  the  law  of  1810  in  re- 
lation to  pensions?  Was  it  to  establish  the 
great  national  principle  of  indemnity  to  the  suf- 
ferers as  far  as  indemnity  could  be  given  ?  Or 
was  it  intended  as  a  mere  temporary  relief,  as 
we  would  throw  a  dollar  to  the  beggar  in  the 
street?  If  the  first  was  the  motive,  the  law 
was  entirely  inadequate  to  its  object.  If  the 
second  was  the  motive,  it  was,  in  his  opinion, 
unworthy  of  the  nation. 

Equality,  in  the  contributions  for  the  public 
service,  is  one  of  the  first  principles  of  our  Gov- 
ernment. 

The  public  burdens  are  to  fall  equally  upon 


all  in  proportion  to  their  means.  No  individual 
and  no  family  are  to  furnish  more  than  their 
just  share,  either  of  money  or  of  personal  ser- 
vice, without  an  equivalent. 

And  yet,  here  are  1,800  families  who  have 
contributed  more  than  their  proportion ;  some  of 
them  their  all  for  the  public  service.  You  can- 
not, indeed,  restore  the  husband  to  the  widow, 
the  parent  to  the  child — but  you  can  supply 
their  places  to  a  considerable  degree,  and  I 
think  that  it  is  your  duty  to  do  it. 

The  principle  for  which  I  contend,  said  Mr. 
H.,  may  be  more  easily  calculated  by  applying 
it  to  a  small  community.  Let  us  suppose,  then, 
that  one  hundred  families  were  settled  upon  an 
island  in  the  Pacific  Ocean,  at  such  a  distance 
from  every  civilized  State  as  to  make  it  neces- 
sary to  form  one  of  themselves — their  situation 
would  make  it  purely  republican.  All  possess- 
ing equal  right,  and  all  bound  to  defend  their 
little  community  against  every  aggression.  The 
savages  of  a  neighboring  island  attempt  to  dis- 
possess them ;  a  battle  ensues,  in  which  our  lit- 
tle community  is  victorious,  with  the  loss  of  five 
of  their  number  killed  and  five  wounded.  The 
situation  in  which  they  would  find  themselves, 
is  one  for  which  they  had  not  provided.  The 
wounded  men  would  say  to  the  others,  as  we 
have  been  rendered  unequal  to  the  maintenance 
of  our  families  by  wounds  received  for  the  ben- 
efit of  all,  it  is  just  that  we  should  receive  as- 
sistance from  you  to  cultivate  our  farms.  The 
claim  would  be  readily  admitted.  As  would,  in 
the  first  instance,  the  claims  of  the  widows  and 
orphans  of  those  who  had  fallen — but  at  the 
end  of  five  years,  before  the  children  of  the 
widows  had  reached  that  age  when  they  could 
labor  for  themselves  and  their  mothers,  they 
are  told  that  they  can  receive  no  further  aid, 
while  the  wounded  men  are  provided  for  for 
life.  If  this  principle  is  admitted  in  our  Gov- 
ernment, our  militia  laws  are  most  unjust  and  op- 
pressive. They  require  the  same  personal  ser- 
vice to  be  rendered  by  all,  the  rich  and  the  poor. 
But  the  rich  married  man  is  allowed  to  furnish 
a  substitute — the  poor  married  man,  unable  to 
hire  one,  is  obliged  when  called  upon  to  serve 
in  person.  As  the  poor,  then,  fight  ah1  your 
battles,  which  is,  perhaps,  unavoidable,  it  is  just 
and  right  the  consequences  of  their  service 
should  fall  as  lightly  as  possible  on  their  fami- 
lies. In  the  late  war,  it  was  to  their  valor  and 
patriotism  that  you  were  indebted  for  the  pres- 
ervation of  Baltimore,  Norfolk,  and  New  Or- 
leans, and  your  Northern  and  Western  frontiers. 
It  is  possible  that  when  the  .great  emporiums  of 
your  commerce  were  attacked,  some  wealthy 
men  might  have  been  found  in  the  ranks  with 
their  poor  fellow-citizens.  At  Baltimore,  for 
instance,  there  might  have  been  a  merchant, 
possessed  of  a  fortune  of  half  a  million  of  dol- 
lars, placed  by  the  side  of  a  mechanic  whose 
family  depended  for  support  on  the  daily  labor 
of  his  hands.  The  former  might  say  to  the  lat- 
ter, "Let  us  remember  that  we  fight  for  our 
country,  our  families,  and  our  property ;  let  us 


220 


ABRIDGMENT  OF  THE 


H.  OP  R.] 


Pensions  to  Widows  and  Orphans. 


[DECEMBKU,  1818. 


die  rather  than  suffer  our  city  to  be  taken." 
The  latter  might  have  answered,  "As  an  Amer- 
ican citizen,  I  shall  always  be  willing  to  defend 
my  country  with  my  life,  and  I  was  just  think- 
ing how  cheerfully  I  would  meet  the  enemy  if 
my  situation  were  like  yours.  If  you  fall,  you 
leave  your  family  in  affluence ;  if  the  lot  should 
be  mine,  I  leave  a  beloved  wife  and  children  to 
the  charity  of  an  unfeeling  world.  Our  laws 
are  unequal  and  unjust ;  they  require  the  same 
personal  service  of  us  both,  when  one  day's  la- 
bor is  of  more  importance  to  my  family  than 
twenty  of  yours  would  be  to  your  family ;  that 
I  would  disregard  if  our  laws  had  provided  that 
in  the  event  of  my  fall,  the  wealth  which  I  have 
sacrificed  myself  to  defend  should  be  taxed  to 
support  my  orphan  children." 

Pass  but  this  law,  sir,  said  Mr.  H.,  and  you 
take  from  an  American  citizen,  called  on  to 
serve  his  country  in  the  field,  every  motive 
which  would  prevent  him  from  doing  his  duty. 
An  American  army  would  be  a  band  of  heroes. 
The  tenderest  feelings  of  our  nature  are  not  in- 
consistent with  the  most  heroic  bravery.  There 
are  moments  when  the  powerful  influence  of 
domestic  attachment  will  find  its  way  to  the 
bosom  of  the  warrior,  but,  unmingled  with  any 
distressing  reflections  as  to  the  fortune  of  his 
family,  it  will  only  prove  an  incentive  to  the 
performance  of  his  duty. 

Permit  me,  sir,  said  Mr.  H.,  to  give  another 
example  to  show  the  injustice  and  inequality  of 
the  existing  laws  in  relation  to  pensions.  It  is 
a  case  as  nearly  similar  as  possible  to  that 
which  was  stated  a  few  days  ago  by  my  friend 
from  Virginia,  (Mr.  BARBOFE,)  and  if  he  will 
give  me  leave,  I  will  again  introduce  to  the 
House  one  of  the  widows  whose  case  he  so  elo- 
quently supported.  I  will  take  the  one  who 
has  received  the  five  years'  pension,  and  con- 
trast the  situation  of  herself  and  family  with 
that  of  a  neighboring  lady,  whose  husband  had 
lost  a  leg  in  the  late  war.  Both  husbands  had 
performed  the  same  services,  in  the  same  corps, 
and  with  the  same  rank ;  one  lost  his  life,  and 
the  other  his  leg.  To  the  latter  yon  give  a  pen- 
sion for  life — to  the  former  a  pension  for  five 
years.  Is  there  any  equality  or  justice  in  this? 
Is  it  not  setting  a  higher  value  upon  the  leg  of 
one  man  than  the  life  of  another  ?  It  may  be 
paid  that  in  the  one  case  it  is  given  to  the  indi- 
vidual who  suffered,  in  the  other,  to  his  family. 

Sir,  said  Mr.  H.,  is  not  the  wife  and  the  chil- 
dren identified  with  the  husband  and  parent  ? 
The  misfortune  of  the  one  is  the  misfortune  of 
the  other,  and  there  should  be  no  difference  in 
the  relief  you  offer  them. 

The  principle  for  which  I  contend  (said  Mr. 
H.)  is  not  a  new  one ;  it  is  sanctioned  by  the 
practice  of  one,  at  least,  of  the  great  republics 
of  antiquity,  and  by  the  opinions  of  some  of  the 
wisest  and  best  men  that  ever  lived.  In  the 
elegant  work  of  the  Abbe  Barthelemy,  entitled 
the  travels  of  Anacharsis,  (an  authentic  history 
with  a  fictitious  title,  as  every  one  knows,)  the 
author  brings  his  supposed  traveller  to  Athens 


at  the  period  of  one  of  the  great  national  festi- 
vals. The  ceremonies  were  concluded  by  the 
advance  of  a  herald,  followed  by  a  number  of 
young  men  completely  armed ;  these,  said  he, 
(addressing  the  assembled  Athenians  and  point- 
ing to  the  youths,)  these  are  the  sons  of  those 
patriots  who  have  fallen  in  the  service  of  their 
country ;  they  have  been  educated  at  the  pub- 
lic expense  until  they  have  reached  the  age  of 
manhood,  and  are  now  to  be  dismissed  to  their 
families  clothed  and  armed  at  the  expense  of 
the  State.  Such  was  the  law  of  Athens,  pro- 
mulgated by  Solon,  and  continued  without  in- 
terruption for  upwards  of  one  hundred  and  fifty 
years,  until  she  was  first  corrupted  by  the  gold 
of  Philip,  and  her  liberties  finally  overturned  in 
the  fatal  battle  of  Cheronea.  It  is  mention- 
ed by  Pericles  in  his  oration  over  the  Athenians 
who  fell  in  the  first  campaign  of  the  Pelopon- 
nesian  war.  Eeferring  to  this  law,  he  concludes 
his  speech  in  these  remarkable  words :  "For 
when  virtue  is  best  rewarded  then  will  patriot- 
ism most  prevail."  Nor  is  this  great  statesman, 
said  Mr  H.,  the  only  evidence  I  can  adduce  to 
show  the  good  effects  produced  by  this  law  to 
the  Athenians.  [Here  Mr.  II.  read  an  extract 
from  Stanley's  life  of  Solon,  showing  the  appro- 
bation given  to  this  law  by  Aristides,  Plato,  and 
the  ancient  historian,  Laertius,  and  then  contin- 
ued.] I  consider  these  authorities,  said  he,  as 
decisive  of  the  good  effects  produced  by  this 
law  in  the  republic  of  Athens — a  Government 
more  nearly  assimilated  to  our  own,  as  it  re- 
gards the  principles  upon  which  it  was  found- 
ed, than  any  other,  ancient  or  modern.  After 
the  experience  of  a  century,  the  ablest  states- 
men and  most  virtuous  men  declared  it  to  be 
one  of  the  most  powerful  causes  which  pro- 
duced that  ardent  patriotism  and  heroic  valor 
which  distinguished  the  period  that  has  been 
emphatically  denominated  their  age  of  glory. 

The  eulogium  of  Aristides  upon  the  Atheni- 
ans proves,  to  my  satisfaction  at  least,  that  the 
passage  of  the  bill  before  the  House  will  not 
produce  those  ruinous  consequences  to  the 
Treasury  which  some  gentlemen  seem  to  appre- 
hend. Himself,  the  incorruptible  statesman 
who  presided  over  the  finances  of  his  nation ; 
the  honest  man  who  suffered  exile  rather  than 
flatter  the  follies  of  his  countrymen,  affords  the 
best  evidence  that  it  produced  no  pecuniary 
embarrassment  to  a  State  whose  whole  terri- 
tory can  scarcely  be  discovered  upon  a  general 
map  of  Europe.  Amidst  all  the  calamities 
which  war  often  brings  upon  a  nation,  the 
Athenians  adhered  to  this  law  as  the  sheet-an- 
chor of  their  hopes.  During  the  time  it  was  in 
force  their  city  was  three  times  taken  and  twice 
razed  to  the  ground.  At  the  time  that  Pericles 
was  speaking,  the  whole  of  then-  continental 
territory  was  in  possession  of  their  enemies,  and 
ravaged  with  fire  and  sword.  A  pestilence 
also  prevailed  within  the  city  with  a  malignity 
to  which  there  is  no  parallel  on  record — an 
event  which  gave  to  a  member  of  this  House 
(Mr.  HOPKIXSON)  an  opportunity  for  an  histori- 


DEBATES  OF  CONGRESS. 


221 


DF.CKML-ER,  1818.] 


Cadets  at  West  Point. 


[H.  OF  R. 


cal  allusion,  in  one  of  the  most  splendid  speci- 
mens of  forensic  eloquence  which  this  country 
has  ever  witnessed. 

Sir,  said  Mr.  H.,  I  consider  that  a  great  part 
of  the  money  which  may  be  taken  from  the 
Treasury  by  the  passage  of  this  bill,  will  be  as 
usefully  employed  for  the  benefit  of  the  nation 
as  it  could  well  be.  The  pious  and  patriotic 
mothers  to  whom  it  will  be  given  will  employ 
it  in  the  education  of  their  sons,  and  they  will 
never  cease  to  remind  them  of  the  obligations 
they  owe  to  their  country.  "  Emulate  the  pa- 
triotism of  your  father,"  will  be  the  reiterated 
lesson  from  childhood  to  manhood.  To  have 
such  lessons  taught  to  every  youth  in  the  coun- 
try, I,  said  Mr.  H.,  should  be  willing  to  give  the 
yearly  balances  which  may  remain  in  the  Treas- 
ury for  fifty  years  to  come.  There  is  something 
in  the  female  character  admirably  calculated  to 
gain  an  ascendency  over  the  minds  of  those 
violent  but  generous  youths  who  are  formed  by 
nature  to  act  a  splendid  part  upon  the  theatre 
of  the  world,  and  who,  when  a  proper  direction 
is  given  to  their  passions,  become  the  friends 
and  benefactors  of  mankind.  They  listen  with 
more  attention  to  the  mild  admonitions  of  the 
mother  than  the  rougher  mandates  of  an  impe- 
rious father.  It  is  very  remarkable  that  the 
great  votaries  of  liberty,  both  ancient  and  mod- 
ern, have  received  the  impulse  from  this  source. 
The  Gracchi,  Brutus  and  Cassius  of  Kome,  Agis 
and  Cleomenes  of  Sparta,  our  own  Washington, 
and  perhaps  Kosciusko,  are  a  few  out  of  the 
many  instances  that  could  be  adduced. 

The  question  on  engrossing  the  bill  and  order- 
ing it  to  a  third  reading,  was  at  length  decided 
in  the  affirmative — yeas  87,  nays  68. 

The  bill  was  ordered  to  be  read  a  third  time 
to-morrow. 

The  House  then,  on  motion,  adjourned  until 
to-morrow. 

THUBSDAY,  December  10. 
Cadets  at  West  Paint. 

The  House  resolved  itself  into  a  Committee 
of  the  Whole  on  the  bill,  reported  at  the  last 
<..s>i<m,  "for  the  admission  of  cadets  into  the 
Military  Academy  ;  "  [directing  that  in  all  ap- 
plications for  the  admission  of  cadets  into  the 
Military  Academy  at  West  Point,  a  preference 
shall  be  given  to  the  sons  of  officers  and  soldiers 
who  were  killed  in  battle,  or  who  died  in  the 
military  service  of  the  United  States  in  the  late 
war;  and  that  a  further  preference  shall  be 
given  to  those  least  able  to  educate  themselves, 
and  best  qualified  for  the  military  profession.] 

Mr.  SMITH,  of  Maryland,  moved  to  amend  the 
bill  by  striking  out  the  last  clause,  directing  "  a 
further  preference  to  be  given  to  those  least 
able  to  educate  themselves,  and  best  qualified 
for  the  military  profession,"  remarking  that  he 
saw  no  reason  for  the  preference,  and  until  he 
heard  something  convincing  in  favor  of  the  dis- 
crimination, he  should  remain  of  opinion  that  it 
ought  to  be  stricken  from  the  bill. 


Mr.  STEOTHER  addressed  the  committee  at 
considerable  length  in  opposition  to  the  object 
of  the  bill,  urging  chiefly  that  it  was  sanctioning 
a  preference  of  a  particular  profession,  and  thus 
creating  a  privileged  order  in  the  community ; 
that  it  was  virtually  declaring  an  unnecessary 
jealousy  of  the  discretion  now  vested  in  the 
War  Department,  implying  an  opinion  that  it 
was  not  exercised  properly ;  and  would,  more- 
over, preclude  it  from  selecting  the  most  fit  and 
most  worthy  ;  and  was  perverting  the  true  ob- 
ject of  the  institution,  which  was  established 
for  the  general  benefit,  &c. 

Messrs.  HARRISON,  and  JOHNSON  of  Kentucky, 
replied  to  the  objections  of  Messrs.  SMITH  and 
STROTHER,  stating  that  the  bill  had  been  report- 
ed in  pursuance  of  a  resolution  adopted  on  the 
motion  of  a  late  distinguished  member  of  this 
House,  (Mr.  ROBERTSON,  of  Louisiana ;)  that  the 
provisions  of  the  bill  appeared  to  be  required 
by  the  original  purpose  of  the  institution ;  that, 
instead  of  creating  an  aristocracy,  it  would  tend 
to  counteract  any  such  thing. 

The  question  on  Mr.  SMITH'S  motion  was  de- 
cided in  the  negative. 

Mr.  TAYLOR  observed  that,  notwithstanding 
what  had  been  said  in  defence  of  this  bill,  its 
effect  was  certainly  to  create  a  privileged  order 
in  the  country ;  that,  although  the  selection 
proposed  might  be  expedient  and  laudable  to  a 
certain  extent,  there  was  no  doubt  that  the  de- 
partment now  vested  with  the  selection  would 
keep  in  view,  as  far  as  was  proper,  the  principle 
proposed ;  but  it  would  in  his  opinion  be  highly 
improper  for  Congress  by  a  formal  act  to  sanc- 
tion such  a  distinction.  In  lien,  therefore,  of 
the  provisions  at  present  proposed  by  the  bill, 
he  moved  the  following,  as  a  substitute :  "  That 
cadets  shall  hereafter  be  admitted  into  the 
Military  Academy  at  West  Point,  from  the  re- 
spective States  and  Territories,  and  from  the 
District  of  Columbia,  in  proportion  to  the  mili- 
tia returns  thereof." 

Mr.  HARRISON  reiterated  his  objections  to  the 
amendment,  and  observed,  in  addition  to  what 
he  had  submitted  already,  that  the  design  of 
this  bill  was  really  to  get  rid  of  a  practical  aris^ 
tocracy,  instead  of  creating  one ;  for  it  was  a 
fact,  he  believed,  that  no  son  of  a  soldier  (by 
the  term  he  meant  not  also  to  include  officers) 
had  ever  yet  been  educated  at  the  Military 
Academy.  Mr.  H.  then  stated  that  if  Mr.  TAY- 
LOR'S amendment  should  prevail,  he  would 
move  to  add  the  following :  "  And  that  in  all 
cases  the  preference  be  given  to  those  whose 
parents  are  least  able  to  educate  them ; "  and 
intimated  that  he  should  then  move  an  addi- 
tional section  requiring  cadets  to  remain  at  the 
Academy  until  the  age  of  twenty-five  years. 

Mr.  CLAY  then  rose,  and  moved  that  the  com- 
mittee rise,  report  progress,  and  then  let  the 
House  get  rid  of  the  whole  subject. 

This  motion  prevailed,  and,  the  bill  being  re- 
ported to  the  House,  the  committee  was  refused 
leave  to  sit  again ;  and  the  bill  was  kid  upon 
the  table. 


222 


ABRIDGMENT  OF  THE 


H.  OF  R] 


Passenger  Ships. 


[DECEMBER,  1818. 


MONDAY,  December  14. 

Another  member,  to  wit,  from  Delaware, 
WnxARD  HALL,  appeared,  and  took  his  seat. 

WEDNESDAY,  December  16. 
Arkansas  Territorial  Government. 
Mr.  ROBERTSON,  of  Kentucky,  offered  for  con- 
sideration the  following  resolution : 

Resolved,  That  a  committee  be  appointed  to  in- 
quire into  the  expediency  of  establishing  a  separate 
territorial  government  in  that  part  of  the  new  Terri- 
tory of  Missouri,  lying  south  of  thirty-six  degrees  and 
thirty  minutes  north  latitude,  which  is  called  the  Ar- 
kansas country,  and  which  is  not  included  in  the  pro- 
posed boundary  of  the  projected  State  of  Missouri, 
by  the  bill  now  before  the  House,  for  the  purpose  of 
establishing  a  State  government  in  part  of  the  Terri- 
tory of  Missouri,  and  that  the  said  committee  have 
leave  to  report  by  bill,  or  otherwise. 

Mr.  R.  explained  briefly  the  object  of  his  mo- 
tion. There  being  every  reason  to  expect  that 
the  people  of  the  Territory  of  Missouri  would 
be  authorized,  at  the  present  session,  to  form  a 
constitution  of  State  government,  and  with  cer- 
tain limited  boundaries,  the  whole  Territory 
being  too  extensive  to  be  included  within  one 
State ;  that  part  of  the  Territory  not  included 
within  the  limits  of  the  State,  would  of  course 
have  occasion  for  a  separate  Territorial  govern- 
ment, which,  as  in  the  case  of  the  admission  of 
Mississippi  into  the  Union,  had  been  done  in 
regard  to  the  Territory  of  Alabama.  But,  if 
his  expectation  was  disappointed,  and  an  act 
should  not  pass  at  the  present  session  to  au- 
thorize the  people  of  Missouri  to  form  a  State 
government,  it  was  yet  necessary  that  a  separate 
Territorial  government  should  be  established. 
This  Territory,  which  was  likely  to  become  in 
time  one  of  the  most  populous  Territories  in  the 
"Union,  was,  from  its  remoteness  from  the  pres- 
ent seat  of  Government,  almost  without  either 
law  or  government. 

Mr.  SOOTT,  of  Missouri,  said  he  did  not  rise  to 
oppose  the  resolution ;  on  the  contrary,  had  he 
a  vote  to  give,  it  would  be  for  its  adoption.  He 
was  not  sensible  that  any  remarks  he  was  capa- 
ble of  making  would  have  any  influence  on  the 
vote  of  the  House,  but  he  rose,  lest  his  silence 
might  be  construed  into  an  opposition,  which 
he  did  not  intend,  and  to  repel  any  inference 
that  might  be  drawn  that  he  had  neglected  his 
duty  to  a  part  of  his  constituents,  in  not  being 
the  mover  of  the  proposition.  He  had  intended 
to  introduce  a  resolution  of  a  similar  character, 
so  soon  as  he  should  receive  from  the  Legisla- 
ture of  the  Territory  a  memorial  praying  for 
the  erection  of  a  State  in  the  northern  section 
of  the  Territory,  together  with  a  certified  copy 
of  the  census  of  the  whole  Territory,  which  he 
was  in  the  daily  expectation  of  receiving.  This 
data  had.  not  yet  arrived,  and  he  felt  a  reluc- 
tance, in  the  press  of  business  before  the  House, 
to  present,  voluntarily,  a  proposition,  even  for 
the  consideration  of  the  House,  without  having 


good  authority,  or  some  leading  reason  to  jus- 
tify him.  He  knew,  however,  that  the  situation 
of  that  portion  of  the  Territory,  removed  four 
or  five  hundred  miles  from  the  seat  of  Territo- 
rial government,  called  loudly  for  the  interposi- 
tion of  the  General  Government.  They  were 
not  unfrequently  without  a  competency  of  civil 
and  military  officers  to  administer  justice,  or 
keep  order  in  the  country;  and  although  he 
was  not  in  possession  of  the  census  of  the  Terri- 
tory, or  any  petition  from  the  people  of  that 
part  of  it,  yet  he  was  convinced  that  the  quan- 
tity of  the  population,  and  its  respectability, 
justified  the  request ;  and  believing,  as  he  did, 
that  it  was  the  wish  of  the  people,  and  knowing 
it  was  their  interest,  he  hoped  the  House  would 
not  consider  the  resolution  premature,  but  that 
it  would  be  adopted. 

The  motion  was  then  agreed  to,  without  op- 
position, and  Messrs.  ROBERTSON,  BEECHER,  and 
JONES,  were  appointed  the  said  committee. 

Passenger  Ships. 

The  bill  to  regulate  passenger  ships  and  ves- 
sels came  next  in  order. 

Mr.  NEWTON  explained  the  necessity  of  this 
bill  and  the  nature  of  its  provisions.  The  great 
object  of  it  was,  he  said,  to  give  to  those  who 
go  and  come  in  passenger  vessels,  a  security  of 
sufficient  food  and  convenience.  In  consequence 
of  the  anxiety  to  emigrate  from  Europe  to  this 
country,  the  captains,  sure  of  a  freight,  were 
careless  of  taking  the  necessary  quantity  of  pro- 
visions, or  of  restricting  the  number  of  passen- 
gers to  the  convenience  which  their  ships 
afforded.  To.  show  how  necessary  such  a  bill 
as  this  had  become,  one  or  two  facts  would  suf- 
fice. In  the  year  1817,  five  thousand  persons 
had  sailed  for  this  country  from  Antwerp,  &c., 
of  whom  one  thousand  died  on  the  passage.  In 
one  instance  a  captain  had  sailed  from  a  port  on 
that  coast  with  one  thousand  two  hundred  and 
sixty-seven  passengers.  On  his  voyage  he  put 
into  the  Texel,  previous  to  doing  which  four 
hundred  had  died.  After  being  on  the  passage 
to  our  shores,  before  the  vessel  arrived  at  Phil- 
adelphia, three  hundred  more  had  died.  The 
remainder,  when  the  vessel  reached  Newcastle, 
were  in  a  very  emaciated  state  from  the  want 
of  water  and  food,  from  which  many  of  them 
afterwards  died.  Many  other  cases  might  be 
stated,  but  these  would  suffice  to  show  the  ab- 
solute necessity  of  provisions  such  as  those  of 
this  bill.  The  bill  restricted  the  number  of 
passengers  to  two  for  every  five  tons1  burden 
of  the  vessel.  In  Great  Britain,  formerly,  but 
one  had  been  allowed  to  every  five  tons ;  but 
now,  one  to  every  three  tons.  The  commit- 
tee had  been  of  opinion  that  the  scale  of 
one  to  every  two  tons  and  a  half  would  afford 
every  necessar>  accommodation.  With  regard 
to  the  other  sections  of  the  bill,  they  were  gen- 
erally similar  to  those  of  the  act  respecting  sea- 
men, by  which  a  captain  is  obliged  to  take  on 
board  a  certain  quantity  of  water  and  bread  for 
each  seaman  employed. 


DEBATES  OF  CONGRESS. 


223 


DECEMBER,  1818.] 


Vevay—  Cultivation  of  the  Vine. 


[H.  OF  R. 


No  objection  being  made  to  the  bill,  it  was 
ordered  to  be  engrossed  for  a  third  reading. 


THURSDAY,  December  17. 
Another  member,  to  wit,  from  South  Caro- 
lina, STEPHEN  D.  MILLER,  appeared,  and  took  his 
seat. 


FRIDAY,  December  18. 

The  SPEAKER  presented  a  memorial  of  the 
Legislative  Council  and  House  of  Representa- 
tives  of  the  Territory  of  Missouri,  in  the  name 
and  on  behalf  of  the  people  of  the  said  Territory, 
praying  that  they  may  be  permitted  to  form  a 
constitution  and  State  government,  with  the 
boundaries  described  in  said  petition ;  and  ad- 
mitted into  the  Union  on  an  equal  footing  with 
the  original  States. — Keferred. 


MONDAY,  December  21. 

Another  member,  to  wit,  from  Massachusetts, 
SOLOMON  STRONG,  appeared,  and  took  his  seat. 

The  House  then  resolved  itself  into  a  Com- 
mittee of  the  Whole,  on  the  bill  making  appro- 
priations for  the  support  of  the  Navy  of  the 
United  States  for  the  year  1819. 

The  bill  includes  the  following  items : 

Pay  of  officers  and  seamen  -  $1,270,333  50 
Provisions  -  594,037  50 

Medicines  and  all  expenses  of  sick  36,000  00 
Repairs  of  vessels  -  350,000  00 

Contingent  expenses  -  300,000  00 

Repairs  of  navy  yards,  docks,  &c.  100,000  00 
Completing  medals  and  swords  -  7,500  00 
Pay  and  subsistence  of  marine 

corps  - 

Clothing  the  same  - 
Military  stores  for  do. 
Contingent  expenses  -  -  - 


122,898  00 
2,038  10 
1,087  50 
18,600  00 

The  bill  was  then  reported  to  the  House,  and 
ordered  to  be  engrossed  for  a  third  reading. 


WEDNESDAY,  December    23. 
J.  J.  Dufour,  and  others. 

Mr.  POINDEXTER  reported,  from  the  Commit- 
tee of  Public  Lands,  a  bill  to  extend,  for  the 
term  of  twelve  months,  the  time  allowed  to  J. 
J.  Dufour  and  his  associates,  of  Vevay,  Indiana, 
for  completing  the  payment  for  the  lands  pur- 
chased by  them  from  the  United  States. 

On  this  bill  arose  a  debate,  which  wholly  oc- 
cupied the  House  until  the  usual  hour  of  ad- 
journment, in  the  course  of  which  the  bill  was 
so  amended  as  to  make  the  extension  for  six, 
instead  of  twelve  months. 

The  debate  was  more  animated  than  at  the 
first  glance  one  would  have  expected  such  a 
question  to  produce.  The  petitioners  ask  this 
indulgence,  because  such  money  as  they  have 
the  receiver  of  public  moneys  will  not  take 
from  them.  The  bill,  therefore,  was  supported 
on  various  grounds,  on  the  reasonableness  of 


the  request,  and  on  the  merit  of  the  petitioners, 
on  whom  a  high  eulogium  was  pronounced. 
The  bill  was  opposed  on  the  general  ground  of 
the  inexpediency  of  making  a  discrimination 
between  these  claimants  and  other  petitioners. 
Messrs.  POLNDEXTER,  HARRISON,  TAYLOR,  HEN- 
DRICKS,  TRIMBLE,  MERCER,  and  BEECHER,  sup- 
ported the  bill,  and  Messrs.  WILLIAMS  of  North 
Carolina,  SEHKINS,  MILLS,  STORRS,  McCoY,  SER- 
GEANT, and  DESHA,  opposed  it. 

The  question  on  ordering  the  bill  to  a  third 
reading  having  been  taken  by  yeas  and  nays, 
was  decided  in  the  affirmative — yeas  73,  nays 
67. 


THURSDAY,  December  24. 
Another  member,  to  wit,  from  Tennessee, 
GEORGE  W.  L.  MARR,  appeared,  and  took  his 


MONDAY,  December  28. 

Mr.  IRVING  presented  a  petition  of  "The 
New  York  Society  for  promoting  the  Manu- 
mission of  Slaves,  and  protecting  such  of  them 
as  have  been  or  may  be  liberated ; "  praying 
that  some  effective  provisions  may  be  made 
to  abolish  the  African  slave  trade,  in  any 
arrangement  which  may  be  hereafter  defini- 
tively entered  into  between  this  country  and 
Spain,  or  the  South  American  provinces. 

Mr.  SERGEANT  presented  a  memorial  from 
the  American  Convention  for  promoting  the 
Abolition  of  Slavery,  and  improving  the  condi- 
tion of  the  African  race,  praying  that  the  acts 
respecting  the  illicit  introduction  of  slaves  into 
the  United  States  may  be  so  amended,  as  that 
any  person  so  introduced  shall  be  declared  free ; 
and  that  the  situation  of  slavery  within  the 
District  of  Columbia  may  be  considered,  and  a 
plan  devised,  for  its  gradual  and  certain  termi- 
nation within  said  District. — Referred  to  the 
committee  on  the  part  of  the  President's  Mes- 
sage which  relates  to  the  illicit  introduction  of 
slaves  within  the  United  States. 

Vevay — Cultivation  of  the  Vine. 
Mr.  PINDALL,  after  stating  that  information 
had  come  to  his  knowledge  since  the  decision 
of  the  House,  on  Thursday  last,  against  the  bill 
for  the  relief  of  J.  J.  Dufour  and  others,  which 
he  thought  had  a  material  bearing  on  the  ex- 
pediency of  extending  relief,  in  some  shape, 
to  the  petitioners,  and  after  entering  into  some 
reasons  which,  from  reflection  and  further  in- 
vestigation, had  occurred  to  him,  in  support  of 
the  motion  he  rose  to  make,  moved  to  reconsider 
the  vote  which  rejected  the  bill,  and  to  bring 
it  before  the  House  to  receive  the  modification 
which  he  thought  would  entitle  it  to  the  sanc- 
tion of  the  House. 

Mr.  LINCOLN,  of  Mass.,  spoke  as  follows  : 
Mr.  Speaker :  I  place  my  vote  on  the  broad 
basis  of  national  policy — the  policy  of  encourag- 
ing emigration,  and  the  culture  of  the  vine. 
When  I  am  told  that  the  inhabitants  of  the  little 


224 


ABKIDGMENT  OF  THE 


H.  OP  R.] 


Exports. 


[JANUARY,  1819. 


village  of  Vevay  are  the  countrymen  of  the 
illustrious  Tell,  that  they  are  planters  of  the 
vine,  and  industrious  and  virtuous  people,  de- 
lighting in  the  exercise  of  the  rights  of  hospital- 
ity, I  find  my  sympathy  strongly  excited ;  yet  I 
do  not  suffer  that  sympathy  to  delude  my  un- 
derstanding. But,  should  these  people  write  to 
their  friends  across  the  Atlantic,  and  inform 
them  that  they  are  here,  enjoying  the  patronage 
and  fostering  care  of  our  Government,  would 
not  those  friends,  although  looking  around 
them,  and  seeing  themselves  surrounded  by 
ramparts  of  mountains,  yet,  perceiving  the  ava- 
lanches of  European  power  continually  tum- 
bling upon  their  heads,  be  disposed  to  abandon 
a  country  where  their  liberties  are  so  insecure, 
and  come  to  one  where  they  should  be  assured 
of  an  asylum  ?  On  the  other  hand,  should  they 
be  informed  that  these  persons  came  to  their 
hard-hearted  creditor — that  creditor  an  opu- 
lent, powerful  nation,  and  told  him  that  they 
had  been  unfortunate,  but  not  guilty;  negli- 
gent, but  not  delinquent;  yet  that  he  drove 
them  from  his  door  with  scorn  and  contempt, 
bade  them  begone,  and  prepare  to  pay  him  the 
last  farthing  of  their  bond  at  the  moment  when 
it  should  become  due,  what,  then,  would  be 
their  feelings  ?  They  could  not  be  other  than 
those  of  the  deepest  aversion  and  horror.  "We 
cannot  do  too  much,  sir,  to  encourage  the  emi- 
gration of  a  class  of  population  like  that  of  the 
Cantons  of  Switzerland,  a  population  remark- 
ably assimilated  to  that  of  our  own  country, 
in  manners,  customs,  feelings,  and  principles. 

There  is  yet  another  argument  more  weighty 
than  that  just  urged — I  mean  that  resulting  from 
the  policy  of  encouraging  the  cultivation  of  the 
vine,  encouraging  it,  paradoxical  as  it  may  seem, 
for  the  purpose  of  preventing  intemperance; 
for,  true  it  is,  that  there  are  no  people  more 
temperate  than  those  of  France  and  Switzer- 
land. The  reason  is,  that  they  make  use  of  the 
products  of  their  own  vineyards,  as  the  substi- 
tute for  those  deleterious  ardent  spirits  which 
are  here  consumed  to  so  lamentable  an  excess. 
Give  then  to  these  people  a  little  indulgence, 
and  you  shall  see  not  only  the  banks  of  the 
Ohio  festooned  by  the  grape  vine,  but  it  shall 
climb  to  our  mountain  tops,  and  its  fruit  bask 
in  the  sunshine  upon  all  our  hills. 

The  question  was  then  taken  on  reconsidering 
the  vote  on  the  bill,  and  decided  in  the  affirma- 
tive ;  when,  on  motion  of  Mr.  FIND  ALL,  the  bill 
was  referred  to  a  select  committee. 


TUESDAY,  December  29. 
Mr.  H.  NELSON,  from  the  Judiciary  Commit- 
tee, to  whom  had  been  referred  the  letter  of 
the  Sergeant-at-Arms,  respecting  the  suit  com- 
menced against  him  by  John  Anderson,  report- 
ed a  resolution  authorizing  and  requesting  the 
Speaker  to  employ  such  counsel  as  he  may 
think  proper  to  defend  the  suit  brought  by  John 
Anderson  against  the  said  Thomas  Dunn,  and 
that  the  expenses  be  defrayed  out  of  the  con- 


tingent fund  of  the  House ;  which  resolution 
was  concurred  in. 


THURSDAY,  December  31. 
Death  of  Mr.  Mumford. 

Mr.  J3MITH,  of  North  Carolina,  announced  the 
death  of  GEORGE  MUHFOED,  a  member  of  this 
House,  from  the  State  of  North  Carolina; 
whereupon, 

Resolved  unanimously,  That  a  committee  be 
appointed  to  take  order  for  superintending 
the  funeral  of  GEORGE  MUMFOED,  deceased, 
late  a  Eepresentative  from  the  State  of  North 
Carolina. 

Messrs.  SMITH,  of  North  Carolina,  WILLIAMS, 
of  North  Carolina,  OWEN,  STEWART,  of  North 
Carolina,  SETTLE,  EDWABDS,  and  SLOCUMB,  were 
appointed  the  said  committee. 

Resolved  unanimously,  That  the  members  of 
this  House  will  testify  their  respect  to  the  mem- 
ory of  GEORGE  MUMFOED,  late  one  of  their 
body,  by  wearing  crape  on  their  left  arm,  for 
one  month. 

Resolved  unanimously,  That  the  members  of 
this  House  will  attend  the  funeral  of  the  late 
GEORGE  MUMFORD,  to-morrow  morning  at  10 
o'clock. 

Ordered,  That  a  message  be  sent  to  the  Sen- 
ate, to  notify  them  of  the  death  of  GEORGE 
MUMFORD,  late  a  member  of  this  House,  and 
that  his  funeral  will  take  place  to-morrow,  at 
10  o'clock. 

The  House  then  adjourned  to  Monday. 


MONDAY,  January  4,  1819. 
The  following  Message  was  received  from  the 
PRESIDENT  OF  THE  UNITED  STATES  : 

To  the  Home  of  Representatives  of  the  United  States: 

In  compliance  with  a  resolution  of  the  House  of 
Representatives  of  the  7th  instant,  requesting  me  to 
lay  before  it  the  proceedings  which  have  been  had 
under  the  act,  entitled  "  An  act  for  the  gradual  in- 
crease of  the  Navy  of  the  United  jStates,"  specifying 
the  number  of  ships  that  have  been  put  on  the  stocks, 
and  of  what  class,  and  the  quantity  and  kind  of  ma- 
terials which  have  been  procured,  in  compliance 
with  the  provisions  of  said  act,  and  also  the  sums  of 
money  which  have  been  paid  out  of  the  funds  created 
by  the  said  act,  and  for  what  objects  ;  and  likewise 
the  contracts  which  have  been  entered  into,  in  exe- 
cution of  the  said  act,  on  which  moneys  may  not  yet 
have  been  advanced  ;  I  transmit  a  report  from  the 
acting  Secretary  of  the  Navy,  together  with  a  com- 
munication from  the  Board  of  Navy  Commissioners, 
which,  with  the  documents  accompanying  it,  compre- 
hends all  the  information  required  by  the  House  of 
Representatives. 

JAMES  MONROE. 
DECEMBER  31,  1818. 

The  Message,  with  its  enclosures,  was  ordered 
to  be  printed. 

Exports. 

The  SPEAKER  laid  before  the  House  the  follow- 
ing letter  from  the  Secretary  of  the  Treasury : 


DEBATES  OF  CONGRESS. 


225 


JANUARY,  1819.] 


TJie  Seminole  War  and  General  Jackson. 


[H.  or  R. 


TKEASCKY  DEPARTMENT,  Jan.  1,  1819. 
Sir  :  I  have  the  honor  to  transmit  a  statement  of 
the  exports  of  the  United  States,  during  the  year 
ending  the  30th  of  September,  1818,  amounting  in 
value,  in  articles  of 

Domestic  produce  and  manufacture,  to  $73,854,437 
Foreign        do        do        do        do      19,426,696 

$93,281,133 

Which  articles  appear  to  have  heen  exported  to  the 
following  countries,  viz : 

Domestic.  Foreign. 
To  the  northern  countries  of 

Europe    .                 .         .     1,554,259  1,081,424 
To    the    dominions   of   the 

Netherlands          .        .         4,192,776  3,022,711 

Of  Great  Britain  44,425,552  2,292,280 

Of  France     .        10,666,798  3,283,791 

Of  Spain.         .       4,589,661  2,967,252 

Of  Portugal .          2,650,019  248,158 
The  Hanse  Towns  and  ports 

of  Germany   .         .        .      2,260,002  1,073,491 

All  others      .        .         .         3,515,355  4,915,589 

$73,854,437  $19,426,696 


I  have  the  honor  to  be,  &c. 

WM.  H.  CRAWFORD. 

The  SPEAKER  of  the  House  of  Reps. 

The  letter,  with,  its  enclosures,  was  ordered 
to  be  printed. 

The  Slate  Trade. 

Mr.  MEBCEB  introduced  the  resolution  which 
follows  by  a  few  remarks,  importing  that  the 
law  of  the  United  States  prohibiting  the  citizens 
of  the  United  States  from  engaging  in  the  slave 
trade,  was  evaded  in  a  manner  which  demanded 
the  interposition  of  Congress.  He  referred  to 
the  law  which  authorizes  the  President  of  the 
United  States  to  employ  our  armed  vessels  in 
executing  its  provisions,  and  also  authorizes 
those  vessels  to  seize  and  bring  into  the  ports  of 
the  United  States  all  ships  and  vessels  engaged 
in  the  violation  of  it.  In  a  publication  which 
Mr.  M.  said  he  had  seen,  and  to  which  he  re- 
ferred, the  names  were  given  of  at  least  twenty 
vessels  fitted  out  in  the  ports  of  the  United 
States  for  the  obvious  purpose  of  carrying  on 
the  slave  trade.  Appeals  had  been  taken  from 
the  decisions  which  had  been  made  by  the  in- 
ferior tribunals  in  some  of  these  cases,  and  the 
names  of  American  houses  and  American  citi- 
zens engaged  in  this  detestable  traffic,  were  to 
be  found  on  the  records  of  the  British  court. 
To  obtain  information  having  a  direct  bear- 
ing on  this  subject,  Mr.  M.  submitted  this  reso- 
lution : 

Resolved,  That  the  Secretary  of  the  Navy  be  di- 
rected to  report  to  this  House  a  copy  of  such  instruc- 
tions, if  any,  as  may  have  been  issued  by  this  De- 
partment, in  pursuance  of  the  act  of  Congress  of 
1817,  prohibiting  the  importation  of  slaves,  to  the 
commanders  of  the  armed  vessels  of  the  United  States, 
for  the  purpose  of  intercepting,  on  the  coast  of  Africa, 
or  elsewhere,  such  vessels  as  have  been  engaged  in 
the  slave  trade. 

The  motion  was  agreed  to. 
VOL.  VL— 15 


I  Mr.  MEBCEK  then  said,  he  had  another  reso- 
'  lution  to  offer,  in  relation  to  another  branch  of 
{ the  same  subject.  We  have  all  been  informed, 
he  said,  in  the  course  of  the  last  few  months, 
j  that  individuals  brought  into  the  United  States, 
in  violation  of  the  law  before  referred  to,  had, 
1  in  execution  of  the  provisions  of  the  law,  been 
condemned  to  hereditary  slavery ;  and,  on  ex- 
amining the  acts  of  Congress,  he  found  that  the 
authority  under  which  this  iniquity  (he  would 
so  call  it)  had  been  practised,  was  derived  from 
one  of  those  acts.  To  obtain  such  information 
as  might  assist  the  House  in  arriving  at  a  proper 
remedy  for  this  fault,  he  moved  the  following 
resolution : 

Resolved,  That  the  Secretary  of  the  Treasury  be 
directed  to  report  to  this  House  the  number  and 
names  of  the  slave  ships,  if  any,  which  have  been 
seized  and  condemned  within  the  United  States  for 
violation  of  the  laws  thereof  against  the  importation 
of  slaves,  and  if  any  negroes,  mulattoes,  or  persons 
of  color,  have  been  found  on  board  such  vessels,  their 
number,  and  the  disposition  which  have  been  made 
of  them  by  the  several  State  Governments  under 
whose  jurisdiction  they  have  fallen. 

Mr.  STKOTHEE  moved  to  amend  the  resolu- 
tion so  as  to  direct  a  report  to  be  made  also  of 
the  number  and  names  of  the  slave  ships,  if  any, 
and  of  the  ports  from  which,  they  had  sailed, 
if  they  could  be  ascertained.  Mr.  S.  said  he 
wished  that  the  ignominy  of  this  trade,  if  any, 
should  attach  where  it  belonged,  and  not  be 
imputed,  on  the  authority  of  general  rumor,  to 
the  whole  country.  He  wished  at  least  that 
the  country  of  which  he  was  a  Representative 
should  be  absolved  from  any  charge  of  partici- 
pation in  it. 

Mr.  FLOYD  wished  also,  that  the  names  of 
the  places  where  the  vessels  are  owned  should 
be  added  to  that  of  the  place  whence  they 
sailed. 

Mr.  COBB  desired  to  amend  this  resolve  far- 
ther, so  as  to  require  information  by  whom,  as 
well  as  where,  the  vessels  were  owned. 

These  amendments  were  not  objected  to  by 
Mr.  MEBOEE,  and  were,  as  well  as  the  original 
motion,  all  agreed  to. 


TUESDAY,  January  12. 
A  message  from  the  Senate  informed  the 
House  that  the  Senate  have  passed  a  bill,  enti- 
tled "  An  act  to  enable  the  people  of  the  Ala- 
bama Territory  to  form  a  constitution  and  State 
government,  and  for  the  admission  of  such  State 
into  the  Union,  on  an  equal  footing  with  the 
original  States ;"  in  which  they  ask  the  concur- 
rence of  this  House. 

The  Seminole  War  and  General  Jacfaon. 

Mr.  T.  M.  NELSON,  from  the  Committee  on 
Military  Affairs,  made  a  report  concluding 
with  the  following  resolution  : 

Resolved,  That  the  House  of  Representatives  of  tho 
United  States  disapproves  the  proceedings  in  the  trial 


226 


ABRIDGMENT  OF  THE 


H.  OF  R.] 


The  Seminole  War  and  General  Jackson. 


[JANUARY,  1819. 


and  execution  of  Alexander  Arbutbnot  and  Robert  C. 
Ambrister. 

Mr.  Jonxsox",  of  Kentucky,  also  of  the  Mili- 
tary Committee,  submitted  a  paper  drawn  up 
in  the  shape  of  a  report  by  that  committee, 
which,  by  a  majority  of  one  vote,  that  commit- 
tee had  refused  to  accept,  and  the  said  paper 
was  read,  concluding  with  the  expression  of  the 
opinion  that  General  Jackson,  his  officers  and 
men.  are  entitled  to  the  thanks  of  the  country 
in  terminating  the  Seminole  war. 

The  report  having  been  read — 

Mr.  COBB,  of  Georgia,  rose  to  make  a  motion, 
the  object  of  which  was  to  give  to  the  report  of 
the  Military  Committee,  as  well  as  to  the  sub- 
stitute presented  by  a  member  of  that  commit- 
tee, a  direction  which  should  insure  to  it  a  dis- 
cussion, as  full  as  was  desired,  at  the  present 
session.  For  this  purpose,  he  moved  to  refer 
them  to  a  Committee  of  the  "Whole  on  the  state 
of  the  Union.  These  papers,  he  said,  involved 
principles  of  great  consequence,  on  which  in 
some  measure  depended,  as  he  believed,  the 
character  of  the  nation ;  they  also  necessarily 
involved  important  questions  as  to  the  laws  of 
nations,  and  as  to  the  constitution  of  our  own 
country,  and  ought  to  have  a  deliberate  con- 
sideration. • 

Mr.  FLOYD,  of  Virginia,  was  as  desirous  as  the 
gentleman  from  Georgia  of  a  deliberate  discus- 
sion of  the  subject  of  these  reports ;  but,  if  they 
were  referred  to  a  Committee  of  the  Whole  on 
the  state  of  the  Union,  a  motion  to  go  into  which 
was  always  in  order,  the  House  might  be  taken 
by  surprise,  or  brought  into  the  discussion  en- 
tirely without  notice,  at  the  motion  of  any  gen- 
tleman who  wished  it.  He  therefore  wished 
the  papers  should  be  referred,  as  in  ordinary 
cases,  to  a  Committee  of  the  Whole. 

Mr.  STROTHEE,  of  Virginia,  agreed  with  the 
gentlemen  who  had  preceded  him,  that  the  re- 
port should  be  so  disposed  of  as  to  insure  a  full 
examination  of  its  merits.  The  subject,  he  said, 
was  one  of  considerable  interest  and  excitement, 
though  he  was  not  under  the  impression  that  it 
was  one  of  great  magnitude,  nor  that  it  carried 
in  its  bosom  the  fate  of  the  nation,  as  the  gen- 
tleman from  Georgia  seemed  to  suppose,  which 
depended  on  far  other  considerations.  The  best 
course  to  pursue  in  regard  to  these  papers,  Mr. 
S.  thought,  would  be  to  lay  them  on  the  table. 
Though  not  of  momentous  consequence,  he 
said,  yet  the  decision  on  them  was  calculated  to 
implicate  the  character,  and  perhaps  the  happi- 
ness, of  the  illustrious  individual  whose  proceed- 
ings it  was  proposed  to  censure.  He  would,  in 
regard  to  any  proposition  involving  the  happi- 
ness or  reputation  of  any  individual,  conspicu- 
ous or  obscure,  act  with  great  deliberation.  He 
was  therefore  opposed  to  referring  this  matter 
to  a  Committee  of  the  Whole  on  the  state  of 
the  Union,  thus  putting  it  in  the  power  of  any 
individual  to  call  it  up  when  he  pleased,  and  to 
precipitate  the  House  into  a  discussion  unad- 
visedly and  unprepared.  He  was  for  not  hastily 
acting  on  a  proposition  to  censure  a  man  who 


had  given  celebrity  to  the  arms  of  his  country, 
and  thrown  a  brighter  lustre  on  the  national 
character. 

Mr.  POINDEXTER,  of  Mississippi,  said  he  hoped 
that  the  House  would  never  agree  to  a  report, 
in  affirmin 


to  forget  the  wrongs  inflicted  on  us  by  foreign 
nations,  to  overlook  the  inhuman  deeds  com- 
mitted on  the  frontier  of  Georgia,  and  to  turn 
its  attention  to  the  laudable  object  of  destroy- 
ing the  reputation  of  one  of  its  most  distin- 
guished citizens.  It  was  not  in  the  point  of 
view  in  which  the  gentleman  from  Georgia 
had  regarded  the  question  ;  it  was  not  from  any 
regard  to  the  savages  of  Florida,  and  their  allies, 
British  refugees  and  Spanish  agents,  or  from  a 
wish  to  crush  that  man  by  the  strong  arm  of 
power  —  that  man  who  had  so  much  merited  the 
thanks  of  his  country,  that  he  wished  a  full  and 
early  discussion  of  the  subject.  He  did  not 
wish  it,  he  said,  to  be  referred  to  a  Committee 
of  the  Whole,  or  to  lie  on  the  table  and  be  for- 
gotten. He  was  not  willing  that  any  such  re- 
port as  that  from  the  Military  Committee,  cal- 
culated to  ruin  the  reputation  of  a  man  who 
had  rendered  so  signal  services  to  his  country, 
should  be  considered  as  representing  the  opin- 
ion of  this  House.  He  was  not  willing,  there- 
fore, that  it  should  remain  for  a  moment  on  the 
table,  but  should  undergo  a  full  discussion  as 
early  as  practicable  ;  which  would  be  insured 
by  referring  it  to  a  Committee  of  the  Whole  on 
the  state  of  the  Union. 

Mr.  MERGER,  of  Virginia,  while  he  congratu- 
lated the  House  on  the  dignified  report  which 
the  Military  Committee  had  presented  to  them, 
was  disposed,  in  the  proceedings  on  this  sub- 
ject, to  act  with  all  necessary  deliberation.  The 
only  objection  he  had  heard  to  the  proposition  to 
refer  the  subject  to  a  Committee  of  the  Whole 
on  the  state  of  the  Union,  was,  that  it  might  be 
called  up  at  any  time  ;  this  objection,  he  said, 
might  be  entirely  obviated  by  naming  a  day 
when  it  should  be  called  up  ;  and,  if  a  day  were 
not  named,  the  House  would  always  have 
it  in  its  power,  if  it  chose,  to  refuse  to  go  into 
committee,  if  moved  for  at  too  early  a  day.  He 
should  deplore,  Mr.  M.  said,  perhaps  more  than 
any  member  of  the  House,  that  this  should  be 
referred  to  an  ordinary  Committee  of  the  Whole, 
and  that  the  whole  session  should  pass  off  with- 
out an  expression,  on  the  part  of  the  House,  of 
its  opinion  on  this  subject.  With  respect  to  the 
character  of  General  Jackson,  though  he  would 
not  unnecessarily  arraign  it,  Mr.  M.  said,  he 
looked,  in  the  view  which  he  took  of  the  im- 
portance of  this  question,  to  higher  objects 
—  to  the  character  of  this  House  and  of  this 
nation. 

Mr.  SMYTH,  of  Virginia,  hoped  that  the  mo- 
tion of  the  gentleman  from  Georgia  would  pre- 
vail. He  presumed  that  the  gentlemen  adverse 
to  General  Jackson  were  none  of  them  desirous 
of  precipitating  the  discussion,  or  taking  any 
advantage,  by  surprise,  of  those  who  approved 
of  his  conduct.  He  supposed  that  by  Monday 


DEBATES  OF  CONGRESS. 


227 


JANUARY,  1819.] 


Government  of  Florida. 


[H.  OF  R. 


next  every  gentleman  who  desired  to  take  a 
part  in  the  discussion  would  be  prepared,  and 
that  that  day  would  Be  agreed  on.  He  said 
he  should,  when  the  discussion  came  on,  at- 
tempt to  show  that  all  the  proceedings  of  Gen- 
eral Jackson  were  justifiable  by  the  law  of  na- 
tions. 

Mr.  DESHA,  of  Kentucky,  wished  the  papers 
to  lie  on  the  table,  that  the  members  of  the 
House  might  have  an  opportunity  of  examining 
them ;  but,  if  referred  to  any  committee  of  the 
House,  he  wished  the  substitute  as  well  as  the 
report  to  be  referred — and  that,  in  their  publi- 
cation, they  might  go  together,  that  the  world 
should  see  and  understand  the  views  of  both 
sides  of  the  House. 

Mr.  JOHNSOK,  of  Kentucky,  suggested  the 
propriety  of  a  concurrence,  on  all  sides  of  the 
House,  in  the  commitment  of  the  report  and  the 
amendment  to  a  committee,  as  proposed.  If 
for  no  other  reason  than  that  the  Speaker 
might  wish  to  participate  in  the  debate,  he 
should  approve  of  that  course.  The  subject 
hnd  excited  considerable  sensation,  and  he 
hoped  every  opportunity  would  be  given  to 
members,  on  all  sides  of  the  House,  to  express 
their  opinions.  To  debate  it  now  was  to  take 
up  the  time  of  the  House  to  no  useful  purpose 
whatever. 

After  some  further  remarks  from  Messrs. 
FLOYD,  COBB,  and  STBOTHEB,  in  support  of  their 
respective  opinions,  and  some  conversation  on  a 
point  of  order,  the  question  on  referring  the  re- 
port of  the  Military  Committee  to  a  Committee 
of  the  "Whole  on  the  state  of  the  Union  was  car- 
ried without  a  division. 

On  motion  of  Mr.  DESHA,  the  paper  offered 
by  Mr.  JOHXSON,  of  Kentucky,  as  a  substitute, 
was  then  referred  to  the  same  committee ;  and 

Mr.  TALLMADGE  gave  notice  that,  if  no  one 
else  did,  he  should,  on  Monday  next,  move  to 
go  into  a  Committee  of  the  Whole  on  this  sub- 
ject. 


SATTBDAY,  January  16. 
Bank  of  the  United  States. 

Mr.  SPENCEB,  from  the  committee  appointed 
on  the  30th  of  November  last,  to  inspect  the 
books  and  examine  into  the  proceedings  of  the 
Bank  of  the  United  States,  to  report  thereon, 
and  to  report  whether  the  provisions  of  its 
charter  have  been  violated  or  not,  made  a  de- 
tailed report  thereon;  which  was  read  and 
committed  to  the  Committee  of  the  Whole  on 
the  state  of  the  Union.  The  report  concludes 
as  follows : 

The  committee,  then,  are  of  the  opinion  that  the 
provisions  of  the  charter  of  the  Bank  of  the  United 
States  have  been  violated  in  the  following  instances  : 

I.  In  purchasing  two  millions  of  public  debt,  in 
order  to  substitute  them  for  two  other  millions  of 
similar  debt,  which  it  had  contracted  to  sell,  or  had 
sold  in  Europe,  and  which  the  Secretary  of  the  Treas- 
ury claimed  the  right  of  redeeming.  The  facts  on 


this  subject,  and  the  views  of  the  transaction  enter- 
tained by  the  committee,  have  been  already  given. 

II.  In  not  requiring  the  fulfilment  of  the  engage- 
ment made  by  the  stockholders  on  subscribing,  to  pay 
the  second  and  third  instalments  on  the  stock,  in 
coin  and  funded  debt  The  facts  on  this  point  are 
fully  before  the  House,  and  they  establish,  beyond 
all  doubt,  1st,  that  the  directors  of  the  bank  agreed 
to  receive,  and  did  receive,  what  they  deemed  an 
equivalent  for  coin,  in  checks  upon,  and  the  notes  of 
the  bank  and  other  banks  to  pay  specie.  This  sub- 
stitution of  any  equivalent  whatever,  for  the  specific 
things  required  by  the  charter,  was  in  itself  a  depar- 
ture from  its  provisions ;  but,  2d,  the  notes  and 
checks  thus  received  were  not,  in  all  cases,  equiva- 
lent to  coin,  because  there  was  not  specie  to  meet 
them  in  the  bank ;  3d,  that  notes  of  individuals  were 
discounted  and  taken  in  lieu  of  the  coin  part  of  the 
second  instalment,  by  virtue  of  a  resolution  for  that 
purpose,  passed  before  that  instalment  became  due ; 
4th,  that  the  notes  of  individuals  were  taken  in  many 
instances,  and  to  large  amounts,  in  lien  of  the  whole 
of  the  second  and  third  instalments,  which  notes  are 
yet  unpaid. 

HI.  In  paying  dividends  to  stockholders  who  had 
not  completed  their  instalments,  the  provisions  of  the 
charter  in  that  respect  were  violated. 

IV.  By  the  judges  of  the  first  and  second  election 
allowing  many  persons  to  give  more  than  thirty  votes 
each,  under  pretence  of  their  being  attorneys  for 
persons  in  whose  names  shares  then  stood,  when  those 
judges,  the  directors,  and  officers  of  the  bank,  perfect- 
ly well  knew  that  those  shares  really  belonged  to  the 
persons  offering  to  vote  upon  them  as  attorneys.  The 
facts  in  relation  to  this  violation  are  in  possession  of 
the  House,  and  establish  it  beyond  the  reach  of  doubt 

The  committee  are  of  opinion  that  no  other  in- 
stance of  a  violation  of  the  charter  has  been  estab- 
lished. In  closing  this  report  of  a  most  laborious  in- 
vestigation, the  committee  observe,  that  whatever 
difference  of  opinion  can  exist  among  them  as  to  the 
results  and  inferences  to  be  drawn  from  the  facts 
stated,  they  unanimously  concur  in  giving,  to  the  pre- 
ceding statements  of  facts  and  abstracts  of  docu- 
ments, their  sanction.  They  have  not  recommended 
the  adoption  of  any  measures  to  correct  the  many 
evils  and  mischiefs  they  have  depicted,  excepting 
that  of  the  bill  before  mentioned,  because,  by  the 
provisions  of  the  charter,  the  Secretary  of  the  Treas- 
ury has  full  power  to  apply  a  prompt  and  adequate 
remedy,  whenever  the  situation  of  the  bank  shall  re- 
quire it  And  if,  after  the  stockholders  have  become 
acquainted  with  the  mismanagement  of  the  institu- 
tion, they  shall  adopt  no  means  to  prevent  its  con- 
tinuance, or  the  directors  themselves  shall  persist  in 
a  course  of  conduct  requiring  correction,  the  commit- 
tee cannot  entertain  a  doubt  that  the  salutary  power 
lodged  in  the  Treasury  Department  will  be  exerted, 
as  occasion  may  require,  and  with  reference  to  the 
best  interests  of  the  United  States. 

Government  of  Florida. 
Mr.  EDWABDS  rose  to  offer  a  resolution  call- 
ing for  information  in  relation  to  the  posts, 
without  the  limits  of  the  United  States,  now  in 
the  possession  of  the  United  States.  The  ob- 
ject of  his  motion  was  in  itself  so  plain  as  to 
need  no  elucidation.  It  would  be  recollected 
that  the  law  of  1811  authorized  the  taking  pos- 
session, on  certain  contingencies,  of  that  part 


228 


ABRIDGMENT  OF  THE 


H.  OF  R.] 


The  Seminole  War. 


[JANUARY,  1819. 


of  Florida  east  of  the  Perdido,  and  to  establish 
a  government  therein.  One  object  of  the  reso- 
lution was  to  ascertain  how  far,  if  at  all,  that 
law  had  been  carried  into  effect,  &c.  The  res- 
olution was  in  the  following  words : 

Resolved,  That  the  President  of  the  United  States 
be  requested  to  cause  any  information,  not  al- 
ready communicated,  to  be  laid  before  this  House, 
whether  Amelia  Island,  St.  Marks,  and  Pensacola, 
yet  remain  in  the  possession  of  the  United  States, 
and,  if  so,  by  what  laws  the  inhabitants  thereof  are 
governed ;  whether  articles  imported  therein  from 
foreign  countries  are  subject  to  any  and  what  duties, 
and  by  what  laws ;  and  whether  the  said  duties  are 
collected,  and  how ;  whether  vessels  arriving  in  the 
United  States  from  Pensacola  and  Amelia  Island, 
and  in  Pensacola  and  Amelia  Island  from  the  United 
States,  respectively,  are  considered  and  treated  as 
vessels  arriving  from  foreign  countries. 

Mr.  HOLMES  said  that  the  resolution  embraced 
some  objects  which  the  Committee  of  Foreign 
Relations  had  had  under  consideration,  that 
concerning  Amelia  Island,  for  example ;  respect- 
ing which  they  had  directed  him  to  make  of 
the  Secretary  of  State  all  the  inquiries  embrac- 
ed in  the  resolution,  and  more.  That  informa- 
tion might  be  expected  to  be  soon  received,  and 
laid  before  the  House.  He  therefore  wished  the 
gentleman  to  waive  his  motion  for  the  present. 

Mr.  EDWARDS  said  he  had  no  objection,  if  the 
committee  had  asked  for  the  information, 
(though  he  still  thought  it  would  have  been 
better  had  the  information  been  specially  called 
for  by  the  House,)  to  waive  his  motion  for  the 
present,  with  the  reservation  of  the  right  to 
renew  it,  if  the  expected  information  was  not 
laid  before  the  House. 

Mr.  HOPKINSOX  suggested  that  the  informa- 
tion which  had  been  required  by  the  Committee 
of  Foreign  Relations  was  limited  to  Amelia  Isl- 
and, and  therefore  did  not  embrace  the  princi- 
pal part  of  the  information  required  by  the  res- 
olution. 

Mr.  EDWAEDS  said,  if  that  were  the  case,  he 
should  certainly  not  waive  his  motion.  If  we 
are  correctly  informed  by  the  newspapers,  there 
had  been  something  like  a  government  estab- 
lished at  St.  Marks  and  at  Pensacola,  by  the 
military  authority,  as  well  as  at  the  Amelia 
Island ;  and  he  wished  to  ascertain  how  far  the 
arrangements  of  the  military  authority  had 
been  sanctioned  by  the  Executive.  Vessels  had 
cleared  out  and  entered  at  Pensacola ;  he  wish- 
ed to  know  whether  it  had  been  regarded  in 
this  respect  as  a  foreign  or  domestic  port.  If 
civil  officers,  collectors,  &c.,  had  been  appointed, 
he  wished  to  obtain  information  by  what  tenure 
they  held  their  offices,  and  also  the  nature  of 
their  accountability.  If  ultimate  measures 
should  be  found  necessary,  information  would 
be  wanted,  without  which  the  House  was  grop- 
ing in  the  dark.  He  had  no  other  object  than 
to  ascertain,  officially,  the  facts  on  these  sub- 
jects. 

Mr.  STB OTHER  said  he  never  should  oppose  a 
resolution  calling  for  information  to  instruct  this 


House  in  the  discharge  of  its  duty,  or  that  was 
necessary  to  enable  them  to  ascertain  the  man- 
ner in  which  the  Executive  department  had 
discharged  the  duties  assigned  it  by  the  consti- 
tution and  laws  of  the  country.  The  stability 
and  integrity  of  the  Government  depended  upon 
the  right  to  call  for  and  obtain  information ; 
but  he  objected  to  this  resolution,  introduced 
by  his  friend  from  North  Carolina,  because  the 
information  called  for  had  been  furnished  this 
House,  in  that  voluminous  document  laid  upon 
our  table  upon  the  subject  of  the  Seminole  war. 
Mr.  S.  said,  if  his  honorable  friend  would  exam- 
ine the  correspondence  between  General  Jack-, 
son  and  the  Secretary  of  War,  he  would  ascer- 
tain that  a  government  has  been  established  at 
Pensacola,  and  functionaries  appointed  to  ad- 
minister the  government ;  a  temporary  govern- 
ment, confined  to  the  necessary  and  legitimate 
purpose  of  protection  to  the  persons  and  prop- 
erty of  the  people  inhabiting  that  region ;  a 
proceeding  springing  from  necessity,  and  to  ter- 
minate with  it.  Upon  this  ground  he  was  op- 
posed to  the  resolution. 

The  Seminole  War. 

The  order  of  the  day,  on  the  report  of  the 
Committee  on  Military  Affairs  respecting  the 
Seminole  war,  being  announced — 

The  House  then  went  into  Committee  of  the 
Whole  on  the  state  of  the  Union,  to  whom  that 
report  was  committed,  Mr.  PITKIN  in  the  Chair. 

There  was  some  conversation  previously 
about  postponing  the  subject  for  a  day  or  two  ; 
but  the  House,  by  a  majority  of  ten  or  fifteen 
votes,  resolved  to  take  it  up. 

The  report  of  the  Military  Committee  was 
read  through,  concluding  with  the  following  res- 
olution : 

"  Resolved,  That  the  House  of  Representatives  of 
the  United  States  disapproves  the  proceedings  in  the 
trial  and  execution  of  Alexander  Arbuthnot  and 
Robert  C.  Ambrister." 

Mr.  COBB,  of  Georgia,  commenced  the  debate, 
by  observing,  that  although  he  concurred  in 
opinion  with  the  Military  Committee,  as  ex- 
pressed in  their  report  under  consideration,  yet 
he  thought  they  had  not  gone  far  enough. 
There  were  other  matters,  arising  out  of  the 
late  Seminole  war,  which  he  thought  of  infi- 
nitely greater  importance,  and,  in  comparison 
with  which,  indeed  the  trials  of  Arbuthuot  and 
Ambrister  were  objects  of  but  secondary  con- 
sideration. As  highly,  therefore,  as  he  disap- 
proved the  proceedings  in  the  trial  of  these 
men,  yet  as,  by  the  report,  the  matters  to  which 
he  had  allusion  were  not  presented  for  consider- 
ation, he  held  in  his  hand  certain  resolutions 
which  it  was  his  intention  to  propose,  by  way 
of  amendment  to  the  report  of  the  Military 
Committee.  [Mr.  COBB  here  read  the  amend- 
ment^  which  he  subsequently  moved.]  From 
these  resolutions,  the  Committee  of  the  Whole 
would  observe  that  it  was  his  intention  to  open 
the  whole  field  of  debate,  and  to  present  for 
discussion,  not  only  the  trials  of  these  men,  but 


DEBATES  OF  CONGRESS. 


229 


JAXUAKY,  1819.] 


The  Semtnole  War. 


[H.  OF  R. 


the  capture  of  the  Spanish  posts  of  St.  Marks, 
Pensacola,  and  Barancas,  in  which,  he  believed, 
there  had  been  a  most  flagrant  breach  of  the 
Constitution  of  the  United  States.  But  as,  not- 
Avith-tantling  the  amendment  he  was  about  to 
propose,  the  resolution  of  the  Military  Committee 
would  stand  first  in  order,  lie  would  proceed  to 
make  a  few  remarks  as  to  the  subject-matter 
of  that  resolution.  He  thought  he  could  prom- 
ise that  the  committee  should  not  be  long  de- 
tained by  the  observations  which  he  might  have 
the  honor  to  make  either  upon  this  resolution 
or  those  which  he  would  lay  upon  the  table, 
as,  at  that  early  period  of  the  discussion,  it  was 
not  necessary  to  present  to  the  committee  any 
thing  more  than  what  he  considered  the  leading 
points,  reserving  to  himself  the  right  of  speak- 
ing, as  to  particulars,  at  some  future  period,  if 
he  should  find  it  necessary. 

In  attending  to  the  trials  by  court-martial  of 
those  two  Englishmen,  the  first  objects  for  con- 
sideration which  presented  themselves,  were 
the  charges  exhibited  against  them.  Reasoning 
upon  the  supposition  that  they  were  true,  he 
was  perfectly  at  a  loss  to  know  what  law, 
martial,  municipal,  or  national,  was  violated. 
Against  what  law  had  they  offended  ?  He  was 
not  certain  that  he  perfectly  understood  what 
was  martial  law  in  this  country.  Were  he  to 
view  it  in  the  light  that  it  had  been  explained 
and  enforced  by  some,  he  must  be  compelled  to 
consider  it  as  of  paramount  authority  indeed ; 
so  high  in  its  nature  as  that  it  could  be  made  to 
suspend  the  constitution  itself.  He  had  not  yet 
obtained  his  consent  to  give  it  this  omnipotent 
effect,  and  he  hoped  he  never  should.  He  had 
thought,  and  yet  believed,  until  he  could  have 
some  proofs  to  the  contrary,  that  it  was  con- 
tained in  that  body  of  laws  established  by  the 
Congress  of  the  United  States  for  the  govern- 
ment of  the  army,  commonly  called  the  "  Rules 
and  Articles  of  War."  If  he  was  correct  in 
this  opinion,  (and  he  presumed  no  gentleman 
would  controvert  it,)  he  had  searched  in  vain 
(and  he  had  used  no  little  industry  to  discover) 
for  that  clause  against  which  Arbuthnot  and 
Ambrister  had  offended,  in  the  commission  of 
the  acts  charged  against  them,  and  for  which 
they  were  convicted.  It  was  true,  there  was  a 
clause  subjecting  to  death  those  who  should  be 
convicted  of  being  "spies."  But,  although 
these  men,  or  one  of  them,,  was  charged  with 
this,  yet  he  was  acquitted  of  that  charge,  and 
for  that  reason  it  would  be  unnecessary  to  take 
further  notice  of  it.  The  offence  for  which 
they  were  convicted  and  suffered  death,  was 
that  of  "  exciting  and  stirring  up  the  Creek  In- 
dians to  war  against  the  United  States  and  her 
citizens,  they  being  subjects  of  Great  Britain, 
with  whom  the  United  States  are  at  peace  ; " 
"  of  aiding,  abetting,  and  comforting  the  enemy, 
and  supplying  them  with  the  means  of  war  f" 
"  and  leading  and  commanding  the  Lower 
Creeks  in  carrying  on  war  against  the  United 
States."  Admit  the  truth  of  the  facts  contained 
in  these  charges,  are  they  declared  penal  in  any 


part  of  the  rules  and  articles  of  war?  Or  are 
they  therein  declared  to  be  proper  subject 
matters  for  trial  before  a  court-martial?  If 
they  were  not,  it  followed,  as  a  consequence, 
that  the  commanding  General  had  transcended 
his  powers  in  ordering  the  court,  and  that  the 
court  itself  had  stretched  its  powers  to  an  un- 
warrantable length,  in  acting  upon  matters  not 
cognizable  before  them.  It  would  be  arguing 
to  little  purpose  to  prove,  that  the  crimes  con- 
tained in  these  charges  were  not  embraced  in 
the  rules  and  articles  of  war.  It  would  be  suffi- 
cient, at  present,  simply  to  deny  that  they  were, 
until  those  who  differed  from  him  in  opinion  at- 
tempted to  prove  the  affirmative  of  the  question. 

Mr.  C.  thought  it  would  be  an  attempt  equally 
fruitless  to  prove  that  the  matters  charged 
against  these  individuals  constituted  an  offence 
against  national  law,  for  which  they  were  an- 
swerable before  a  court-martial.  He  did  not 
profess  to  be  deeply  read  in  the  law  of  nations. 
He  had,  however,  searched,  in  the  hope  that  he 
could  find  some  justification  for  this  most  novel 
proceeding,  all  the  writers  on  that  subject,  upon 
whose  works  he  had  been  able  to  lay  his  hands. 
He  had  commenced  and  prosecuted  this  search 
under  the  most  anxious  wish  for  success.  It 
had  been  an  object  of  great  solicitude  with  him 
to  rescue  both  the  court  and  the  General  who 
ordered  it,  from  the  imputation  of  injustice. 
He  had  been  compelled  to  desist,  chagrined  and 
disappointed.  If  any  other  gentleman  had  been 
fortunate,  he  should  rejoice  to  learn  it.  He  cer- 
tainly could  have  no  wish  to  remain  in  error. 

The  next  point  occupied  by  Mr.  COBB  was  as 
to  the  evidence  under  which  both,  or  one  of 
these  men,  were  convicted.  He  should  not  say 
much  upon  it,  for  he  did  not  intend  to  analyze 
it.  He  had  understood,  and  no  doubt  correctly, 
that  the  rules  of  evidence,  in  courts-martial, 
differed  very  little,  in  principle,  from  those  es- 
tablished in  the  courts  of  common  law.  It  was 
so  declared,  he  believed,  by  the  only  American 
authority  (Macomb  on  'Martial  Law)  that  he 
knew  any  thing  of,  on  that  subject.  He  pre- 
sumed it  would  not  be  denied.  But,  sir,  said 
he,  if  we  test  the  evidence  produced  in  those 
trials  by  these  rules,  we  shall  blush  at  "the 
shameful  perversion  of  justice  therein  displayed. 
The  evidence  of  papers,  not  produced  or  ac- 
counted for,  the  belief  of  persons  whose  testi- 
mony of  facts  ought  to  have  been  doubted, 
hearsay,  and  that  of  Indians,  negroes  or  others, 
who,  had  they  been  present,  could  not  have 
been  sworn,  were  all  indiscriminately  admitted 
and  acted  upon.  Miserable,  indeed,  will  be  the 
precedents  established  by  this  court-martial  for 
others  which  may  hereafter  be  formed !  More 
need  not  be  said  on  this  subject. 

Mr.  0.  next  called  the  attention  of  the  com- 
mittee to  the  sentence  under  which  Ambrister 
was  executed.  He  had  strong  doubts  whether, 
upon  giving  a  fair  construction  to  the  Rules  and 
Articles  of  War,  the  proceedings  of  the  court 
martial  ought  not  to  have  been  laid  before  the 
President  of  the  United  States  before  the  sen- 


230 


ABRIDGMENT  OF  THE 


H.  OF  R.] 


The  Seminde  War. 


[JANUARY,  1819. 


tence  was  carried  into  effect.  But  he  waived 
the  examination  of  this  question.  It  seems  that 
the  court  first  sentenced  Ambrister  to  be  shot ; 
but  one  of  the  members  having  asked  a  recon- 
sideration of  the  sentence,  before  the  proceed- 
ings were  submitted  to  the  commanding  General 
it  was  allowed,  and  another  punishment  awarded 
as  ignominious  in  its  nature  as  imagination 
could  well  conceive,  but  which  yet  spared  life. 
Now,  will  it  be  contended  that  this  reconsider- 
ation and  change  of  sentence  did  not,  to  all  in- 
tents and  purposes,  render  null  and  void  the 
first  sentence  ?  Can  it  be  said,  with  any  truth, 
that  there  was  any  other  sentence  than  the  one 
last  passed  in  the  case  ?  But,  unfortunately,  the 
first  sentence  was  not  erased  from  the  proceed- 
ings of  the  court.  It  is  there  found  by  the 
General,  when  they  were  submitted  to  him, 
and,  by  a  high  stretch  of  power,  he  avails  him- 
self of  it — "  approves  the  finding  and  first  sen- 
tence— disapproves  of  the  reconsideration  and 
last  sentence,"  and  directs  the  man  to  be  exe- 
cuted !  To  me,  sir,  said  Mr.  C.,  this  proceeding 
has  upon  its  face  a  cruelty  that  excites  my 
greatest  disapprobation.  The  last  thing  to 
which  Mr.  0.  would  call  the  attention  of  the 
committee  was  the  principle  by  which  the  com- 
manding General  professes  to  have  been  gov- 
erned in  ordering  the  execution  of  Ambrister, 
and  which,  in  its  extent,  as  contended  by  the 
report  of  the  committee  under  consideration, 
applied  with  equal  force  to  the  case  of  Arbuth- 
not.  It  is  in  these  words :  "  It  is  an  established 
principle  of  the  law  of  nations,  that  any  indi- 
vidual of  a  nation  making  war  against  the  citi- 
zens of  another  nation,  they  being  at  peace,  for- 
feits his  allegiance,  and  becomes  an  outlaw  and 
a  pirate."  The  Military  Committee,  in  their 
report,  have  very  properly  denied  the  establish- 
ment of  any  such  principle  in  the  law  of  nations. 
Sir,  said  Mr.  0.,  I  boldly  challenge  any  man  of 
common  sense  to  prove  the  existence  of  such 
a  principle  to  the  extent  it  is  here  laid  down. 
Keason,  propriety,  justice,  and  humanity,  all  cry 
aloud  against  such  a  principle !  So  far  as  my 
researches  have  gone,  it  is  absolutely  denied  by 
the  writers  on  national  law ;  and  I  sincerely 
hope  will  be  absolutely  denied  by  every 
member  of  this  committee.  If  this  princi 
ciple  was  true,  then  La  Fayette,  De  Kalb,  Pu- 
laski,  and  a  large  host  of  foreigners,  who  joined 
the  standard  of  our  fathers  in  the  Revolution, 
and,  by  their  blood,  and  at  the  expense  of  their 
lives,  aided  in  the  establishment  of  the  inde- 
pendence of  this  nation,  were  "  outlaws  and 
pirates ;"  and,  had  they  been  captured,  were 
subject  to  have  been  tried  and  sentenced 
to  an  ignominious  death  by  a  court-martial. 
For,  when  they  entered  our  service,  they  were 
"  individuals  of  a  nation  at  peace"  with  Eng- 
land, and  they,  after  they  joined  our  arms, 
"  made  war  upon  England  and  her  citizens,  and 
thereby  forfeited  their  allegiance."  Sir,  is  this 
committee  prepared  to  brand  these  men  with  the 
titles  of  "  outlaws  and  pirates,"  by  their  sanction 
to  this  principle  ?  I  will  not  yet  believe  it. 


But,  it  may  be  said,  that  these  Englishmen, 
having  "joined  a  savage  nation,  who  observe  no 
rules,  and  give  no  quarter,"  we  have  a  right  to 
treat  them  precisely  as  we  might  treat  the  sav- 
ages whom  they  have  joined,  and  that  we  would 
have  a  right  to  put  the  savages  to  death,  upon 
a  principle  of  retaliation.  Let  this  position  for 
a  moment  be  admitted,  and  yet  it  will  be  evi- 
dent that  the  principle  under  which  we  should 
proceed  would  be  a  very  different  one — to  wit, 
that  of  retaliation.  For  even  savages  cannot 
regularly  be  put  to  death,  until  they  refuse  '  •  to 
observe  rules  or  give  quarter."  In  order  that 
the  principle  established  by  General  Jackson 
may  be  applied,  it  must  undergo  a  material 
amendment.  Instead  of  the  words  in  which  it 
is  couched,  it  should  read  thus — "  It  is  an  estab- 
lished principle  of  the  law  of  nations,  that  any 
individual  of  a  nation,  joining  savages  and  bar- 
barians who  observe  no  rules  and  give  no  quar- 
ter, and  making  war  against  the  citizens  of 
another  nation,  they  being  at  peace,  becomes 
himself  a  savage  and  barbarian,  and  may  be 
treated  as  such."  Under  such  a  principle,  there 
would  have  been  more  justice  (humanity  being 
out  of  the  question)  in  putting  Ambrister  and 
Arbuthnot  to  death. 

Mr.  C.  then  proceeded  to  inquire,  whether  tho 
commanding  General  of  the  American  army 
possessed  the  power  to  exercise  the  right  of  re- 
taliation ?  If  in  its  exercise  there  is  any  re- 
sponsibility, he  contended  it  was  placed  upon 
the  nation.  They  were  accountable  to  all  other 
nations  for  the  manner  in  which  they  conducted 
their  wars.  To  the  nation,  therefore,  it  belong- 
ed, to  establish  the  rules  of  war,  by  which  it 
would  be  governed ;  and  the  authority  by  which 
they  were  to  be  established,  was  that  in  whose 
hands  was  vested  the  right  of  declaring  war. 
In  their  establishment,  the  character  of  the  na- 
tion for  justice,  for  humanity,  &c.,  was  deeply 
involved.  Who,  he  asked,  were  the  legitimate 
guardians  of  the  character  of  this  nation,  but 
Congress — the  war-declaring  power?  Mr.  C. 
thought  he  was  not  singular  in  this  opinion. 
He  believed  that  the  late  President  of  the  Unit- 
ed States,  the  virtuous  James  Madison,  was  of 
the  same  opinion.  For  when,  during  the  late 
war,  it  was  thought  necessary  to  apply  the  re- 
taliatory principle,  did  he  believe  himself  clothed 
with  power  to  do  it,  although  Commander-in- 
chief?  No — he  believed  it  was  in  Congress 
alone.  To  Congress  he  applied  for  the  power, 
and,  by  a  special  act,  they  conferred  it  on  him. 
Mr.  C.  thought  this  case  should  be  considered  as 
conclusive  authority. 


TUESDAY,  January  19. 

The  Seminole  War. 

The  House  then  again  resolved  itself  into  a 
Committee  of  the  Whole,  Mr.  PITKIX  in  the 
Chair,  on  this  subject. 

Mr.  HOLMES,  of  Massachusetts,  said  the  gen- 
tleman from  Georgia  (Mr.  COBB)  having  ap- 
pealed to  the  common  sense  of  the  committee, 


DEBATES  OF  CONGRESS. 


231 


JANUARY,  1819.] 


The  Seminde  War. 


[H.  or  R. 


he  felt  himself  obliged,  having  some  claim  to 
that  very  common  and  vulgar  commodity,  to 
attempt  to  answer  the  gentleman's  call. 

This  is  not,  said  Mr.  H.,  the  only  inducement. 
The  very  handsome,  able,  and  gentlemanly 
manner  in  "which  that  gentleman  has  supported 
his  resolutions,  entitles  him  to  the  particular 
consideration  of  every  member  who  differs  from 
him,  and  demands  our  utmost  efforts  to  combat 
his  arguments  and  resist  the  force  of  his  elo- 
quence. 

It  is  not,  sir,  because  General  Jackson  has 
acquired  so  much  glory  in  defence  of  his  conn- 
try's  rights  that  I  defend  him— it  is  not  for  the 
splendor  of  his  achievements  or  the  brilliancy 
of  his  character.  I  would  not  compromit  the 
rights  and  liberties  of  my  country  to  screen  any 
man,  however  respectable.  If  General  Jackson 
has  been  ambitious,  I  would  restrain  him ;  if 
cruel,  I  would  correct  him ;  if  he  is  proud,  I 
would  humble  him  ;  if  he  is  tyrannical,  I  would 
disarm  him.  And  yet,  I  confess,  it  would  re- 
quire pretty  strong  proof  to  produce  conviction 
that  he  has  intentionally  done  wrong.  At  his 
age  of  life,  crowned  with  the  honors  and  loaded 
•with  the  gratitude  of  his  country,  what  ade- 
quate motive  could  induce  him  to  tarnish  his 
glory  by  acts  of  cruelty  and  revenge  ? 

Nor  am  I  disposed  to  become  the  advocate  of 
Executive  usurpation.  If  the  President  of  the 
United  States  has  encroached  upon  the  rights 
of  the  people,  or  usurped  a  power  not  granted 
by  the  constitution,  it  is  our  duty,  as  the  guar- 
dians of  those  rights,  to  correct  the  mischief 
and  preserve  the  Republic.  And  yet,  it  would 
be  difficult  to  imagine  an  adequate  motive  to 
induce  the  President  to  trample  upon  the  con- 
stitutional liberties  of  the  people.  His  life  has 
been  constantly  devoted  to  the  liberties,  pros- 
perity, and  honor  of  his  country.  He  receives 
his  reward  in  the  gratitude  and  confidence  of 
the  people.  The  chief  of  the  only  free  people 
on  earth,  I  could  scarcely  imagine  that  he  has 
an  inducement  to  do  wrong,  much  less  to  pros- 
trate the  fabric  of  freedom  which  his  own  hands 
have  contributed  to  erect. 

I  assure  the  gentleman  from  Georgia  that,  in 
endeavoring  to  anticipate  the  arguments  of  the 
friends  of  General  Jackson  and  the  President, 
he  has  not  anticipated  me.  I  admit,  in  the 
outset,  that  the  President  has  no  right  to  com- 
mence a  war,  even  against  Indians.  And  I 
further  admit,  that,  if  a  treaty*  between  this  and 
another  nation  be  violated  by  the  other  party, 
and  the  violation  is  not  itself  an  act  of  war,  but 
such  as  would  justify  hostilities  on  our  part,  the 
President  has  no  right  to  commence  these  hos- 
tilities without  the  consent  of  Congress.  If, 
•with  these  admissions,  the  President  and  Gen- 
eral Jackson  cannot  bo  defended,  they  cannot, 
in  my  opinion,  be  defended  at  all. 

It  is,  then,  incumbent  on  me  to  show  that  the 
Indians  commenced  the  war.  I  shall  not  detain 
the  committee  long  on  this  point  at  present,  as 
I  shall  be  obliged  to  examine  it  more  particu- 
larly in  discussing  another  part  of  the  subject. 


It  cannot,  however,  sir,  have  escaped  the  recol- 
lection of  the  members  of  this  House,  that  the 
aggressions  of  those  Seminoles  were  loudly  com- 
plained of  by  the  people  of  Georgia.  Scarcely 
a  newspaper  from  the  South  but  was  filled  with 
dismal  accounts  of  Indian  massacres ;  scarcely 
a  breeze  but  wafted  to  our  ears  the  dangers, 
distresses,  and  murders  of  the  people  on  the 
frontiers  of  Georgia.  Were  these  all  groundless 
rumors  and  false  alarms?  Were  the  Georgians, 
in  fact,  the  aggressors?  The  gentleman  from 
Georgia  can  answer  the  question. 

On  the  9th  of  August,  1814,  a  treaty  was 
signed  at  Fort  Jackson  between  the  United 
States  and  most  of  the  chiefs  and  warriors  of 
the  Creek  Nation.  By  this  treaty  certain  lands 
were  ceded  to  the  United  States,  and  the  inhab- 
itants of  the  frontiers  understood  that  the  war 
was  ended.  But  it  was  soon  found  that  several 
of  the  hostile  Creeks,  and  the  Seminoles,  had, 
within  the  limits  of  Florida,  associated  for  the 
purpose  of  commencing  hostilities  against  the 
United  States.  By  the  instigation  and  aid  of  a 
certain  Colonel  Nicholls,  a  fort  was  erected  on 
the  Appalachicola,  and  within  the  province  of 
East  Florida,  to  facilitate  their  hostile  designs. 
At  this  place  were  assembled  a  motley  banditti 
of  negroes,  Indians,  and  fugitives  from  all  na- 
tions, and  trained  and  instructed  in  the  arts  of 
robbery  and  murder.  The  people  of  the  United 
States  soon  felt  the  effects  of  their  vengeance. 
Several  families,  including  women  and  children, 
were  barbarously  murdered.  In  1816  a  boat's 
crew  were  cruelly  butchered,  one  of  whom  was 
tarred,  set  on  fire,  and  burnt  to  death.  On  the 
30th  of  November  last,  Lieutenant  Scott  and 
his  party,  consisting  of  about  fifty  men,  women, 
and  children,  were  murdered  in  a  manner  too 
shocking  to  describe.  In  this  exigency,  what 
was  to  be  done  ? 

The  Constitution  of  the  United  States  makes 
the  President  the  Commander-in-chief  of  the 
army  and  of  the  militia,  when  called  into  the 
service  of  the  United  States.  It  vests  in  Con- 
gress the  power  to  provide  for  calling  out  the 
militia  to  suppress  insurrections  and  repel  inva- 
sions. The  act  of  Congress  of  the  28th  of  Feb- 
ruary, 1795,  provides  that,  whenever  the  United 
States  shall  be  invaded,  or  in  imminent  danger 
of  invasion,  the  President  may  call  out  any  por- 
tion of  the  militia  to  repel  the  meditated  attack, 
and,  to  this  end,  may  direct  his  orders  to  any 
officer  of  the  militia,  without  a  requisition  upon 
the  Governors  of  the  States.  The  framers  of 
the  constitution,  by  authorizing  the  President 
to  repel  invasion,  did  not  intend  that  he  should 
wait  until  it  should  have  taken  place.  Should 
invasion  impend,  it  was  essential  that  the  Pres- 
ident should  have  the  power  to  prevent  it.  The 
preposterous  doctrine  that  the  invasion  must 
take  place  before  the  militia  can  be  called  for, 
is,  I  trust,  long  since  exploded.  This  act  is  an 
exposition  of  this  clause  hi  the  constitution,  ac- 
quiesced in  ever  since  the  year  1795.  The 
President,  then,  may  employ  the  militia  with- 
out a  special  authority  from  Congress,  when 


232 


ABRIDGMENT  OF  THE 


H.  OF  R.] 


The  Seminole  War. 


[JANUARY,  1819. 


tLere  is  invasion,  or  danger  of  it;  and  he  can 
use  the  army  as  well  as  the  militia.  He  is  their 
Commander-in-chief,  and  though  the  act  to 
which  I  have  just  referred  does  not  specially 
authorize  him  to  employ  the  standing  army  for 
these  purposes,  yet  it  is  manifest  that  our  regu- 
lar troops  would  never  have  beeen  placed  on 
our  frontiers  in  time  of  peace,  if  they  could  not 
bo  employed  by  the  President,  to  repel  invasion, 
without  an  act  of  Congress.  If  the  army  of  the 
United  States,  during  invasion,  were  to  remain 
inactive  until  Congress  could  be  convened  to 
authorize  them  to  act,  they  would  be  worse 
than  useless.  Though  I  am  not  in  the  habit  of 
placing  much  reliance  on  the  admissions  of  my 
opponents,  I  trust  it  will  not  be  insisted  that 
the  President  has  not  the  power  to  employ  the 
army  for  the  same  purposes  as  the  militia. 

The  war  having  been  commenced  by  the 
Seminoles  and  their  associates,  and  the  Presi- 
dent of  the  United  States  having  the  power,  by 
the  Constitution  and  laws  of  the  United  States, 
to  meet  and  repel  the  enemy,  the  inquiry  is  im- 
portant, on  what  ground  he  may  meet  them. 
I  differ  from  many  gentlemen  in  regard  to  the 
political  rights  of  the  Indians.  Whatsoever 
may  be  their  rights  in  peace,  either  by  natural 
or  conventional  law,  in  war  I  deem  them  as 
sovereign.  Their  residence  within  the  limits 
of  the  United  States,  limits  to  which  they  have 
never  assented,  neither  brings  them  within  our 
protection  nor  entitles  us  to  their  allegiance. 
The  laws  of  the  United  States  have  no  operation 
upon  them,  and  if  they  levy  war  they  are  not 
punishable  as  traitors.  A  tribe  of  Indians, 
whose  territory  is  exclusively  within  our  limits, 
may  wage  war  and  make  peace  with  us ;  pur- 
sue, capture,  and  destroy  us ;  send  and  receive 
flags ;  grant  and  receive  capitulations,  and  are 
entitled  to  a  reciprocation  of  every  act  of  civil- 
ized warfare,  and  subject  to  the  same  rules  of 
severity  and  retaliation  as  other  nations.  To 
invade  their  territory  and  cross  their  line  is,  as 
to  them,  passing  out  of  the  limits  of  the  United 
States.  And,  if  General  Jackson  ha.d  no  right, 
in  this  war,  to  cross  the  Florida  line,  neither 
had  he  a  right  to  cross  the  Indian  line  within 
our  limits.  If  there  is  any  force  in  the  argu- 
ment so  often  urged  on  other  occasions,  that 
every  war  of  invasion  is  an  offensive  war,  and 
one,  consequently,  which  the  President  could 
not  wage  without  the  authority  of  Congress ; 
then,  it  follows,  that  Congress  must  declare  war 
before  the  President  can  march  the  militia 
across  the  Indian  line,  even  within  the  limits  of 
the  United  States.  But  such  a  construction  of 
the  constitution  is  totally  inadmissible.  When 
war  is  commenced  by  savages,  it  becomes  the 
duty  of  the  President  to  repel  and  punish  them. 
To  follow  them  to  the  line  affords  us  no  securi- 
ty. The  invasion  cannot  be  effectually  repelled 
but  by  pursuing  them  into  their  own  territory, 
and  retaliating  on  them  there.  Such  has  been 
the  uniform  construction  of  the  power  of  the 
President,  ever  since  the  adoption  of  the  con- 
stitution. In  no  instance  that  I  recollect  has 


Congress  declared  war  against  an  Indian  tribe. 
The  defeat  of  St.  Clair,  and  subsequent  victory 
of  Wayne,  were  on  Indian  territory.  The  bat- 
tle at  Tippecanoe  (fought  by  my  friend  from 
Ohio,  with  so  much  honor  to  himself  and  satis- 
faction to  his  country)  was  within  the  limits  of 
the  Indian  nation.  In  neither  of  these  instances 
was  a  declaration  of  war  deemed  necessary  by 
Congress. 

If,  then,  it  be  true  that  this  war  was  com- 
menced by  these  savages,  we  have  brought 
General  Jackson  and  his  army  up  to  the  Florida 
line,  and,  I  trust,  without  any  material  violation 
of  the  Constitution  or  laws  of  the  United  States. 
Let  us  now  stop  and  examine  the  ground  on  the 
other  side  before  we  attempt  to  pass  it. 

The  territory  of  Florida,  which  the  General 
and  his  troops  are  about  to  enter,  from  St. 
Marks  to  Pensacola  in  length,  and  from  the 
United  States  to  the  Gulf  in  breadth,  compre- 
hends, probably,  not  less  than  10,000  square 
miles.  Spain  claims  a  jurisdiction  over  this 
tract,  as  comprehended  within  the  two  prov- 
inces ;  and  it  includes,  I  am  told,  about  3,000 
Spaniards  in  all — 2,500  of  whom  are  in  and 
about  Pensacola,  and  the  residue  scattered  on 
the  Choctaw  River,  and  a  few  trading  families 
on  the  Appalachicola.  The  number  of  Indians 
there  cannot  be  well  ascertained,  but  far  ex- 
ceeds the  white  population.  The  possessions 
of  the  Spaniards  are  exceedingly  limited,  and 
their  jurisdiction  is  merely  nominal.  The  In- 
dians have,  in  fact,  the  possession  and  the  con- 
trol. 

But  suppose  we  admit  that  the  Spaniards  and 
Indians  have  a  concurrent  jurisdiction.  This  is 
the  most  that  can  be  pretended.  And  upon 
this  hypothesis,  what  are  the  rights  of  the 
United  States  ?  The  territory  of  these  Indians 
is  on  both  sides  of  the  Florida  line.  Their 
possessions  and  residence  are  transient  and  am- 
bulatory, without  regard  to  this  line.  The  na- 
tion, if  such  they  may  be  called,  is  at  war  with 
us,  and  in  this  war  they  can  occupy  their  terri- 
tory in  Florida  in  spite  of  Spain.  Singular,  in- 
deed, would  it  be,  if  we  should  be  engaged  in 
war  with  an  enemy  who  had  a  perfect  right  to 
be  where  we  had  no  right  to  meet  him.  Spain 
claims  a  jurisdiction  to  a  territory  occupied  by 
our  enemy ;  she  has  no  power  nor  inclination 
to  expel  him,  and  yet  it  is  gravely  said  this  en- 
emy cannot  be  pursued  to  this  territory  without 
an  act  of  hostility  against  Spain.  Unfortunate, 
indeed,  would  be  the  condition  of  the  United 
States,  if  a  horde  of  unprincipled  banditti,  hold- 
ing a  residence  on  our  borders,  could  prosecute 
a  cruel  and  exterminating  war  upon  our  citi- 
zens, and  then  take  refuge  across  an  ideal  line, 
where  the  laws  of  nations  forbid  us  to  approach 
them.  Sir,  let  gentlemen  tell  me  of  another 
instance  where  your  enemy  has  a  right  to  per- 
fect security  against  your  approach.  It  would 
be  a  war  of  a  peculiar  character,  where  one  side 
only  gives  the  blows. 

Why,  then,  should  not  General  Jackson  and 
his  army  cross  ?  Will  any  gentleman  point  to 


DEBATES  OF  CONGRESS. 


233 


JANUARY,  1819.] 


The  Seminole  War. 


[H.  OK  R. 


me  the  clause  in  the  Constitution  or  laws  of  the 
United  States  that  forbids  him?  Nay,  more, 
can  any  one  offer  a  reason  why  he  should  not 
pass  into  Florida,  which  would  not  equally  for- 
bid his  crossing  the  Indian  line  within  the  lim- 
its of  the  United  States  ?  It  would  be  prepos- 
terous and  absurd  to  contend  that  you  could  not 
pursue  your  enemy  to  any  refuge  to  which  he 
is  entitled.  The  Seminoles,  then,  being  ene- 
mies, and  having  a  right  in  Florida  beyond  the 
control  of  Spain,  the  inference  is  irresistible  that 
you  have  a  right  to  pursue  and  fight  them  there 
in  your  own  defence. 

General  Jackson  having  crossed  into  Florida, 
for  the  purpose  of  meeting  and  fighting  the  Sem- 
inoles, what  are  his  duties  towards  those  who 
profess  an  allegiance  to  Spain  ?  The  case  is  pe- 
culiar, and,  perhaps,  stands  on  its  own  founda- 
tion. It  is  difficult  to  illustrate  it  by  analogy. 
While  we  are  on  enemy's,  we  are,  in  some 
sense,  on  neutral  ground.  The  ocean  being  the 
highway  of  nations,  all  having  concurrent  juris- 
diction, it  is  possible  a  case  may  there  be  found 
affording  an  illustration.  You  discover  your 
enemy1s  fleet  at  a  distance.  On  approaching  it 
you  perceive  neutrals  intermixed.  Some  are 
of  a  doubtful  character,  wearing  the  neutral 
flag,  but  exhibiting  other  symptoms  of  a  bel- 
ligerent character.  Some  seem  engaged  in 
affording  facilities  to  the  enemy  to  defend  them- 
selves or  to  escape.  In  such  a  case  you  are 
bound  to  exercise  your  discretion,  and  to  cap- 
ture all  those  of  a  suspicious  character.  Should 
you  mistake,  it  is  not  your  fault,  but  the  misfor- 
tune or  folly  of  the  neutral  in  being  found  in 
company  with  your  enemy,  in  a  situation  to  ex- 
cite suspicion.  A  discretion,  therefore,  must 
rest  with  a  commander  to  discriminate.  In  the 
ordinary  case  of  invading  the  country  of  a  civil- 
ized nation,  the  commanding  general  is  obliged 
to  distinguish  between  the  public  and  private 
property,  and  between  combatants  and  non- 
combatants.  There  are  situations  in  which  it 
is  extremely  difficult  to  determine,  and  it  not 
unusually  happens  that  this  power  of  discrim- 
ination necessarily  devolves  on  the  subordinate 
officer,  and  even  soldiers,  whereby  many  of  the 
innocent  and  unoffending  are  made  to  suffer. 

When  General  Jackson  marched  his  army 
into  a  country  where  he  must  necessarily  find 
neutrals  as  well  as  enemies,  the  right  of  discrim- 
ination devolved  on  him.  If  a  Spaniard  was 
found  in  the  ranks  of  the  enemy,  aiding  and  as- 
sisting in  hostilities,  he  was  bound  to  consider 
him  as  an  enemy.  If  the  guns  of  a  fort  were 
turned  against  him,  or  the  fort  used  by  the  In- 
dians as  a  post  of  annoyance,  he  had  a  right  to 
consider  the  soldiers  there  as  associated  and 
identified  with  the  enemy,  and  to  wrest  from 
their  hands  the  means  of  hostility.  Even 
should  he  mistake,  he  is  not  subject  to  censure, 
but  it  is  the  misfortune  of  the  neutral  in  being 
associated  with  our  enemy,  and  placed  in  a  situ- 
ation where  suspicion  might  attach.  But,  sir,  I 
by  no  means  admit  that  General  Jackson  needs 
such  an  apology  in  this  case.  I  will  prove  that 


the  Spaniards  in  Florida  were  identified  with 
the  Indians,  and  the  posts  taken  by  Jackson 
were  under  Indian  control.  I  will  prove  that 
the  Spanish  officers  and  inhabitants  in  Florida 
have  conducted  most  treacherously,  pretending 
to  a  neutrality  which  they  have  constantly  vio- 
lated. I  will  show  to  the  committee,  by  proofs 
incontestable,  that  the  local  authorities  were 
the  exciters,  promoters,  and  prosecutors  of  the 
war,  and  furnished  the  means  of  carrying  it  on. 

I  lay  Spain  out  of  the  question.  Poor,  mis- 
erable, degraded  Spain,  too  weak  and  palsied  to 
act  or  think !  She  has  but  the  shadow  of  au- 
thority there,  and,  so  far  from  being  able  to 
control  the  Indians,  or  even  her  own  subjects, 
the  country,  as  to  her,  is  a  perfect  derelict.  I 
will  ask  this  committee  to  go  back  with  me  to 
the  year  1813,  and  from  that  period  to  the  cap- 
ture of  Pensacola,  to  witness  the  Spanish  officers 
exciting  the  Indians  to  vengeance,  furnishing 
them  with  the  arms  and  munitions  of  war, 
tamely  acquiescing  in  the  most  flagrant  viola- 
tions of  their  pretended  neutrality,  and  suffering 
the  territory  to  be  prostituted  to  every  banditti 
who  might  be  disposed  to  annoy  or  distress  the 
people  of  the  United  States. 

Sir,  before  I  proceed  to  an  account  of  these 
transactions,  allow  me  to  subjoin  a  few  remarks 
in  reply  to  what  has  been  said  relative  to  the 
conduct  of  the  Executive  in  engaging  in  this 
war.  The  gentleman  from  Georgia  apprehends 
that  the  President  has  violated  the  constitution. 
During  the  last  session  of  Congress,  it  was 
known  that  this  war  could  not  be  terminated 
without  marching  the  troops  into  Florida.  The 
President  of  the  United  States,  in  his  Message 
of  25th  March,  and  four  weeks  before  the  ses- 
sion closed,  informed  this  House  that  he  had 
issued  orders  to  General  Gaines  to  cross  into 
Florida,  to  pursue  and  chastise  the  enemy,  but 
to  respect  the  Spanish  authority  where  it  was 
maintained.  We  acquiesced  ;  we  appropriated 
the  money  to  pay  the  militia,  and  without  a 
whisper  of  disapprobation. 

Connected  with  this  part  of  the  subject,  I  re- 
gret to  be  obliged  to  notice  an  intimation  from 
the  gentleman  from  Georgia,  that  General  Jack- 
son might  possibly  have  orders  from  the  Presi- 
dent different  from  those  communicated  to  this 
House.  Sir,  though  the  gentleman  did  not  state 
that  he  believed  this,  yet,  when  a  member 'of 
this  House  will  intimate  that  it  is  even  possible 
that  the  President  of  the  United  States  has 
practised  such  duplicity,  and  will  endeavor  to 
show  evidence  of  the  grounds  of  such  intima- 
tion, it  becomes  our  imperious  duty  to  inquire. 
If  the  President  has  given  to  General  Jackson 
one  set  of  orders,  and  imposed  upon  us  a  differ- 
ent set,  he  has  practised  a  hypocrisy  utterly  un- 
pardonable, and  he  ought  to  be  exposed  to  the 
indignation  of  the  American  people.  What, 
then,  I  repeat,  can  be  the  ground  of  this' sug- 
gestion? The  gentleman  quotes  the  letter  of 
the  Secretary  of  War  to  Governor  Bibb,  of  the 
13th  May,  stating  that  General  Jackson  had  full 
powers  to  prosecute  the  war  at  his  discretion, 


234 


ABRIDGMENT  OF  THE 


H.  OF  R.] 


The  Seminole  War. 


[JANUARY,  1819. 


and,  as  we  have  seen  no  such  full  power  to 
General  Jackson,  he  leaves  us  to  infer  that  the 
document  is  withheld.  A  brief  statement  of 
the  facts  will,  I  trust,  explain  this  mystery,  even 
to  the  satisfaction  of  the  gentleman  from  Geor- 
gia. The  Secretary's  letter  of  16th  December 
last  authorizes  Gaines  to  cross  into  Florida,  un- 
der the  restriction  as  to  Spanish  fortresses.  His 
letter  to  Jackson,  of  the  26th  of  the  same 
month,  directs  him,  to  whom  the  command  was 
now  transferred,  to  concentrate  his  forces  and 
adopt  the  necessary  measures  to  bring  the  war 
to  a  speedy  conclusion.  Governor  Bibb,  not 
knowing  of  the  orders  to  Gaines,  on  the  15th 
April,  1818,  writes  to  the  Secretary  that  he  has 
no  authority  to  pass  the  Florida  line,  and  wish- 
ing for  orders.  The  Secretary,  on  the  13th 
May,  replied,  that  the  orders  to  Gaines  to  cross 
were  sufficient  for  him,  and  then  adds,  that 
General  Jackson  had  full  powers  to  conduct 
the  war.  Taking  all  these  letters  together,  can 
there  be  a  doubt  of  their  meaning^  The  au- 
thority to  cross  was  that  given  to  Gaines  and 
transferred  to  Jackson  on  his  assuming  the 
command;  and  the  full  power,  mentioned  in 
the  letter  to  Bibb,  was  that  vested  in  Jackson 
by  the  letter  of  the  26th  December,  and  meant 
and  intended  nothing  more  than  that  Jackson 
was  Commander-in-chief  in  that  quarter,  and 
that  his  powers  were  sufficiently  extensive  to 
accomplish  the  object  of  his  appointment.  Can 
gentlemen  find  in  all  this  sufficient  ground  to 
suspect  the  President  of  fraudulently  suppress- 
ing a  document?  Were  the  gentleman  a  judge 
or  juror,  could  he  find  in  this  sufficient  to  con- 
vict, or  even  to  cast  a  well-grounded  suspicion 
upon  the  meanest  wretch  who  crawls  in  the 
filth  of  society?  And  yet  this  is  offered  as 
ground  of  inquiry  against  your  President!  Sir, 
is  it  liberal,  is  it  candid,  is  it  charitable,  is  it 
magnanimous  ? 

Sir,  who  are  we?  Are  we  the  people,  or, 
like  the  President,  the  servants  of  the  people  ? 
And,  should  we  suggest  such  suspicions  on  such 
evidence,  may  not  these  same  people  call  us  to 
an  account  for  a  malicious  prosecution  without 
probable  cause  against  their  President  and 
friend  ?  I  do  not  profess  to  predict  what  would 
be  their  decision,  but  I  confess  I  should  be  un- 
willing to  submit  to  them  such  a  question  on 
such  evidence. 

Mr.  T.  M.  NELSON,  of  Virginia,  said  it  had 
been  his  intention,  when  the  Committee  of  the 
"Whole  on  the  state  of  the  Union  first  took  np 
the  report  which  was  now  the  subject  of -delib- 
eration, to  have  stated  briefly  the  view  taken 
by  the  majority  of  the  Military  Committee  who 
concurred  in  the  report ;  but,  not  having  been 
so  fortunate  as  to  get  the  floor,  he  had  been 
obliged  to  delay  doing  so  until  now.  I  should 
not,  said  he,  have  obtruded  any  remarks  upon 
you  -now,  sir,  had  the  report  the  aid  of  the 
chairman,  who  has  so  faithfully  presided  over 
the  Military  Committee  ever  since  he  has  oc- 
cupied that  station ;  but,  I  regret  to  say,  we 
differed  in  opinion  on  this  occasion. 


I  believe  I  am  correct  in  stating  that  that 
part  of  the  subject  to  which  the  report  is  con- 
fined, is  the  only  one  on  which  a  majority  of 
the  committee  could  be  united;  and,  as  the 
other  branch  of  it  might  fairly  be  considered  to 
be  in  the  hands  of  another  committee  of  this 
House,  a  reason  was  found  for  passing  it  over 
in  silence.  I  moreover  acknowledge  that,  al- 
though I  did,  previous  to  the  decision  of  the 
committee,  disapprove  the  proceedings  against 
Pensacola  and  Barancas,  as  unauthorized  and 
unnecessary,  I  felt  a  doubt  whether  the  capture 
of  St.  Marks  might  not  be  justified,  upon  tho 
plea  of  necessity ;  but  that  is  dispelled  by  a 
more  minute  examination  of  the  documents.  A 
reference  to  the  letter  from  the  commanding 
officer  at  St.  Marks,  to  General  Jackson,  bear- 
ing date  April  7,  1818,  to  be  found  page  67  of 
the  documents  on  the  Seminole  war,  and  which 
had  escaped  my  recollection,  shows  that  there 
was  no  necessity  for  the  capture  of  that  post,  to 
preserve  it  from  falling  into  the  hands  of  the 
Indians;  the  apprehension  of  which  seems  to 
be  the  original  cause  of  General  Jackson's  de- 
sign to  take  it.  And,  sir,  if  for  the  peace  of  the 
United  States,  it  was  important  that  St.  Marks 
should  not  fall  into  the  hands  of  the  enemy,  the 
proposition  made  to  General  Jackson,  in  the 
letter  I  have  alluded  to,  to  leave  a  force  in  its 
vicinity,  with  which  the  Spanish  troops  would 
co-operate,  to  effect  that  object,  appears  to  me 
amply  sufficient  for  every  purpose  of  security 
and  defence.  General  Jackson  thought  differ- 
ently; he  thought  "St.  Marks  was  necessary, 
as  a  depot,  to  insure  success,  and  he  occupied 'it 
with  an  American  force." 

The  gentleman  (Mr.  HOLMES)  who  preceded 
me  in  this  debate,  has  gone  into  a  long  train  of 
reasoning  to  show  that  Spain  has  given  us  just 
cause  of  war,  and  thence  infers  that  General 
Jackson  had  a  right  to  take  possession  of  the 
Spanish  garrisons  in  West  Florida.  Sir,  I  am 
not  the  apologist  of  Spain ;  I  wish  to  be  dis- 
tinctly understood  to  say,  that  to  Spain  we  are 
under  no  obligations  for  General  Jackson's  con- 
duct while  in  her  territory.  When  the  gentle- 
man, who  is  chairman  of  the  Committee  on 
Foreign  Kelations,  shall  offer  a  proposition  to 
go  to  war  with  Spain,  it  will  be  time  enough 
to  inquire  whether  we  have  just  cause  of  war 
against  her;  but  there  would  be  many  other 
points  of  discussion,  besides  the  mere  justifica- 
tion or  cause  of  war.  Would  it  be  politic,  would 
it  be  magnanimous,  to  make  war  upon  a  de- 
graded, enfeebled  enemy  ?  These  are  questions 
which  I  am  not  called  upon  at  this  time  to  de- 
cide. Sir,  the  question  now  before  us  is,  whe- 
ther a  war  has  existed  between  the  United 
States  and  Spain,  and  by  whose  authority. 
That  a  war  has  been  prosecuted  by  General 
Jackson,  against  the  Spanish  authority  in  West 
Florida,  can  be  established  by  his  own  repre- 
sentation. I  refer  you  to  the  capitulation  en- 
tered into  by  General  Jackson  and  the  Govern  or 
of  Pensacola,  "  which,  with  the  exception  of  one 
article,  amounts  to  a  complete  cession  of  the 


DEBATES   OF  CONGRESS. 


235 


JANUARY,  1819.] 


The  Seminole  War. 


[H.  OF  R. 


country  to  the  United  States,"  to  use  the  Gen- 
eral's own  language.  How,  sir,  was  this  effect- 
ed ?  By  the  American  Army,  commanded  by 
General  Jackson.  Was  it  in  compliance  with 
the  wish  and  desire  of  the  Spanish  commander  ? 
No,  sir ;  it  was  in  direct  opposition  to  his  warn- 
ing, that  he  would  repel  force  by  force ;  which 
General  Jackson  says  "  was  so  open  an  indica- 
tion of  hostile  feeling  "  on  the  part  of  the  Gov- 
ernor, that  he  no  longer  hesitated  on  the  means 
to  be  adopted.  "  I  marched  for  and  entered 
Pensacola,  with  only  the  show  of  resistance." 
In  his  letter  of  the  2d  of  June,  to  the  Secretary 
of  War,  he  details  all  the  minutia  of  investing 
the  fortress  of  Barancas;  of  making  a  lodg- 
ment under  the  fire  of  the  garrison ;  of  mount- 
ing nine-pounder  and  hoAvitzer  batteries ;  and 
such  other  incidents  as  are  attendant  on  most 
battles  between  civilized  nations.  Mr.  Chair- 
man, if  this  be  not  war,  I  have  always  misun- 
derstood the  term,  although  three  years  a  soldier 
during  what  was  then  called  war. 

General  Jackson,  speaking  of  the  captured 
garrison,  says,  "  the  terms  were  more  favorable 
than  a  conquered  enemy  would  have  merited." 
He  goes  on,  in  the  same  letter,  to  state  the  kind 
of  government  ho  had  established,  appointing 
revenue  and  other  officers,  putting  the  revenue 
laws  of  the  United  States  in  force  !  By  what 
authority  has  all  this  been  done,  Mr.  Chairman  ? 
Has  it  been  the  effect  of  any  act  of  Congress, 
where  the  power  alone  is  vested  by  the  consti- 
tution ?  It  is  not  necessary  to  refer  to  that  in- 
strument to  show,  that  to  Congress  alone  belongs 
the  war-making  power  ;  every  gentleman  who 
hears  me  knows  it  to  be  so ;  nor  will  I  consent 
to  partition  it.  The  inevitable  result  of  every 
gentleman's  unbiassed  inquiry  will  be,  that  a 
war  has  been  waged  against  a  foreign  power  by 
the  United  States  without  the  sanction  of  Con- 
gress, where  alone  the  right  and  the  power  con- 
stitutionally exists.  And,  in  this  act  of  war,  I 
witness,  to  regret  and  deplore,  the  most  un- 
qualified infraction  of  the  constitution  that  has 
ever  occurred  since  its  adoption.  Shall  we,  sir, 
who  represent  the  sovereignty  of  the  nation, 
tamely  fold  our  arms  and  acquiesce  in  the  vio- 
lation of  that  sacred  instrument,  which  by  our 
oaths  and  our  interests  we  are  bound  to  sup- 
port and  maintain  ?  I  trust  not.  Let  us  apply 
the  only  remedy  in  our  power,  censure  the  pro- 
ceedings, and  enact  other  laws  which  cannot  be 
misconstrued.  I  fear  even  this  remedy  will 
prove  inefficient ;  the  constitution,  to  my  mind, 
is  so  plain  and  explicit  on  this  point,  that  he 
who  runs  may  read. 

Mr.  JOHXSOX,  of  Virginia,  said  it  was  with 
sensations  very  different  from  those  which  are 
pleasurable,  that  he  entered  on  the  invt-tiiru- 
tion  of  the  subject  which  claimed  the  attention 
and  deliberation  of  the  committee.  To  be  com- 
pelled, said  lie,  to  investigate  the  conduct  of  the 
high  and  distinguished  officers  of  the  Govern- 
ment, when  warned  and  admonished  by  every 
fact  which  meets  my  eye,  that  1  shall  be  com- 
pelled to  disapprove  that  conduct,  can  never  be 


to  me  a  pleasurable  duty.  As  an  American  cit- 
izen, as  the  Representative  of  a  portion  of  the 
people  of  the  United  States,  it  would  be  the 
pride  and  pleasure  of  my  heart  to  be  enabled 
always  to  prove  the  officers  of  my  Government 
right,  and  to  prove  the  enemies  of  my  country 
and  the  enemies  of  liberty  wrong.  Before  I 
proceed,  sir,  I  must  notice  a  remark  made  by 
the  honorable  gentleman  from  Massachusetts, 
(Mr.  HOLMES.)  I  am  sorry  that  I  do  not  see 
the  honorable  gentleman  in  his  seat.  [Mr. 
HOLMES  rose.]  He  remarked  that  a  malicious 
prosecution  had  been  commenced  against  the 
President  of  the  United  States.  I  do  not  pre- 
cisely understand  the  gentleman.  By  whom 
has  this  malicious  prosecution  been  commenced  ? 
[Here  Mr.  HOLMES  rose  and  explained.  He  said 
the  remark  was  intended  as  a  reply  to  an  ob- 
servation made  on  yesterday  by  an  honorable 
gentleman  from  Georgia,  (Mr.  COBB,)  who 
seemed  to  insinuate  that  some  instruction  given 
to  General  Jackson  had  been  suppressed.]  Mr. 
Chairman,  I  hold  it  to  be  a  fundamental  prin- 
ciple, that  every  officer  of  this  Government, 
from  the  highest  to  the  lowest,  is  responsible  to 
the  people  for  the  manner  in  which  he  has  dis- 
charged the  duties  of  his  office.  It  is  on  this 
principle  that  the  Government  depends  for  its 
perpetuity — for  its  capacity  to  secure  to  the 
people  of  the  United  States  peace,  prosperity, 
liberty,  and  happiness.  Is  there  any  gentleman 
who  hears  me  that  will  question  the  truth  of 
this  political  maxim  ?  Is  there  any  officer,  how- 
ever distinguished  by  station,  or  the  splendor  of 
his  public  services,  who  is  unwilling  to  submit 
the  investigation  of  his  public  acts  to  a  candid, 
deliberate,  and  decorous  investigation  by  the 
Representatives  of  the  people?  If  there  be 
any  such  officer,  I  pronounce  him  a  stranger,  an 
alien  to  the  affections  of  the  people,  and  that  it 
is  time  to  get  rid  of  him.  The  moment  that 
any  officer  of  this  Government  denies  that  he  is 
responsible  for  the  faithful  and  correct  discharge 
of  his  public  duties,  from  that  moment  he  be- 
comes dangerous.  Sir,  I  am  arguing  this  ques- 
tion on  abstract  principles.  I  have  no  reference 
to  individuals  ;  I  have  no  feelings  to  gratify.  I 
presume  that  a  high-minded  honorable  man,  so 
far  from  evading  an  investigation  of  his  public 
conduct,  the  moment  he  discovered  the  slightest 
shade  of  suspicion  hovering  over  the  pure,  faith- 
ful, and  legal  discharge  of  his  public  duties, 
would  court  investigation ;  that  he  would  pre- 
sent himself  at  the  bar  of  the  public,  and  de- 
mand an  investigation  of  his  conduct. 

Had  General  Jackson  the  right  to  capture 
Pensacola  and  the  Barancas?  Sir,  I  wish  to 
treat  this  question  with  the  most  perfect  candor 
and  fairness.  To  save  the  trouble  of  frequent 
references  to  books,  I  have  transcribed  from 
Vattel's  Law  of  Nations  the  strongest  principles 
in  favor  of  the  course  pursued  by  the  Com- 
mander-in-chief. I  have  no  question  that  there 
are  copies  of  Vattel's  Law  of  Nations  in  the 
House.  If  any  gentleman  doubts  the  correct- 
ness of  the  quotations,  I  hope  he  will  compare 


ABRIDGMENT  OF  THE 


H.  OF  R,] 

the  text  with  the  original.  It  is  laid  down  by 
Vattel,  page  410,  that  "  extreme  necessity  may 
oven  authorize  the  temporary  seizure  of  a  place 
(in  a  neutral  country)  and  the  putting  a  garri- 
Bon  therein  for  defending  itself  against  an  enemy, 
or  preventing  him  in  his  designs  of  seizing  this 
place  when  the  sovereign  is  not  able  to  defend 
it.  But  when  the  danger  is  over,  it  must  be 
immediately  surrendered."  Did  this  necessity 
exist  ?  Was  the  existing  state  of  affairs  such  as 
would  have  authorized  a  commander,  possessed 
of  plenary  power,  to  have  captured  Pensacola 
and  the  Barancas  ?  In  order  to  ascertain  the 
facts  necessary  to  a  correct  decision  of  this  im- 
portant question,  I  beg  permission  to  refer  the 
honorable  committee  to  the  correspondence  of 
General  Jackson  with  the  Governor  of  Pensa- 
cola and  the  Secretary  of  War.  In  the  letter  of 
General  Jackson,  of  the  2d  June,  1818,  to  the 
Secretary  of  War,  will  be  found  the  following 
statement :  "  The  terms  are  more  than  a  con- 
quered enemy  would  have  merited,  but,  under 
the  peculiar  circumstances  of  the  case,  my  ob- 
ject obtained,  there  was  no  motive  for  wound- 
ing^ihe  feelings  of  those  whose  military  pride  or 
honor  had  prompted  to  the  resistance  made. 
The  '  articles,  with  but  one  condition,  amount 
to  a  complete  cession  to  the  United  States  of 
that  portion  of  the  Floridas  hitherto  under  the 
Government  of  Don  Jose  Massot.'  Though  the 
Seminole  Indians  have  been  scattered,  and,  lit- 
erally so,  driven  and  reduced,  and  no  longer  to 
be  viewed  as  a  formidable  enemy,  yet,  as  there 
are  many  small  marauding  parties,  supposed  to 
be  concealed  in  the  swamps  of  Perdido,  Chocta- 
\vhatchy,  and  Chapouly,  who  might  make  oc- 
casional and  sudden  inroads  on  our  frontier  set- 
tlers, massacreing  women  and  children,  I  have 
deemed  it  advisable  to  call  into  service  for  six 
months,  if  not  sooner  discharged,  two  companies 
of  volunteer  rangers,  under  Captains  McGirt 
and  Boyles,  with  instructions  to  scour  the  conn- 
try  between  the  Mobile  and  Appalachicola  Eiv- 
ers,  exterminating  every  hostile  party  who 
dare  resist,  and  will  not  surrender,  and  remove 
with  their  families,  above  the  31st  degree  of 
latitude."  In  this  letter  of  the  25th  of  May, 
1818,  from  General  Jackson  to  Don  Jose  Mas- 
sot,  commanding  the  Barancas,  will  be  found 
the  following  important  statement  of  facts :  "  I 
have  only  to  repeat  that  the  Barancas  must  be 
occupied  by  an  American  garrison ;  and,  again, 
to  tender  you  the  terms  offered,  if  amicably  sur- 
rendered. Resistance  would  be  a  wanton  sac- 
rifice of  blood,  for  which  you  and  your  garrison 
will  have  to  atone.  You  cannot  expect  to  de- 
fend yourself  successfully,  and  the  first  shot 
from  your  fort  must  draw  down  upon  you  the 
vengeance  of  an  irritated  soldiery.  I  am  well 
advised  of  your  strength,  and  cannot  but  remark 
on  the  inconsistency  of  presuming  yourself  ca- 
pable of  resisting  an  army  which  has  conquered 
the  Indian  tribes,  too  strong,  agreeably  to-  your 
own  acknowledgment,  to  be  controlled  by  you." 
Mr.  Chairman,  after  this  statement  of  facts  by 
the  commanding  General,  permit  me  to  inquire 


The  Seminole  War. 


[JANUARY,  1819. 


whether  any  member  of  this  committee  can  be- 
lieve that  this  extreme  necessity  existed,  which 
would  authorize  a  General,  in  a  neutral  country, 
temporarily  to  seize  a  place  and  put  a  garrison 
therein,  for  defending  himself  against  the  enemy, 
or  preventing  him  in  his  designs  of  seizing  this 
place.  What,  sir !  after  the  Indian  tribes  had 
been  conquered,  with  whom  was  the  General 
waging  war  ?  Not  with  Spain.  Not  with  the 
Indian  tribes,  because  these  tribes  he  had  sub- 
dued and  conquered.  Where,  then,  was  the  ne- 
cessity, the  urgent  and  extreme  necessity,  which 
would  have  justified  an  absolute  sovereign,  on 
whose  fiat  depended  war  and  peace,  in  thus 
forcibly  possessing  himself  of  these  places  and 
posts  in  a  neutral  country  ? 

I  proceed  to  examine  into  the  propriety  of 
the  course  pursued  on  the  trial  and  execution 
of  Arbuthnot  and  Ambrister.  It  is  laid  down 
by  Vattel,  p.  416  :  "  An  enemy  not  to  be  killed 
after  ceasing  to  resist."  In  the  same  page :  "A 
particular  case  excepted.  Yet,  as  a  prince  or 
his  general  has  a  right  of  sacrificing  the  life  of 
his  enemies  to  his  safety,  and  that  of  his  men, 
if  he  ia  engaged  with  an  inhuman  enemy,  who 
frequently  commits  enormities,  he  appears  to 
have  a  right  of  refusing  life  to  some  of  the  pris- 
oners he  may  take,  and  of  treating  them  as  his 
were  treated ;  but  Scipio's  generosity  is  rather 
to  be  imitated."  Did  Arbuthnot  and  Ambrister 
come  within  the  particular  exception?  I  beg 
attention  to  the  careful  and  particular  manner 
in  which  this  distinguished  writer  lays  down 
this  important  principle.  The  prince,  for  his 
own  safety,  appears  to  have  the  right  to  take 
the  life  of  his  prisoner.  The  general,  for  his 
own  safety,  and  that  of  his  men,  appears  to 
have  the  right  to  take  the  life  of  his  prisoner. 
This  humane  author  seems  disposed  to  guard 
this  dangerous  principle  as  effectually  as  possi- 
ble. It  presents  two  distinct  propositions.  The 
general,  when  in  the  field,  at  a  distance  from 
his  government,  when  his  safety  and  that  of 
his  men  require  it,  appears  (in  the  words  of  the 
author)  to  have  the  right  to  take  the  life  of  his 
prisoner.  To  justify  the  general  in  exercising 
this  high  and  important  power  of  denying  to  an 
unfortunate  captive  life,  the  safety  of  the  gen- 
eral and  his  men  must  really  require  the  sacri- 
fice. I  can  scarcely  believe  that  it  will  be  pre- 
tended that  the  safety  of  the  general  or  his 
men  required  the  execution  of  these  prisoners. 
Did,  then,  the  safety  of  the  prince  (that  is,  in 
this  country,  the  people)  require  the  execution 
of  these  men  ?  Was  it  necessary  to  offer  them 
up  on  the  altar  of  public  safety — to  hold  them 
up  as  a  terrible  example  to  future  instigators 
and  abettors  of  Indian  wars  ?  If  so,  their  fate 
should  have  been  referred  to  the  people  ;  that 
is,  to  their  representatives — to  the  Congress  of 
the  United  States.  The  commanding  general 
had  no  right,  no  authority,  to  decide  the  ques- 
tion whether  the  safety  of  the  people  required 
the  sacrifice  of  these  captives.  We  are  told — 
and  very  seriously  told — that  this  execution  of 
prisoners  may  be  justified  on  the  principles  of 


DEBATES  OF  CONGRESS. 


237 


JANUARY,  1819.] 


The  Seminok  War. 


[H.  OF  R. 


retaliation.  What,  retaliate  the  cruelties  and 
shocking  barbarities  of  savages !  Not  precisely 
that  sort  of  retaliation.  You  execute  individ- 
uals, not  under  the  authority  of  the  law  of  na- 
tions, during  the  continuance  of  war,  having 
given  notice  to  the  enemy  of  the  particular  acts 
of  inhumanity  which  you  mean  to  retaliate; 
not  for  the  purpose  of  punishing,  through  these 
individuals,  the  nation  with  which  they  are 
identified  and  fighting,  but  to  punish  them,  as 
individuals,  for  their  crimes — the  crimes  of  aid- 
ing and  abetting  and  instigating  Indian  tribes 
to  war  upon  us ;  not  as  an  example  to  operate 
on  nations,  but  on  individuals.  And  we  are 
seriously  and  gravely  informed,  by  honorable 
gentlemen,  that  an  American  general  has  au- 
thority to  execute  individuals  for  individual 
offences,  as  a  warning  to  other  individuals, 
without  the  form  of  trial,  and  even  contrary  to 
the  sentence  of  the  court.,  detailed  by  the  gen- 
eral himself,  for  the  purpose  of  trying  the  of- 
fenders. It  is  a  doctrine  unsupported  by  pre- 
cedent and  law,  and  is  shocking  to  the  princi- 
ples of  humanity.  It  may  be  said,  as  it  was 
remarked  the  other  day  by  a  gentleman  from 
Virginia,  (Mr.  NELSON,)  that  this  is  a  sympathy 
for  miscreants — a  sympathy  resulting  from  mor- 
bid sensibility — a  sympathy  for  British  subjects. 
It  is  not  so,  Mr.  Chairman.  I  have  no  sympa- 
thy for  British  subjects.  When  I  look  at  yon 
ruin,  (pointing  to  the  Capitol ;)  when  I  recollect 
the  massacre  at  the  Kiver  Raisin,  Frenchtown, 
and  many  other  places  in  the  United  States, 
during  the  late  war,  I  recognize  in  the  late 
British  forces,  an  enemy  not  less  cruel  and 
savage  than  the  Seminole  Indians — the  out- 
lawed Red  Sticks.  Acts  of  wanton  and  shock- 
ing cruelty  occur  to  me,  at  which  my  soul 
sickens,  and  which  I  should  have  rejoiced  to 
see  retaliated  on  the  most  distinguished  officer 
in  the  British  army.  What  has  been  the  opin- 
ionv  as  deliberately  expressed  by  this  Govern- 
ment, on  the  subject  of  retaliation?  Did  the 
highest  officer  in  this  Government,  during  the 
late  war — the  Commander-in-chief  of  your 
Army — the  President  of  the  United  States — 
consider  himself  vested  with  authority  to  re- 
taliate the  acts  of  cruelty  perpetrated  by  the 
enemy,  or  those  threatened?  The  answer  will 
be  furnished  by  referring  to  the  act  of  Con- 
gress, passed  during  that  war,  for  the  express 
purpose  of  authorizing  the  President  to  retal- 
iate. What  has  been,  since  the  period  of  our 
independence,  the  uniform  and  unvarying  policy 
pursued  by  this  Government  towards  the  Indian 
tribes  ?  Has  it  been  a  policy  tempered  by  mer- 
cy, brightened  by  generosity,  and  ameliorated 
by  Christianity  ?  Have  we  been  constantly  en- 
gaged in  the  humane  work  of  civilizing  them — 
of  sending  emissaries  among  them  to  preach 
the  Gospel — to  distribute  the  copies  of  the 
Bible  collected  by  different  societies?  Is  this 
policy  to  be  suddenly  changed,  under  the  aus- 
pices of  General  Jackson?  Shall  we,  at  the 
close  of  a  war  of  extermination,  go  through  the 
ceremony  of  appointing  committees  to  meet 


members  from  the  Society  cf  Friends,  to  de- 
vise the  means  of  civilizing  this  unfortunate, 
misguided,  and  deluded  race  of  beings  ?  Such 
committees  have  been  appointed  during  the 
present  session.  I  have  seen  members  of  the 
Society  of  Friends  giving  their  willing  attend- 
ance. But  Arbuthnot  and  Ambrister  were 
j  Christian  savages ;  they  were  worse  than  the 
Indians ;  they  were  the  exciters  and  instigators 
of  the  war ;  they  deserved  death.  In  a  moral 
point  of  view,  I  admit  that  the  instigator  to 
acts  of  wickedness,  and  of  dark,  malignant,  and 
criminal  character,  is  worse  than  the  actor. 
The  question  recurs,  Had  the  General,  on  his 
own  authority,  without  trial,  and  against  the 
sentence  of  the  court,  the  right  to  take  the  life 
of  his  prisoner — a  prisoner  completely  in  his 
power — from  whose  hands  the  weapons  of 
death — the  tomahawk  and  the  scalping  knife — 
had  been  stricken  ?  Were  these  men,  accord- 
ing to  any  known  principle  of  the  law  of  na- 
tions, subject  to  any  other  or  different  treat- 
ment, than  the  subjects  or  citizens  of  the  na- 
tion with  which  they  had  identified  themselves, 
and  by  whose  sides  they  were  fighting?  Most 
certainly  not.  . 


WEDNESDAY,  January  20. 
The  Seminole  War. 

The  House  again  resolved  itself  into  a  Com- 
mittee of  the  Whole  on  the  state  of  the  Union, 
(Mr.  PITKIN  in  the  Chair,)  on  the  report  of  the 
Military  Committee,  disapproving  the  trial  and 
execution  of  Arbuthnot  and  Ambrister,  with 
the  amendments  proposed  thereto. 

Mr.  CLAY  (Speaker)  rose.  In  rising  to  ad- 
dress you,  sir,  said  he,  on  the  very  interesting 
subject  which  now  engages  the  attention  of 
Congress,  I  must  be  allowed  to  say,  that  all  in- 
ferences, drawn  from  the  course  which  it  will 
be  my  painful  duty  to  take  in  this  discussion, 
of  unfriendliness  to  either  the  Chief  Magistrate 
of  the  country,  or  to  the  illustrious  military 
chieftain,  whose  operations  are  under  investi- 
gation, will  be  wholly  unfounded.  Towards 
that  distinguished  captain,  who  has  shed  so 
much  glory  on  our  country,  whose  renown  con- 
stitutes so  great  a  portion  of  its  moral  prop- 
erty, I  never  had,  I  never  can  have,  any  other 
feelings  than  those  of  the  most  profound  re- 
spect, and  of  the  utmost  kindness.  With  him 
my  acquaintance  is  very  limited,  but,  so  far  as 
it  has  extended,  it  has  been  of  the  most  amica- 
ble kind.  I  know,  said  Mr.  C.,  the  motives 
which  have  been,  and  which  will  again  be,  at- 
tributed to  me,  in  regard  to  the  other  exalted 
personage  alluded  to.  They  have  been,  and 
will  be,  unfounded.  I  have  no  interest,  other 
than  that  of  seeing  the  concerns  of  my  country 
well  and  happily  administered.  It  is  infinitely 
more  gratifying  to  behold  the  prosperity  of  my 
country  advancing,  by  the  wisdom  of  the  meas- 
ures adopted  to  promote  it,  than  it  would  be  to 
expose  the  errors  which  may  be  committed,  if 
there  be  any,  in  the  conduct  of  its  ali'uirs.  Mr. 


238 


ABRIDGMENT  OF  THE 


H.  OF  R.] 


The  Seminole  War. 


[JANUARY,  1819. 


0.  said,  little  as  had  been  his  experience  in  pub- 
lic life,  it  had  been  sufficient  to  teach  him,  that 
the  most  humble  station  is  surrounded  by  diffi- 
culties and  embarrassments.  Rather  than  throw 
obstructions  in  the  way  of  the  President,  he 
would  precede  him,  and  pick  out  those,  if  he 
could,  which  might  jostle  him  in  his  progress 
— he  would  sympathize-with  him  in  his  embar- 
rassments, and  commiserate  with  him  in  his 
misfortunes.  It  was  true,  that  it  had  been  his 
mortification  to  differ  with  that  gentleman  on 
several  occasions.  He  might  be  again  reluct- 
antly compelled  to  differ  with  him ;  but  he 
would,  with  the  utmost  sincerity,  assure  the 
committee,  that  he  had  formed  no  resolution, 
come  under  no  engagements,  and  that  he  never 
would  form  any  resolution,  or  contract  any 
engagement,  for  systematic  opposition  to  his 
Administration,  or  to  that  of  any  other  Chief 
Magistrate. 

Mr.  0.  begged  leave  further  to  premise,  that 
the  subject  under  consideration  presented  two 
distinct  aspects,  susceptible,  in  his  judgment,  of 
the  mcst  clear  and  precise  discrimination.  The 
one  he  would  call  its  foreign,  the  other  its  do- 
mestic, aspect.  In  regard  to  the  first,  he  would 
say,  that  he  approved  entirely  of  the  conduct 
of  his  Government,  and  that  Spain  had  no  cause 
of  complaint.  Having  violated  an  important 
stipulation  of  the  Treaty  of  1795,  that  power 
had  justly  subjected  herself  to  all  the  conse- 
quences which  ensued  upon  the  entry  into  her 
dominions,  and  it  belonged  not  to  her  to  com- 

Elain  of  those  measures  which  resulted  from  her 
reach  of  contract ;  still  less  had  she  a  right  to 
examine  into  the  considerations  connected  with 
the  domestic  aspect  of  the  subject. 

"What  were  the  propositions  before  the  com- 
mittee? The  first  in  order  was  that  reported 
by  the  Military  Committee,  which  asserts  the 
disapprobation  of  this  House  of  the  proceedings 
in  the  trial  and  execution  of  Arbuthnot  and 
Ambrister.  The  second,  being  the  first  con- 
tained in  the  proposed  amendment,  was  the 
consequence  of  that  disapprobation,  and  con- 
templates the  passage  of  a  law  to  prohibit  the 
execution  hereafter  of  any  captive,  taken  by  the 
army,  without  the  approbation  of  the  President. 
The  third  proposition  was,  that  the  House  dis- 
approves of  the  forcible  seizure  of  the  Spanish 
posts,  as  contrary  to  orders,  and  in  violation  of 
the  constitution.  The  fourth  proposition,  as 
the  result  of  the  last,  is,  that  a  law  should  pass 
to  prohibit  the  march  of  the  army  of  the  United 
States,  or  any  corps  of  it,  into  any  foreign  ter- 
ritory, without  the  previous  authorization  of 
Congress,  except  it  be  in  fresh  pursuit  of  a  de- 
feated enemy.  The  first  and  third  were  gen- 
eral propositions,  declaring  the  sense  of  the 
House  in  regard  to  the  evils  pointed  out;  and 
the  second  and  fourth  proposed  the  legisla- 
tive remedies  against  the  recurrence  of  those 
evils. 

It  would  be  at  once  perceived,  Mr.  0.  said, 
by  this  simple  statement  of  the  propositions, 
that  no  other  censure  was  proposed  against 


General  Jackson  himself,  than  what  was  merely 
consequential.  His  name  even  did  not  appear 
in  any  one  of  the  resolutions.  The  Legislature 
of  the  country,  in  reviewing  the  state  of  the 
Union,  and  considering  the  events  which  have 
transpired  since  its  last  meeting,  finds  that  par- 
ticular occurrences,  of  the  greatest  moment,  in 
many  respects,  had  taken  place  near  our  south- 
ern border.  He  would  add,  that  the  House 
had  not  sought,  by  any  officious  interference 
with  the  duties  of  the  Executive,  to  gain  juris- 
diction over  this  matter.  The  President,  in  his 
message  at  the  opening  of  the  session,  com- 
municated the  very  information  on  which  it  is 
proposed  to  act.  He  would  ask,  for  what  pur- 
pose ?  That  we  should  fold  our  arms,  and  yield 
a  tacit  acquiescence,  even  if  we  supposed  that  in- 
formation disclosed  alarming  events,  not  merely 
as  it  regards  the  peace  of  the  country,  but  in. 
respect  to  its  constitution  and  character?  Im- 
possible. In  communicating  these  papers,  and 
voluntarily  calling  the  attention  of  Congress  to 
the  subject,  the  President  must  himself  have 
intended  that  we  should  apply  any  remedy  that 
we  might  be  able  to  devise.  Having  the  sub- 
ject thus  regularly  and  fairly  before  us,  and 
proposing  merely  to  collect  the  sense  of  the 
House  upon  certain  important  transactions 
which  it  discloses,  with  the  view  to  the  passage 
of  such  laws  as  may  be  demanded  by  the  public 
interest,  he  repeated,  that  there  was  no  censure 
anywhere,  except  such  as  was  strictly  conse- 
quential upon  our  legislative  action.  The  sup- 
position of  every  new  law,  having  for  its  object 
to  prevent  the  recurrence  of  evil,  is,  that  some- 
thing has  happened  which  ought  not  to  have 
taken  place,  and  no  other  than  this  indirect  sort 
of  censure  would  flow  from  the  resolutions 
before  the  committee. 

Having  thus  given  his  view  of  the  nature  and 
character  of  the  propositions  under  considera- 
tion, Mr.  0.  said  he  was  far  from  intimating, 
that  it  was  not  his  purpose  to  go  into  a  full,  a 
free,  and  a  thorough  investigation  of  the  facts 
and  of  the  principles  of  law,  public,  municipal, 
and  constitutional,  involved  in  them.  And, 
whilst  he  trusted  he  should  speak  with  the  de- 
corum due  to  the  distinguished  officers  of  the 
Government  whose  proceedings  were  to  be  ex- 
amined, he  should  exercise  the  independence 
which  belonged  to  him  as  a  representative  of 
the  people,  in  freely  and  fully  submitting  his 
sentiments. 

In  noticing  the  painful  incidents  of  this  war, 
it  was  impossible  not  to  inquire  into  its  origin.- 
He  feared  that  would  be  found  to  be  the  famous 
treaty  of  Fort  Jackson,  concluded  in  August, 
1814 ;  and  he  asked  the  indulgence  of  the  Chair- 
man that  the  Clerk  might  read  certain  parts  of 
that  treaty.  [The  Clerk  of  the  House  having 
accordingly  read  as  requested,  Mr.  C.  proceed- 
ed.] He  had  never  perused  this  instrument 
until  within  a  few  days  past,  and  he  had  read 
it  with  the  deepest  mortification  and  regret.  A 
more  dictatorial  spirit  he  had  never  seen  dis- 
played in  any  instrument.  He  would  challenge 


DEBATES  OF  CONGRESS. 


239 


JANUARY,  1819.] 


The  Seminole  War. 


[H.  OF  R. 


an  examination  of  all  the  records  of  diplomacy, 
not  excepting  even  those  in  the  most  haughty 
period  of  imperious  Kome,  when  she  was  carry- 
ing her  arms  into  the  barbarian  nations  that 
surrounded  her  ;  and  he  did  not  believe  a  soli- 
tary instance  could  be  found  of  such  an  inexo- 
rable spirit  of  domination  pervading  a  compact 
purporting  to  be  a  treaty  of  peace.  It  consisted 
of  the  most  severe  and  humiliating  demands — 
of  the  surrender  of  large  territory — of  the  privi- 
lege of  making  roads  through  even  what  was 
retained— of  the  right  of  establishing  trading- 
houses — of  the  obligation  of  delivering  into  our 
hands  their  prophets.  And  all  this,  of  a  wretch- 
ed people,  reduced  to  the  last  extremity  of  dis- 
tress, whose  miserable  existence  we  had  to  pre- 
serve by  a  voluntary  stipulation  to  furnish  them 
with  bread!  "When  even  did  conquering  and 
desolating  Rome  fail  to  respect  the  altars  and 
the  gods  of  those  whom  she  subjugated!  Let 
me  not  be  told  that  these  prophets  were  im- 
postors, who  deceived  the  Indians.  They  were 
their  prophets — the  Indians  believed  and  vene- 
rated them,  and  it  is  not  for  us  to  dictate  a  re- 
ligious belief  to  them.  It  does  not  belong  to 
the  holy  character  of  the  religion  which  we 
profess,  to  carry  its  precepts,  by  force  of  the 
bayonet,  into  the  bosoms  of  other  people.  Mild 
and  gentle  persuasion  was  the  great  instrument 
employed  by  the  meek  founder  of  our  religion. 
"We  leave  to  the  humane  and  benevolent  efforts 
of  the  reverend  professors  of  Christianity  to 
convert  from  barbarism  those  unhappy  nations 
yet  immersed  in  its  gloom.  But,  sir,  spare 
them  their  prophets !  Spare  their  delusions  ! 
Spare  their  prejudices  and  superstitions !  Spare 
them  even  their  religion,  such  as  it  is,  from 
open  and  cruel  violence.  When,  sir,  was  that 
treaty  concluded?  On  the  very  day,  after  the 
protocol  was  signed,  of  the  first  conference  be- 
tween the  American  and  British  Commissioners, 
treating  of  peace,  at  Ghent.  In  the  course  of 
that  negotiation,  pretensions  so  enormous  were 
set  up,  by  the  other  party,  that,  when  they 
were  promulgated  in  this  country,  there  was 
one  general  burst  of  indignation  throughout  the 
continent.  Faction  itself  was  silenced,  and  the 
firm  and  unanimous  determination  of  all  parties 
was,  to  fight  until  the  last  man  fell  in  the 
ditch,  rather  than  submit  to  such  ignominious 
terms. 

"What  a  contrast  is  exhibited  between  the 
contemporaneous  scenes  of  Ghent,  and  Fort 
Jackson!  What  a  powerful  argument  would 
the  British  Commissioners  have  been  furnished 
with,  if  they  could  have  got  hold  of  that  treaty! 
The  United  States  demand! — the  United  States 
demand ! — is  repeated  five  or  six  times.  And 
what  did  the  preamble  itself  disclose?  That 
two-thirds  of  the  Creek  nation  had  been  hostile, 
and  one-third  only  friendly  to  us.  Now,  he  had 
hoard  (he  could  not  vouch  for  the  truth  of  the 
statement)  that  not  one  hostile  chief  signed  the 
treaty.  He  had  also  heard  that  prrluips  one  or 
two  of  them  had.  If  the  treaty  really  were 
made  by  a  minority  of  the  nation,  it  was  not 


obligatory  upon  the  whole  nation.  It  was  void, 
considered  in  the  light  of  a  national  compact. 
And,  if  void,  the  Indians  were  entitled  to  the 
benefit  of  the  provision  of  the  ninth  article  of  the 
Treaty  of  Ghent,  by  which  we  bound  ourselves 
to  make  peace  with  any  tribes  with  whom  we 
might  be  at  war  on  the  ratification  of  the  treaty, 
and  restore  to  them  their  lands  as  they  held  them 
in  1811.  Mr.  C.  said  he  did  not  know  how  the 
honorable  Senate,  that  body  for  which  he  had 
so  high  a  respect,  could  have  given  their  sanc- 
tion to  the  Treaty  of  Fort  Jackson,  so  utterly 
irreconcilable  as  it  is  with  those  noble  principles 
of  generosity  and  magnanimity  which  he  hoped 
to  see  this  country  always  exhibit,  and  particu- 
larly towards  the  miserable  remnant  of  the  abo- 
rigines. It  would  have  comported  better  with 
those  principles  to  have  imitated  the  benevolent 
policy  of  the  founder  of  Pennsylvania,  to  have 
given  to  the  Creeks,  conquered  as  they  were, 
even  if  they  had  made  an  unjust  war  upon  us, 
the  trifling  consideration,  to  them  an  adequate 
compensation,  which  he  paid  for  their  lands. 
That  treaty,  Mr.  C.  said,  he  feared,  had  been 
the  main  cause  of  the  recent  war.  And  if  it 
had  been,  it  only  added  another  melancholy  proof 
to  those  with  which  history  already  abounds, 
that  hard  and  unconscionable  terms,  extorted 
by  the  power  of  the  sword  and  the  right  of 
conquest,  served  but  to  whet  and  stimulate  re- 
venge, and  to  give  to  old  hostilities,  smother- 
ed, not  extinguished,  by  the  pretended  peace, 
greater  expansion  and  more  forocity.  A  truce 
thus  patched  up  with  an  unfortunate  people, 
without  the  means  of  existence — without  bread 
— is  no  real  peace.  The  instant  there  is  the 
slightest  prospect  of  relief  from  such  harsh  and 
severe  conditions,  the  conquered  party  will  fly 
to  arms,  and  spend  the  last  drop  of  blood  rather 
than  live  in  such  degraded  bondage.  Even  if 
you  again  reduce  him  to  submission,  the  ex- 
penses incurred  by  this  second  war,  to  say  noth- 
ing of  the  human  lives  that  are  sacrificed,  will 
be  greater  than  what  it  would  have  cost  you 
to  have  granted  him  liberal  conditions  in  the 
first  instance.  This  treaty,  he  repeated  it,  was, 
he  apprehended,  the  cause  of  the  war.  It  led 
to  those  excesses  on  our  southern  borders 
which  began  it.  Who  first  commenced  them 
it  was,  perhaps,  difficult  to  ascertain.  There 
was,  however,  a  paper  on  this  subject,  commu- 
nicated at  the  last  session  by  the  President, 
that  told,  in  language  so  pathetic  and  feeling, 
an  artless  tale— a  paper  that  carried  such  in- 
ternal evidence,  at  least,  of  the  belief  of  the  au- 
thors of  it,  that  they  were  writing  the  truth, 
that  he  would  ask  the  favor  of  the  committee 
to  allow  him  to  read  it.  I  should  be  very  un- 
willing, Mr.  C.  said,  to  assert,  in  regard  to  this 
war,  that  the  fault  was  on  our  side — but  he 
feared  it  was.  He  had  heard  that  that  very  re- 
spectable man,  now  no  more,  who  once  filled 
the  executive  chair  of  Georgia,  and  who,  hav- 
ing been  agent  of  Indian  affairs  in  that  quarter, 
had  the  best  opportunity  of  judging  of  the  ori- 
gin of  this  war,  deliberately  pronounced  it  as  his 


240 


ABRIDGMENT  OF  THE 


H.  OF  R.] 


The  Stminole  War. 


[JANUARY,  1819. 


opinion  that  the  Indians  were  not  in  fault.  Mr. 
0.  said  that  he  was  far  from  attributing  to  Gene- 
ral Jackson  any  other  than  the  very  slight  de- 
gree of  blame  which  attached  to  him  as  the  ne- 
gotiator of  the  Treaty  of  Fort  Jackson,  and 
which  would  be  shared  by  those  who  subse- 
quently ratified  and  sanctioned  that  treaty.  But 
if  there  were  even  a  doubt  as  to  the  origin  of 
the  war,  whether  we  were  censurable  or  the 
Indians,  that  doubt  would  serve  to  increase  our 
regret  at  any  distressing  incidents  which  may 
have  occurred,  and  to  mitigate,  in  some  degree, 
the  crimes  which  we  impute  to  the  other  side. 
He  knew,  he  said,  that,  when  General  Jackson 
was  summoned  to  the  field,  it  was  too  late  to 
hesitate — the  fatal  blow  had  been  struck  in  the 
destruction  of  Fowl  Town,  and  the  dreadful 
massacre  of  Lieutenant  Scott  and  his  detach- 
ment ;  and  the  only  duty  which  remained  to 
him  was  to  terminate  this  unhappy  contest. 

The  first  circumstance  which,  in  the  course 
of  his  performing  that  duty,  fixed  our  attention, 
had,  Mr.  0.  said,  filled  him  with  regret.  It  was 
the  execution  of  the  Indian  chiefs.  How,  he 
asked,  did  they  come  into  our  possession  ?  Was 
it  in  the  course  of  fair  and  open  and  honorable 
war  ?  No ;  but  by  means  of  deception — by  hoist- 
ing foreign  colors  on  the  staff  from  which  the  stars 
and  stripes  should  alone  have  floated.  Thus  en- 
snared, the  Indians  were  taken  on  shore,  and 
without  ceremony,  and  without  delay,  were  hung. 
Hang  an  Indian !  We,  sir,  who  are  civilized, 
and  can  comprehend  and  feel  the  effect  of  moral 
causes  and  considerations,  attach  ignominy  to 
that  mode  of  death.  And  the  gallant,  and  re- 
fined, and  high-minded  man,  seeks  by  all  possi- 
ble means  to  avoid  it.  But  what  cares  an  In- 
dian whether  you  hang  or  shoot  him?  The 
moment  he  is  captured  he  is  considered  by  his 
tribe  as  disgraced,  if  not  lost.  They,  too,  are 
indifferent  about  the  nanner  in  which  he  is 
despatched.  But,  Mr.  0.  said,  he  regarded  the 
occurrence  with  grief,  for  other  and  higher  con- 
siderations. It  was  the  first  instance  that  he 
knew  of,  in  the  annals  of  our  country,  in  which 
retaliation,  by  executing  Indian  captives,  had 
ever  been  deliberately  practised.  There  may 
have  been  exceptions,  but,  if  there  were,  they 
met  with  contemporaneous  condemnation,  and 
have  been  reprehended  by  the  just  pen  of  im- 
partial history.  The  gentleman  from  Massachu- 
setts may  tell  me,  if  he  pleases,  what  he  pleases 
about  the  tomahawk  and  scalping-knife ;  about 
Indian  enormities,  and  foreign  miscreants  and 
incendiaries.  I,  too,  hate  them ;  from  my  very 
soul  I  abominate  them.  But  I  love  my  coun- 
try and  its  constitution;  I  love  liberty  and 
safety,  and  fear  military  despotism  more  even 
than  I  hate  these  monsters.  The  gentleman, 
in  the  course  of  his  remarks,  alluded  to  the 
State  from  which  I  have  the  honor  to  come. 
Little,  sir,  does  he  know  of  the  high  and  mag- 
nanimous sentiments  of  the  people  of  that  State 
if  he  supposes  they  will  approve  of  the  transac- 
tion to  which  he  referred.  Brave  and  generous, 
humanity  and  clemency  towards  a  fallen  foe 


constitute  one  of  their  noblest  characteristics. 
Amidst  all  the  struggles  for  that  fair  land  be- 
tween the  natives  and  the  present  inhabitants, 
Mr.  O.  said  he  defied  the  gentleman  to  point 
out  one  instance  in  which  a  Kentuckian  had 
stained  his  hand  by- — nothing  but  his  high 
sense  of  the  distinguished  services  and  exalted 
merits  of  General  Jackson  prevented  him  from 
using  a  different  term — the  execution  of  an  un- 
armed and  prostrate  captive.  Yes,  said  Mr.  0., 
there  was  one  solitary'  exception,  in  which  a 
man,  enraged  at  beholding  an  Indian  prisoner, 
who  had  been  celebrated  for  his  enormities,  and 
who  had  destroyed  some  of  his  kindred,  plung- 
ed his  sword  into  his  bosom.  The  wicked  deed 
was  considered  as  an  abominable  outrage  when 
it  occurred,  and  the  name  of  the  man  had  been 
handed  down  to  the  execration  of  posterity.  I 
deny  your  right  thus  to  retaliate  on  the  aboriginal 
proprietors  of  the  country ;  and  unless  I  am  utter- 
ly deceived,  it  may  be  shown  that  it  does  not 
exist.  But,  before  I  attempt  this,  said  Mr.  0., 
allow  me  to  make  the  gentleman  from  Massa- 
chusetts a  little  better  acquainted  with  those 
people,  to  whose  feelings  and  sympathies  he 
had  appealed  through  their  representative. 
During  the  late  war  with  Great  Britain,  Colo- 
nel Campbell,  under  the  command  of  my  hon- 
orable friend  from  Ohio,  (GEN.  HAKRISON.) 
was  placed  at  the  head  of  a  detachment  consist- 
ing chiefly,  he  believed,  of  Kentucky  volun- 
teers, in  order  to  destroy  the  Mississinaway 
towns.  They  proceeded  and  performed  the 
duty,  and  took  some  prisoners.  And  here  is 
evidence  of  the  manner  in  which  they  treated 
them.  [Here  Mr.  C.  read  the  general  orders 
issued  on  the  return  of  the  detachment.*]  I 
hope,  sir,  the  honorable  gentleman  will  be  now 
able  better  to  appreciate  the  character  and  con- 
duct of  my  gallant  countrymen  than  he  appears 
hitherto  to  have  done. 

But,  sir,  I  have  said  that  you  have  no  right 
to  practise,  under  color  of  retaliation,  enormi- 
ties on  the  Indians.  I  will  advance,  in  support 
of  this  position,  as  applicable  to  the  origin  of 
all  law,  the  principle,  that,  whatever  has  been 
the  custom,  from  the  commencement  of  a  sub- 
ject, whatever  has  been  the  uniform  usage, 
coeval  and  coexistent  with  the  subject  to  which 
it  relates,  becomes  its  fixed  law.  Such  was  the 
foundation  of  all  common  law ;  and  such,  he 
believed,  was  the  principal  foundation  of  all 
public  or  international  law.  If,  then,  it  could 


*The  following  is  the  extract  which  Mr.  C.  read. 

"But  the  character  of  this  gallant  detachment,  exhibiting, 
as  it  did,  perseverance,  fortitude,  and  bravery,  would,  how- 
ever, be  incomplete,  if,  in  the  midst  of  victory,  they  had  for- 
gotten the  feelings  of  humanity.  It  is  with  the  sincerest 
pleasure  that  the  General  has  hoard  that  the  most  punctual 
obedience  was  paid  to  his  orders,  in  not  only  saving  all  tho 
women  and  children,  but  in  sparing  all  the  warriors  who 
ceased  to  resist ;  and  that,  even  when  vigorously  attacked 
by  the  enemy,  the  claims  of  mercy  prevailed  over  every 
sense  of  their  danger,  and  this  heroic  band  respected  the 
lives  of  their  prisoners.  Let  an  account  of  murdered  inno- 
cence be  opened  in  the  records  of  Heaven  air:iinst  our  ene- 
mies alone.  The  American  soldier  will  follow  the  example 
of  his  Government,  and  the  sword  of  the  one  will  not  be 
raised  against  the  fallen  and  the  helpless,  nor  the  gold  of  tho 
other  be  paid  for  scalps  of  a  massacred  enemy." 


DEBATES  OF  CONGRESS. 


241 


JANUARY,  1819.] 


The  Seminole  War. 


[H.  OF  R. 


be  shown  that  from  the  first  settlement  of  the 
colonies,  on  this  part  of  the  American  conti- 
nent, to  the  present  time,  we  have  constantly 
abstained  from  retaliating  upon  the  Indians  the 
excesses  practised  by  them  towards  us,  we  were 
morally  bound  by  this  invariable  usage,  and 
could  not  lawfully  change  it  without  the  most 
cogent  reasons.  So  far  as  his  knowledge  ex- 
tended, he  said  that,  from  the  first  settlement  at 
Plymouth  or  at  Jamestown,  it  had  not  been  our 
practice  to  destroy  Indian  captives,  combatants 
or  noncombatants.  He  knew  of  but  one  devia- 
tion from  the  code  which  regulated  the  warfare 
between  civilized  communities,  and  that  "was 
the  destruction  of  Indian  towns,  which  was 
supposed  to  be  authorized  upon  the  ground 
that  we  could  not  bring  the  war  to  a  termina- 
tion but  by  destroying  the  means  which  nour- 
ished it.  With  this  single  exception,  the  other 
principles  of  the  laws  of  civilized  nations  are 
extended  to  them,  and  are  thus  made  law  in  re- 
gard to  them.  When  did  this  humane  custom, 
by  which,  in  consideration  of  their  ignorance 
and  our  enlightened  condition  the  rigors  of 
war  were  mitigated,  begin  ?  At  a  time  when 
we  were  weak,  and  they  were  comparatively 
strong;  when  they  were  the  lords  of  the  soil, 
and  we  were  seeking,  from  the,  vices,  from  the 
corruptions,  from  the  religious  intolerance,  and 
from  the  oppressions  of  Europe,  to  gain  an 
asylum  among  them.  And  when  is  it  proposed 
to  change  this  custom,  to  substitute  for  it  the 
bloody  matxims  of  barbarous  ages,  and  to  inter- 
polate the  Indian  public  law  with  revolting 
cruelties?  At  a  time  when  the  situation  of  the 
two  parties  is  totally  changed — when  we  are 
powerful  and  they  are  weak :  at  a  time  when 
to  use  a  figure  drawn  from  their  own  sublime 
eloquence,  the  poor  children  of  the  forest  have 
been  driven  by  the  great  wave  which  has  flow- 
ed in  from  the  Atlantic  Ocean  to  almost  the  base 
of  the  Rocky  Mountains,  and  overwhelming 
them  in  its  terrible  progress,  has  left  no  other 
remains  of  hundreds  of  tribes,  now  extinct,  than 
those  which  indicate  the  remote  existence  of 
their  farmer  companion,  the  Mammoth  of  the 
New  World!  Yes,  sir,  it  is  at  this  auspicious 
period  of  our  country,  when  we  hold  a  proud 
and  lofty  station,  among  the  first  nations  of  the 
world,  that  we  are  called  upon  to  sanction  a  de- 
parture from  the  established  laws  and  usages 
which  have  regulated  our  Indian  hostilities. 
And  does  the  honorable  gentleman  from  Massa- 
chusetts expect,  in  this  august  body,  this  en- 
lightened assembly  of  Christians  and  Ameri- 
cans, by  glowing  appeals  to  our  passions,  to 
make  us  forget  our  principles,  our  religion,  our 
clemency,  and  our  humanity  ? 

Why  was  it,  Mr.  C.  asked,  that  we  had  not 
practised  towards  the  Indian  tribes  the  right  of 
retaliation,  now  for  the  first  time  asserted  in 
regard  to  them  ?  It  was  because  it  is  a  princi- 
ple, proclaimed  by  reason  and  enforced  by 
every  respectable  writer  on  the  law  of  nations, 
that  retaliation  is  only  justifiable  as  calculated 
to  produce  effect  in  the  war.  Vengeance  was  a 
VOL.  VI.— 16 


new  motive  for  resorting  to  it.  If  retaliation 
will  produce  no  effect  on  the  enemy,  we  are 
bound  to  abstain  from  it  by  every  consideration 
of  humanity  and  of  justice.  Will  it,  then,  pro- 
duce effect  on  the  Indian  tribes?  No;  they 
care  not  about  the  execution  of  those  of  their 
warriors  who  are  taken  captive.  They  are  con- 
sidered as  disgraced  by  the  very  circumstance 
of  their  captivity,  and  it  is  often  mercy  to  the 
unhappy  captive  to  deprive  him  of  his  existence. 
The  poet  evinced  a  profound  knowledge  of  the 
Indian  character,  when  he  put  into  the  mouth 
of  the  son  of  a  distinguished  chief,  about  to  be 
led  to  the  stake  and  tortured  by  his  victorious 
enemy,  the  words — 

"  Begin,  ye  tormentors !  your  threats  are  in  vain : 
The  son  of  Alknomok  will  never  complain." 

Retaliation  of  Indian  excesses,  not  producing 
then  any  effect  in  preventing  then*  repetition, 
was  condemned  by  both  reason  and  the  prin- 
ciples upon  which  alone,  hi  any  case,  it  can  be 
justified.  On  this  branch  of  the  subject  much 
more  might  be  said ;  but,  as  he  should  possibly 
again  allude  to  it,  he  would  pass  from  it,  for  the 
present,  to  another  topic. 

It  was  not  necessary,  Mr.  0.  said,  for  the 
purpose  of  his  argument  in  regard  to  the  trial 
and  execution  of  Arbuthnot  and  Ambrister,  to 
insist  on  the  innocence  of  either  of  them.  He 
would  yield,  for  the  sake  of  that  argument, 
without  inquiry,  that  both  of  them  were  guilty ; 
that  both  had  instigated  the  war ;  and  that  one 
of  them  had  led  the  enemy  to  battle.  It  was 
possible  indeed,  that  a  critical  examination  of 
the  evidence  would  show,  particularly  in  the 
case  of  Arbuthnot,  that  the  whole  amount  of  his 
crime  consisted  in  his  trading,  without  the  limits 
of  the  United  States,  with  the  Seminole  Indians, 
in  the  accustomed  commodities  which  form 
the  subject  of  Indian  trade ;  and  that  he  sought 
to  ingratiate  himself  with  his  customers  by  es- 
pousing their  interests,  in  regard  to  the  provision 
of  the  Treaty  of  Ghent,  which  he  may  have  hon- 
estly believed  entitled  them  to  the  restoration  of 
their  lands.  And  if,  indeed,  the  Treaty  of  Fort 
Jackson,  for  the  reasons  already  assigned,  was 
not  binding  upon  the  Creeks,  there  would  be  but 
too  much  cause  to  lament  his  unhappy  if  not  un- 
just fate.  The  first  impression  made,  on  the  ex- 
amination of  the  proceedings  in  the  trial  and  exe- 
cution of  those  two  men,  is,  that  on  the  part  of 
Ambrister  there  was  the  most  guilt,  but  at  the 
same  time  the  most  irregularity.  Conceding  the 
point  of  the  guilt  of  both,  with  the  qualification 
which  he  had  stated,  he  would  proceed  to  in- 
quire, first,  if  their  execution  could  be  justified 
upon  the  principles  assumed  by  General  Jack- 
son himself.  If  they  did  not  afford  a  justifica- 
tion, he  would  next  inquire  if  there  were  any 
other  principles  authorizing  their  execution; 
and  he  would,  in  the  third  place,  make  some 
observations  upon  the  mode  of  proceeding. 

The  principle  assumed  by  General  Jackson, 
which  may  be  found  in  his  general  orders  com- 
manding the  execution  of  these  men,  is,  "  that 
it  is  an  established  principle  of  the  law  of  na- 


242 


ABRIDGMENT  OF  THE 


H.  OF  R.] 


The  Seminole  War. 


[JANUAKY,  1819. 


tions,  that  any  individual  of  a  nation,  making 
war  against  the  citizens  of  any  other  nation, 
they  being  at  peace,  forfeits  his  allegiance,  and 
becomes  an  outlaw  and  a  pirate."  Whatever 
niay  be  the  character  of  individuals  waging 
private  war,  the  principle  assumed  is  totally  er- 
roneous when  applied  to  such  individuals  asso- 
ciated with  a  power,  whether  Indian  or  civilized, 
capable  of  maintaining  the  relations  of  peace 
and  war.  Suppose,  however,  the  principle  were 
true,  as  asserted,  what  disposition  should  he 
have  made  of  these  men  ?  What  jurisdiction, 
and  how  acquired,  has  the  military  over  pirates, 
robbers,  and  outlaws?  If  they  were  in  the 
character  imputed,  they  were  alone  amenable, 
and  should  have  been  turned  over  to  the  civil 
authority.  But  the  principle,  he  repeated,  was 
totally  incorrect,  when  applied  to  men  in  their 
situation.  A  foreigner,  connecting  himself  with 
a  belligerent,  becomes  an  enemy  of  the  party  to 
whom  that  belligerent  is  opposed,  subject  to 
whatever  he  may  be  subject,  entitled  to  what- 
ever he  is  entitled.  Arbuthnot  and  Ambrister, 
by  associating  themselves,  became  identified 
with  the  Indians;  they  became  our  enemies, 
and  we  had  a  right  to  treat  them  as  we  could 
lawfully  treat  the  Indians.  These  positions 
were  so  obviously  correct,  that  he  should  con- 
sider it  an  abuse  of  the  patience  of  the  commit- 
tee to  consume  time  in  their  proof.  They  were 
supported  by  the  practice  of  all  nations,  and  of 
our  own.  Every  page  of  history,  in  all  times, 
and  the  recollection  of  every  member,  furnish 
evidence  of  their  truth.  Let  us  look  for  a  mo- 
ment into  some  *of  the  consequences  of  this 
principle,  if  it  were  to  go  to  Europe,  sanctioned 
by  the  approbation,  express  or  implied,  of  this 
House.  We  have  now  in  our  armies  probably 
the  subjects  of  almost  every  European  power. 
Some  of  the  nations  of  Europe  maintain  the 
doctrine  of  perpetual  allegiance.  Suppose  Brit- 
ain aud  America  in  peace,  and  America  and 
France  at  war.  The  former  subjects  of  Eng- 
land, naturalized  or  unnaturalized,  are  captured 
by  the  navy  or  the  army  of  France-  What  is 
their  condition  ?  According  to  the  principle  of 
General  Jackson,  they  would  be  outlaws  and 
pirates,  and  liable  to  immediate  execution. 
Were  gentlemen  prepared  to  return  to  their  re- 
spective districts  with  this  doctrine  in  their 
mouths,  and  to  say  to  their  Irish,  English, 
Scotch,  and  other  foreign  constituents,  that  you 
are  liable,  on  the  contingency  supposed,  to  be 
treated  as  outlaws  and  pirates  ? 

Was  there  any  other  principle  which  justified 
the  proceeding?  On  this  subject,  he  said,  if  he 
admired  the  wonderful  ingenuity  with  which 
gentlemen'  sought  a  colorable  pretext  for  those 
executions,  he  was  at  the  same  time  shocked  at 
some  of  the  principles  advanced.  What  said 
the  honorable  gentleman  from  Massachusetts, 
(Mr.  HOLMES,)  in  a  cold  address  to  the  commit- 
tee? Why,  that  these  executions  were  only  a 
wrong  mode  of  doing  a  right  thing.  A  wrong 
mode  of  doing  a  right  thing !  In  what  code  of 
public  law;  in  what  system  of  ethics;  nay,  in 


what  respectable  novel ;  where,  if  the  gentle- 
man were  to  take  the  range  of  the  whole  litera- 
ture of  the  world,  will  he  find  any  sanction  for 
a  principle  so  monstrous  ?  He  would  illustrate 
its  enormity  by  a  single  case.  Suppose  a  man, 
being  guilty  of  robbery,  is  tried,  condemned, 
and  executed  for  murder,  upon  an  indictment 
for  that  robbery  merely.  The  judge  is  arraign- 
ed for  having  executed,  contrary  to  law,  a  hu- 
man being,  innocent  at  heart  of  the  crime  for 
which  he  was  sentenced.  The  judge  has  noth- 
ing to  do,  to  insure  his  own  acquittal,  but  to 
urge  the  gentleman's  plea,  that  he  had  done  a 
right  thing  in  a  wrong  way  I 

The  principles  which  attached  to  the  cases 
of  Arbuthnot  and  Ambrister,  constituting  them 
merely  parlicipes  in  the  war,  supposing  them  to 
have  been  combatants,  which  the  former  was 
not,  he  having  been  taken  in  a  Spanish  fortress, 
without  arms  in  his  hands,  all  that  we  could 
possibly  have  a  right  to  do  was  to  apply  to 
them  the  rules  which  we  had  a  right  to  enforce 
against  the  Indians.  Their  English  character 
was  only  merged  in  their  Indian  character. 
Now,  if  the  law  regulating  Indian  hostilities  be 
established  by  long  and  immemorial  usage,  that 
we  have  no  moral  right  to  retaliate  upon  them, 
we  consequently  .had  no  right  to  retaliate  upon 
Arbuthnot  and  Ambrister.  Even  if  it  were  ad- 
mitted that,  in  regard  to  future  wars,  and  to 
other  foreigners,  their  execution  may  have  a 
^ood  effect,  it  would  not  thence  follow  that  you 
bad  a  right  to  execute  them.  It  is  not  always 
just  to  do  what  may  be  advantageous.  And 
retaliation,  during  a  war,  must  have  relation  to 
the  events  of  that  war,  and  must,  to  be  just, 
have  an  operation  upon  that  war,  and  upon  the 
individuals  only  who  compose  the  belligerent 
party.  It  became  gentlemen,  then,  on  the 
other  side,  to  show,  by  some  known,  certain, 
and  recognized  rule  of  public  or  municipal  law, 
that  the  execution  of  these  men  was  justified. 
Where  is  it?  He  should  be  glad  to  see  it.  We 
are  told  in  a  paper,  emanating  from  the  Depart- 
ment of^State,  recently  laid  before  this  House, 
distinguished  for  the  fervor  of  its  eloquence,  and 
of  which  the  honorable  gentleman  from  Massa-  . 
chusetts  has  supplied  us  in  part  with  a  second 
edition,  in  one  respect  agreeing  with  the  proto- 
type, that  they  both  ought  to  be  inscribed  to  the 
American  public — we  are  justly  told  in  that  pa- 
per, that  this  is  the  first  instance  of  the  execu- 
;ion  of  persons  for  the  crime  of  instigating  In- 
dians to  war.  Sir,  there  are  two  topics  which, 
n  Europe,  are  constantly  employed  by  the 
Wends  and  minions  of  legitimacy  against  our 
country.  The  one  is  an  inordinate  spirit  of  ag- 
grandizement— of  coveting  other  people's  goods. 
The  other  is  the  treatment  which  we  extend  to 
;he  Indians. — Against  both  these  charges,  the 
public  servants,  who  conducted  at  Ghent  the 
legotiations  with  the  British  Commissioners, 
endeavored  to  vindicate  our  country,  and  he 
loped  with  some  degree  of  success.  What  will 
je  the  condition  of  future  American  negotia- 
;ors,  when  pressed  upon  this  head,  he  knew 


DEBATES  OF  CONGRESS. 


243 


JANUARY,  1819.] 


The,  Seminole  War. 


[H.  OF  R. 


not,   after    the    unhappy    executions   on  our  I  asserted  that  he  was  guilty  of  a  mistake  in  call- 


southern  border.  The  gentleman  from  Massa 
chusetts  seemed  on  yesterday  to  read,  with  i 
sort  of  triumph,  the  names  of  the  Commission- 
ers employed  in  the  negotiations  at  Ghent, 
Will  he  excuse  me  for  saying,  that  I  thought 
he  pronounced,  even  with  more  complacency 
and  with  'a  more  gracious  smile,  the  first  name 
in  the  commission,  that  he  emphasized  that  of 
the  humble  individual  who  addresses  you.  [Mr, 
HOLMES  desired  to  explain.]  Mr.  C.  said  there 
was  no  occasion  for  explanation ;  he  was  per- 
fectly satisfied.  [Mr.  H.  however  proceeded  to 
say  that  his  intention  was,  in  pronouncing  the 
gentleman's  name,  to  add  to  the  respect  due  to 
the  ne 

er  of  this  House.]  Will  the  principle  of  these 
men,  having  been  instigators  of  the  war,  justify 
their  execution?  It  was  a  new  one;  there 
were  no  landmarks  to  guide  us  in  its  adoption, 
or  to  prescribe  limits  in  its  application.  If 
"William  Pitt  had  been  taken  by  the  French 
army,  during  the  late  European  war,  could 
France  have  justifiably  executed  him,  on  the 
ground  of  his  having  notoriously  instigated  the 
continental  powers  to  war  against  France? 
Would  France,  if  she  had  stained  her  character 
by  executing  him,  have  obtained  the  sanction 
of  the  world  to  the  act,  by  appeals  to  the  pas- 
sions and  prejudices,  by  pointing  to  the  cities 
sacked,  the  countries  laid  waste,  the  human 
lives  sacrificed  in  the  wars  which  he  had 
kindled,  and  by  exclaiming  to  the  unfortunate 
captive,  you  miscreant,  you  monster,  have  oc- 
casioned all  these  scenes  of  devastation  and 
blood  ?  What  had  been  the  conduct  even  of 
England  towards  the  greatest  instigator  of  all 
the  wars  of  the  present  age  ?  The  condemna- 
tion of  that  illustrious  man  to  the  rock  of  St. 
Helena,  was  a  great  blot  on  the  English  name. 
And  Mr.  C.  repeated,  what  he  had  once  before 
said,  that  if  Chatham  or  Fox,  or  even  William 
Pitt  himself,  had  been  Prime  Minister,  in  Eng- 
land, Bonaparte  never  had  been  so  condemned. 
On  that  transaction  history  will  one  day  pass 
its  severe  but  just  censure.  Yes,  although  Na- 
poleon had  desolated  half  Europe ;  although 
there  was  scarcely  a  power,  however  humble, 
that  escaped  the  mighty  grasp  of  his  ambition ; 
although  in  the  course  of  his  spfendid  career  he 
is  charged  with  having  committed  the  greatest 
atrocities,  disgraceful  to  himself  and  to  human 
nature,  yet  even  his  life  has  been  spared.  The 
allies  would  not,  England  would  not,  execute  him, 
upon  the  ground  of  his  being  an  instigator  of  wars. 
The  mode  of  the  trial  and  sentencing  these 
men,  Mr.  C.  said,  was  equally  objectionable 
with  the  principles  on  which  it  had  been  at- 
tempted to  show  a  forfeiture  of  their  lives.  He 
knew,  he  said,  the  laudable  spirit  which  prompt- 
ed the  ingenuity  displayed  in  finding  out  a  justi- 
fication for  these  proceedings.  He  wished  most 
sincerely  that  he  could  reconcile  them  to  his 
conscience.  It  had  been  attempted  to  vindicate 
the  General  upon  grounds  which  he  was  per- 
suaded he  would  himself  disown.  It  had  been 


ing  upon  the  court  to  try  them,  and  that  he  might 
have  at  once  ordered  their  execution  without 
that  formality.    He  denied  that  there  was  any 
such  absolute  right  in  the  commander  of  any 
portion  of  our  Army.     The  rightof  retaliation  is 
an  attribute  of  sovereignty.    It  is  comprehend- 
ed  in  the  war-making  power  that  Congress 
possesses.    It  belongs  to  this  body  not  only  to 
declare  war,  but  to  raise  armies,  and  to  make 
rules  and  regulations  for  their  Government.     It 
was  in  vain  for  gentlemen  to  look  to  the  law  of 
nations  for  instances  in   which  retaliation  is 
lawful.    The  laws  of  nations  merely  laid  down 
the  principle  or  rule,  and  it  belongs  to  the  Gov- 
ernment to  constitute  the  tribunal  for  applying 
that  principle  or  rule.    There  was,  for  example, 
no  instance  in  which  the  death  of  a  captive 
was   more    certainly  declared   by  the   law  of 
nations  to  be  justifiable  than  in  the  case  of  spies. 
Congress  has  accordingly  provided,  in  the  rules 
and  articles  of  war,  a  tribunal  for  the  trial  of 
spies,  and  consequently  for  the  application  of 
the  principle  of  the  national  law.    The  Legis- 
lature had  not  left  the  power  over  spies  unde- 
fined, to  the  mere  discretion  of  the  commander- 
in-chief,  or  of  any  subaltern  officer  in  the  Army. 
For,  if  the  doctrines  now  contended  for  were 
true,  they  would  apply  to  the  commander  of 
any  corps,  however  small,  acting  as  a  detach- 
ment.    Suppose  Congress  had  not  legislated  in 
the  case  of  spies,  what  would  have  been  their 
condition  ?    It  would  have  been  aeasus  omissus^ 
and  although  the  public  law  pronounced  their 
doom,  it  could  not  be  executed  because  Con- 
gress had  assigned  no  tribunal  for  enforcing  that 
public  law.    No  man  could  be  executed  in  this 
tree  country  without  two  things  being  shown : 
1st.  That  the  law  condemns  him  to  death ;  and, 
2dly.  That  his  death  is  pronounced    by  that 
tribunal  which  is  authorized  by  the  law  to  try 
him.      These   principles    would    reach    every 
man's     case,  native    or   foreigner,   citizen  or 
alien.    The  instant  quarters  are  granted  to  a 
-,   the  majesty  of  the   law   surrounds 
and  sustains  him,  and  he  cannot  lawfully  be  pun- 
shed  with  death,  without  the  concurrence  of 
;he  two  circumstances  just  insisted  upon.     He 
denied  that    any  commander-in-chief,  in  this 
country,  had  this  absolute  power  of  life  and 
death,  at  his  sole  discretion.     It  was  contrary  to 
the  genius  of  all  our  laws  and  institutions.    To 
concentrate  in  the  person  of  one  individual  the 
powers  to  make  the  rule,  to  judge,  and  to  ex- 
jcute  the  rule,  or  to  judge  and  execute  the  rule 
only,  was  utterly  irreconcilable  with  every  prin- 
ple  of  free  Government,  and  was   the  very 
definition  of  tyranny  itself ;  and  he  trusted  that 
;his  House  would  never  give  even  a  tacit  assent 
jo  such  a  principle.  Suppose  the  commander  had 
made  reprisals  on  property,  would  that  property 
have  belonged  to  the  nation,  or  could  he  have 
disposed  of  it  as  he  pleased  ?    Had  he  more 
>ower,  would  gentlemen  tell   him,   over    the 
ives  of   human  beings  than  over  property  ? 
The  assertion  of  such  a  power  to  the  com- 


244 


ABRIDGMENT  OF  THE 


H.  OF  R.] 


The  Seminole  War. 


[JANUARY,  1819. 


mander-iu-cliief  was  contrary  to  the  practice 
of  the  Government.  By  an  act  of  Congress 
which  passed  in  1799,  "vesting  the  power  of 
retaliation,  in  certain  cases,  in  the  President  of 
the  United  States" — an  act  which  passed  during 
the  quasi  war  with  France,  the  President  is 
authorized  to  retaliate  upon  any  citizens  of  the 
F/ench  Republic,  the  enormities  which  may  be 
practised,  in  certain  cases,  upon  our  citizens. 
Tinder  what  Administration  was  this  act  passed  ? 
It  was  under  that  which  has  been  justly  charged 
with  stretching  the  constitution  to  enlarge  the 
Executive  powers.  Even  during  the  mad  career 
of  Mr.  Adams,  when  every  means  was  resorted 
to  for  the  purpose  of  infusing  vigor  into  the 
Executive  arm,  no  one  thought  of  claiming  for 
him  the  inherent  right  of  retaliation.  He 
would  not  trouble  the  House  with  reading 
another  law,  which  passed  thirteen  or  fourteen 
years  after,  during  the  late  war  with  Great 
Britain,  under  the  Administration  of  that  great 
constitutional  President,  the  father  of  the  instru- 
ment itself,  by  which  Mr.  Madison  was  empow- 
ered to  retaliate  on  the  British,  in  certain  in- 
stances. It  was  not  only  contrary  to  the  genius 
of  our  institutions  and  to  the  uniform  practice 
of  the  Government,  but  it  was  contrary  to  the 
obvious  principles  on  which  the  General  him- 
self had  proceeded ;  for,  in  forming  the  court, 
he  had  evidently  intended  to  proceed  under  the 
rules  and  articles  of  war.  The  extreme  num- 
ber which  they  provide  for  is  thirteen,  precisely 
that  which  is  detailed  in  the  present  instance. 
The  court  proceeded,  not  by  a  bare  plurality, 
but  by  a  majority  of  two-thirds.  In  the  general 
orders  issued  from  the  Adjutant  General's  office, 
at  headquarters,  it  is  described  as  a  court-mar- 
tial. The  prisoners  are  said  in  those  orders  to 
have  been  tried,  "on the  following  charges  and 
specifications."  The  court  understood  itself  to 
be  acting  as  a  court-martial.  It  was  so  organ- 
ized ;  it  so  proceeded,  having  a  judge  advocate, 
hearing  witnesses,  the  written  defence  of  the 
miserable  trembling  prisoners,  who  seemed  to 
have  a  presentiment  of  their  doom.  And  the 
court  was  finally  dissolved.  The  whole  pro- 
ceeding manifestly  shows  that  all  parties  con- 
sidered it  as  a  court-martial,  convened  and 
acting  under  the  rules  and  articles  of  war.  In 
his  letter  to  the  Secretary  of  War,  noticing  the 
transaction,  the  General  says:  "These  indi- 
viduals were  tried  under  my  orders,  legally  con- 
victed as  exciters  of  this  savage  and  negro  war, 
legally  condemned,  and  most  justly  punished 
for  their  iniquities."  The  Lord  deliver  us 
from  such  legal  convictions  and  such  legal 
condemnations!  The  General  himself  con- 
sidered the  laws  of  his. country  to  have  jus- 
tified his  proceedings.  It  was  in  vain,  then,  to 
talk  of  a  power  in  him  beyond  the  law,  and 
above  the  law,  when  he  himself  does  not  assert 
it.  Let  it  be  conceded  that  he  was  clothed 
with  absolute  authority  over  the  lives  of  these 
individuals,  and  that,  upon  his  own  fiat,  with- 
out trial,  without  defence,  he  might  have  com- 
manded their  execution.  Now,  if  an  absolute 


sovereign,  in  any  particular  respect,  promul- 
gates a  rule  which  he  pledges  himself  to  observe, 
if  he  subsequently  deviates  from  that  rule,  he 
subjects  himself  to  the  imputation  of  odious 
tyranny.  If  General  Jackson  had  the  power, 
without  a  court,  to  condemn  these  men,  he  had 
also  the  power  to  appoint  a  tribunal.  He  did 
appoint  a  tribunal,  and  he  became,  therefore, 
morally  bound  to  observe  and  execute  the 
sentence  of  that  tribunal.  In  regard  to  Am- 
brister,  it  was  with  grief  and  pain  he  was  com- 
pelled to  say,  that  he  was  executed  in  defiance 
of  all  law ;  in  defiance  of  the  law  to  which 
General  Jackson  had  voluntarily,  if  you  please, 
submitted  himself,  and  given,  by  his  appeal  to 
the  court,  his  implied  pledge  to  observe.  He 
knew  but  little  of  military  law,  and  he  had  not 
a  taste,  by  what  had  happened,  created  in  him 
for  acquiring  a  knowledge  of  more;  but  he 
believed  there  was  no  example  on  record  where 
the  sentence  of  the  court  has  been  erased,  and 
a  sentence  not  pronounced  by  it  carried  into 
execution.  It  had  been  suggested  that  the 
court  had  pronounced  two  sentences,  and  that 
the  General  had  a  right  to  select  either.  Two 
sentences!  Two  verdicts!  It  was  not  so. 
The  first,  by  being  revoked,  was  as  though  it 
had  never  been  pronounced.  And  there  re- 
mained only  one  sentence,  which  was  put  aside 
upon  the  sole  authority  of  the  commander,  and 
the  execution  of  the  prisoner  ordered.  He 
either  had  or  had  not  a  right  to  decide  upon 
the  fate  of  that  man  without  the  intervention  of 
a  court.  If  he  had  the  right,  he  waived  it,  and 
having  violated  the  sentence  of  the  court,  there 
was  brought  upon  the  judicial  administration 
of  the  Army  a  reproach,  which  must  occasion 
the  most  lasting  regret. 

Of  all  the  powers  conferred  by  the  Constitu- 
tion of  the  United  States,  not  one  is  more  ex- 
pressly and  exclusively  granted  than  that  is  to 
Congress  of  declaring  war.  The  immortal  con- 
vention who  framed  that  instrument  had  abun- 
dant reasons  for  confiding  this  tremendous  power 
to  the  deliberate  judgment  of  the  Representatives 
of  the  people,  drawn  from  every  page  of  his- 
tory. It  was  there  seen  that  nations  are  often 
precipitated  into  ruinous  war  from  folly,  from 
pride,  from  ambition,  and  from  the  desire  of 
military  fame.  »It  was  believed,  no  doubt,  in 
committing  this  great  subject  to  the  Legislature 
of  the  Union,  we  should  be  safe  from  the  mad 
wars  that  have  afflicted  and  desolated  and  ruined 
other  countries.  It  was  supposed  that  before 
any  war  was  declared  the  nature  of  the  injury 
complained  of  would  be  carefully  examined, 
the  power  and  resources  of  the  enemy  estimated, 
and  the  power  and  resources  of  our  own  coun- 
try, as  well  as  the  probable  issue  and  conse- 
quences of  the  war.  It  was  to  guard  our  coun- 
try against  precisely  that  species  of  rashness, 
which  has  been  manifested  in  Florida,  that  the 
constitution  was  so  framed.  If  then  this  power, 
thus  cautiously  and  clearly  bestowed  upon  Con- 
gress, has  been  assumed  and  exercised  by  any- 
other  functionary  of  the  Government,  it  is 


DEBATES  OF  CONGRESS. 


245 


JANUARY,  1819.] 


The  Seminolc  War. 


[H.  OP  R. 


cause  of  serious 

to  vindicate  and  maintain  its  authority  by 
the  means  in  its  power,  and  yet  there  are  some 
gentlemen  who  would  have  us  not  merely  to 
yield  a  tame  and  silent  acquiescence  in  the  en- 
croachment, but  to  pass  even  a  vote  of  thanks 
to  the  author. 

On  the  25th  of  March,  1818,  Mr.  C.  continued, 
the  President  of  the  United  States  communi- 
cated a  Message  to  Congress  in  relation  to  the 
Seminole  war,  in  which  he  declared  that, 
although  in  the  prosecution  of  it,  orders  had 
been  given  to  pass  into  the  Spanish  territory, 
they  were  so  guarded  as  that  the  local  authori- 
ties of  Spain  should  be  respected.  How  re- 
spected? The  President,  by  the  documents 
accompanying  the  Message,  the  orders  them- 
selves which  issued  from  the  Department  of 
War  to  the  commanding  General,  had  assured 
the  Legislature  that,  even  if  the  enemy  should 
take  shelter  under  a  Spanish  fortress,  the  fortress 
was  not  to  be  attacked,  but  the  fact  to  be  report- 
ed to  that  department  for  further  orders.  Con- 
gress saw,  therefore,  that  there  was  no  danger 
of  violating  the  existing  peace.  And  yet,  on 
the  same  25th  day  of  March,  (a  most  singular 
concurrence  of  dates,)  when  the  Kepresentatives 
of  the  people  receive  this  solemn  Message,  an- 
nounced in  the  presence  of  the  nation  and  in  the 
face  of  the  world,  and  in  the  midst  of  a  friend- 
ly negotiation  with  Spain,  does  General  Jackson 
write  from  his  headquarters  that  he  shall  take 
St.  Marks  as  a  necessary  depot  for  his  military 
operations !  The  General  states,  in  his  letter, 
what  he  had  heard  about  the  threat  on  the 
part  of  the  Indians  and  negroes,  to  occupy  the 
fort,  and  declares  his  purpose  to  possess  him- 
self of  it  in  either  of  the  two  contingencies  of 
its  being  hi  their  hands  or  in  the  hands  of  the 
Spaniards.  He  assumed  a  right  to  judge  what 
Spain  was  bound  to  do  by  her  treaty,  and  judged 
very  correctly ;  but  then  he  also  assumed  the 
power,  belonging  to  Congress  alone,  of  deter- 
mining what  should  be  the  effect  and  conse- 
quence of  her  breach  of  engagement.  General 
Jackson  generally  performs  what  he  intimates 
his  intention  to  do.  Accordingly,  finding  St. 
Marks  yet  in  the  hands  of  the  Spaniards,  he 
seized  and  occupied  it.  Was  ever,  he  asked,  the 
just  confidence  of  the  legislative  body,  in  the 
assurances  of  the  Chief  Magistrate,  more  abused  ? 
The  Spanish  commander  intimated  his  willing- 
ness that  the  American  army  should  take  post 
near  him,  until  he  could  have  instructions  from 
his  superior  officer,  and  promised  to  maintain, 
in  the  mean  time,  the  most  friendly  relations. 
No !  St.  Marks  was  a  convenient  post  for  the 
American  army,  and  delay  was  inadmissible. 
He  had  always  understood  that  the  Indians  but 
rarely  take  or  defend  fortresses,  because  they 
are  unskilled  in  the  modes  of  attack  and  de"- 
fence.  The  threat,  therefore,  on  tla-ir  part,  to 
seize  on  St  Marks',  must  have  been  empty,  and 
would  probably  have  been  impracticable.  At 
all  events,  when  General  Jackson  arrived  there, 
no  danger  any  longer  threatened  the  Spaniards 


from  the  miserable  fugitive  Indians,  who  fled 
on  all  sides  upon  his  approach. 

On  the  8th  of  April  the  General  writes  from 
St.  Marks  that  he  shall  march  for  the  Suwaney 
River ;  the  destroying  of  the  establishments  on 
which  will,  in  his  opinion,  bring  the  war  to  a 
close.  Accordingly  having  effected  that  object, 
he  writes  on  the  20th  of  April  that  he  believes 
he  may  say  the  war  is  at  an  end  for  the  present. 
He  repeats  the  same  opinion  in  his  letter  to  the 
Secretary  of  War,  written  six  days  after.  The 
war  being  thus  ended,  it  might  have  been  hoped 
that  no  further  hostilities  would  have  been  com- 
mitted. But,  on  the  23d  of  May,  on  his  way 
home,  he  receives  a  letter  from  the  commandant 
of  Pensacola,  intimating  his  surprise  at  the  in- 
vasion of  the  Spanish  territory,  and  the  acts  of 
hostility  performed  by  the  American  army,  and 
his  determination,  if  persisted  in,  to  employ 
force  to  repel  them.  Let  us  pause  and  examine 
this  proceeding  of  the  Governor,  so  very  hostile 
and  affrontive  in  the  view  of  General  Jackson. 
Recollect  that  he  was  Governor  of  Florida; 
that  he  had  received  no  orders  from  his  superi- 
ors to  allow  a  passage  to  the  American  army; 
that  he  had  heard  of  the  reduction  of  St.  Marks ; 
and  that  General  Jackson,  at  the  head  of  his 
army,  was  approaching  in  the  direction  of  Pen- 
sacola. He  had  seen  the  President's  Message 
of  the  25th  of  March,  and  reminded  General 
Jackson  of  it,  to  satisfy  him  that  the  American 
Government  could  not  have  authorized  all  those 
measures.  Mr.  C.  said  he  could  not  read  the 
allusion  made  by  the  Governor  to  that  Message, 
without  feeling  that  the  charge  of  insincerity 
which  it  implied  had  at  least  but  too  much  the 
appearance  of  truth  in  it.  Could  the  Governor 
have  done  less  than  write  some  such  letter? 
We  have  only  to  reverse  situations,  and  to  sup- 
pose him  to  have  been  an  American  Governor. 
General  Jackson  says,  that  when  he  received 
that  letter,  he  no  longer  hesitated.  No,  sir,  he 
did  no  longer  hesitate.  He  received  it  on  the 
23d ;  he  was  in  Pensacola  on  the  24th,  and  im- 
mediately after  set  himself  before  the  fortress 
San  Carlos  de  Barancas,  which  he  shortly  re- 
duced. Veni,  tidi,  vici.  Wonderful  energy! 
Admirable  promptitute  I  Alas !  that  it  had  not 
been  an  energy  and  a  promptitude  within  the 
pale  of  the  constitution,  and  according  to  the 
orders  of  the  Chief  Magistrate !  It  was  impos- 
sible to  give  any  definition  of  war  that  would 
not  comprehend  these  acts.  It  was  open,  un- 
disguised, and  unauthorized  hostility. 

He  would  not  trespass  much  longer  upon  the 
time  of  the  committee ;  but  he  trusted  he  should 
be  indulged  with  some  few  reflections  upon 
the  danger  of  permitting  the  conduct,  on  which 
it  had  been  his  painful  duty  to  animadvert,  to 
pass,  without  a  solemn  expression  of  this  House. 
Recall  to  your  recollection,  said  he,  the  free  na- 
tions which  have  gone  before  us.  Where  are 
they  now,  and  how  have  they  lost  their  liber- 
ties? If  wts  could  transport  ourselves  back  to 
the  ages  when  Greece  and  Rome  flourished  in 
their  greatest  prosperity,  and,  mingling  in  the 


246 


ABRIDGMENT  OF  THE 


H.  OF  R.] 


TheSeminole  War. 


[JANUARY,  1819. 


throng,  ask  a  Grecian  if  he  did  not  fear  some 
daring  military  chieftain,  covered  with  glory 
some  Philip  or  Alexander,  would  one  day  over- 
throw his  liberties?  No!  no!  the  confident 
and  indignant  Grecian  would  exclaim,  we  have 
nothing  to  fear  from  our  heroes ;  our  liberties 
will  be  eternal.  If  a  Roman  citizen  had  been 
asked,  if  he  did  not  fear  the  conqueror  of  G 
might  establish  a  throne  upon  the  ruins  of  the 
public  liberty,  he  would  have  instantly  repelled 
the  unjust  insinuation.  Yet  Greece  had  fallen, 
Caesar  had  passed  the  Kubicon,  and  the  patri- 
otic arm  even  of  Brutus,  could  not  preserve  the 
liberties  of  his  country !  The  celebrated  Mad- 
ame de  Stael,  in  her  last  and  perhaps  best  work, 
has  said,  that  in  the  very  year,  almost  the  very 
month,  when  the  President  of  the  Directory 
declared  that  monarchy  would  never  more  show 
its  frightful  head  in  France,  Bonaparte,  with 
his  grenadiers,  entered  the  palace  of  St.  Cloud, 
and,  dispersing  with  the  bayonet  the  deputies  of 
the  people,  deliberating  on  the  affairs  of  the 
State,  laid  the  foundations  of  that  vast  fabric  of 
despotism  which  overshadowed  all  Europe.  He 
hoped  not  to  be  misunderstood ;  he  was  far  from 
intimating  that  General  Jackson  cherished  any 
designs  inimical  to  the  liberties  of  the  country. 
He  believed  his  intentions  pure  and  patriotic. 
He  thanked  God  that  he  would  not,  but  he 
thanked  him  still  more  that  he  could  not,  if 
he  would,  overturn  the  liberties  of  the  Re- 
public. But  precedents,  if  bad,  were  fraught 
with  the  most  dangerous  consequences.  Man 
has  been  described,  by  some  of  those  who  have 
treated  of  his  nature,  as  a  bundle  of  habits. 
The  definition  was  much  truer  when  applied  to 
Governments.  Precedents  were  their  habits. 
There  was  one  important  difference  between 
the  formation  of  habits  by  an  individual  and 
by  Governments.  He  contracts  it  only  after 
frequent  repetition.  A  single  instance  fixes  the 
habit  and  determines  the  direction  of  Govern- 
ments. Against  the  alarming  doctrine  of  un- 
limited discretion  in  our  military  commanders, 
when  applied  even  to  prisoners  of  war,  he  must 
enter  his  protest ;  it  began  upon  them,  it  would 
end  on  us.  He  hoped  that  our  happy  form  of 
Government  was  destined  to  be  perpetual.  But 
if  it  were  to  be  preserved,  it  must  be  by  the 
practice  of  virtue,  by  justice,  by  moderation,  by 
magnanimity,  by  greatness  of  soul,  by  keeping 
a  watchful  and  steady  eye  on  the  Executive ; 
and,  above  all,  by  holding  to  a  strict  accounta- 
bility the  military  branch  of  the  public  force. 

We  are  fighting,  said  Mr.  0.,  a  great  moral 
battle  for  the  benefit,  not  only  of  our  country, 
but  of  all  mankind.  The  eyes  of  the  whole 
world  are  in  fixed  attention  upon  us.  One,  and 
the  largest  portion  of  it,  is  gazing  with  con- 
tempt, with  jealousy,  and  with  envy  ;  the  other 
portion,  with  hope,  with  confidence,  and  with 
affection.  Everywhere  the  black  cloud  of  le- 
gitimacy is  suspended  over  the  world,  save  only 
one  bright  spot,  which  breaks  out  from  the 
political  hemisphere  of  the  West,  to  brighten, 
and  animate,  and  gladden  the  human  heart.  Ob- 


scure that  by  the  downfall  of  liberty  here,  and 
all  mankind  are  enshrouded  in  one  universal 
darkness.  To  you,  Mr.  Chairman,  belongs  the 
high  privilege  of  transmitting  unimpaired,  to 
posterity,  the  fair  character  and  the  liberty  of 
our  country.  Do  you  expect  to  execute  this 
high  trust  by  trampling,  or  suffering  to  be 
trampled  down,  law,  justice,  the  constitution, 
and  the  rights  of  other  people?  By  exhibiting 
examples  of  inhumanity,  and  cruelty,  and  am- 
bition ?  When  the  minions  of  despotism  heard 
in  Europe  of  the  seizure  of  Pensacola,  how  did 
they  chuckle,  and  chide  the  admirers  of  our  in- 
stitutions, tauntingly  pointing  to  the  demon- 
stration of  a  spirit  of  injustice  and  aggrandize- 
ment made  by  our  country,  in  the  midst  of  ami- 
cable negotiation.  Behold,  said  they,  the  con- 
duct of  those  who  are  constantly  reproaching 
Kings.  You  saw  how  those  admirers  were  as- 
tounded and  hung  their  heads.  You  saw,  too, 
when  that  illustrious  man,  who  presides  over 
us,  adopted  his  pacific,  moderate,  and  just 
course,  how  they  once  more  lifted  up  their 
heads,  with  exultation  and  delight  beaming  in 
their  countenances.  And  you  saw  how  those 
minions  themselves  were  finally  compelled  to 
unite  in  the  general  praises  bestowed  upon  our 
Government.  Beware  how  you  forfeit  this  ex- 
alted character.  Beware  how  you  give  a  fatal 
sanction,  in  this  infant  period  of  our  Republic, 
scarcely  yet  two  score  years  old,  to  military 
insubordination.  Remember  that  Greece  had 
her  Alexander,  Rome  had  her  Caesar,  England 
her  Cromwell,  France  her  Bonaparte,  and  that, 
"f  we  would  escape  the  rock  on  which  they  split, 
we  must  avoid  their  errors. 

How  different  has  been  the  treatment  of 
General  Jackson,  and  that  modest,  but  heroic 
oung  man,  a  native  of  one  of  the  smallest 
States  in  the  Union,  who  achieved  for  his 
country,  on  Lake  Erie,  one  of  the  most  glorious 
victories  of  the  late  war.  In  a  moment  of  pas- 
sion he  forgot  himself,  and  offered  an  act  of 
violence,  which  was  repented  as  soon  as  perpe- 
;rated.  He  was  tried,  and  suffered  the  judg- 
ment pronounced  by  his  peers.  Public  justice 
was  thought  not  even  then  to  be  satisfied.  The 
>ress  and  Congress  took  up  the  subject.  My 
lonorable  friend  from  Virginia,  (Mr.  JOHNSON,) 
he  faithful  and  consistent  sentinel  of  the  law 
ind  of  the  constitution,  disapproved,  in  that  in- 
stance, as  he  does  in  this,  and  moved  an  inquiry. 
The  public  mind  remained  agitated  and  unap- 
>eased  until  the  recent  atonement,  so  honorably 
nade  by  the  gallant  Commodore.  And  was 
here  to  be  a  distinction  between  the  officers  of 
he  two  branches  of  the  public  service  ?  Are 
briner  services,  however  eminent,  to'  protect 
rom  even  inquiring  into  recent  misconduct? 
's  there  to  be  no  limit,  no  prudential  bounds  to 
he  national  gratitude  ?  H«  was  not  disposed 
o  censure  the  President  for  not  ordering  a 
;ourt  of  inquiry  or  a  general  court-martial. 
~'erhaps  impelled  by  a  sense  of  that  gratitude, 
le  determined  by  anticipation,  to  extend  to  the 
jeueral  that  pardon  which  he  had  the  undoubt- 


DEBATES  OF  CONGRESS. 


247 


JANUARY,  1819.] 


The  Seminole  War. 


[II.  OF  R. 


ed  right  to  grant  after  sentence.  Let  us,  said 
Mr.  (X,  not  shrink  from  our  duty.  Let  us  as- 
sert our  constitutional  powers,  and  vindicate 
the  instrument  from  military  violation. 

He  hoped  gentlemen  would  deliberately  sur- 
vey the  awful  position  on  which  we  stand. 
They  may  bear  down  all  opposition ;  they  may 
even  vote  the  General  the  public  thanks ;  they 
may  carry  him  triumphantly  through  this  House. 
But,  if  they  do,  in  my  humble  judgment,  it  will 
be  a  triumph  of  the  principle  of  insubordina- 
tion— a  triumph  of  the  military  over  the  civil 
authority — a  triumph  over  the  powers  of  this 
House — a  triumph  over  the  constitution  of  the 
land.  And  he  prayed  most  devoutly  to  Heaven, 
that  it  might  not  prove,  in  its  ultimate  effects 
and  consequences,  a  triumph  over  the  liberties 
of  the  people. 

Mr.  JOHNSON,  of  Kentucky,  rose  immediately 
after  Mr.  CLAY.  He  felt  himself  called  on,  hav- 
ing been  a  member  of  the  committee  which  had 
had  this  subject  under  consideration,  and  as  one 
of  the  minority  on  the  report  made  by  it,  to  ex- 
pre.-s  his  views  of  the  questions  involved  in  the 
report,  and  in  the  propositions  moved  by  way 
of  amendment  to  it.  Without  further  preface, 
he  proceeded  to  state  that  the  conduct  of  General 
Jackson,  in  regard  to  the  trial  and  execution  of 
Arbuthnot  and  Ambrister,  had  been  the  subject 
of  censure,  from  a  misconception  of  the  law  and 
of  the  facts  connected  with  it ;  and,  particularly, 
by  confounding  two  principles  of  the  laws  of 
nations,  which  were  in  themselves  separate  and 
distinct.  The  general  order  directing  the  exe- 
cution of  these  men  asserted,  that  the  subject  of 
any  nation,  making  war  upon  a  nation  at  peace 
•with  that  to  which  he  belongs,  is  an  outlaw  and 
a  pirate ;  and  Mr.  J.  said  it  was  correctly  as- 
serted. And  the  very  same  page  of  Vattel,  on 
which  gentlemen  relied  for  the  support  of  their 
doctrine,  would  bear  him  out  in  that  for  which 
he  contended,  and  with  which  gentlemen  had 
confounded  one  entirely  different  That,  where 
persons  have  joined  the  standard  of  a  belliger- 
ent, they  may  claim  the  character  and  privi- 
leges of  the  belligerent  party,  was  a  principle  of 
public  law,  was  not  to  be  denied  ;  but  if  an  in- 
dividual takes  upon  himself  to  create  and  carry 
on  a  war,  without  authority  from  any  Govern- 
ment, it  was  a  principle  equally  undeniable  that 
he  is  an  outlaw  and  a  pirate — not  that  he  is 
either  technically,  but  that,  in  fact  and  by  analo- 
gy, he  is  so  to  be  regarded.  It  is  an  established 
principle  of  public  law,  that  the  crew  of  any  ves- 
sel, engaging  in  war  without  the  authority  of  any 
commission,  may  be  treated  as  pirates,  and  put 
to  the  sword.  Tf,  on  the  land,  the  like  course 
be  pursued,  he  who  is  guilty  of  it  is  an  outlaw 
and  a  bandit,  and  may  be  put  to  the  sword. 
This  was  one  principle  of  public  law,  and  that 
which  gentlemen  had  triumphantly  asserted 
(and  which  nobody  denied)  was  a  wholly  dif- 
ferent one ;  both  not  only  clearly  supported  by 
the  authority  of  Vattel,  but  in  the  same  page 
of  that  respected  and  excellent  writer. 

Mr.  J.  said  he  would  venture  to  say  that  every 


ground  taken  by  that  man  whose  valor  and  con- 
duct on  the  memorable  eighth  day  of  January, 
in  the  darkest  period  of  the  late  war,  had  caused 
joy  to  beam  from  every  face,  would  be  found 
tenable  on  principles  which  have  prevailed  from 
the  commencement  of  civilization  to  the  present 
day.  He  pledged  himself  to  produce  chapter 
and  verse  to  support  his  conduct  in  every  inci- 
dent of  that  war.  He  considered  the  essential 
interests  of  justice  and  of  mercy  to  have  been 
served  in  the  execution  of  the  foreign  incendi- 
aries who  stimulated  the  Indians  to  barbarities 
on  our  frontier  settlers ;  and  that  the  military 
occupation  of  Florida  by  General  Jackson  was 
justifiable  on  the  broad  basis  of  national  law, 
and  of  sacred  duty  to  his  country.  When  gen- 
tlemen undertook  to  say,  that  General  Jackson 
had  not  the  right  of  retaliation,  let  them  re- 
collect the  case  of  proposed  retaliation,  during 
the  Revolutionary  war,  for  the  barbarous  mur- 
der of  Captain  Huddie.  And  on  whom  of  the 
prisoners  in  our  power  did  the  lot  fall  ?  Not 
on  a  miserable  interloper,  but  on  Captain  Asgill, 
an  amiable  and  accomplished  officer.  What 
then  said  the  Congress  of  the  United  States — 
that  venerable  and  enlightened  body  which 
carried  us  through  the  Revolutionary  conflict? 
What  did  they  say?  Why,  sir,  not  only  that 
the  Commander  -in-chief,  but  that  every  officer 
on  separate  command,  possessed  the  right  of  re- 
taliation, and  that  they  would  support  him  in 
the  exercise  of  it.  It  was  true  that  Asgill  was 
released,  for  reasons  of  policy  ;  but  the  right  of 
retaliation  was  fully  sustained.  Four  months, 
Mr.  J.  said,  after  the  first  blood  was  spilt  in  the 
Revolution,  at  the  battle  of  Lexington,  and  two 
months  after  the  memorable  battle  of  Bunker 
Hill,  which  shed  such  a  lustre  upon  our  arms, 
and  nearly  a  year  before  the  Declaration  of  In- 
dependence, this  question  of  the  right  of  retali- 
ation was  solemnly  discussed  and  settled  in  the 
correspondence  between  General  Washington 
and  General  Gage ;  in  which  the  former  broad- 
ly asserted  the  right  of  retaliation,  and  declared 
that  he  should  be  governed  by  it.  In  order  to 
take  from  our  cominacding  General  this  right 
at  the  present  day,  Mr.  J.  said,  gentlemen  had 
again  blended  and  confounded  principles  of  the 
laws  of  nations,  which  in  themselves  were  en- 
tirely distinct.  In  case  of  individuals  in  an 
army  violating  the  laws  of  nations,  and  the 
known  rules  of  war,  it  is  a  clear  principle  that 
they  may  be  punished  with  death ;  and  it  was 
a  principle  equally  clear,  that  in  contending 
with  a  savage  foe,  you  are  at  liberty  to  retaliate 
on  them  their  own  usages.  But  gentlemen  had 
blended  these  powers  and  rights  with  the  right 
of  reprisal ;  and  had  confounded  the  power  of 
putting  to  instant  death  a  captive— -a  right  in- 
herent in  the  military  power  with  which  we 
have  clothed  the  commander,  and  the  exercise 
of  which  is  a  question  between  himself  and  his 
God. 

I  rejoice,  said  Mr.  J.,  that  the  honorable  gen- 
tleman who  last  addressed  you,  has  expressed 
his  opinion,  that  the  intentions  of  General  Jack 


248 


ABRIDGMENT  OF  THE 


H.  OF 


The  Seminole  War. 


[JANUARY,  1819. 


son,  in  what  he  has  done,  were  good.  I  rejoice 
in  it,  sir,  from  my  respect  for  that  gentleman, 
whoso  opinion  has  with  me  more  weight  than 
that  of  any  other  individual ;  but  this  is  a  case 
in  which  the  obstinacy  of  nature  will  not  per- 
mit me  to  surrender  my  opinion  to  any  indi- 
vidual whatever. 

It  had  been  denied  that  any  example  could  be 
produced  of  military  execution,  at  the  fiat  of  the 
commanding  General,  in  our  country.  Mr.  J. 
said  he  would  give  an  instance,  in  which  two  in- 
dividuals were  put  to  death  by  General  Washing- 
ton. Being  given  up  by  the  revolted  State  line 
of  Pennsylvania,  as  emissaries,  sent  by  General 
Carlton,  these  men  were  instantly  executed. 
For  this  fact,  Mr.  J.  referred  gentlemen  to  the 
Annual  Register,  which  now  lay  open  before 
him. 

It  had  been  stated,  that  the  crimes  for  which 
these  men  were  executed,  were  offences  not  re- 
cognized by  the  laws  of  the  United  States.  Mr. 
J.  denied  the  fact,  and  in  doing  so  meant  offence 
to  no  one.  These  miscreants,  who  had  im- 
brued their  hands  in  the  blood  of  our  country- 
men— the  instigators  of  the  murders,  the  fruits 
of  which  were  three  hundred  scalps  in  one 
place,  and  in  another,  although,  according  to 
the  documents  read  by  the  Speaker,  it  would 
appear  that  the  Indians  were  three  murders  in 
arrear  of  us — these  individuals  had  been  con- 
demned and  executed  in  conformity  to  the  let- 
ter, if  not  to  the  spirit,  of  the  laws  of  the  United 
States.  According  to  our  rules  and  articles  of 
war,  whoever  should  relieve  the  enemy  with 
money,  victuals,  or  ammunition,  or  should 
knowingly  harbor  or  protect  them,  or  hold 
correspondence  with  the  enemy,  were  sub- 
jected to  death.  So  far  the  rule  as  to  our  army, 
which,  by  subsequent  articles,  was  made  so 
broad  as  to  apply  to  the  whole  human  family. 
But,  if  there  was,  on  this  point,  any  defect  of 
power,  here  came  in  the  law  of  nations  to  sup- 
ply the  deficiency;  for  that  which  subjects  to 
death  one  of  our  own  citizens,  shall  much  more 
subject  to  death  the  foreign  incendiary.  Ex- 
amples, in  illustration  of  this  doctrine,  were 
plentifully  scattered  on  the  page  of  history. 
Wliat  was  the  fact,  said  he,  as  to  the  trial  of  the 
distinguished  officer  who  was  Adjutant-General 
of  the  British  forces,  during  the  Revolution? 
He  was  convicted  on  his  own  confession  and  by 
a  court  composed  of  six  major-generals  and 
eight  brigadier-generals.  General  Jackson,  Mr. 
J.  said,  was  only  following  in  the  steps  of  those 
who  had  gone  before.  He  was  not  here,  he 
said,  about  to  maintain  that  General  Jackson 
was  faultless  ;  if  he  had  no  faults,  he  would  not 
be  human — but  he  stood  here  to  maintain  his 
devotion  to  his  country ;  and  that,  in  the  course 
he  had  pursued  in  the  trial  and  execution  of 
Arbuthnot  and  Ambrister,  he  had  only  trodden 
in  the  footsteps  of  the  immortal  Washington. 

As  to  the  execution  of  the  two  Indian  war- 
riors, by  the  exercise  of  a  summary  jurisdiction 
over  them,  and  the  distinction  made  between 
their  case  and  that  of  the  white  men,  the  reason 


was  obvious  to  every  man  who  had  ears  and 
would  hear,  or  who  had  eyes  and  would  see. 
In  relation  to  the  Indian  chiefs,  their  color  was 
sufficient  evidence  of  their  subjection  to  his 
right  of  disposing  of  them  as  justice  required. 
The  law  of  nations  clothed  him  with  the  power 
to  put  an  end  to  their  existence.  As  to  the 
stratagem  of  which  gentlemen  had  complained, 
no  one  was  less  disposed  than  himself  to  look 
with  a  favorable  eye  on  such  stratagems  as  were 
contrary  to  morality.  But  there  was  no  im- 
morality in  hoisting  the  flag  of  a  foreign  power, 
nor  in  capturing  the  person  of  your  enemy  when 
he  unwarily  puts  himself  in  your  power.  Nor, 
in  what  had  been  done  in  relation  to  these  In- 
dians, was  there  any  Violation  of  humanity  or  of 
public  law.  Do  they  meet  us  in  honorable  com- 
bat ?  said  Mr.  J.  In  the  case  of  the  unfortunate 
Mrs.  Garret,  did  they  meet  us  in  honorable  con- 
flict there  ?  When  they  burnt  the  seaman  alive, 
whom  they  had  previously  tarred  and  feathered, 
did  they  meet  us  in  open  combat  ?  Was  the 
war  one  in  which  Greek  met  Greek,  or  an 
American  met  the  citizen  or  subject  of  any 
civilized  nation  ?  If  it  were,  the  course  of  Gen. 
Jackson,  so  far  from  receiving  approbation, 
would  deserve  execration.  But,  considering 
the  treacherous  enemy  he  had  to  cope  with,  and 
the  object  of  his  measures,  which  was  to  give 
security  to  the  frontier,  and  to  save  the  waste- 
ful expenditure  of  the  blood,  and  even  of  the 
treasure  of  the  nation ;  when  I  think  on  this, 
said  Mr.  J.,  I  do  not  censure  General  Jackson, 
but,  as  before  my  God,  I  give  him  my  thanks. 
But  for  his  energy  what  would  have  been  the 
consequence?  The  frontier  of  Georgia  would 
have  been  deluged  with  blood,  as  it  has  been 
once  before,  and  the  gentleman  from  Georgia 
(Mr.  COBB)  would  again  have  called  upon  us, 
with  a  voice  of  patriotism,  and  a  voice  of 
thunder,  too,  to  pay  the  gallant  Georgians  for 
going  against  the  Seminoles. 

With  regard  to  the  treaty  of  Fort  Jackson, 
Mr.  J.  said,  he  should  enter  into  no  long  argu- 
ment, but  he  differed  exceedingly  from  his  hon- 
orable colleague.  Have  we  not  a  right,  said  he, 
to  dictate  terms  to  a  conquered  enemy  ?  Was  not 
the  war  which  was  terminated  by  that  treaty  an 
unprovoked  war  ?  Was  it  not  instigated  against 
us,  and  without  cause,  on  the  part  of  the  Indians? 
On  whose  head  should  the  blood  fall,  if  you  can- 
not control  the  Indians  with  the  Bible  ?  I  wish 
to  God  you  could,  said  Mr.  J.,  and  towards  that 
object  I  will  do,  and  have  done,  as  much  in  my 
sphere  as  any  one.  There  is  at  this  moment,  in 
the  heart  of  my  country,  a  school  for  the  educa- 
tion of  the  Indians  in  the  arts  of  civil  life.  But 
when  you  come  into  contact  with  them — when 
they  flourish  their  tomahawk  over  your  head — 
are  you  to  meet  them  with  the  Bible  in  your 
hands,  and  invoke  their  obedience  of  that  holy 
religion  of  which  the  Speaker  tells  us  ?  I  should 
be  the  last  to  raise  the  sword  against  them,  if  the 
employment  of  such  means  would  appease  their 
fury.  Experience  had  shown  it  would  not ;  and 
it  became  necessary  to  meet  and  chastise  them. 


DEBATES  OF  CONGRESS. 


249 


JANUARY,  1819.] 


The  Seminole  War. 


[H.  OF  R. 


And  would  any  man  say  that,  having  put  down 
their  hostility  "hy  forc«,  we  had  not  a  right  to 
dictate  to  them  the  terms  of  peace  ?  We  had 
the  right,  and  we  made  the  treaty.  That  treaty 
received  the  sanction  of  every  part  of  the  Gov- 
ernment— this  House  among  them — (by  the  ap- 
propriation to  carry  it  into  effect)  and  it  was 
too  late  now  to  disturb  it. 

As  to  the  war,  the  constitutionality  of  which 
had  been  doubted,  Mr.  J.  said,  the  President  of 
the  United  States  was  not  only  authorized,  but  it 
was  his  bounden  duty  to  make  war  on  the  Sem- 
inole Indians.  Admit,  for  the  sake  of  argument, 
that,  beyond  our  boundary,  they  were  to  be 
considered  as  exercising  a  sovereign  and  inde- 
pendent authority,  what  would  gentlemen  gain 
by  that  admission  ?  If  it  were  true,  had  we  not 
a  right  to  trace  them  to  their  strongholds,  even 
in  a  neutral  country  ?  On  that  point  the  ex- 
positors of  the  laws  of  nations  were  not  silent. 
It  was  there  laid  down,  that  you  may  pursue  a 
retreating  enemy  into  a  neutral  country,  if  the 
Government  of  that  country,  either  from  par- 
tiality to  him,  or  from  inability  to  prevent  it, 
shall  not  stop  the  progress  of  the  retreating  army. 

Now,  as  to  another  point  which,  perhaps,  con- 
sidering it  as  too  delicate,  the  Military  Commit- 
tee had  not  thought  proper  to  approach.  Mr.  J. 
said  he  should  be  deterred  by  no  such  motive 
from  examining  the  question  of  the  power  of  the 
President  to  prosecute  this  Indian  war,  and 
from  censuring  him,  if,  in  doing  so,  he  usurped 
power  or  exceeded  his  duty.  As  early  as  the  year 
1787.  the  Congress  had  authorized  the  station- 
ing of  troops  on  the  frontier,  to  protect  it  from 
the  Indians,  and  the  calling  out  of  the  militia 
for  the  same  purpose.  And  this  power  had 
been  acted  on,  from  year  to  year,  until  the  law  of 
1795  settled  the  point  conclusively  that,  with- 
out a  declaration  of  war  by  Congress,  the  Pres- 
ident had  the  right  to  make  war  upon  the 
savages :  or,  in  the  words  of  the  law,  on  the  In- 
dian tribes.  Let  us,  said  Mr.  J.,  look  at  our  own 
powers — and  how  we  have  discharged  them — 
instead  of  attempting  to  divest  other  branches 
of  the  government  of  their  powers.  "What  was 
our  duty  ?  To  provide  for  calling  out  the  mil- 
itia— fur  what?  To  execute  the  laws,  to  sup- 
press insurrection,  and  to  repel  invasion.  It 
was  on  that  principle  that  the  power  was 
granted  to  the  Executive  of  this  country  to 
chastise  the  ruthless  savages  for  individual  mur- 
ders, or  for  murders  committed  with  their  com- 
bined force.  Has  thj  President,  then,  said  Mr. 
J.,  violated  his  authority  ?  Certainly  not.  And 
if  you  take  from  him  this  authority,  which  he 
has  so  rightfully  exercised,  what  is  to  become 
of  our  citizens  on  the  frontiers  ?  The  heart  of 
our  country  might  be  penetrated,  and  the  sav- 
ages besiege  our  very  doors,  while  we  are  mak- 
ing long  speeches  about  the  policy  and  humanity 
of  repressing  their  hostilities.  Had  such  been 
the  case  in  the  recent  instance,  either  from  a 
defect  in  the  law  or  in  the  execution  of  the  law, 
the  people  would  have  said,  our  Government  is 
a  rope  of  sand,  and  the  blood  and  treasure  spent 


in  its  establishment  have  been  lavished  in  vain. 
According  to  the  first  word  of  military  com- 
mand, a  little  varied,  it  is  made  the  duty  of  the 
Executive  to  take  care  that  the  laws  of  the 
Union  are  executed,  and  that  invasion  is  repelled ; 
and  for  this  purpose  he  may  use  the  regular  or 
militia  force  of  the  couittry.  Would  it  not  be 
an  invasion  to  have  our  helpless  women,  and  the 
infant  descendants  of  those  who  have  fought 
our  battles,  butchered  by  the  indiscriminate 
tomahawk  and  scalping-knife  ?  And  would  it 
not  be  a  violation  of  the  laws  of  the  country  to 
permit  the  hands  of  the  Indian  to  be  imbrued  in 
the  blood  of  our  citizens  ? 

Mr.  J.  then  proceeded  to  touch  upon  the 
opinion  of  his  honorable  friend  and  colleague — 
for  whom  he  felt  not  only  friendship,  but  affec- 
tion— that  these  incendiaries  were  put  to  death 
without  necessity.  He  argued  that,  though  after 
destroy  ing  Mickasuky  and  burning  the  Suwaney 
towns,  General  Jackson  thought  the  war  was  at 
an  end,  he  was  afterwards  convinced  he  had 
been  mistaken ;  so  ranch  so,  that  he  had  found 
it  necessary  afterwards  to  go  to  Pensacola,  and 
to  leave  two  companies  to  scour  the  country 
around  it, who  were  now  fighting  gallantly  against 
the  savages,  who  would  have  deluged  the  country 
in  blood  but  for  these  measures.  It  was  kind,  if 
not  just,  to  General  Jackson,  to  take  the  reasons 
which  he  himself  assigned  as  the  ground  of  his 
measures.  He  stood  before  this  House  not  only 
as  a  great  captain,  but  as  a  man  of  sound  sense 
and  discretion.  Gentlemen  had  said  the  war 
was  at  an  end,  But  how  many  of  the  enemy 
had  been  killed  ?  Look  to  the  fact,  in  relation 
to  the  power  of  the  enemy.  They  yet  existed, 
when  the  sentence  of  death  was  carried  into 
effect  against  Arbuthnot  and  Ambrister,  in  a 
force  of  greater  amount  than  that  which  General 
Jackson  had  with  him.  Look  at  the  communica 
tion  of  Arbuthnot,  stating  their  force  to  be  three  ' 
thousand  five  hundred  men ;  suppose  these  insti- 
gators of  the  war  had  been  suffered  to  remain 
and  go  at  large ;  suppose  the  benign  influence  of 
mercy,  in  the  breast  of  this  honorable  and  re- 
spectable court-martial,  had  weighed  down  the 
scale  of  justice,  and  these  men  had  been  discharg- 
ed, what  would  have  been  the  situation  of  the 
frontier  of  Georgia  ?  Would  it  not  have  been  the 
same  as  during  the  British  war  ?  These  igno- 
rant savages  were  deluded  by  their  abettors  into 
a  belief  that  they  were  competent  to  cope  with 
the  forces  of  the  United  States.  Of  the  twelve 
chiefs  who  signed  the  power  of  attorney  to  Ar- 
buthnot, though  two  had  been  hung,  there  yet 
remained  ten,  and  three  thousand  men  who 
formed  their  command,  to  make  battle  against 
our  forces  nnder  the  instigation  of  the  miscreants 
who  had  before  stimulated  them  to  war  against 
us,  and  to  their  own  ultimate  ruin. 


THURSDAY,  January  21. 

Seminole  War. 

Mr.  Jonxsox  resumed  the  speech  which  was 
interrupted  by  yesterday's  adjournment. 


250 


ABRIDGMENT  OF  THE 


H.  OF  R.] 


The  Seminole  War. 


[JANUARY,  1819. 


He  had  already  stated,  he  said,  that  General 
Jackson  displayed  more  knowledge  in  the  wilds 
of  Florida,  on  this  subject,  than  any  member  who 
had  taken  part  in  this  discussion ;  and  that  gen- 
tlemen had  blended  two  principles  in  the  laws 
of  nations  together,  the  distinction  between 
which  General  Jackson  had  seen  and  observed. 
The  one  was  the  case  of  volunteers  entering  a 
foreign  service,  for  the  purpose  of  improving 
themselves  in  the  use  of  arms  and  the  knowl- 
edge of  the  art  of  war — which  case  is  thus 
stated  in  Vattel,  p.  401,  sec.  230  :— "  The  noble 
view  of  gaining  instruction  in  the  art  of  war, 
and  thus  acquiring  a  greater  degree  of  ability  to 
render  useful  services  to  their  country,  has  in- 
troduced the  custom  of  serving  as  volunteers 
even  in  foreign  armies ;  and  the  practice  is  un- 
doubtedly justified  by  the  sublimity  of  the  mo- 
tive. At  present,  volunteers,  when  taken  by 
the  enemy,  are  treated  as  if  they  belonged  to 
the  army  in  which  they  fight.  Nothing  can  be 
more  reasonable  ;  they,  in  fact,  join  that  army, 
and  unite  with  it  in  supporting  the  same  cause ; 
and  it  makes  little  difference  in  the  case  whether 
they  do  this  in  compliance  with  any  obligation, 
or  at  the  spontaneous  impulse  of  their  own  free 
choice."  Such  was  the  case  of  Kosciusko,  of 
Lafayette,  and  the  other  illustrious  foreigners 
who  entered  our  armies  during  the  Revolution, 
who  were  volunteers  in  the  best  of  causes,  but 
whose  rights  would  not  have  been  lessened  had 
the  cause  been  that  of  despotism  and  tyranny, 
instead  of  that  of  freedom  and  independence. 
But  this  case  was  widely  different  from  that  of 
interlopers,  exciters  of  wars,  and  enemies  of  the 
human  race,  who  might  be  hung  up,  and  ought 
to  be,  by  military  law,  as  so  many  robbers  and 
pirates.  In  the  course  pursued  by  General 
Jackson,  then,  and  in  his  doctrine  to  which  ex- 
ception has  been  taken,  he  is  even  more  than 
borne  out  by  writers  on  the  laws  of  nations,  as 
Mr.  J.  showed  by  the  following  references : 
Vattel,  p.  400,  sec.  226.—"  Even  after  a  decla- 
ration of  war  between  two  nations,  if  the  pea- 
sants of  themselves  commit  any  hostilities,  the 
enemy  shows  them  no  mercy,  but  hangs  them 
up  as  he  would  so  many  robbers  or  banditti. 
The  crews  of  private  ships  of  war  stand  in  the 
same  predicament :  a  commission  from  the 
sovereign  or  admiral  can  alone,  in  case  they  are 
captured,  insure  them  such  treatment  as  is  given 
to  prisoners  taken  in  regular  warfare."  Mar- 
tens, p.  272,  b.  8. — "  The  violences  committed 
by  the  subjects  of  one  nation  against  those  of 
another,  without  authority  from  their  sovereign, 
are  now  looked  upon  as  robberies,  and  the  per- 
petrators are  excluded  from  the  rights  of  lawful 
enemies."  Page  280. — "  Those  not  authorized 
from  their  sovereign,  who  take  upon  themselves 
to  attack  the  enemy,  are  treated  by  him  as  ban- 
ditti." Page  284.  "  Those  who,  unauthorized 
by  the  order  of  their  sovereign,  exercise  vio- 
lences against  our  enemy,  and  fall  into  that 
enemy's  hands,  have  no  right  to  expect  the 
treatment  due  to  prisoners  of  war :  the  enemy- 
is  justifiable  in  putting  them  to  death  as  ban- 


ditti." The  evidence  before  the  court  suffi- 
ciently established  the  facts  on  which,  under 
the  above  passages  of  the  law  of  nations,  Gene- 
ral Jackson  was  authorized,  if  not  bound  to 
proceed. 

"Was  it  supposed  by  gentlemen,  Mr.  J. 
asked,  that  General  Jackson  was  so  ignorant  of 
the  language  of  his  country  that  he  did  not 
understand  the  meaning  of  the  words  "pirate 
and  outlaw  ?"  An  outlaw  the  convict  certainly 
was,  as  out  of  the  protection  of  the  sovereignty 
of  Great  Britain  or  of  any  other  nation.  In  re- 
lation to  the  term  "  pirate,"  it  had  no  other 
meaning  than  its  technical  one  :  there  were 
pirates  on  land  as  well  as  on  the  ocean.  We 
are  not  here,  said  Mr.  J.,  to  inquire  whether 
General  Jackson  used  technical  terms,  but 
whether  he  did  substantially  or  legally  right. 
While  we  are  searching  our  law  books  and 
libraries  for  our  definitions,  I  hope  we  shall  not 
lose  sight  of  the  difference  between  our  situa- 
tion and  that  of  the  General  while  in  the  field  ; 
while  our  heads  repose  on  downy  pillows,  and 
we  can  rise  up  and  lie  down  when  we  please, 
he  had  an  object  to  accomplish,  at  every  hazard, 
and  at  every  cost,  which  he  could  not  have  at- 
tained if  he  had  not  acted  as  he  did.  Would 
you  rather,  said  Mr.  J.,  that  these  men  were 
living  and  the  country  deluged  in  blood,  or 
that  those  men  should  have  suffered  according 
to  their  deserts  ?  These  men  had  been  guilty 
of  that  for  which  one  of  our  own  citizens  would 
have  been  put  to  death ;  and  they  were  prop- 
erly as  well  as  legally  put  to  death,  in  pursu- 
ance of  General  Jackson's  object,  which  was, 
according  to  his  instructions,  to  put  a  speedy 
and  effectual  end  to  hostilities  so  unprovoked. 
These  men,  living,  said  Mr.  J.,  the  tomahawk 
and  scalping-knife  would  have  been  sharpened 
anew,  and  other  emissaries  would  have  derived 
encouragement  from  their  impunity.  Answer 
me  this,  Mr.  Chairman — had  you  rather  that  the 
Mississippi  and  its  various  waters,  the  country  to 
the  Lakes,  and  beyond  them  to  the  North  Pole, 
should  have  been  jeopardized,  that  New  Orleans 
should  have  passed  from  your  power  into  the 
hands  of  the  British  during  the  late  war,  or  that 
martial  law  should  have  been  there  established 
for  a  short  time  ?  For  even  that  is  now  brought 
into  view,  which  contributed  so  much  to  the 
glory  as  well  as  safety  and  honor  of  the  country. 
If  a  man  did  not  present  himself  in  the  attitude 
of  suspicion,  martial  law  did  not  affect  him.  I 
presume,  sir,  at  least  I  ho^,  had  I  been  there, 
I  should  have  had  no  reason  to  dislike  it.  I 
have  no  particular  respect  for  that  desire  of 
locomotion  which  could  not  bear  to  be  restrained 
within  certain  bounds  when  the  veterans  of 
Wellington  were  to  be  met  by  the  raw  men  of 
Kentucky  and  of  Tennessee  :  I  do  not  like  that 
delicate  fastidiousness  of  martial  law,  when  the 
enemy  is  knocking  at  the  gate.  All  men  worthy 
of  their  country  would  make  the  sacrifice  re- 
quired of  them  on  such  occasions.  If,  for  want 
of  proper  energy  on  the  part  of  the  commanding 
general,  New  Orleans  had  fallen  into  the  posses- 


DEBATES  OF  CONGRESS. 


251 


JiStJAKY,    1819.] 


The  Seminole  War, 


[H.  OF  R. 


sion  of  our  enemy,  what  would  have  befallen 
the  inhabitants,  independently  of  the  sacrifice 
of  property  and  life  ?  Beauty  and  booty  was 
the  watchword  of  the  enemy.  Had  you  rather, 
sir,  that  the  enemy  had  succeeded  in  his  object, 
or  that  this  patriot  should  have  put  military  law 
in  force?  As  to  the  General,  whose  conduct  I 
am  proud  to  vindicate,  said  Mr.  J.,  I  consider 
him  in  the  grave  as  to  ambition — if  he  ever  had 
any — which  I  never  saw  in  him,  except  the 
ambition  to  serve  his  country.  I  do  not  speak 
of  him  because  he  is  living,  and  that  I  ever  ex- 
pect to  see  again  those  eyes  that  never  winked 
at  danger  when  he  was  called  upon  to  meet  it. 
He  has  added  to  the  military  glory  of  his  country 
more,  perhaps,  than  any  other  living  citizen ; 
and,  in  the  view  of  all  statesmen  and  all  writers 
on  national  law,  the  glory  of  a  nation  constitutes 
one  of  its  greatest  bulwarks  of  strength. 

I  now  coine,  said  he,  to  the  consideration  of 
the  right  of  the  President  to  make  war  on  the 
savages ;  and  on  that  point  I  contend  that  we 
have  on  the  statute-book  a  perpetual  declara- 
tion of  war  against  them.  I  hope  gentlemen 
will  take  down  the  expression,  and  attend  to 
my  explanation — I  say  we  have  a  permanent 
and  everlasting  declaration  of  war — and  why  ? 
The  reason  is  very  obvious.  I  shall  not  differ 
from  gentlemen  as  to  the  policy  and  justice  of 
observing  the  duties  of  humanity  towards  that 
unfortunate  people.  God  forbid  that  a  drop  of 
Indian  blood  should  be  spilt  except  on  the  prin- 
ciples of  civilized  man.  But  the  President 
would  be  wanting  in  his  duty  to  his  country, 
and  to  his  God,  if  he  did  not  use  the  strong 
arm  of  power  in  putting  down  the  savages  by 
the  force  he  is  authorized  to  employ,  if  they 
cannot  be  put  down  by  the  precepts  of  our  holy 
religion ;  and  Congress,  had  they  not  passed 
such  a  statute,  would  be  wanting  in  duty  to  their 
country.  Do  the  Indians  ever  declare  war  against 
their  enemy  ?  Do  they  embody  themselves  and 
engage  in  open  conflict  with  their  adversary,  or 
do  they  come,  like  a  thief  in  the  night,  and  carry 
death  to  the  unfortunate  women,  to  the  aged 
and  infirm  men,  and  the  children  whom  they 
meet  in  their  incursions  ?  Is  or  is  not  that  the 
universal  practice?  Let  history  answer  the 
question.  Should  we,  under  these  circumstan- 
ces, have  acted  rightly,  to  take  no  precaution, 
but  fold  our  arms  in  listless  apathy,  until  roused 
by  the  Indian  yell  ?  Our  predecessors  too  well 
knew  their  duty  to  dp  that.  As  early  as  1787, 
and  farther  back  if  it  were  necessary  to  trace, 
provisions  of  the  same  nature  as  those  now  ex- 
isting, were  enacted  by  the  venerable  Congress 
of  the  Confederation.  By  various  statutes  the 
same  provisions  had  been  continued  to  the 
present  day.  The  statute  gave  to  the  President 
a  discretionary  power  to  employ  the  forces  of 
the  United  States,  and  to  call  forth  the  militia 
to  repress  Indian  hostility  ;  and  gave  it  to  him 
properly,  on  the  principles  of  the  constitution. 
By  the  constitution,  the  President  is  made 
Commander-in-chief  of  the  Army;  and  it  is 
made  his  duty  to  take  care  that  the  laws  are 


executed,  to  suppress  insurrections  and  repel 
invasions ;  and,  by  the  same  instrument,  it  is 
made  our  duty  to  provide  for  calling  forth  the 
militia  to  be  employed  in  these  objects.  That 
power  has  been  exercised  in  the  manner  which 
will  be  shown  by  the  law  of  the  United  States. 
[Mr.  J.  here  requested  the  clerk  to  read  the 
statute  to  which  he  alluded  ;*  and  it  was  read 
accordingly.]  Now,  Mr.  J.  said,  he  thought 
this  was  a  declaration  of  war  of  at  least  equal 
dignity  *to  the  manner  in  which  the  savages 
make  war  against  us,  and  to  the  light  in  which 
we  view  them.  We  treat  them,  it  is  true,  and 
we  ought  to  treat  them,  with  humanity ;  we 
have  given  them  privileges  beyond  all  other 
nations ;  but  we  reserve  the  right  to  repel  their 
invasions,  and  to  put  to  death  murderers  and 
violators  of  our  peace,  whether  Indians  or  white 
men. 

Mr.  SMYTH,  of  Virginia,  addressed  the  Chair. 
I  promised,  said  he,  when  the  House  received 
the  report  of  the  Military  Committee,  that  I 
would,  when  the  time  for  discussing  it  arrived, 
attempt  to  show,  that  all  the  proceedings  of 
General  Jackson,  in  prosecuting  the  Seminole^ 
war,  were  justified  by  the  law  of  nations.  I 
will  proceed  to  fulfil  that  promise. 

In  examining  the  proceedings  of  the  armed 
force  of  the  United  States  in  Florida,  I  propose 
to  make  these  inquiries :  1.  Have  the  rights  of 
the  United  States  been  transcended  ?  2.  Have- 
the  constitutional  powers  of  the  President 
been  exceeded  ?  3.  Has  General  Jackson  trans- 
cended his  powers,  or  violated  the  laws  of  na- 
tions? 

I  proceed  with  the  first  inquiry :  Have  the 
rights  of  the  United  States  been  transcended? 

The  law  of  nations,  like  the  common  law  of 
the  land,  is  founded  on  reason  and  usage.  To 
prove  that  it  is  reasonable  that  a  nation  should 
possess  a  certain  right,  is  to  prove  that  it  does 
possess  that  right ;  unless  it  is  shown  that  the 
custom  and  usage  of  nations  is  otherwise.  "We 
find  those  customs  and  usages  in  treatises  com- 
piled by  writers  on  the  law  of  nations.. 

The  right  of  security,  or  of  self-preservation, 
is  one  of  the  most  important,  and  most  unques- 
tionable rights  of  nations.  A  nation  has  a  right 
not  to  suffer  any  other  to  obstruct  its  preserva- 
tion. This  is  one  of  those  rights  called  perfect 
rights.  The  definition  of  a  perfect  right  is,  that 
it  may  be  asserted  by  force.  It  is,  therefore, 
the  duty  of  the  Government  to  preserve  the 
people.  "  The  safety  of  the  people  is  the  first 
law."  And  we  have  a  right  to  do  whatever  is 
necessary  to  the  discharge  of  our  duties. 

"We  have  a  right,  by  the  law  of  nations,  to 
destroy  hostile  savages  residing  within  the  ter- 


The  following  was  the  part  of  the  act  passed  February 
28, 1795.  which  was  read : 

SEC.  I.  That,  whenever  the  United  States  shall  be  In- 
vaded, or  be  in  imminent  danger  of  invasion,  from  anj  for- 
eign nation  or  Indian  tribe,  it  shall  be  lawful  for  the  Presi- 
dent of  the  United  States  to  call  forth  such  number  of  tho 
militia  of  the  State  or  States,  most  convenient  to  the  place 
of  danger  or  scene  of  action,  as  he  may  judge  necessary  to 
repel  such  invasion,  &c. 


252 


ABRIDGMENT  OF  THE 


H.  OF  R.] 


The  Seminole  War. 


[JANUARY,  1819. 


ritorial  limits  of  a  neighboring  power,  but  not 
amenable  to  the  civil  laws.  A  neighboring 
territory  is  not  to  become  a  safe  asylum  for 
banditti,  who  carry  on  against  us  predatory 
and  murderous  hostilities.  You  may  not  pur- 
sue a  fugitive  from  justice  on  the  territory  of  a 
neighboring  nation:  there  is  no  necessity  to 
authorize  you  to  do  so.  But,  if  you  cannot 
otherwise  deliver  yourself  from  an  imminent 
danger,  you  may  enter  the  territory  of  a  neigh- 
boring power.— -( Vattel,  page  167.)  In  short, 
the  Government,  being  bound  to  preserve  the 
people,  has  a  right  to  all  the  means  necessary 
to  preserve  the  people,  whatever  they  may  be. 
Nothing  can  dispense  with  the  obligation,  and 
nothing  can  destroy  the  right  to  the  means. 

The  right  of  necessity,  and  the  right  of  self- 
defence,  are  paramount  to  all  other  rights 
claimed  under  the  law  of  nations.  The  invio- 
lability of  Ambassadors,  and  even  the  inviola- 
bility of  crowned  heads,  must  yield  to  the 
security  of  nations. 

Thus,  a  conspiracy  having  been  formed  in 
1717,  in  England,  contrived  by  the  Swedish 
Ambassador,  to  invade  the  country  and  de- 
throne the  King,  the  Ambassador  was  arrested 
and  his  papers  seized,  ( Ward,  vol.  2,  p.  330 ;) 
the  other  foreign  Ministers  expressed  their  sat- 
isfaction, except  the  Ambassador  from  Spain, 
who  observed  that  he  was  sorry  no  other  way 
could  be  fallen  on  for  preserving  the  peace  of 
the  kingdom.  He  then  assigned  a  satisfactory 
reason  for  adopting  the  measure ;  there  was  no 
other  way  of  preserving  the  peace  of  the  king- 
dom ;  therefore,  the  measure  was  necessary  for 
self-preservation,  and  consequently  lawful. 

The  Speaker  (Mr.  CLAY)  has  questioned  the 
right  of  the  United  States  to  enter  the  country 
of  the  Seminoles  in  Florida,  to  suppress  them, 
and  put  an  end  to  their  hostile  incursions.  It 
is  a  strange  doctrine  that  there  is  no  way  to 
pat  an  end  to  the  hostilities  of  a  subject  savage 
community,  whose  country  lies  within  the  ter- 
ritorial limits  of  a  power  with  which  we  are  at 
peace,  but  by  declaring  war  against  that  power. 
The  law  of  nations  allows  you  to  enter  the  ter- 
ritory of  a  neutral  power  in  quest  of  an  enemy, 
(Vattel,  p.  313.)  It  is  even  still  more  reasona- 
ble that  you  should  possess  the  right,  when  the 
territory  claimed  by  the  neutral  power  is,  in 
fact,  the  country,  the  residence,  of  your  savage 
enemy,  where  alone  effectual  hostilities  can  be 
carried  on  against  him. 

The  right  of  a  sovereign  power  to  exclusive 
jurisdiction  within  a  territory,  is  founded  on 
the  engagement  to  govern  the  inhabitants,  and 
restrain  them  from  injuring  other  nations. 
When  the  Government  is  no  longer  able  to  re- 
strain the  inhabitants  from  injuring  other  na- 
tions, they  have  an  undoubted  right  to  attack 
such  inhabitants,  and  suppress  them,  without 
going  to  Avar  with  that  power  which  has  be- 
come too  feeble  to  restrain  them.  Should 
Buenos  Ayres,  or  the  Banda  Oriental,  having 
shaken  off  the  authority  of  Spain,  make  war  on 
the  Brazilians,  the  latter  would  seem  to  have 


an  undoubted  right  to  invade  them  without 
going  to  war  with  Spain.  Should  Mexico  set 
at  naught  the  Spanish  Government,  and  make 
war  against  the  United  States,  the  latter  would 
have  a  right  to  invade  Mexico  without  declar- 
ing war  against  Spain.  So,  in  the  case  under 
consideration,  Spain  being  unable  to  restrain 
the  savages  of  Florida,  has  no  right  to  complain 
that  the  United  States  have  entered  that  coun- 
try to  restrain  them. 

The  law  of  nations  may  be  illustrated  by 
cases  in  municipal  law.  I  may  pursue  and  de- 
stroy on  your  land  a  noxious  animal  which  I 
have  started  on  my  own.  If  your  house  adja- 
cent to  mine  is  on  fire,  I  may  enter  on  your 
premises,  and  pull  it  down,  for  the  preservation 
of  mine.  Where  the  reason  is  the  same,  the 
law  is  the  same. 

Such  being  the  right  of  the  United  States, 
by  the  law  of  nations,  it  is  proper  to  inquire, 
what  effect  on  those  rights  has  been  produced 
by  the  treaty  between  the  United  States  and 
Spain.  By  that  treaty  both  parties  bind  them- 
selves "  expressly  to  restrain  by  force  all  hostil- 
ities on  the  part  of  the  Indian  nations  within 
their  boundary ;  so  that  Spain  will  not  suffer 
her  Indians  to  attack  the  United  States."— (Laics, 
v.  2,  p.  266.)  Spain,  then,  is  bound  to  restrain 
her  savage  subjects,  and  is  liable  to  pay  all 
damages  that  may  be  sustained  by  her  failure ; 
and  should  she  fail,  from  inability  to  suppress 
them,  she  is  still  bound  to  use  all  the  means  in 
her  power,  and  to  furnish  all  the  aid  in  her 
power  for  that  purpose.  The  engagements  of  a 
treaty  impose  a  perfect  obligation,  and  give  a 
perfect  right ;  a  right  which  may,  if  necessary, 
be  asserted  by  force. — (Vattel,  p.  182.)  Spain 
then  agrees,  and  is  bound,  that  the  Indians 
shall  be  suppressed,  and  the  United  States  have 
a  right  that  the  Indians  shall  be  suppressed. 
It  is  preposterous  to  contend,  that,  because 
Spain  is  unable  to  restrain  the  hostilities  of  her 
Indians,  that,  therefore,  they  are  to  remain  un- 
restrained, when  Spain  has  agreed  that  they 
shall  be  restrained,  and  the  United  States  have 
a  right  that  they  shall  be  restrained.  The 
consequence  of  the  inability  of  Spain  is,  that 
the  United  States  may  use  force  in  restraining 
the  Indians  of  Spain ;  and  have  a  right  to  all 
the  means  of  effecting  that  object  that  Spain 
can  furnish.  When  the  performance  of  the 
duties  of  Spain  devolves  on  the  United  States, 
they  have  a  right  to  the  means  of  performing 
those  duties.  Therefore,  if  the  possession  of 
the  forts  in  Florida,  is  necessary  to  the  sup- 
pression and  restraint  of  those  savages,  the 
United  States  have  a  right  to  the  possession  of 
them. 

The  law  of  nations  also  recognizes  the  right, 
arising  from  necessity,  of  seizing  a  place  of 
strength  belonging  to  a  neutral  power,  and 
putting  a  garrison  into  it,  either  for  defending 
itself  against  an  enemy,  or  for  the  purpose  of 
preventing  him  in  his  designs  of  seizing  this 
place,  when  the  neutral  government  is  not  able 
to  defend  it.— (Vattel,  p.  315.)  The  treaty 


DEBATES  OF  CONGRESS. 


253 


JANCAUY,  1819.] 


The  Seminole  War. 


[H.  OF  R. 


with  Spain  certainly  neither  diminishes  nor 
weakens  the  rights  of  the  United  States.  It 
increases  and  strengthens  them.  The  object 
of  the  article  under  consideration,  is  the  sup- 
pression of  the  hostile  savages.  This  object  is 
to  be,  and  must  be,  effected.  The  two  nations 
have  agreed  and  bound  themselves  that  it  shall 
be  effected ;  and  that  agreement  is  as  to  them 
a  written  law  of  nations. 

Our  right  being  established,  and  the  incapa- 
city of  Spain  to  fulfil  her  obligation  notorious, 
the  law  of  nations  allowed  the  United  States, 
when  they  could  not  obtain  due  satisfaction  by 
amicable  means,  or  foresaw  that  it  would  be 
useless  to  try  such  means,  to  have  recourse  to 
forcible  means  in  pursuit  of  their  rights — (Mar- 
tens, pp.  265,  268.)  Indeed,  the  right  claimed  by 
the  United  States  was  of  such  a  nature  that  a 
specific  performance  of  the  agreement  to  suppress 
the  hostilities  of  the  savages  was  indispensable. 
If  that  could  not  be  performed  by  Spain,  it  must 
be  performed  by  the  United  States,  who  would 
then  be  entitled  to  demand  of  Spain  satisfaction 
for  her  failure  to  perform  her  engagements. 

It  therefore  seems  to  me  that  there  can  be  no 
doubt  that  the  United  States  had  a  right  to  en- 
ter Florida  in  pursuit  of  the  Seminole  savages ; 
to  possess  the  means  necessary  to  restrain  them 
— and  to  restrain  them. 

The  next  inquiry  that  I  propose  to  make  is, 
Have  the  constitutional  powers  of  the  President 
been  exceeded  ? 

An  honorable  gentleman  from  Georgia  was 
of  opinion  that  there  should  have  been  a  decla- 
ration of  war  against  the  Seminoles.  He  says, 
"  the  war-declaring  power  has  been  snatched 
from  Congress."  Let  me  here  remark,  that  I 
think  this  objection  would  have  .come  better 
from  any  other  quarter  than  from  the  State  of 
Georgia,  for  the  safety  of  whose  people  this  war 
has  been  commenced  and  prosecuted.  I  would 
also  remark,  that  this  objection  would  have 
come  better  from  any  other  gentleman  than  him 
who  made  it ;  yet  no  doubt  he  made  it  in  obe- 
dience to  what  he  now  deems  his  duty. 

On  examining  the  journals  of  the  last  session, 
I  find,  on  the  third  of  April,  this  entry :  "  On 
motion  of  Mr.  COBB,  resolved  that  the  Com- 
mittee on  Military  Affairs  be  instructed  to  in- 
quire into  the  expediency  of  increasing  the  pay 
of  the  militia  now  in  service,  or  which  may 
hereafter  be  called  into  the  service  of  the  United 
States,  in  the  war  now  prosecuting  against  the 
Seininole  tribe  of  Indians."  This  was  ten  days 
after  the  President  had  informed  the  House 
that  the  army  was  authorized  to  enter  Florida. 
An  acknowledgment  that  war  exists,  is  a  decla- 
ration of  war.*  It  then  appears,  that  at  least 
the  gentleman  and  this  House  have  declared  the 
war.  Another  proof  that  the  war  was  author- 
ized by  Congress,  is  found  in  the  appropriation 
for  the  pay  of  militia  employed  therein.  A 
third  piece  of  evidence,  which  will  prove  satis- 
factory to  the  gentleman,  is  an  act  passed  in 


*  4th  voL  Laws,  S35. 


pursuance  of  his  resolution,  which  recognizes 
"  the  war  against  the  Seminole  tribe  of  Indians," 
and  is  a  complete  declaration  of  war  by  Con- 
gress.* 

But  all  this  was  unnecessary  to  enable  the 
President  to  make  war  against  the  Seminoles ; 
for  a  defensive  war  need  not  be  declared ;  the 
state  of  war  being  sufficiently  determined  by 
the  open  hostilities  of  the  enemy. t  Our  war 
against  the  Indians  is  decisive,  although  carried 
on  in  their  country,  because  we  suffered  the 
first  act  of  violence.J  Should  Spain  commence 
war  against  us  after  the  rising  of  Congress,  no 
doubt  the  President,  with  his  fleets  and  armies, 
would  be  authorized  to  fight  before  the  meeting 
of  Congress,  and  to  continue  fighting,  whether 
the  war  was  ever  declared  or  not.  And  we 
have  given  to  the  President  a  continuing  au- 
thority to  repel  invasions  by  the  Indian  tribes.§ 
The  act  of  Congress  under  which  President 
Washington  ordered  the  Generals  St.  Clair  and 
Wayne  to  invade  the  Indian  country,  merely 
authorized  him  to  call  out  the  militia  to  aid  in 
protecting  the  frontiers  from  the  hostile  inva- 
sions of  the  Indians.]  The  attack  by  the  In- 
dians of  Florida  being  an  invasion,  tho  Presi- 
dent was  authorized  to  repel  it,  and  in  repelling 
to  pursue  and  effectually  to  suppress  the  in- 
vaders. 

It  by  no  means  follows,  as  some  seem  to  sup- 
pose, that  because  the  President  cannot  declare 
war,  that  he  can  do  nothing  for  the  protection 
of  the  nation,  and  the  assertion  of  its  rights. 
The  power  to  declare  war,  is  a  power  to  an- 
nounce regular  war,  or  war  in  form,  against  an- 
other power.  But  it  never  was  intended,  by 
reserving  this  power  to  Congress,  to  take  from 
the  President  the  power  to  do  any  act  necessary 
to  preserve  the  nation's  rights,  and  which  does 
not  put  the  nation  into  a  state  of  war  with  an- 
other power.  If  Congress,  in  addition  to  the 
power  of  declaring  war,  assume  to  themselves 
the  power  of  directing  every  movement  of  the 
public  force  that  may  touch  a  neutral ;  or  that 
may  be  made  for  preserving  the  national  rights ; 
or  executing  the  laws  and  treaties ;  they  will 
assume  powers  given  to  the  President  by  the 
constitution.  A  declaration  of  war  against 
savages  is  not  only  unnecessary,  but  would  be 
highly  impolitic.  It  would  be  an  acknowledg- 
ment of  their  independence;  an  acknowledg- 
ment that  they  may  engage  in  Avar  in  form ; 
that  the  usages  of  such  a  war  apply  to  hostilities 
with  them ;  and  that  they  are  entitled  to  the 
treatment  of  lawful  enemies.  I  contend  that 
there  can  be  no  such  thing  as  a  war  in  form  be- 
tween this  nation  and  a  tribe  of  American  gav- 
jes.  A  war,  waged  by  Indians  against  the 
nited  States,  can  have  no  lawful  object.  The 
only  object  of  such  a  war  must  bo  plunder,  mas- 
sacre, destruction,  and  revenge — and  incursions 
committed  without  lawful  authority,  or  appa- 
rent cause,  and  only  for  havoc  and  pillage,  can 


*  Acts  first  session,  Fifteenth  Conpress,  pacre  94. 
t  Vattel,  293.  $  Martens.  •_'-*. 

§  2d  vol.  laws,  479.  1  Same,  74,  lu'.'. 


254 


ABRIDGMENT  OF  THE 


H.  OF  R] 


The  Seminole  War. 


[JANUARY,  1819. 


be  productive  of  no  lawful  effect.  A  nation  at- 
tacked by  such  enemies  is  under  no  obligation 
to  treat  them  as  lawful  enemies.  They  may  be 
hanged  as  robbers,*  or  banditti. 

It'  the  President  has  a  right  to  repel  an  Indian 
invasion  without  a  declaration  of  war,  as  I  have 
contended,  then  he  may  lawfully  enter  even  a 
neutral  territory  in  pursuit  of  the  enemy  with- 
out making  war  against  that  neutral  power; 
and  consequently  without  war  having  been  de- 
clared against  such  power.  If  the  United  States 
have  a  right  to  enter  the  territory  of  Spain, 
there  to  suppress  the  Seminoles  as  I  have  con- 
tended, then  the  President  may  assert  that 
right ;  for  the  act  being  no  act  of  war  against 
Spain,  a  declaration  of  war  is  not  necessary  to 
precede  or  authorize  its  performance.  The  ex- 
ercise of  a  right  is  neither  war  nor  cause  of  war ; 
nor  does  the  violence  which  opposition  may 
render  necessary,  make  it  war.  We  may  en- 
ter a  neutral  territory  to  attack  an  enemy ;  we 
may  seize  a  neutral  place  to  anticipate  an 
enemy ;  we  may  pass  by  force,  when  necessary, 
through  neutral  territory ;  yet  the  place  or  ter- 
ritory is  still  considered  neutral,  and  therefore 
the  act  is  not  war. 

This  right  of  the  nation  is  to  be  exercised  by 
those  intrusted  with  its  protection.  The  Presi- 
dent is  charged  with  the  duty  of  asserting  the 
rights  of  the  nation,  and  he  is  furnished  with 
the  means.  He  is  Commander-in-chief  of  the 
Army  and  Fleet ;  and  it  is  his  duty  to  see  that 
the  laws  (which  include  treaties)  be  faithfully 
executed.  He  may  therefore  possess,  on  be- 
half of  the  United  States,  whatever  another 
power  by  treaty  authorizes  the  United  States  to 
possess.  He  may  do  beyond  the  jurisdiction  of 
the  United  States  whatever  the  law  of  nations 
or  treaties  authorize  the  United  States  there  to 
do.  He  cannot  seek  satisfaction  by  war.  He 
cannot  make  reprisals.  But  he  may  assert  a 
specific  right ;  or  take  possession  of  a  specific 
thing,  claimed  by  the  United  States.  Thus, 
President  Madison  took  possession  of  West 
Florida,  claimed  by  the  United  States,  and  also 
by  Spain.  By  his  order,  Wilkinson  took  the 
fort  of  Mobile  from  a  Spanish  officer.  Force 
was  to  have  been  used,  but  the  place  was  ob- 
tained by  capitulation.  I  doubt  not  those  pro- 
ceedings had  the  entire  approbation  of  the 
Speaker,  (Mr.  CLAY,)  who  very  ably  advocated 
the  claim  of  the  United  States  to  that  province. 
I  therefore  conclude,  that  all  the  right  which 
the  United  States  had  to  do  the  acts  which 
have  been  done  in  Florida,  is  vested  in  the  Presi- 
dent, the  Executive  branch  of  the  Government. 
The  next  inquiry  which  I  propose  to  make  is, 
Has  General  Jaclcson  transcended  his  orders,  or 
violated  the  law  of  nations  f 

In  examining  this  question,  it  is  necessary  to 

see,  in  the  first  place,  what  were  his  orders. 

On  examining  the  orders  under  which  General 

Jackson  acted,  I  find  them  to  be  as  follows : 

"26th  Dec.  1817.   To  adopt  the  necessary 


measures  to  terminate  a  conflict  which  it  has 
ever  been  the  desire  of  the  President,  from  con- 
siderations of  humanity,  to  avoid  ;  but  which  is 
now  made  necessary  by  their  settled  hostilities." 

"  16th  Jan.  1818.  To  terminate  speedily  the 
war  with  the  Seminoles ;  and  with  EXEMPLAEY 
PUNISHMENT  for  hostilities  so  unprovoked ;  the 
honor  of  the  United  States  requires  it." 

"29th  Jan.  1818.  To  put  a  speedy  and  success- 
ful termination  to  the  Indian  Avar." 

_"6th  Feb.  1818.  To  terminate  the  rupture 
with  the  Indians  as  speedily  as  practicable; 
to  restore  peace  on  such  conditions  as  will 
make  it  honorable  and,  permanent.  The  HONOR 
our  army,  and  the  interest  of  our  country  re- 
quires it." 

In  an  order  issued  previous  to  all  those  which 
I  have  quoted,  to  wit,  on  the  16th  of  December, 
1817,  and  addressed  to  General  Gaines,  he  is 
allowed  to  march  across  the  Florida  line,  and 
attack  the  Indians  within  its  limits,  should  it  be 
found  necessary,  "unless  they  should  shelter 
themselves  under  a  Spanish  fort.  In  the  last 
event,  you  will  immediately  notify  this  Depart- 
ment." This  event  never  did  happen ;  the  In- 
dians did  not  shelter  themselves  under  a  Span- 
ish fort.  And  the  event  never  having  happened, 
the  orders  are  to  be  understood  as  if  no  such 
clause  was  contained  therein.  This  clause  can- 
not be  construed  into  a  prohibition  to  possess 
himself  of  the  forts  of  Florida,  if  necessity,  or 
hostilities,  justified  the  commanding  officer  in 
doing  so,  according  to  the  law  of  nations  or 
from  treaties. 

I  will  consider  the  objections  that  have  been 
made  to  the  proceedings  of  General  Jackson  :  1. 
In  occupying  St.  Marks.  2.  In  occupying  Pen- 
sacola.  3.  In  executing  Arbuthnot  and  Am- 
brister.  But  here  let  me  remark,  that  the 
President  has  refused  to  censure  or  punish  Gen- 
eral Jackson  for  his  proceedings  in  Florida,  and 
thus  takes  upon  himself  the  responsibility  for 
them.  It  is  the  President  that  is  responsible  to 
Congress,  and  we  shall  not  turn  aside  from  him 
io  censure  a  subordinate  officer.  It  is  against 
the  President  that  we  should  direct  our  meas- 
ures, if  we  take  any.  He  has  applauded  Gen- 
eral Jackson's  motives,  and  excused  his  actions, 
and  it  is  not  for  us  to  condemn  them.  This 
Eouse  may  impeach,  and  the  Senate  may  try 
the  President ;  but  General  Jackson  is  not  re- 
sponsible to  either. 

Let  us  see  if  General  Jackson  was  not  justi- 
iable  in  occupying  St.  Marks.  I  have  attempted 
to  show  that,  as  the  United  States  had  been 
compelled,  by  the  delinquency  of  Spain,  to  do 
the  duties  of  Spain,  they  were  entitled  to  the 
possession  of  the  means,  and  so  entitled  to  the 
jossession  of  the  fort  of  St.  Marks,  as  a  means 
of  restraining  the  Indians.  I  have  also  shown 
;hat,  by  the  law  of  nations,  necessity  authorizes 
;he  temporary  seizure  of  a  place,  for  preventing 
;he  enemy  from  seizing  this  place,  when  the 
neutral  sovereign  is  unable  to  defend  it.*  To 


Vattel,  296,  397. 


*  Vattel,  815. 


DEBATES  OF  CONGRESS. 


255 


JANUARY,  1819.] 


The  Seminole  War. 


[H.  OF  R. 


require  that  the  exercise  of  this  right  should  be 
preceded  by  a  declaration  of  war,  is  to  deny  the 
right  altogether,  which  is  to  take  possession  of 
the  fortress  of  a  neutral  power.  The  Indians 
and  negroes  had  threatened  to  occupy  St.  Marks,* 
and  premeditated  seizing  that  post.t  Five  hun- 
dred of  them  had  approached  it,  to  the  alarm  of 
the  commander.}:  The  case  in  which  it  is  jus- 
tifiable to  seize  a  neutral  post,  existed.  The 
General  therefore  stands  fully  justified  in  the 
seizure  of  St.  Marks.  Thus  the  Great  Freder- 
ick, having  ascertained  the  intended  invasion 
and  partition1  of  his  dominions,  by  Russia  and 
Austria,  took  Dresden  in  depot,  that  he  might 
be  beforehand  with  his  enemies. 

I  will  pass  from  St.  Marks  to  the  occupation 
of  Pensacola.  The  orders  of  General  Jackson 
were  to  "adopt  the  necessary  measures"  to 
procure  a  speedy  and  effectual  termination  of 
the  war,  and  a  peace  on  such  terms  as  would 
be  permanent,  and  honorable  to  the  army  and 
the  United  States.  But  the  war  could  not  be 
speedily  terminated,  if  the  Spanish  Governor 
of  Pensacola  abetted,  encouraged,  and  supplied 
the  savages,  and  obstructed  the  arrival  of  sup- 
plies for  the  American  army.  The  possession 
of  Pensacola  was  necessary  to  the  execution  of 
his  orders. 

Provisions  may  be  seized  by  force  when  ne- 
cessary. §  Then  a  post  may  be  occupied  which 
obstructs  their  arrival.  The  Spanish  command- 
ant of  Pensacola  having  endangered  the  exist- 
ence of  the  American  army,  by  detaining  their 
supplies  of  provisions,  it  was  necessary  that  he 
should  be  deprived  of  the  power  of  doing  the 
same  again,  during  the  continuance  of  the  war. 

General  Jackson  was  reminded,  in  his  orders, 
of  the  honor  of  the  United  States,  and  the  honor 
of  the  army.  His  duty  to  preserve  both  invio- 
late was*  thus  particularly  impressed  upon  him. 
While  engaged  in  suppressing  the  Seminoles, 
and  thus  performing  what  it  was  the  duty  of 
Spain  to  have  done,  he  was  ordered  by  the  Gov- 
ernor of  Pensacola  to  retire  with  his  forces  from 
"West  Florida,  with  a  threat  to  use  force  to  com- 
pel him,  if  he  did  not  comply.!  "Will  any  mem- 
ber say,  that,  on  receiving  this  order,  Jackson 
should  have  fled  ?  Ought  he  to  have  forgotten 
the  HONOR  of  the  United  States,  the  HONOR  of 
the  American  army,  so  lately  and  particularly 
recommended  to  his  safe-keeping,  and  fled  from 
West  Florida,  before  the  Spanish  Cross,  to  avoid 
the  arms  of  Don  Jose  Mazot?  I  presume  no 
one  would  say  he  should  have  fled.  Whatever 
doubt  there  might  be  as  to  the  necessity  or  le- 
gality of  taking  possession  of  Pensacola  before 
the  Governor  issued  this  menace,  there  was  none 
afterwards.  General  Jackson  at  once  saw  that 
if  he  retired,  he  retired  in  disgrace,  the  honor 
of  the  United  States  and  of  the  army  tarnished, 
and  his  orders  shamefully  violated.  It  became 
necessary  that  he  should  deprive  Mazot  of  the 


*  Documents,  91. 

t  Documents,  56,  63,  81,  Lnengo's  letter. 
§  Vattel,  166. 


1  Documents,  60. 
I  Documents,  p.  116. 


means  of  carrying  his  threat  into  execution.  A 
threat  which,  if  he  should  not  attempt  to  exe- 
cute against  General  Jackson  himself,  while  his 
army  remained  in  full  force,  it  now  became  ex- 
tremely probable  that  he  would  carry  it  into 
execution,  with  the  aid  of  the  savage  and  negro 
enemy,  against  the  diminished  force  which  Gen- 
eral Jackson  might  leave  in  Florida.  The  im- 
mediate occupation  by  General  Jackson  of  the 
fort  of  Barancas,  was  the  necessary  and  proper 
result  of  the  hostile  declaration  of  Governor 
Mazot. 

I  will  next  consider  the  objections  made  to 
the  conduct  of  General  Jackson,  in  the  execu- 
tion of  Arbnthnot  and  Ambrister. 

Some  of  my  arguments  on  this  branch  of  the 
subject,  have  been  anticipated  by  the  honorable 
member  who  has  preceded  me,  the  chairman  of 
the  Military  Committee,  (Mr.  JOHNSON,  of  Ken- 
tucky,) and  it  gives  me  satisfaction  to  find  that 
my  opinion  agrees  with  that  of  a  gentleman  who 
is  as  much  distinguished  by  his  humanity  as  by 
his  valor. 

My  observations  will  chiefly  relate  to  the  case 
of  Ambrister,  as  the  proceedings  against  him 
have  been  the  most  censured ;  and  what  is  said 
of  his  case,  will  in  the  general  apply  to  that  of 
Arbuthnot. 

I  will  attempt  to  maintain  that  Ambrister  was 
an  outlaw,  making  war  without  authority,  in- 
stigating savages  to  an  unlawful  war,  a  leader 
of  banditti,  and  liable,  by  the  law  of  nations  and 
the  usages  of  war,  to  suffer  death. 

It  was  found  by  the  special  court-martial,  that 
Ambrister  had  led  and  commanded  Indians  in 
carrying  on  war  against  the  United  States,  being 
a  British  subject.  Peace  exists  between  all  the 
citizens  of  the  United  States  and  all  the  subjects 
of  Great  Britain ;  and  the  Englishman  who 
counsels,  aids,  or  abets  savages  to  massacre  the 
people  of  the  United  States,  is  a  murderer. 

It  is  the  laws  of  war,  a  branch  of  the  law  of 
nations,  that  gives  to  the  commanding  General 
a  right  to  put  prisoners  to  death,  either  for  a 
violation  of  the  usages  of  war,  or  by  way  of  re- 
taliation. In  the  one  case,  they  die  for  their 
own  crime,  and  their  punishment  is  just ;  in 
the  other,  they  are  put  to  death  for  the  crimes 
of  their  party,  and  their  punishment  is  justified 
by  policy. 

Among  the  crimes  against  the  laws  of  war, 
for  which  a  prisoner  may  justly  die,  are — 1. 
Making  war  without  authority,  the  war  being 
lawful ;  2.  Making  war,  if  the  war  is  unlawful ; 
3.  Using  means  contrary  to  the  laws  of  war. 

That  article  of  the  laws  of  war  that  provides 
that  he  who  fights  without  authority  is  liable  to 
suffer  death,  seems  not  to  have  been  rightly  un- 
derstood by  either  branch  of  the  Military  Com- 
mittee: but  it  is  a  rule  well  established,  and 
very  beneficial  to  humanity.  General  Jackson 
seems  to  me  to  have  entertained  a  correct  idea 
of  the  rule,  but  not  to  have  taken  time,  when 
giving  his  order  for  the  execution  of  Ambrister, 
to  express  himself  with  sufficient  clearness.  I 
should  interpolate  the  rule  as  laid  down  by  him, 


256 


ABRIDGMENT  OF  THE 


H.  OF  K.] 


The  Semiiwle  War. 


[JANUARY,  1819. 


and  make  it  read  thus :  "  It  is  an  established 
principle  of  the  law  of  nations,  that  any  indi- 
vidual of  a  nation  making  war  against  the  citi- 
zens (or  soldiers)  of  another  nation,  the  nations 
being  at  peace,  (and  having  no  authority  by 
being  in  the  service  of  a  power  making  a  lawful 
war,)  forfeits  the  protection  of  his  government ; 
and  becomes  an  outlaw  (or  robber,  if  be  makes 
war  by  land)  or  a  pirate,  (if  he  makes  war  by 
sea.")  The  rule  thus  amended  is  equally  ap- 
plicable to  the  case  of  Ambrister,  as  in  the  form 
expressed  by  General  Jackson.  And  it  is  fully 
established  by  the  writers  on  the  law  of  nations. 

Ambrister  did  not,  by  coming  to  Florida,  owe 
allegiance  to  Bowlegs  or  to  Hillishajo.  He  con- 
tinued tbe  subject  of  Great  Britain;  and  he 
owed  temporary  allegiance  to  the  King  of  Spain. 
By  aiding  savages  to  carry  on  war  against  the 
United  States,  he  violated  the  British  treaty,  the 
Spanish  treaty,  the  law  of  nature,  the  law  of  na- 
tions, and  the  laws  of  war,  and  justly  suffered 
death. 

It  is  only  in  lawful  wars  that  those  who  are 
taken  are  entitled  to  the  treatment  of  prisoners 
of  war.  A  war,  to  be  lawful,  must  be  under- 
taken by  the  sovereign  power.*  There  must  be 
lawful  authority  for  making  it,  and  apparent 
just  cause.  It  must  not  be  merely  an  incursion 
for  havoc  and  pillage.  An  individual  cannot 
wage  lawful  war  against  a  nation  ;  he  is  a  rob- 
ber. A  family  cannot ;  they  will  be  robbers. 
A  tribe  of  savages  cannot ;  they  may  be  treated 
as  enemies  of  the  human  race.  "  Nations  which 
are  always  ready  to  take  arms  on  any  prospect 
of  advantage,  are  lawless  robbers;  but  they 
who  seem  to  delight  in  the  ravages  of  war,  who 
spread  it  on  all  sides,  without  any  other  motive 
than  their  ferocity,  are  monsters  unworthy  the 
name  of  men.  All  nations  have  a  right  to  join 
in  punishing,  suppressing,  and  even  extermina- 
ting such  savages."t  This  is  the  language  of 
the  law  of  nations.  Then,  as  the  Seminole  sav- 
ages could  not  themselves  make  a  lawful  war 
against  the  United  States,  their  chiefs,  Bowlegs 
and  Hillishajo,  could  not  communicate  such  a 
right  to  Ambrister. 

Having  considered  the  liability  of  Ambrister 
to  suffer  death,  for  a  violation  of  the  laws  of 
war,  in  exercising  unlawful  hostilities,  I  will 
next  consider  his  liability  to  be  put  to  death  by 
way  of  retaliation,  as  a  person  incorporated  with 
the  enemy. 

I  lay  down,  with  regard  to  the  savages,  this 
rule  of  warfare.  Whatever  degree  of  force, 
whatever  destruction,  whatever  punishment  for 
violating  the  usages  of  war  or  by  way  of  re- 
taliation, is  found  necessary  to  deter  them  from 
robbing  our  citizens,  and  massacring  our  women 
and  children  ;  that  force,  destruction,  and  pun- 
ishment, they  should  be  made  to  feel,  and  no 
more.  So  much  we  have  an  undoubted  right 
to  inflict  on  the  principle  of  self-preservation. 
And  if  we  do  not  inflict  so  much,  we  fail  in  our 
sacred  duty  to  preserve  the  people. 


Yattel,  296 ;  Martens,  2T2.          t  Vattel,  232, 151, 152. 


I  find  this  opinion  fully  supported  by  the  au- 
thority and  example  of  the  greatest  man  that 
this  or  any  other  country  has  produced.  Gen- 
eral Washington,  who  knew  when  to  silence 
pity,  if  its  exercise  was  injurious  to  his  country, 
did  not  consider  the  usages  of  war,  or  the  prin- 
ciples of  humanity,  as  applicable  to  a  war  car- 
ried on  for  the  punishment  of  the  unprovoked 
and  atrocious  hostilities  of  savages.*  In  his 
order  to  General  Sullivan,  directing  his  opera- 
tions in  the  Indian  country,  I  find  the  following 
clauses : 

"  The  expedition  you  are  appointed  to  command  is 
to  be  directed  against  the  hostile  tribes  of  the  Six 
Nations  of  Indians,  with  their  associates  and  ad- 
herents. The  immediate  objects  are  the  total  destruc- 
tion and  devastation  of  their  settlements,  and  the 
capture  of  as  many  prisoners  of  every  age  and  sex  as 
possible.1* 

"  I  would  recommend  that  some  post  in  the  centre 
of  the  Indian  country  be  occupied  with  all  expedi- 
tion, with  a  sufficient  quantity  of  provision,  whence 
parties  should  be  detached  to  lay  waste  all  the  set- 
tlements around,  with  injunctions  to  do  it  in  the  most 
effectual  manner,  that  the  country  may  not  merely 
be  overrun,  but  destroyed." 

"  After  you  have  very  thoroughly  completed  the 
destruction  of  their  settle'ments,  if  the  Indians  should 
show  a  disposition  for  peace,  I  would  have  you  to  en- 
courage it,  on  condition  that  they  will  give  some  de- 
cisive evidence  of  their  sincerity,  by  delivering  up 
some  of  the  principal  instigators  of  their  past  hostili- 
ties, into  our  hands — Butler,  Brandt,  the  most  mis- 
chievous of  the  Tories  that  have  joined  them,  or  any 
other  they  may  have  in  their  power,  that  we  are  in- 
terested to  get  into  ours." 

"  But  you  will  not,  by  any  means,  listen  to  over- 
tures of  peace,  before  the  total  ruin  of  their  settle- 
ments is  effected." 

"  Our  future  security  will  be  in  their  inability  to 
injure  us — the  distance  to  which  they  are  driven,  and 
the  terror  with  which  the  severity  of  the  chastise- 
ment they  receive,  will  inspire  them — peace  without 
this  would  be  fallacious  and  temporary." 

"  When  we  have  effectually  chastised  them,  we 
may  then  listen  to  peace ;  and  endeavor  to  draw  fur- 
ther advantage  from  their  fears." 

Such  were  the  orders  given  by  General  Wash- 
ington for  inflicting  exemplary  punishment  on 
the  savages.  Let  us  see  how  they  were  execut- 
ed. "  Every  lake,  river,  and  creek,  in  the  coun- 
try of  the  Six  Nations,  was  traced  for  villages, 
and  no  vestige  of  human  industry  was  permit- 
ted to  remain.  Houses,  corn-fields,  gardens,  and 
fruit-trees,  shared  one  common  fate.  Eighteen 
villages,  a  number  of  detached  buildings,  one 
hundred  and  sixty  thousand  bushels  of  corn, 
and  all  those  fruits  and  vegetables  which  con- 
duce to  the  comfort  and  subsistence  of  men, 
were  utterly  destroyed.!  On  receiving  the 
communication  of  General  Sullivan,  Congress 
passed  a  vote  of  approbation  of  his  conduct, 
and  of  that  of  the  army." 

Had  Brandt  and  Butler  fallen  into  the  hands 
of  General  Washington,  they  would,  no  doubt, 
have  met  the  fate  of  Arbuthnot  and  Ambrister. 


*  Vattel,  840. 


t  Marshall's  History,  100. 


DEBATES  OF  CONGKESS. 


257 


JANUARY,  1819.] 


The  Seminole  War. 


[H.  OF  R. 


So  resolved  was  General  Washington  that  a 
severe  example  should  be  made,  that  he  would 
not  even  listen  to  proposals  of  peace  until  it  had 
been  done.  In  the  present  case,  also,  the  pun- 
ishment was  inflicted  for  example ;  to  preserve 
the  peace  of  the  frontier ;  to  preserve  from  the 
hatchet  and  scalping- knife  women  and  children. 
Many  will  be  saved  by  the  example ;  but,  should 
only* one  be  saved,  Arbuthnot  and  Ambrister 
have  not  died  in  vain. 

The  committee  come  to  the  conclusion  that 
General  Jackson  acted  unlawfully  by  supposing 
that  the  special  court  or  board  of  officers  ap- 
pointed to  investigate  the  fact  in  the  cases  of 
Arbuthnot  and  Ambrister  were  a  general  court 
martial,  appointed  to  try  and  determine  offences 
under  the  articles  of  war.  If  that  were  so,  the 
second  sentence  of  the  court  in  Ambrister's  case, 
that  he  should  receive  fifty  stripes,  and  be  con- 
fined with  a  ball  and  chain  to  hard  labor  for 
twelve  calendar  months,  is  contrary  to  law,  and, 
therefore,  void;  for,  an  act  of  Congress  has  re- 
pealed so  much  of  the  articles  of  war  as  author- 
izes the  infliction  of  corporeal  punishment  by 
stripes.*  But  the  court  was  not  appointed 
under  the  articles  of  war.  It  was  neither  a 
general  nor  a  regimental  court-martial.  Its  au- 
thority was  derived  from  the  order  of  the  com- 
manding General,  and  was  to  investigate 
charges,  and  record  their  opinion  as  to  the  guilt 
or  innocence  of  the  prisoners,  and  what  punish- 
ment, if  any,  should  be  inflicted.  The  law 
under  which  Ambrister  was  punished  was  the 
laws  of  war.  Those  laws  do  not  authorize  in- 
fliction of  torture.  Therefore,  the  second  sen- 
tence, to  inflict  stripes  and  labor  at  a  ball  and 
chain,  is  illegal  and  void.  Whatever  law  the 
court  was  appointed  and  acted  under,  the 
second  sentence  is  unlawful  and  void;  conse- 
quently, the  first  sentence,  that  Ambrister 
should  suffer  death  by  being  shot,  was  the  only 
legal  sentence,  and  properly  carried  into  execu- 
tion. 

Ambrister  died  by  the  sole  authority  of  Gen- 
eral Jackson.  No  court-martial  had  power  to 
try  him  by  any  law  of  the  United  States.  But 
the  committee  say,  that,  "  wherever  severity  is 
not  absolutely  necessary,  mercy  becomes  a  duty." 
A  similar  expression  has  been  used  by  the 
writers  on  the  laws  of  nations  in  regard  to  re- 
taliating on  the  innocent  for  the  guilt  of  others ; 
!but  that  is  not  this  case.  What  mean  the  com- 
mittee by  "absolute  necessity?"  The  nation 
indeed  was  not  in  danger  :  nor  was  it  in  danger 
when  Andre  died ;  and  according  to  the  reason- 
ing of  the  committee,  General  Washington 
should  have  pardoned  Andre  ;  but  Andre  suf- 
fered, because  the  case  required  that  the  ex- 
ample should  have  its  full  effect ;  and  so  it  was 
required  in  the  case  of  Ambrister.  Where  par- 
don will  have  a  pernicious  effect  on  the  in- 
terests of  society,  mercy  becomes  weakness  and 


folly. 
Iti 


t  is  alleged  that  these  incidents,  the  execu- 

*  Acts  of  Maj,  1812. 
You  VI.— 17 


tion  of  Arbuthnot  and  Ambrister,  are  at  variance 
with  the  principles  of  our  constitution  and  laws. 
Our  constitution  and  laws  were  formed  for  the 
people  of  the  United  States.  They  have  no 
force  in  Florida.  Ambrister  and  Hillishajo 
never  came  under  the  shade  of  the  umbrella  of 
the  constitution.  "  They  should,"  says  the  hon- 
orable Speaker,  (Mr.  CLAY,)  "have  been 
turned  over  to  the  civil  authority.  So  soon  as 
the  stranger  treads  the  American  soil,  he  is  en- 
circled by  the  laws."  I  answer,  there  was  no 
civil  authority  having  jurisdiction  of  their  cases, 
to  which  they  could  have  been  turned  over. 
They  never  did  tread  on  that  portion  of  Ameri- 
can ground  where  they  could  claim  the  benefit 
of  our  laws.  Nor  do  those  laws  protect  enemies 
hi  time  of  war.  They  did  not  protect  Sir 
Charles  Asgill ;  they  did  not  protect  Andre,  or 
the  emissaries  who  sought  to  corrupt  the  sol- 
diers of  the  Pennsylvania  line. 

FEIDAT,  January  22. 
The  Seminole  War. 

The  committee  again  took  up  the  subject  of 
the  Seminole  war. 

Mr.  JONES,  of  Tennessee,  next  addressed  the 
House.  He  said  he  had  really  felt  some  degree 
of  astonishment  when  this  resolution  was  intro- 
duced by  the  Committee  on  Military  Affairs ; 
not  because  this  House  ought  not  to  examine, 
and  strictly  to  examine,  the  conduct  of  any  of 
the  officers  of  this  Government — a  right  which 
h«  hoped  it  would  ever  claim,  and  prayed  God 
it  might  never  fear  to  exercise.  But,  said  Mr. 
J.,  when  we  are  informed  that,  during  this  war, 
not  only  Arbuthnot  and  Ambrister,  two  British 
gentlemen,  have  been  executed,  but  that  two 
Indian  chiefs  have  also  suffered  death,  by  order 
of  the  commanding  General,  it  indeed  seems 
somewhat  strange  that  not  a  breath  should  be 
uttered  as  to  the  latter.  Why,  sir,  is  this  dis- 
crimination ?  Is  it  because  they  were  Britons  ? 
Is  it  because  they  were  subjects  of  a  civilized 
nation?  Is  it  because  they  understood,  but 
would  not  obey,  the  precepts  of  morality,  of 
mercy,  and  of  justice  ?  This,  sir,  I  have  no 
doubt,  the  committee  would  be  unwilling  to  ad- 
mit. These  Indians,  Mr.  Chairman,  were  also 
human  beings ;  and,  sir,  I  am  free  to  declare 
that,  on  this  subject,  I  partially  accord  with  the 
honorable  Speaker.  If  those  chiefs  had  been 
mere  Indians,  or  Indian  chiefs,  fighting  the  bat- 
tles of  their  country,  as  they  had  a  right  to  do, 
rude,  ignorant,  and  superstitious,  as  they  may 
have  been,  I  should,  to  say  the  least  of  it,  have 
deeply  regretted  their  execution.  Poor,  wreteh- 
ed,  miserable  beings !  Absolute  necessity  alone 
should  demand  their  lives.  Rather  than  shed 
their  blood,  rather  than  drive  them  from  the 
face  of  the  earth,  rather  than  hunt  them  down, 
(as  we  have  been  compelled  to  do,)  like  the 
wild  beast  of  the  forest,  I  would,  if  possible, 
show  them  the  light  of  science — point  out  to 
them  the  manner  by  which  they  may  know 
something  themselves,  and  be  acknowledged 


258 


ABRIDGMENT  OF  THE 


H.  OF  R.] 


The  Seminole  War. 


[JANUARY,  1819. 


men  by  the  nations  of  the  earth.  But,  sir,  we 
are  informed,  as  to  these  chiefs,  that  they  were 
not  mere  Indians,  fighting  the  battles  of  their 
country ;  but,  on  the  contrary,  when  our  army 
was  lying  on  the  confines  of  Florida;  when 
General  Gaines  was  ordered  merely  to  demand 
the  perpetrators  of  murders  which  had  been 
committed  on  our  defenceless  citizens;  when 
we  were  declaring  to  them  that  we  were  desir- 
ous of  nothing  more  than  peace,  these  were  the 
men  who  commanded  the  party  that  murdered 
Lieutenant  Scott  and  his  company — scalped  and 
tomahawked  the  women  of  his  party ;  and,  to 
close  the  scene,  when  the  men  had  fallen,  and 
the  women  were  murdered,  against  the  boat 
that  bore  them  the  heads  of  the  babes  were 
dashed  in  pieces.  But,  if  the  honorable  Speaker 
could  convince  us  that  these  chiefs  should  not 
have  suffered,  would  we,  therefore,  be  convinced 
that  we  should  adopt  the  resolution  now  under 
consideration,  which  relates  only  to  the  execu- 
tion of  Arbuthnot  and  Ambrister  ?  In  examin- 
ing this  subject,  I  beg  leave  explicitly  to  state, 
that  I  claim  not  of  this  House  its  sympathy  or 
its  pity  for  General  Jackson :  if  he  cannot  be 
justified  by  the  law  of  nations,  let  him  fall.  I 
am  rejoiced  to  learn,  Mr.  Chairman,  that  all 
who  have  yet  expressed  an  opinion  either  way 
on  this  subject,  have  willingly  admitted  that 
his  motives  for  his  actions  were  of  the  purest 
character.  I  may  also  be  permitted  to  state, 
that  I  have  had  the  honor  of  a  personal  ac- 
quaintance with  General  Jackson — have  served 
under  him,  and  fought  with  him ;  and,  although 
it  was  my  misfortune  to  differ  with  him  as  to 
the  correctness  of  some  of  the  measures  which 
were  adopted  during  the  short  period  of  my 
service,  still,  sir,  since  the  commencement  of 
his  military  career,  in  1812,  till  the  present  pe- 
riod, I  have  had  but  one  uniform  opinion  as  to 
the  main  object  which  he  has  kept  steadily  in 
view  ;  that  is,  that  it  was  nothing  else  than  the 
glory  and  honor  of  his  country.  Now,  sir,  let 
us  examine  what  were  the  charges  against  these 
men.  They  were  these:  exciting  and  stirring 
up  the  Indians  to  war,  and,  as  to  Ambrister, 
leading  them  to  battle ;  these  were  the  charges 
of  which  they  were  found  guilty,  and  for  which 
they  were  executed.  It  was  established,  beyond 
a  doubt,  that  these  men  had  crossed  the  Atlan- 
tic for  no  other  purpose  than  to  carry  into  com- 
plete execution  the  hellish  views  of  the  famous 
Colonel  Nicholls  and  Captain  Woodbine,  their 
predecessors ;  that  these  men,  the  subjects  of  a 
civilized  nation,  well  understood  the  manner  in 
which  these  savages  carry  on  war ;  that  they 
regard  neither  age,  female,  nor  infantine  inno- 
cence ;  whose  almost  only  rule  is  indiscriminate 
murder;  that,  in  fact,  they  were  the  prime 
movers  of  the  war ;  that  they,  in  fact,  were 
really  the  murderers  of  our  women  and  chil- 
dren. Are  these  men,  I  may  here  be  permitted 
to  ask,  less  guilty  of  the  murders  which  they 
indirectly  perpetrated  than  the  wretched  savage 
by  whose  hand  they  did  the  deed  ?  Ask  the 
soldier  whose  wife  has  been  murdered  by  sav- 


age hands,  upon  whom  he  would  take  ven- 
geance ;  or  the  mother,  whose  children  have 
been  butchered,  upon  whom  she  will  be 
avenged.  Ask  common  sense  itself,  who  are 
the  real  actors  in  these  bloody  scenes.  But  we 
are  told  by  the  honorable  gentleman  from  Geor- 
gia, with  some  degree  of  triumph,  that  General 
Jackson  has  established  a  new  rule  of  the  law 
of  nations;  says  the  gentleman,  he  declares 
that  it  is  an  established  rule  of  the  law  of  na- 
tions, that  any  individual  of  a  nation,  making 
war  against  the  citizens  of  another  nation,  they 
being  at  peace,  forfeits  his  allegiance,  and  be- 
comes an  outlaw  and  a  pirate.  It  is  not  Gen- 
eral Jackson,  sir,  who  is  mistaken,  but  the  gen- 
tleman himself;  he  has  confounded  two  distinct 
and  separate  rules  of  the  law  of  nations.  The 
first  of  which  is  this,  that  I,  a  citizen  of  the 
United  States,  have  a  right,  by  the  law  of  na- 
tions, to  advise  the  Government  of  France  to 
war  with  Great  Britain,  or  any  other  power ; 
and  if  she  choose  to  take  my  advice ;  if  she  de- 
clare war ;  if  (which  is  essential  to  this  rule) 
the  act  of  declaring  war  be  a  national  act ;  or 
if,  without  my  advice,  she  be  at  war,  I  may  of 
right  enlist  under  her  banners ;  I  may  lead  or 
fight  with  her  troops.  Under  these  circumstan- 
ces, I  am  identified  with  the  French  troops, 
and,  if  taken  prisoner,  am  entitled  to  the  same 
treatment  as  a  French  prisoner  of  war.  The 
other  rule  of  the  law  of  nations  will  be  found  to 
be  nearly  in  the  words  of  the  General ;  that  is, 
if,  as  in  the  case  above  stated,  I  advise  a  nation 
to  go  to  war,  but  she  does  not  choose  to  take 
my  advice,  finding  that  the  nation  cannot  be 
engaged ;  or  if,  without  consulting  anybody,  I 
set  about  making  war  myself,  I  engage  a  set  of 
desperate  characters,  or  whoever  else  you  please, 
and  proceed  to  acts  of  hostility  against  the  na- 
tion I  would  injure.  This,  sir,  in  the  words  of 
the  General,  would  be  an  individual  of  one  na- 
tion making  war  against  the  citizens  of  another 
nation,  and  this  band,  by  the  law  of  nations, 
are  declared  outlaws  and  pirates.  "Which  of 
these  rules,  then,  sir,  will  apply  to  the  case  of 
Arbuthnot  and  Ambrister  ?  Are  these  vagrant 
savages  a  nation  of  people,  within  the  meaning 
of  the  rule  first  mentioned ;  and,  if  so,  has  that 
nation  declared  war,  and  might  these  men  have 
enlisted  under  their  banner,  and  so  have  been 
entitled  to  the  rights  of  prisoners  of  war? 
Whoever  will  take  the  trouble  to  examine  the 
history  of  this  war  will  be  satisfied  that  it  never 
can  be  viewed  as  having  been  a  national  act, 
within  the  rule  above  mentioned ;  and,  to  prove 
this,  in  the  first  place,  I  ask,  if  the  fugitive  Keel 
Sticks,  having  formed  a  desperate  band,  partly 
of  the  relics  of  their  own  nation,  and  partly  of 
Seminoles,  could  be  considered  as  a  nation,  hav- 
ing a  right  to  make  war  or  peace  ?  Or  \vere 
they  a  banditti  ?  Or  what  would  you  call  the 
civilized  wretch  who  would  lead  them?  If 
these  had  not  the  right,  I  ask  if  the  Indian  and 
negro  party  of  Colonel  Nicholls  had  a  right  to 
make  war?  Will  any  one  pretend  to  say  that 
this  tri-colored  party  were  a  nation  ?  No,  sir, 


DEBATES  OF  CONGKESS. 


259 


JANUARY,  1819.] 


The  Seminole  War. 


[H.  OF  R. 


they  were  the  refuse  of  villany  itself;  and  yet, 
sir,  it  is  an  important  fact,  that  these  parties 
were  perhaps  the  most  prominent  in  the  war ; 
they  did  not  enlist  under  the  banners  of  the  na- 
tion, hut,  sir,  many  of  the  citizens  of  the  nation, 
(if  it  may  be  so  called,)  rallied  round  their 
standard.  It  is  also  a  fact,  worthy  of  consider- 
ation, that  a  considerable  part  of  the  nation 
were  averse  to  the  proceedings  of  their  breth- 
ren, and  fought  with  us  against  them.  Under 
these  circumstances,  General  Jackson  might 
well  view  them  in  the  character  of  individuals 
making  war  upon  us,  or  as  leaders  of  a  lawless 
banditti.  But,  sir,  suppose  he  was  incorrect  in 
this  view  of  their  case ;  suppose  they  were  not 
outlaws  and  pirates,  still  their  punishment  was 
just;  .for,  sir,  the  charges  against  them  were  not 
that  they  wore  outlaws  and  pirates,  but  that 
they  had  excited  and  led  the  Indians  to  war 
against  us,  and  for  this  they  were  executed. 
Whether  the  crimes  for  which  they  suffered 
constituted  them  outlaws  and  pirates,  is  a  ques- 
tion different  from  the  establishment  of  the 
crime  itself.  I  said,  sir,  that,  admitting  they 
were  not  outlaws  and  pirates,  that  still  they 
suffered  justly.  If  they  were  not  the  exciters 
and  leaders  of  a  banditti,  and,  of  course,  accord- 
ing to  the  rule  before  stated,  outlaws  and  pi- 
rates, they  were  officers  or  soldiers,  fighting  un- 
der the  banners  of  a  nation  which  had  the  right 
to  declare,  and  which  had  declared  war,  and 
were  identified  with  the  citizens  of  that  nation, 
and  were  subject  to  all  the  laws  of  war  and  of 
nations,  as  applied  to  that  nation.  They  had, 
in  fact,  become  savages.  "What,  then,  sir,  is  the 
rule  of  the  law  of  nations  which  will  apply  to 
them  in  this  situation?  It  is  this:  "that  when 
we  are  at  war  with  a  savage  nation,  which  re- 
gards no  rules,  we  may  retaliate  upon  its  citi- 
zens the  cruelties  committed  on  our  own,  care 
being  taken  to  punish  alone  the  guilty."  Then, 
sir,  I  ask  if  ever  there  were  fit  subjects  for  pun- 
ishment, under  this  rule,  if  these  were  not 
they  ?  men  around  whom  the  light  of  science 
had  shone  in  its  most  refulgent  splendor — who 
were  not  ignorant  of  the  precepts  of  mercy,  of 
moderation,  and  of  justice,  to  become  worse 
than  savages,  to  stimulate,  to  lead  those  wild, 
those  untutored,  those  miserable  men  of  the 
forest,  to  imbrue  their  hands  in  the  blood  of  un- 
resisting innocence. 

But,  it  is  said,  there  was  no  necessity  for 
their  execution,  because,  say  gentlemen,  the 
war  was  nearly  over,  we  had  no  danger  to  ap- 
prehend. Sir,  the  necessity  for  executing  such 
lawless  miscreants  exists  now  as  much  as  then. 
What,  sir,  was  the  object  of  their  punishment  ? 
Not  merely  that  they  should  atone  for  the 
crimes  which  they  had  committed,  but,  sir,  it 
was  to  teach  an  important  lesson  to  the  unprin- 
cipled subjects  of  Great  Britain  and  Spain;  it 
proclaimed  to  them,  sir,  in  language  which 
could  not  be  misunderstood,  what  they  might 
expect  for  like  offences;  and,  sir,  I  have  no 
doubt  but  that  if,  at  the  commencement  of  this 
Government,  a  determination  had  been  fixed 


and  avowed  to  the  world,  to  punish  with  in- 
stant death  all  such  offences,  the  effect  would 
have  been  the  salvation  of  the  lives  of  many  of 
our  citizens. 

The  honorable  committee  who  reported  this 
resolution,  have  told  us  that  the  court-martial 
has  no  jurisdiction  of  the  offence.  In  reply  to 
which  I  will  observe,  that  if  I  have  shown  that, 
by  the  law  of  nations,  these  men  could  be  pun- 
ished with  death  by  a  prince  or  by  his  general, 
I  may  be  permitted  to  ask  that  honorable  com- 
mittee how  the  commanding  General  is  to  ascer- 
tain the  fact  of  their  guilt  ?  Is  he  to  sit  as  judge 
and  juror  ?  Is  he  to  execute  them  on  the  mere 
suggestion  of  any  one  who  chooses  to  charge 
them,  or  are  the  facts  to  be  ascertained  by  re- 
spectable and  honorable  officers  detailed  for  the 
purpose?  Sir,  if  without  the  investigation  of 
this  respectable  court  these  men  had  been  exe- 
cuted, well,  indeed,  might  we  censure  the  Gen- 
eral. The  honorable  gentleman  from  Georgia 
inquires,  why  General  Jackson  did  not  execute 
Weatherford?  and  answers  the  interrogatory 
himself,  unhesitatingly,  by  stating  that  General 
Jackson  did  not  then  know  the  plenitude  of  his 
powers.  Sir,  I  am  happy  to  know  that  I  have 
it  in  my  power  to  give  to  this  honorable  com- 
mittee the  true  reason  why  that  gallant  chief- 
tain was  not  executed.  Some  time,  sir,  before 
the  treaty  of  Fort  Jackson,  this  chief  was  in- 
formed that  General  Jackson  intended,  if  he 
could  take  him,  to  put  him  to  death.  He  was 
advised  by  his  friends,  as  his  warriors  were  al- 
most all  slain,  as  his  country  was  ruined,  and  as 
his  escape  was  almost  impossible,  to  surrender 
himself  to  General  Jackson;  that  it  was  useless 
to  attempt  further  resistance,  and  this  was  the 
only  means  by  which  his  life  could  be  saved ;  he 
determined  to  do  so,  and  presented  himself  to  the 
General,  at  his  headquarters.  We  are  informed 
that  it  was  demanded  of  him  who  he  was,  and 
how  he  came  there.  He  replied,  "  My  name  is 
Weatherford,  one  of  the  chiefs  of  the  Red  Sticks. 
I  have  fought  you  till  my  warriors  are  all  slain. 
If  I  had  warriors  I  would  fight  you  still,  but  I 
have  none ;  my  country  is  overrun,  and  my 
soldiers  are  fallen.  Here  I  am  in  your  power — 
do  with  me  as  you  please — only  recollect  that  I 
am  a  soldier."  This,  sir,  was  the  reason  why 
the  life  of  that  brave  chief  was  saved.  If,  un- 
der these  circumstances,  our  General  could  have 
executed  so  distinguished  a  savage,  the  most 
verdant  laurel  would  have  faded  on  his  brow. 

Mr.  TALLMADGE,  of  New  York.  In  rising  to 
address  the  House  at  so  late  an  hour  of  the  day, 
when  the  attention  of  the  House  was  necessarily 
fatigued  by  those  who  had  preceded  him,  and 
its  patience  somewhat  exhausted,  Mr.  T.  said, 
he  was  aware  of  the  dangers  that  awaited  him; 
he  was  aware  of  the  perils  that  he  must  encoun- 
ter in  attempting  to  proceed.  But,  Mr.  T.  said, 
the  resolutions  under  consideration  were  so  im- 
portant in  their  nature,  and  so  replete  with  con- 
sequences of  such  magnitude,  involving  the  in- 
terest and  the  honor  of  our  country,  that  a 
sense  of  duty  impelled  him  to  go  on. 


260 


ABRIDGMENT  OF  THE 


H.  OF  R.] 


The  Seminole  War. 


[JANUARY,  1819. 


Sir,  said  Mr.  T.,  a  question  of  war  discussed 
in  the  highest  deliberative  assembly  known  to 
a  free  people,  can  never  fail  to  become  a  ques- 
tion of  great  individual  excitement — of  great 
public  interest.  Its  cause,  and  its  consequences, 
to  the  public  happiness,  present  it  in  an  aspect 
almost  appalling.  But,  said  he,  when  the  friends 
of  the  proposed  resolutions  tell  this  House,  and 
tell  this  nation,  that,  in  addition  to  the  question 
of  the  Seminole  war  and  its  natural  conse- 
quences, which  we  are  called  upon  to  discuss, 
in  its  progress,  the  constitution  of  our  country 
has  been  violated  by  military  power,  and  the 
honor  of  our  nation  stained  by  base  and  inhu- 
man cruelties — it  is  then,  sir,  that  the  question 
assumes  an  aspect  of  tenfold  more  importance, 
and  calculated  to  excite  the  feelings  of  this  House 
and  to  arouse  the  spirit  of  the  nation.  Such, 
said  Mr.  T.,  is  the  question  now  presented  for 
discussion.  It  was  due  to  himself  to  confess  to 
this  House  that  his  feelings  were  excited  upon 
the  occasion,  and  that  he  entered  upon  the  dis- 
cussion with  a  determination  to  meet  it  in  all 
its  bearings.  But,  he  said,  while  he  thus  frankly 
avowed  his  feelings,  he  begged  the  indulgence 
to  add,  that,  while  he  intended  his  course  in 
debate  should  be  marked  with  zeal  and  decision, 
yet  he  also  intended  to  observe  the  decorum  in 
debate  due  to  the  dignity  of  this  House.  He 
said  it  was  his  pride  to  say  that,  since  he  had 
the  honor  of  a  seat  on  this  floor,  he  never  had 
used  against  any  member  a  harsh  expression  or 
severe  allusion,  and  that  he  never  would.  He 
tendered  his  acknowledgments  to  the  gentleman 
from  Georgia  (Mr.  OOBB)  for  the  example  he 
had  set  in  the  opening — ardent  in  debate,  but 
temperate  in  expression.  Mr.  T.  said  it  should 
be  his  course ;  he  hoped  others  would  also  ob- 
serve the  example.  His  own  opinion  was  de- 
cisively formed  upon  full  examination  of  all  the 
documents — and,  while  he  did  not  doubt  of  the 
proper  result,  and  which  he  should  endeavor  to 
prevail  on  this  House  to  adopt,  yet  he  was  free 
to  declare,  there  was  ample  room  for  difference 
of  opinion,  and,  therefore,  he  was  not  inclined 
to  cast  any  imputations  upon  those  from  whom 
he  might  differ.  'He  was  disposed  to  proffer  to 
them  the  most  charitable  indulgence,  and  he 
was  the  more  desirous  they  should  accept  from 
him  the  proffer,  because  he  solicited  it  for  him- 
self from  them  in  return. 

Mr.  T.  said  a  doubt  had  already  been  ex- 
pressed whether  this  House  had  the  power  to 
discuss  and  express  its  opinion  upon  the  present 
subject,  and  a  hope  had  been  intimated  that 
those  who  opposed  the  resolutions  would  not 
put  that  opposition  upon  the  want  of  right  and 
power  in  the  House,  and  thus  prevent  the  in- 
quiry. He  said,  as  for  himself,  he  would  not. 
It  was  a  point  upon  whifth  he  had  doubts.  A 
great  national  question  had  arisen,  connected 
with  a  recent  war,  and  which  had  justly  excited 
public  feeling — it  was,  in  his  opinion,  fit  and 
proper  that  the  Representatives  of  the  people 
should  investigate  the  subject  and  express  their 
opinion,  Mr.  T.  said,  it  was  asserted  that  the 


Major  General,  who  had  conducted  the  war  in 
its  progress,  had  violated  his  orders — had  broken 
the  constitution,  and  had,  by  cruelties,  dishon- 
ored our  national  character.  Yet,  said  he,  the 
President,  from  whom  those  orders  emanated, 
has  not  arrested  him,  but  has  approved  of  his 
proceedings,  and,  consequently,  stands  responsi- 
ble for  the  result.  Whatever  doubts  might 
have  been  entertained  as  to  our  powers  in  the 
question  between  this  House  and  the  Major 
General,  approved  and  adopted  as  the  transac- 
tions had  been  by  the  President,  it  was  now  a 
question  between  him  and  the  public ;  and  no 
doubt  of  our  powers  could  be  reasonably  enter- 
tained. Mr.  T.  said  he  hoped  the  power  of  the 
House  would  ever  be  sparingly  exercised,  and 
be  reserved  for  great  occasions.  But,  I  hold, 
said  he,  that  we  have  the  power,  and  that  it 
becomes  a  duty  to  investigate  and  express  our 
opinions  on  great  public  occasions,  producing 
public  excitement.  It  is  here,  on  this  floor,  and 
through  their  Representatives,  that  the  people 
can  only  speak.  Your  Administration  may  be- 
come corrupt — your  Executive  ofiBcers  may  vio- 
late the  laws,  break  the  constitution,  and,  by 
violent  outrages,  even  involve  the  country  in 
war.  In  such  an  event,  here,  on  this  floor,  and 
in  this  power  for  which  I  am  now  contending, 
will  ever  be  found  the  only  sure  corrective.  It 
is  one  of  the  dearest  privileges  of  this  House ; 
one  of  the  most  essential  to  the  liberties  of  the 
country  to  be  preserved  and  maintained ;  and 
he  hoped  it  would  be  the  last  prerogative  ever 
surrendered.  So  far,  then,  from  wishing  to 
avoid  the  present  discussion,  I  hold,  said  Mr. 
T.,  that  the  charges  made  are  of  so  deep  a  dye, 
and  have  produced  such  excitement,  that  it  has 
become  our  duty,  as  the  Representatives  of  the 
people,  to  inquire,  and  to  advise ;  nay,  even  to 
instruct  public  opinion  upon  the  subject  now 
under  discussion.  And,  Mr.  T.  said,  it  afforded 
him  a  proud  consolation  to  believe  that  the 
State  which  he  had  the  honor  in  part  to  repre- 
sent, would  be  willing  to  adopt  as  correct  the 
opinion  which  this  House  should  announce. 
Such,  said  Mr.  T.,  has  been  the  sensation  pro- 
duced by  the  manner  and  character  of  the  accu- 
sations which  have  been  thrown  out,  that  he 
had  no  hesitation  to  say,  if  this  House  should 
terminate  their  session,  and  omit  to  inquire  into 
and  avow  their  opinion  upon  the  present  sub- 
ject, it  would  disappoint  the  nation,  and  fix 
upon  this  House  an  eternal  stigma,  as  wanting 
spirit  to  pronounce  between  the  country  and 
the  Administration;  or,  if  gentlemen  would 
rather  have  it  so,  between  the  proposed  resolu- 
tion and  General  Jackson.  He  said  he  had  no 
unwillingness  on  his  part ;  and  he  hoped  the 
House  would  hold  fast  upon  the  present  resolu- 
tions, and  insist  upon  a  direct  vote  upon  the 
accusing  propositions.  If  the  constitution  has 
been  violated,  if  the  honor  of  the  nation  is 
stained  by  cruelties,  this  House  should  declare 
it  to  the  country.  If,  on  the  contrary,  the  ac- 
cusations are  found  to  be  incorrect,  it  was  due 
to  the  Administration,  it  was  due  to  the  charac- 


DEBATES  OF  CONGRESS. 


261 


JANUARY,  1819.] 


The  Seminole  War. 


[H.  OF  R. 


ter  of  General  Jackson,  that  we  should  so  de- 
clare, and  thus  wipe  away  the  unjust  imputa- 
tions. A  vote  of  thanks  has  been  talked  of. 
Mr.  T.  said  he  should  oppose  any  substitute  for 
the  present  resolutions.  The  thanks  of  this 
House  constitute  the  best  wealth  of  this  nation ; 
too  precious  to  be  used,  unless  on  extraordinary 
occasions.  Such  was  the  affair  of  Orleans. 
But,  it  is  sufficient  that  on  investigation  of  the 
Seminole  war,  there  shall  be  found  no  cause  for 
blame.  A  decided  rejection  of  the  proposed 
resolutions  of  censure  was  all  that  the  present 
occasion  required. 

But,  said  Mr.  T.,  in  addition  to  the  proposed 
censure  contained  in  the  resolutions,  they  also 
contain  subjects  on  which  legislation  is  propos- 
ed. He  said  he  was  not  prepared  to  say  but 
legislation  on  those  points  might  be  proper,  at  a 
proper  time,  and  under  proper  circumstances ; 
but  he  was  prepared  to  say  that,  on  this  occa- 
sion, under  the  present  public  excitement,  and 
coupled  with  the  proposed  resolutions  for  cen- 
sure, he,  for  one,  would  not  consent  to  legislate. 
The  act  of  legislation,  under  existing  circum- 
stances, would  necessarily  imply  in  itself  a  dis- 
approbation of  this  House  to  the  proceedings  ap- 
proved and  adopted  by  the  President,  and  would 
include  a  direct  censure  upon  General  Jackson. 
Let  us,  said  Mr.  T.,  reject  the  whole  of  the  res- 
olutions. If  any  gentleman  thinks  that  legisla- 
tion on  any  of  these  subjects  is  requisite  for  the 
public  good ;  if  he  would  bring  it  forward  as 
distinct  and  disconnected  propositions,  it  would 
undoubtedly  receive  the  deliberate  consideration 
of  this  House,  and  under  no  other  circumstances 
ought  it  to  be  entertained.  He  said  he  was  op- 
posed to  any  act  of  this  House  which,  by  any 
inference,  would  look  like  censure  on  Gen- 
eral Jackson,  a  man  whose  name  and  whose 
fame  Avas  identified  with  the  history  and  the 
glory  of  his  country — he  would  not  say  the  first 
military  captain  of  any  country,  but  he  thought 
he  might  say  the  first  in  ours. 

But,  said  Mr.  T.,  we  have  been  told  that  this 
war  was,  on  the  part  of  our  country,  an  offen- 
sive war;  and,  therefore,  it  did  not  come  within 
the  powers  of  the  Executive  to  carry  it  on  ;  and 
therefore  the  powers  of  this  House,  and  its  right 
to  pronounce  on  peace  and  war,  had  been  in- 
vaded, and  our  constitution  had  thus  been  vio- 
lated. I  am  extremely  embarrassed  to  deter- 
mine how  to  answer  this  objection — an  objec- 
tion presenting  an  aspect  so  tremendous.  The 
prerogatives  of  this  House,  on  peace  and  war, 
are  invaded  —  the  constitution  of  our  coun- 
try violated.  The  Executive  of  our  Govern- 
ment, upon  his  own  responsibility,  has  waged 
an  offensive  war ;  or  he  has  sanctioned,  and 
subsequently  approved  of,  General  Jackson's 
making  offensive  war  upon  a  defenceless  Indian 
tribe !  Is  the  Seminole  war  offensive  on  our 
part  ?  At  the  last  session  of  this  House  we  spe- 
cially appropriated  money  for  the  support  of 
this  war.  But  my  excited  feelings,  said  Mr.  T., 
forbid  me  to  discuss  this  point. 

Sir,  you  are  an  American  1    Go,  count  the 


bleeding  scalps  of  your  murdered  countrymen, 
of  all  ages  and  sexes,  found  by  General  Jack- 
son, and  then  return,  and  tell  to  this  House  if 
this  Seminole  war  was,  on  the  part  of  your 
country,  an  offensive  war!  Tell  this  House, 
also,  if  you  advise  a  vote  of  censure  to  be  pass- 
ed on  the  conduct  of  either  the  Executive,  for 
his  just  orders,  or  upon  General  Jackson,  for 
discovering  upwards  of  three  hundred  dried  and 
fifty  fresh  scalps,  with  a  red  pole  erected  as  the 
beacon  of  Indian  war,  and  crowned  with  the 
scalp  of  an  American  citizen ! 

Sir,  said  Mr.  T.,  if  I  am  correct  that  the  Sem- 
inole Indians  had  waged  an  inhuman  and  de- 
structive war  upon  the  frontiers  of  Georgia,  it 
became  obligatory  upon  the  Executive  of  the 
Union,  both  in  the  spirit  and  letter  of  his  duty, 
to  extend  the  arm  of  Government  for  their  pro- 
tection :  no  matter  from  what  causes  the  war 
was  produced ;  no  matter  from  whence  its  ori- 
gin. It  was  sufficient  that  a  sister  State  was  as- 
sailed, and  called  upon  the  Union  for  defence. 
Its  omission  by  the  Executive  would  justly  have 
incurred  the  censure  of  this  House.  Sir,  the 
President  did  not  omit,  in  this  respect,  his  duty. 
He  called  General  Jackson  into  the  field,  and 
vested  him  with  discretionary  powers, "  to  con- 
centrate his  force,  and  to  adopt  the  necessary 
measures  to  terminate  the  conflict."  General 
Jackson  promptly  performed  his  duty ;  he  did 
adopt  the  necessary  measures ;  he  has  terminat- 
ed the  conflict ;  he  has  reported  his  proceedings ; 
they  have  been  adopted  and  approved  by  the 
President,  Here,  then,  said  Mr.  T.,  the  affair 
with  General  Jackson  is  at  an  end.  He  stands 
justified  and  discharged ;  whatever  may  have 
been  the  incidents  in  the  progress  and  the  con- 
duct of  that  war,  committed  to  his  charge,  he  is 
exonerated  from  all  responsibility.  Good  in- 
tentions and  a  faithful  exercise  of  his  discretion, 
under  the  circumstances  as  they  transpired, 
were  all  that  could  ever  be  required  of  General 
Jackson.  This  is  not  doubted.  The  responsi- 
bilities of  the  transaction  are  therefore  cast 
upon  the  Executive.  It  is  an  affair  between 
the  country  and  the  President.  Mr.  T.  said  he 
rejoiced  that  it  was ;  for  he  had  no  idea  of  Ex- 
ecutive irresponsibility.  He  never  would  con- 
sent that  a  military  officer  should  be  charged 
with  discretionary  powers,  and  then  be  held  re- 
sponsible for  any  thing  more  than  good  inten- 
tions, and  good  faith  in  the  performance  of  his 
duties. 

But,  he  said,  let  me  not  be  misunderstood. 
He  disclaimed  any  wish  to  prevent  inquiry.  He 
had  no  desire  to  claim  for  General  Jackson  the 
protection  of  Executive  responsibility.  It  would 
be  doing  injustice  to  the  high  character  of  that 
man.  And  he  believed  the  whole  tenor  of  his 
conduct  would  bear  the  strictest  scrutiny.  With 
this  view,  and  although  he  thought  General 
Jackson  was  sufficiently  acquitted  and  discharg- 
ed by  Executive  approbation,  yet  he  should  now 
proceed  to  examine  the  progress  of  the  war ; 
and  he  invited  the  fullest  investigation. 

Sir,  said  Mr.  T.,  I  hold  that  General  Jackson 


262 


ABRIDGMENT  OF  THE 


H.  OF  R.] 


The  Seminole  War. 


[JANUARY,  1819. 


was  vested  with  full  and  ample  powers  for  the 
conduct  of  the  Seminole  war.  The  orders  to 
him  were  discretionary ;  vesting  in  him  ade- 
quate authority  for  every  emergency  that  might 
be  incident  to  the  campaign.  Under  the  cir- 
cumstances, such  discretionary  orders  were  cor- 
rect. He  was  about  to  be  immersed  in  the  wil- 
derness, from  whence  he  could  neither  commu- 
nicate nor  receive  information  from  the  War 
Department.  It  was,  therefore,  necessary  to 
confide  to  him  the  whole  conduct  of  the  war ; 
and  the  orders  from  the  War  Department,  col- 
lectively considered,  clearly  vested  in  him.  am- 
ple powers  for  every  exigency  that  the  cam- 
paign might  require.  The  functions  of  the  War 
Department  were  expended  in  the  amplitude  of 
his  orders.  No  additional  powers  could  have 
been  given,  under  any  state  of  circumstances, 
had  the  War  Office  accompanied  him  into  the 
wilderness.  His  ample  and  discretionary  pow- 
ers embraced  every  case,  and  covered  and  jus- 
tified his  whole  conduct.  Not,  said  Mr.  T., 
that  the  orders  to  General  Jaceson  could  justify 
him  in  doing  any  wrong — in  making  an  offen- 
sive war,  or  in  violating  a  neutral  territory ;  but 
whatever  act  was  required  to  be  done,  whatever 
the  events  of  the  war  justified  to  be  done,  and 
which  the  War  Office  might  have  ordered,  so 
far  the  orders  to  General  Jackson  extended.  If 
I  am  correct  in  this  position,  there  is  an  end  to 
all  question  about  Violation  of  orders ;  General 
Jackson  is  justified ;  and  the  question  only  re- 
mains between  the  Executive  and  the  country. 


SATURDAY,  January  23. 
Monument  to  De  Kalb. 

Mr.  EKED  submitted  the  following  preamble 
and  resolution : 

Whereas  a  resolution  was  passed  by  the  Congress 
of  the  United  States,  on  the  14th  day  of  October,  in 
the  following  words,  to  wit : 

"  Resolved,  That  a  monument  be  erected  to  the 
memory  of  the  late  Major  General,  the  Baron  de 
Kalb,  in  the  city  of  Annapolis,  in  the  State  of  Mary- 
land, with  the  following  inscription  : 

"  Sacred  to  the  memory  of  the  Baron  de  Kalb, 
Knight  of  the  Royal  Order  "of  Military  Merit,  Briga- 
dier of  the  Armies  of  France,  and  Major  General  in 
the  service  of  the  United  States  of  America ;  having 
served  with  honor  and  reputation  for  three  years,  he 
gave  a  last  and  glorious  proof  of  his  attachment  to 
the  liberties  of  mankind,  and  the  cause  of  America, 
in  the  action  near  Camden,  in  the  State  of  South 
Carolina,  on  the  16th  of  August,  1780,  when,  leading 
on  the  troops  of  the  Maryland  and  Delaware  lines, 
against  superior  numbers,  and  animating  by  his  ex- 
ample to  deeds  of  valor,  he  was  pierced  with  many 
wounds,  and,  on  the  19th  following,  expired,  in  the 
40th  year  of  his  age.  The  Congress  of  the  United 
States  of  America,  in  gratitude  to  his  zeal,  services, 
and  merit,  have  erected  this  monument." 

Resolved,  therefore,  That  the  aforegoing  resolution 
be  referred  to  a  select  committee,  with  instructions 
to  report  a  bill  now  to  carry  the  same  into  effect. 

Mr.  MEBOER  advocated  the  adoption  of  this 
resolution  at  some  length,  and  with  much  ar- 


dor ;  urging  in  its  support  the  valuable  services 
of  the  Baron  de  Kalb,  his  gallant  character,  and 
illustrious  death  in  defence  of  the  liberty  and 
independence  of  the  United  States,  &c. 

Mr.  ANDEBSON,  of  Kentucky,  in  reply,  said 
he  would  never  give  his  vote  for  a  monument, 
or  any  other  memorial  to  any  subordinate,  or 
any  foreign  officer,  no  matter  how  meritorious 
their  services,  so  long  as  the  remains  of  WASH- 
INGTON lay  neglected.  He  referred  to  the  reso- 
lution now  before  the  Senate,  proposing  an 
equestrian  statue  to  WASHINGTON;  and  said, 
when  that  had  been  adopted,  it  would  be  then, 
and  not  till  then,  fair  and  proper  to  propose 
similar  honors  for  other  Eevolutionary  wor- 
thies. Mr.  A.  moved  that  the  resolution  be  laid 
on  the  table. 

Mr.  REED  said  it  was  true  that  a  proposition 
was  now  before  the  Senate  to  carry  into  effect 
the  resolution  of  the  Old  Congress,  which  voted 
an  equestrian  statue  for  General  WASHINGTON, 
but  whether  that  should  pass  or  not  ought  not 
to  interfere  with  the  present  motion,  and  the 
fate  of  that  proposition  would  not  prevent  him, 
Mr.  E.  said,  from  calling  on  this  House  to  car- 
ry into  effect  a  law  passed  nearly  forty  years 
ago,  and  to  which  the  faith  and  honor  of  the 
nation  were  pledged.  If  Congress  erected  no 
monument  to  WASHINGTON,  it  would  be  no  fault 
of  his ;  he  would  go  as  far  as  any  gentleman  in 
obtaining  it.  There  was,  Mr.  E.  said,  a  law  of 
the  Old  Congress  directing  a  monument  to 
Montgomery  in  the  city  of  New  York ;  it  had 
been  neglected  by  the  nation;  but  the  State 
of  New  York,  to  its  lasting  credit,  has  per- 
formed that  duty  itself,  and,  hi  the  course  of 
last  year,  removed  the  bones  of  the  immortal 
Montgomery  from  the  spot  where  he  fell,  to 
the  land  which  he  had  so  gloriously  defended. 
Propositions  had  been  frequently  brought  for- 
ward in  this  House,  Mr.  E.  said,  to  erect  a  me- 
morial of  some  kind  to  WASHINGTON,  but,  for 
some  reason  or  other,  they  were  never  carried. 
It  had  been  said,  the  page  of  history  perpetuated 
the  glory  of  WASHINGTON  ;  but  was  not  a  mon- 
ument also  a  history,  in  which  every  one  might 
read  not  only  the  virtues  of  the  man,  but,  also, 
the  gratitude  of  his  country  ?  Certainly  it  was. 

The  question  to  lay  Mr.  EEED'S  motion  on 
the  table  was  carried — yeas  76,  nays  42. 

Seminole  War. 

The  House  then  proceeded  again  to  the  con- 
sideration, in  Committee  of  the  Whole,  (Mr. 
TEEEY  hi  the  Chair,)  of  the  report  of  the  Mili- 
tary Committee,  and  the  amendments  offered 
thereto  by  Mr.  COBB. 

Mr.  STOEES  said,  that  when  he  took  his  seat 
in  the  House  at  the  commencement  of  the  ses- 
sion, he  looked  with  much  anxiety  to  the  Mes- 
sage which  should  disclose  the  true  character  of 
the  transactions  during  the  past  year,  on  our 
southern  frontier.  We  had,  indeed,  been  in- 
formed, by  the  Message  of  the  25th  of  March 
last,  that  war  existed  between  the  United  States 
and  the  Serninole  tribe  of  Indians — that  orders 


DEBATES  OF  CONGRESS. 


263 


JANUARY,  1819.] 


TheSeminole  War. 


[H.  OF  R. 


had  been  issued  for  the  advance  of  the  army 
into  Florida,  but  that  the  commanding  officer 
was  strictly  enjoined  against  any  attack  on  the 
Spanish  fortresses,  without  the  sanction  of  the 
Government.  During  the  recess,  he  had  heard 
of  the  entry  of  our  troops  into  the  territory  of 
Spain,  the  seizure  of  St.  Marks,  the  capture  of 
Pensacola  and  the  Barancas,  the  military  trials 
of  Arbuthnot  and  Ambrister,  and  the  execution 
of  the  Seminole  chiefs.  Notwithstanding  no 
evidence  of  disapprobation  of  any  of  these 
measures  had  transpired,  except  the  offer  to  re- 
store Pensacola  unconditionally,  and  St.  Marks, 
on  terms  prescribed  by  us,  he  was  unwilling 
to  believe  that  they  had  received  the  sanction 
of  the  Executive.  The  documents  transmitted 
to  the  House  had  shown  how  vain  was  this 
expectation.  He  had  carefully  and  attentively 
examined  them,  and  formed  an  opinion  upon 
them,  he  hoped  with  that  deliberation  which 
was  due  to  questions  of  so  great  and  vital  im- 
portance to  the  constitution  and  character  of 
the  country.  That  opinion  he  had  not  found 
reason  to  change,  nor  was  he  ashamed  or  afraid 
to  avow  it,  and  should  discharge  his  duty  with 
frankness  and  fearlessness,  let  the  censure, 
which,  in  his  judgment,  these  transactions 
merited,  fall  where  it  might. 

When,  said  he,  the  trials  of  Arbuthnot  and 
Ambrister  were  laid  upon  our  tables,  and  it 
was  first  developed  that  one  of  them  had  suf- 
fered death  in  consequence  of  the  reversal  of 
the  sentence  of  the  court-martial,  by  General 
Jackson,  a  universal  burst  of  indignation 
seemed  to  have  electrified  the  House.  Have 
these  manly  and  generous  feelings,  so  honorable 
to  our  nature,  fled  from  our  bosoms,  or  have 
they  chilled  into  insensibility  during  the  long 
interval  which  has  elapsed  ?  He  had  waited  in 
painful  suspense  for  the  report  of  the  Military 
Committee,  and  acknowledged  his  gratitude  to 
them  for  the  firm  stand  which  they  had  made 
against  these  encroachments  of  military  power. 
He  saw  among  them  some  of  those  who,  in 
other  times — in  the  darkest  days  of  our  adver- 
sity, when  the  yoke  of  parliamentary  and  mili- 
tary despotism  was  riveting  on  our  necks,  had 
stept  forth  as  the  protectors  of  their  country, 
and  with  unconquerable  spirit  persisted  in  the 
contest  which  delivered  us  from  the  tyranny  of 
Britain.  He  was  happy  to  find  that,  during  his 
life,  this  spirit  has  not  left  us— that,  in  his  day, 
those  were  to  be  found  among  us  who  yet  cher- 
ished the  principles  of  that  glorious  conflict,  and 
knew  how  to  appreciate  the  value  of  those 
liberties  which  were  earned  at  the  expense  of 
so  much  blood  and  treasure. 

I  am  gratified,  said  he,  to  find  that,  to  this 
period  of  the  debate,  excepting  by  the  honor- 
able gentleman  for  Virginia,  (Mr.  SMYTH,)  the 
power  of  this  House  to  interpose  has  not  been 
questioned.  We  are  the  peculiar  guardians  of 
the  constitution.  Our  liberties  are  safe  in  the 
same  proportion  that  we  execute  our  duty  with 
linnikss,  vigilance,  and  fidelity'.  Offences  short 
of  impeachment,  but  which  threaten  the  public 


safety,  it  is  the  right  of  this  House  to  present 
to  the  nation ;  against  evils  of  this  sort  it  is  the 
most  effectual  remedy.  However  the  direct 
interposition  of  our  constitutional  power  of  im- 
peachment may  be  evaded,  there  is  a  tribunal 
— public  opinion — to  whose  judgments  no  man 
is  indifferent,  whose  decision  none  can  success- 
fully withstand  or  defy,  and  winch  causes  the 
stoutest  heart  to  tremble.  The  genius  of  our 
institutions,  the  experience  of  other  Govern- 
ments, the  records  of  all  history,  and  the  sad 
and  melancholy  fate  of  a  long  train  of  fallen 
republics,  admonish  us  that  liberty  is  only  safe 
when  faithfully  guarded  by  the  immediate  rep- 
resentatives of  an  enlightened  people. 

The  services  of  General  Jackson  have  been 
eminently  great.  He  has  justly  received  from 
a  grateful  country  its  high  rewards  and  honors. 
I  am  not  disposed  to  detract  from  his  well- 
merited  fame.  The  victory  of  New  Orleans 
was,  indeed,  a  proud  triumph — and,  though  I 
do  not  unite  with  some  gentlemen  in  pronounc- 
ing it,  in  reference  to  its  consequences,  the  great- 
est which  this  country  has  achieved,  I  cheerfully 
accord  to  the  sentiments  which  have  been  ex- 
pressed in  praise  of  that  great  exploit.  Though, 
with  the  rest  of  my  countrymen,  I  felt  and 
gratefully  acknowledged  that  to  him  we  owed 
much  of  our  national  character,  and  the  security 
of  a  valuable  portion  of  our  territory,  yet,  I  do 
not  forget  that  even  on  that  occasion  he  over- 
stepped his  power.  I  was  disposed  to  forgive  it. 
The  evils  which  he  averted  and  the  blessings 
which  he  conferred  upon  us,  were  some  atone- 
ment for  the  violated  majesty  of  the  constitu- 
tion. But,  great  as  his  services  have  been,  they 
afford  no  sanctuary  against  our  inquiry — much 
less  do  they  furnish  any  exculpation  for  the 
violation  of  the  constitution.  An  example  of 
impunity  on  such  grounds,  for  these  assump- 
tions of  power,  will  produce  the  most  pernicious 
consequences  among  the  subordinate  officers  of 
the  army.  Day  after  day  have  petitions  been 
presented  to  this  House,  from  the  army,  for  in- 
demnity against  judgments  awarded  for  the 
violation  of  the  personal  liberty  of  our  citizens. 
The  disposition  to  encroach  upon  the  civil  au- 
thorities of  the  Government  should  receive  no 
encouragement  from  our  hands.  For  some 
time  past  the  people  of  this  country  have  in- 
dulged a  dangerous  predilection  for  the  army. 
In  the  civil  departments  one  may  attain  to  the 
highest  eminence,  and  scarcely  attract  attention 
beyond  the  immediate  sphere  in  which  he 
moves ;  but,  clothe  him  with  the  glare  of  mili- 
tary renown,  and  the  eyes  of  the  people  are 
dazzled — his  fame  has  no  limits,  and  every  one 
is  ambitious  and  eager  to  honor  him.  It  is  tune 
that  we  were  roused  from  this  fatal  delusion. 
The  affections  of  the  country  have  been  too 
bountifully  devoted  to  the  army,  and  the  time 
may  yet  come  when  the  people  will  find  it  too 
late  to  retrieve  this  error  of  their  hearts. 

If,  sir,  we  consult  the  past  history  of  other 
countries,  and  turn  our  eye  back  through  ages 
which  have  gone  before  us;  or,  if  we  look 


264 


ABRIDGMENT  OF  THE 


H.  OF  R.] 


The  Seminole  War. 


[JANUARY,  1819. 


only  to  the  events  of  our  own  times,  we  find 
much  to  warn  us  against  receiving  the  services 
of  public  men  as  an  apology  for  their  usurpa- 
tions. Every  tyrant  who  has  succeeded  in  over- 
turning the  liberties  of  his  country,  first  stole 
away  the  affections  of  his  countrymen  by  the 
services  which  he  had  rendered  to  the  State. 
On  this  occasion  it  is  well  worthy  of  remark 
that  these  have,  with  few  exceptions,  been  mili- 
tary services.  Cassar  and  Bonaparte  only  com- 
menced their  bloody  career  of  tyranny  after 
they  had  risen  to  power  on  the  misguided  affec- 
tions of  the  people.  In  forming  my  judgment 
on  the  specific  propositions  before  us,  I  lay  alto- 
gether aside  the  motives  of  General  Jackson. 
Laudable  as  they  may  have  been,  or  faithfully 
as  he  may  have  believed  himself  to  be  acting  in 
the  discharge  of  his  duty  to  his  country,  these 
form  no  part  of  the  inquiry  before  us.  To  me 
it  is  immaterial  with  what  views  or  what  mo- 
tives he  has  infringed  upon  the  constitution. 
Our  object  should  be  to  prevent  the  force  of 
the  precedent  which  these  measures  establish. 
If  the  powers  of  Congress  have  been  encroach- 
ed upon,  let  us  declare  it,  unless  we  are  pre- 
pared to  surrender  our  prerogatives  to  a  military 
chieftain,  or  to  give  up  the  constitution  to  mere 
matter  of  delicacy.  This  is  not  an  inquiry  with 
a  view  to  the  censure  of  General  Jackson.  It 
is  required  from  us  by  the  duty  of  self-preser- 
vation. The  indirect  censure  which  some  of 
these  resolutions  imply,  is  no  fault  of  ours. 
The  enemy  whom  he  triumphantly  vanquished 
at  New  Orleans  can  derive  no  self-gratification 
from  our  proceedings.  Would  they  boast,  I 
would  tell  them  to  meet  him  in  the  field.  The 
measures  of  this  House  will  afford  but  a  miser- 
able consolation  to  those  who  there  felt  the  en- 
ergy of  his  arm,  and  whose  pride  was  there 
humbled  in  the  dust  before  his  skill  and  valor. 

The  subject  of  these  resolutions  divides  itself 
into  several  inquiries :  the  capture  of  Pensacola, 
the  seizure  of  St.  Marks,  the  crossing  of  the 
Florida  line,  and  the  execution  of  the  captives. 
Whatever  may  be  the  justification  for  the  seizure 
of  Pensacola,  the  Barancas,  and  St.  Marks, 
which  the  Executive  has  urged  as  between  us 
and  Spain,  it  is  plainly  admitted  by  him  that 
the  occupation  of  these  posts  was  not  justified 
by  any  orders  which  were  issued.  Such  is  the 
fair  import  of  the  Message  communicated  at  the 
commencement  of  the  session. 

The  immediate  restoration  of  Pensacola  is 
unequivocal  evidence  that  the  post  was  not 
captured  in  conformity  to  the  views  or  instruc- 
tions of  the  Executive,  and  virtually  amounts 
to  a  disavowal  of  its  seizure,  on  the  part  of  our 
Government.  Although,  as  between  us  and 
Spain,  the  Executive  has  not,  and  perhaps  ought 
not,  to  have  yielded  to  the  demand  of  that  Gov- 
ernment to  inflict  punishment  on  General  Jack- 
son, it  is  not  certain  how  far  they  have  intended 
to  adopt  his  acts  as  constitutional.  From  a 
careful  examination  of  the  letter  from  the  Sec- 
retary of  State  to  Mr.  Erving,  I  have  been  led 
to  doubt  whether  they  have,  in  unqualified 


terms,  sanctioned  the  occupation  of  St.  Marks 
and  Pensacola.  In  that  letter,  it  is  said  that 
"  it  became,  therefore,  in  the  opinion  of  General 
Jackson,  indispensably  necessary  to  take  from 
the  Governor  of  Pensacola  the  means  of  carry- 
ing his  threat  into  execution."  Again :  "  It 
was,  in  his  judgment,  not  sufficient  that  they 
(the  Indians)  should  be  suffered  to  rally  their 
numbers  under  the  protection  of  Spanish  forts," 
&c.  The  cautious  phraseology  of  these,  and 
many  other  passages  of  this  letter,  leaves  it 
somewhat  equivocal  whether  even  the  Gov- 
ernment has,  as  between  General  Jackson  and  us, 
assumed  to  their  whole  extent  the  doctrines  on 
which  General  Jackson  founded  the  justification 
of  his  proceedings.  If,  however,  such  sanction 
was  intended  on  the  part  of  the  Executive,  the 
powers  of  Congress  are  doubly  jeopardized. 

On  the  subject  of  the  trials  of  Arbuthnot  and 
Ambrister,  it  is  said  that  "  the  defence  of  the 
one  consisted  solely  and  exclusively  of  technical 
cavils  at  the  nature  of  part  of  the  evidence 
against  him,  and  the  other  confessed  his  guilt." 
It  is  here  gravely  asserted,  that,  on  a  trial  for 
life  or  death,  an  objection  to  the  hearsay  decla- 
rations of  an  Indian  is  a  technical  cavil ! — that 
this  country  recognizes  an  institution  for  trial  of 
capital  offences,  on  which  an  objection  to  the 
proof  of  the  hearsay  declaration  of  an  Indian, 
who,  if  himself  present,  could  not  have  been  a 
competent  witness,  is  a  technical  cavil !  To  be 
condemned  to  an  ignominious  death  on  testimony 
of  this  sort  is  what  the  honorable  Secretary  has 
termed  "  the  benefit  of  a  trial  by  court-martial." 
The  threat  contained  in  the  conclusion  of  this 
letter  deserves,  at  least,  to  be  remarked  by  this 
House :  "  if  the  necessities  of  self-defence  should 
again  compel  the  United  States  to  take  posses- 
sion of  the  Spanish  forts  and  places  in  Florida, 
declare,  with  the  frankness  and  candor  that  be- 
comes us,  that  another  unconditional  restoration 
of  them  must  not  be  expected."  Before  a  war 
of  conquest  is  carried  into  the  dominions  of 
Spain ;  before  the  armies  of  this  nation  are  sent 
to  enforce  the  conditions  which  we  prescribe  to 
other  nations  as  the  tenure  by  which  they 
shall  enjoy  the  sovereignty  of  their  own  terri- 
tories, I  trust  that  this  House  will  at  least  be 
consulted  ;  that  the  discretion  of  Congress  alone 
will  determine  the  question  of  war  or  peace. 
I  do  not  relish  the  fulmiuation  of  these  threats 
by  a  Secretary  of  Foreign  Affairs.  We  Lave, 
indeed,  heard  of  imperial  edicts  in  another  quar- 
ter of  the  globe.  At  one  time  it  is  decreed, 
that  the  Bourbon  dynasty  no  longer  existed  in 
Spain;  at  another,  the  Queen  of  Etruria  no 
longer  reigns,  and  a  band  of  soldiery  is  forthwith 
sent  to  enforce  the  mandate,  and  overturn  the 
Governments  of  other  nations.  These  imperial 
examples  are  hardly  worthy  of  our  imitation ; 
and  I  pray  that,  if  this  letter  is  to  be  hereafter 
the  model  of  our  diplomatic  correspondence, 
some  means  may  be  devised  to  remedy  its  effect 
upon  our  national  character.  It  would  hardly 
be  imagined,  from  perusing  that  letter,  by  one 
unversed  in  our  institutions,  that  our  form  ot 


DEBATES  OF  CONGRESS. 


265 


JAMJART,  1819.] 


The  Seminole  War. 


[H.  OP  B. 


government  was  republican.  And  against  whom 
is  this  threat  issued  ?  "  Poor,  miserable,  and  de- 
graded Spain !"  Indeed  she  is  too  weak  to  repel 
or  scarcely  to  resent  the  encroachments  of  any  ; 
but,  fallen  as  she  is,  it  affords  but  a  sorry  tri- 
umph to  insult  her  weakness.  I  fear  that  the 
wrongs  of  which  she  has  been  guilty  towards 
us  have  induced  less  regard  for  her  rights,  and 
that  we  have  not,  therefore,  been  scrupulous  to 
respect  them. 

The  capture  of  St.  Marks  was  equally  unau- 
thorized by  orders,  and  was  equally  in  deroga- 
tion of  the  rights  of  Spain.  It  appears  to  have 
been  seized  as  a  convenient  u  depot"  to  facili 
tate  the  operations  of  our  army.  I  shall  not 
detain  you  by  again  repeating  what  has  already 
been  so  ably  and  satisfactorily  illustrated  by 
those  who  have  already  addressed  the  committee 
on  this  point.  The  terms,  however,  on  which 
St.  Marks  was  offered  to  be  restored,  are  worthy 
of  notice.  They  tend  to  show  how  greatly  the 
importance  of  this  war  with  the  Seminoles, 
and  that  necessity  which  is  resorted  to  as  a  jus- 
tification of  the  capture  of  this  fort,  has  been 
magnified.  St.  Marks  is  in  the  heart  of  the  ter- 
ritory occupied  by  these  tribes — and  yet  it  ap- 
pears, from  the  letter  of  the  30th  of  November, 
that  two  hundred  and  fifty  men  would  be  ac- 
cepted as  "  a  Spanish  force  adequate  to  its  pro- 
tection against  the  Indians."  Yes,  sir — two 
hundred  and  fifty  "  poor,  miserable,  and  degrad- 
ed" Spaniards,  as  the  honorable  gentleman  from 
Massachusetts  (Mr.  HOLMES)  was  pleased  to  call 
that  nation,  were  considered  as  competent  effect- 
ually to  restrain  these  tribes  from  its  forcible 
occupation  "  for  purposes  of  hostility  against  the 
United  States." 

Gentlemen  have  defended  these  proceedings 
as  a  case  in  which  a  belligerent  is  justified  in 
seizing  neutral  forts  or  territory,  in  self-defence, 
arising  out  of  extreme  necessity.  I  admit  that 
cases  may  exist  of  that  sort ;  they  are  rather 
exceptions  to  the  doctrines  which  I  maintain. 
I  can  easily  imagine  that,  even  under  the  treaty 
with  Spain,  an  attack  by  the  Seminoles  might 
be  so  sudden  and  unanticipated,  that  we  might 
be  justified  in  pursuing  them  even  into  Florida. 
But  this  necessity  must  not  originate  from  the 
fault  of  the  belligerent.  If,  as  in  the  case  be- 
fore us,  our  neglect  for  so  long  a  period  to  re- 
quire of  Spain  the  fulfilment  of  the  treaty,  or  to 
represent  to  that  Government,  or  even  to  its 
Minister  here,  the  hostile  intentions  of  the  In- 
dians, has  brought  this  necessity  upon  ourselves, 
the  fault  is  on  our  side.  These  Indian  tribes, 
and  their  associates,  have  been  represented  as 
mere  banditti,  outlaws,  renegadoes.  If  so,  then 
Spain  was  answerable  to  us,  on  well  settled 
principles,  for  their  acts.  But  I  ask,  in  what 
code  of  the  law  of  nations  is  an  authority  assert- 
ed for  one  Government,  at  its  own  pleasure,  to 
pursue  banditti,  outlaws,  renegadoes,  or  even  its  j 
own  felon?,  into  the  territories  of  another,  in  ! 
any  case,  without  first  demanding  that  they  : 
should  be  delivered  up?  Sir,  I  will  detain  the  j 
commitee  no  longer  on  this  part  of  these  pro-  ; 


ceedings.  When  the  order  was  issued  for  the 
advance  of  our  army  into  Florida,  Congress  was 
in  session.  Subsequent  events  have  shown  how 
greatly  it  is  to  be  lamented  that  an  appeal  had 
not  been  made  to  that  body  which  could  only 
change  our  relations  with  Spam,  and  which  was 
then  in  the  full  exercise  of  its  constitutional 
functions.  I  have  been  somewhat  surprised  at 
hearing  the  encomiums  which  have  been  be- 
stowed on  General  Jackson  for  this  incursion 
into  Florida.  A  vote  of  thanks  has  been  talked 
of.  He  has  been  called  by  the  imposing  names 
of  conqueror,  hero,  benefactor.  Conqueror! 
If  the  rout  and  dispersion  of  a  race  of  barbarians, 
degraded  and  defenceless  as  the  Seminoles,  can 
confer  this  title,  high,  indeed,  is  his  elevation. 
When  Tigranes,  with  two  hundred  thousand 
men,  had  been  defeated  by  Lucullus,  with  only 
twenty  thousand,  the  Koman  soldiers,  after  pur- 
suing the  enemy  for  some  distance,  suddenly 
stopped,  and  burst  into  loud  laughter,  to  think 
that  they  had  used  their  swords  on  such  a  set 
of  cowardly  slaves.  Hero!  If  the  blaze  of 
burning  towns,  the  extermination  of  their 
wretched  inhabitants,  the  death  of  captives, 
and  the  extirpation  of  the  human  race,  can  con- 
fer renown  and  elevate  our  nature,  glorious 
and  ennobling,  indeed,  are  these  achievements. 
Benefactor !  If  the  honor  of  our  country,  the 
dignity  of  its  character,  the  justice  of  its  insti- 
tutions, and  the  purity  of  our  religion,  are  sanc- 
tified by  deeds  like  these,  pour  out  your  full 
libations  of  praise,  and  offer  the  unaffected 
homage  of  a  nation's  gratitude.  How  keenly 
does  it  wound  the  sensibility,  how  low  should 
it  sink  the  pride,  of  an  American,  to  compare 
the  laurels  won  upon  the  plains  of  Orleans  with 
this  sickening  nightshade,  plucked  from  the 
morasses  of  Florida ! 

As  to  the  execution  of  Arbuthnot  and  Am- 
brister,  I  acquiesce  in  the  moral  justice  of  then* 
sentence.  Without  expressing  that  opinion 
from  the  evidence  on  their  trials,  they  probably 
deserved  their  fate.  But  I  can  never  admit  the 
legality  of  the  trials,  or  the  punishment  which 
was  inflicted.  Had  they  been  put  to  death  in 
the  heat  of  battle,  considering  the  course  which 
they  have  pursued,  I  should  not  have  censured 
it,  how  much  soever  I  should  have  regretted 
such  an  exercise  of  power.  But  they  were 
tried  by  a  court-martial.  Such  it  was  original- 
ly called  in  the  despatches  of  General  Jackson, 
and  such  it  is  recognized  to  have  been  in  the 
letter  to  Mr.  Erving. 

I  shall  vote  my  disapprobation  of  the  trials  of 
Arbuthnot  and  Ambrister,  because  they  were 
executed  under  the  forms  of  law,  and  because 
I  am  not  prepared  to  avow  to  the  world,  that 
we,  who  boast  so  much  of  our  justice,  recognize 
an  institution  of  this  nature.  I  am  anxious  to 
blot  out  this  stain  upon  our  national  character. 
Their  case  was  not  within  the  jurisdiction  of  a 
court-martial.  Courts-martial,  among  us,  are 
but  the  mere  creatures  of  positive  law.  Ail 
their  authority  is  derived  from  the  statute  which 
creates  them;  without  that  they  are  nothing. 


ABRIDGMENT  OF  THE 


H.  OF  R.] 


The  Seminole  War. 


[JANUARY,  1819. 


They  can  take  cognizance  of  no  offences  what 
ever,  except  those  specifically  named  in  the 
statute.      Their  jurisdiction  over    persons 
strictly  confined  to  the  army  and  those  attachec 
to  it,  and,  without  that  express  authority  which 
has  been  conferred,  I  should  doubt  whether  they, 
as  courts-martial,  had  any  jurisdiction  even  ir 
the  case  of  a  spy.     They  are  tribunals  of  special 
and  limited  jurisdiction;  their  powers  cannol 
be  extended  by  implication,  and  they  are  strict- 
ly confined  to  the  powers  expressly  granted  to 
them.     What,  sir,  is  the  nature  of  these  tribu- 
nals ?    The  accuser  prefers  the  charges ;  the  ac- 
cuser, in  the  first  instance,  selects  the  judges 
from  his  own  subordinate  officers ;  the  accuser 
appoints  the  public  advocate ;  the  accuser  ap- 
proves or  disapproves  the  sentence;  and  the 
accuser  executes  it.    Lamentable  would  be  our 
situation  if  courts-martial  should  be  suffered  to 
transgress  a  single  letter  of  the  law  which  cre- 
ates them.    Their  proceedings  are  contrary  to 
all  those  safeguards  which  the  municipal  law 
has  provided  for  the  security  of  personal  liberty. 
The  charges  are  not  even  sanctioned  by  an  oath ; 
the  arrest  is  not  founded  on  oath ;  the  trial  is 
without  jury;  the  decision  is  in  secret,  and  the 
correction  of  their  errors  depends  on  the  pleas- 
ure of  him  to  whom  the  sentence  is  submitted. 
It  is  now  asserted  that  he  may  even  alter  it.   By 
the  municipal  law  of  England  and  of  this  coun- 
try, a  judge  who  should  venture  to  pronounce 
a  sentence  of  death,  contrary  to  the  punishment 
which  the  law  has  prescribed ;  or  an  officer  who 
should  execute  even  a  sentence  of  death  in  a 
different  manner  from  the  judgment,  would 
suffer  the  punishment  of  death.    Is  there  any 
thing,  then,  in  the  nature  or  proceedings  of  a 
military  tribunal,  which  should  induce  us  to 
view  them  with  a  more  partial  and  indulgent 
eye?     The  sword  is  almost  the  only  emblem  of 
justice  which  guides  them.    Shall  we  now  say 
to  Europe  that  an  American  army,  on  entering 
a  foreign  country,  carries  with  it  these  dreadful 
engines  of  human  misery  and  oppression  ?  With 
my  consent  these  transactions  shah1  never  be  re- 
corded by  history  as  the  acts  of  the  nation.  Mr. 
S.   here  entered  into  an  examination  of  the 
charges  on  which  Arbuthnot  and  Ambrister 
were  tried,  and  concluded  that  none  of  them 
(except  that  of  being  a  spy,  on  which  they  were 
acquitted)  were  cognizable  by  a  court-martial ; 
that  they  were  inconsistent  and  absurd;  and 
that,  as  to  Arbuthnot,  he  doubted  whether  suf- 
ficient evidence  was  produced  to  establish  them. 

MONDAY,  January  25. 
Seminole  War. 

The  House  then  proceeded  to  the  order  of 
the  day,  and  again  took  up,  in  Committee  of 
the  Whole,  the  report  of  the  Military  Commit- 
tee, on  the  subject  of  the  Seminole  war. 

Mr.  BAB  BOHR,  of  Virginia,  rose,  and  address- 
ed the  committee,  as  follows : 

Mr.  Chairman,  it  was  my  wish  to  have  ad- 
dressed the  committee  at  an  earlier  period  of 


the  debate,  but  I  have  not  been  so  fortunate  as 
to  get  the  floor.  The  subject  under  considera- 
tion is  one  which  has  excited  much  interest  in 
this  House,  as  well  as  in  the  nation.  I  have  be- 
stowed upon  it  all  that  reflection  which  AVUS  due 
to  its  importance :  I  feel  a  disposition  to  state 
the  conclusions  to  which  I  have  arrived,  and  the 
course  of  reasoning  which  has  conducted  me  to 
them.  I  feel  that  I  labor  under  great  disadvan- 
tages in  following  gentlemen,  whose  eloquent 
and  pathetic  appeals  have  affected  the  feelings 
and  commanded  the  attention  of  the  commit- 
tee ;  whilst,  on  my  part,  I  have  nothing  to  offer 
them  but  the  plainest  kind  of  argument,  con- 
sisting of  a  statement  of  the  case,  and  the  prin- 
ciples of  public  and  constitutional  law  which 
apply  to  it.  I  feel  another  disadvantage :  Gen- 
tlemen who  have  gone  before  me  have  neces- 
sarily anticipated  some  of  the  points  which  I 
had  intended  to  discuss.  In  presenting  my 
view,  then,  in  continuity,  I  must  unavoidably 
recur  to  some  topics  which  have  been  already 
touched  upon ;  but  I  will  promise,  as  far  as  I  am 
able,  when  this  shall  be  the  case,  to  avoid  the 
tedium  of  mere  reiteration,  and  to  endeavor  to 
present  them  in  some  new  point  of  light,  and 
with  some  variety  of  illustration.  I  will,  how- 
ever, without  further  preface  or  apology,  pro- 
ceed at  once  to  the  argument. 

This  subject  seems  to  me  to  present  three 
distinct  questions  to  our  consideration :  1st,  the 
ropriety  of  marching  the  Army  of  the  United 
tates  across  the  Florida  line;  2dly,  the  pro- 
priety of  the  occupation  of  the  Spanish  posts 
of  St.  Marks  and  Pensacola,  and  the  Barancas ; 
and,  3dly,  the  trial  and  execution  of  Arbuthnot 
and  Ambrister.  These  are  the  questions  which, 
t  seems  to  me,  we  are  called  upon  to  decide, 
and  this  the  natural  and  consecutive  order  in 
which  they  present  themselves.  Each  of  these 
questions,  too,  as  had  been  justly  remarked  by 
the  Speaker  in  an  early  part  of  the  debate,  pre- 
sents itself  in  a  twofold  aspect — 1st,  as  between 
mr  own  and  a  foreign  Government ;  and,  2dly, 
is  between  our  Government  and  its  officers. 
?irst,  then,  as  between  the  Government  of  the 
United  States  and  Spain,  had  we  a  right  to 
march  our  armies  across  the  Florida  line?  I 
shall  endeavor  to  prove  that  we  had.  There 
would  be  no  sort  of  difficulty  in  this  question, 
if  it  were  the  case  of  a  nation  confessedly  sov- 
ereign and  independent.  That  one  nation  when 
at  war  with  another,  has  a  right  to  pursue  that 
other  into  its  own  territory,  I  am  persuaded  no 
member  of  the  committee  would  question ;  and 
'.  shall,  therefore,  take  it  for  granted,  as  one  of 
hose  principles  which,  in  public  law,  have  be- 
;onie  axioms  ;  but  the  difficulty  arises  from  the 
anomalous  character  of  the  Indian  tribes.  Gen- 
lemen  have  gone  much  into  the  discussion  upon 
;he  question,  whether  they  are  or  are  not  sov- 
sreign.  I  shall  not  enter  into  a  controversy 
.bout  words ;  I  care  not  whether  they  are  call- 
d  sovereign,  demi-sovereign,  or  by  what  other 
mine  they  are  designated.  I  shall  attempt  to 
define  their  character  by  some  of  the  attributes 


DEBATES  OF  CONGRESS. 


267 


JANUARY,  1819.] 


The  Seminole  War. 


[H.  OF  R. 


of  sovereignty  which  belong  to  them,  or  which 
at  least  they  have  been  in  the  habitual  practice 
of  exercising.  One  of  the  criteria  of  sovereign- 
ty which  has  been  adopted  by  Martens,  a  writer 
of  some  celebrity  on  public  law,  is  this : 

"  That  a  nation  is  governed  by  its  own  laws,  and 
acknowledges  no  legislative  superior  on  earth ;  though 
there  are  certain  limitations  or  restrictions  on  its  sov- 
ereignty, by  treaty  or  otherwise,  if  it  possess  this  at- 
tribute, it  is  sovereign ;  and  examples  are  given  of 
States,  which,  though  under  treaties  of  alliance,  of 
protection,  and  even  of  vassalage,  are  nevertheless 
considered  sovereign." 

If  the  character  of  the  Indian  tribes  be  tried 
by  this  standard,  I  believe  they  will  be  able  to 
sustain  their  claim  to  sovereignty.  True,  it  is, 
they  have  no  regular  legislative  body,  and  no 
code  of  written  laws,  but  they  have  customs 
and  maxims,  which  may  be  considered  as  a  sort 
of  common  law  among  them — which  have  been 
adopted  either  by  express  consent  or  tacit  ac- 
quiescence— which  have  been  consecrated  by 
time,  and  handed  down  from  one  generation 
to  another  by  traditionary  history ;  by  these 
maxims  and  customs  are  they  governed,  with- 
out any  legislative  superior,  though  we  claim  a 
right  of  regulating  their  trade,  and  a  kind  of 
pre-emptive  right  of  purchasing  their  lands ; 
yet  I  have  never  heard  that  we  pretended  to 
any  right  of  legislating  for  them,  or  interfering 
in  their  interior  concerns,  hi  the  administration 
of  justice  or  otherwise.  But  there  is  another 
distinguishing  and  characteristic  attribute  of 
sovereignty  which  belongs  to  them,  and  which 
from  the  earliest  settlement  of  this  country  they 
have  exercised — I  mean  that  of  making  war. 
This  bears  directly  upon  the  present  question. 
If  they  have  a  right  of  making  war,  they  have 
a  right  to  make  it  against  whom  they  please, 
and  they  have  chosen  to  make  it  against  us. 
Ilave  we  not  a  right  to  defend  ourselves  against 
them?  Yes,  sir,  and  I  will  point  you  to  the 
source  from  which  we  derive  it.  The  princi- 
ple of  self-defence  is  a  part  of  the  instinct  of  our 
nature ;  "  not  written  on  the  heart  by  precept, 
but  engraven  by  destiny  ;  not  instilled  by  edu- 
cation, but  infused  at  our  nativity ;"  it  belongs 
to  us,  as  individuals,  in  a  state  of  nature ;  we 
carry  it  with  us  when  we  form  societies,  which 
are  only  aggregations  of  individuals.  "We  then 
have  a  right  to  defend  ourselves  against  the 
Seniinole  Indians.  But  they  reside  within  the 
limits  of  Florida,  on  lands  to  which  they  have 
at  least  the  title  of  occupancy,  but  within  the 
jurisdictional  limits  of  Spain ;  from  thence  they 
make  their  incursions  against  us,  and  having 
committed  their  devastations  and  murders  re- 
pass  the  Florida  line.  Shall  we  cease  to  pursue 
them  when  we  reach  that  line  ?  Is  there  any 
principle  of  national  law  which  tells  us  that,  in 
our  pursuit,  thus  far  we  shall  go,  and  no  fur- 
ther (  If  these  questions  must  be  answered  in 
the  affirmative,  then  is  the  right  of  self-defence 
a  mere  mockery ;  then,  indeed,  are  we  in  the 
situation  of  a  man  against  whom  a  ferocious 
wild  beast  is  let  loose,  and  who,  bound  hand 


and  foot,  is  cut  off  from  the  means  of  destroy- 
ing him. 

I  come  now,  in  the  order  of  my  argument,  to 
the  second  question;  that  is,  the  propriety  of 
the  occupation  of  the  Spanish  posts  of  St.  Marks 
and  Pensacola,  and  the  fortress  of  Barancas; 
and,  first,  its  propriety  as  between  Spain  and 
the  United  States ;  and  here,  sir,  at  the  thresh- 
old, I  will  lay  down  a  principle,  the  correct- 
ness of  which,  I  presume,  will  not  be  questioned 
— it  is  this :  That,  as  it  regards  Spain,  if  any 
act  shall  have  been  committed  which  amounts 
to  war,  it  is  to  be  considered  a  public  war ;  reg- 
ularly carried  on  by  the  sovereign  power  of  the 
United  States.  The  different  powers  which 
constitute  the  whole  mass  of  sovereignty,  ori- 
ginally resident  in  a  nation,  may  be  separated 
or  limited  according  to  its  will ;  in  conformity 
with  this  idea,  in  the  distribution  of  power,  the 
Constitution  of  the  United  States  has  assigned 
to  Congress  that  of  making  war.  If  the  Pres- 
ident shall  ever  encroach  upon  this  constitu- 
tional power  of  Congress,  either  by  engaging, 
without  a  previous  declaration  in  an  offensive 
war,  or  hi  the  prosecution  of  a  defensive  one, 
by  committing  any  act  of  hostility  which  may 
amount  to  war  against  a  neutral  nation,  any 
question  which  may  arise  out  of  such  a  viola- 
tion of  the  constitution,  will  be  between  him- 
self and  Congress.  But,  surely,  it  cannot  be 
competent  for  a  foreign  power  to  open  our 
constitution,  construe  it  for  us,  define  the  dis- 
tribution of  the  powers  of  sovereignty  among 
the  respective  departments  of  our  Government, 
and  object  that  the  President  has  impinged 
upon  the  sphere  of  Congressional  jurisdiction. 
No,  sir ;  as  between  us  and  Spain,  admitting 
for  the  present,  that  what  has  been  done 
amounts  to  war,  it  is  to  be  considered  and 
treated  as  a  public  war  duly  declared  by  the 
proper  authority,  and  therefore  to  be  followed 
by  all  the  consequences  which  flow  from  one  ot 
that  character.  Assuming  this,  then,  as  a  prin- 
ciple, the  United  States,  as  a  Government,  will 
stand  justified,  if  we  had  just  cause  of  war 
against  Spain.  Now,  without  recurring  to  an- 
cient grievances,  which  have  long  been  the  sub- 
ject of  negotiation  between  the  two  nations,  I 
think,  sir,  there  are  two  palpable  causes  of  war 
of  recent  date ;  the  first  is,  the  violation  of  her 
neutrality  during  and  immediately  after  the  late 
war  with  Great  Britain,  in  suffering  her  terri- 
tory, as  well  as  forts  erected  on  it,  to  be  made 
use  of  by  our  enemies,  to  our  great  annoyance ; 
the  second  is  a  violation  of  a  positive  treaty 
stipulation,  in  not  only  not  restraining  Indian 
hostilities,  but,  on  the  contrary,  in  giving  them 
countenance  and  aid.  It  does  not  require  a  re- 
ference to  books  to  prove  that  a  violation  of 
neutrality  is  cause  of  war ;  equally  plain  is  the 
proposition,  that  the  violation  of  a  treaty  stipu- 
lation is  so  too.  It  rests  upon  this  obvious 
principle,  that  a  positive  stipulation  in  a  treaty 
imposes  a  perfect  obligation  on  one  party,  and 
consequently  vo>t>  a  perfect  right  in  the  other ; 
for  right  and  obligation  are  always  correlative. 


268 


ABRIDGMENT  OF  THE 


H.  OF  R.] 


The  Seminole  War. 


[JANUARY,  1819. 


Now,  the  violation  of  a  perfect  right  is  on  all 
hands  considered  as  legitimate  cause  of  war. 

The  next  inquiry  is,  whether  the  conduct  of 
the  Spanish  authorities  be  such  as  to  make  them 
associates  in  the  war ;  if  it  were,  they  were,  as  I 
have  already  remarked,  equally  our  enemies  with 
the  Indians,  and  liable  to  be  treated  as  such 
without  any  necessity  for  a  declaration  of  war. 
Vattel,  in  b.  3,  ch.  6,  s.  97,  says,  "  I  account  asso- 
ciates of  my  enemy,  those  who  assist  him,  in  his 
war,  without  being  obliged  to  it,  by  any  treaty." 
If,  sir,  we  had  been  left  to  this  definition  alone,  it 
might  have  been  fairly  contended  that  the  Span- 
ish authorities  were  associates,  because  they  as- 
sisted the  Indians  in  the  war,  in  various  ways 
which  I  have  already  enumerated.  But  the  au- 
thor goes  on,  afterwards,  in  the  same  section,  to 
explain,  more  particularly,  this  general  proposi- 
tion; and  from  a  case  which  he  puts,  and  the 
reasoning  which  follows,  I  acknowledge  it  to  be 
my  own  opinion  that  the  assistance  afforded  was 
not  of  that  character  which  he  requires,  to  make 
them  associates,  so  as  to  authorize  the  occupation 
of  those  posts,  without  a  declaration  of  war. 
Considering  the  subject  in  this  point  of  view,  it 
results  that  this  part  of  the  proceedings  of  the 
commanding  General  is  not  strictly  defensible ; 
and  yet,  sir,  I  cannot  concur  in  a  vote  of  cen- 
sure upon  his  conduct ;  because,  in  relation  to 
each  of  the  points,  to  which  I  have  just  called 
the  attention  of  the  committee,  the  correctness 
of  his  course  depends  upon  the  decision  of  a 
question  of  degree  only.  Thus  there  is  a  degree 
of  necessity  which  would  justify  the  seizing  and 
garrisoning  a  neutral  fort,  without  violating  the 
rights  of  the  neutral  to  whom  it  belonged.  And 
there  is  a  degree  of  co-operation  with  the 
enemy,  on  the  part  of  the  Spanish  authorities, 
which  would  have  made  them  associates ;  and 
which  would,  consequently,  have  authorized 
the  commanding  General  to  have  treated  them 
as  his  enemies,  without  the  necessity  of  a  decla- 
ration of  war  against  them.  If,  for  example, 
our  army  had  been  in  imminent  danger  of 
being  cut  off  by  the  enemy,  that  would  have 
justified  their  occupation,  without  making  it  an 
act  of  hostility.  If  the  garrison  of  St.  Marks, 
or  Pensacola,  had  actually  fought  with  the  In- 
dians, or  if  the  Governor  of  Pensacola  had  ex- 
ecuted his  threat,  by  actually  using  force,  either 
of  these  things  would  have  made  them  com- 
pletely associates.  Here,  then,  was  a  graduated 
scale,  before  the  commanding  General,  on  which 
there  was  a  degree,  both  of  necessity  and  mili- 
tary co-operation,  which  would  have  strictly 
justified  him.  The  question  for  him  to  decide 
was,  which  was  that  degree?  Is  there  no 
difficulty  in  deciding  this  question  ?  Yes,  sir. 
The  nation  is  divided  upon  it ;  the  members  of 
this  House,  after  much  investigation,  after  much 
debate,  and  quotations  from  public  law,  are 
greatly  and  variously  divided  in  opinion.  Some 
justify  the  whole  proceedings,  some  justify  a 
part  and  disapprove  a  part.  Thus,  some  think 
the  occupation  of  St.  Marks  correct,  but  not 
that  of  Pensacola;  some  justify  the  occupation 


of  Pensacola,  some  approve  both,  whilst  others 
disapprove  both.  What  one  gentleman  thinks 
correct,  another  altogether  reprobates :  and  even 
those  who  agree  in  the  same  conclusions,  arrive 
at  them  by  different  modes  of  reasoning. 

I  come  now,  sir,  in  the  order  of  my  argument, 
to  the  trial  and  execution  of  Arbuthnot  and 
Ambrister.  I  beg  leave,  in  the  first  place,  to 
call  the  attention  of  the  committee  to  the  facts, 
in  relation  to  these  two  men.  Arbuthnot  was 
guilty  of  exciting  and  stirring  up  the  Creek  In- 
dians to  war  against  the  United  States,  and  of 
aiding  and  abetting  them,  by  supporting  them 
with  the  means  of  war.  Ambrister  led  and 
commanded  the  Lower  Creeks,  in  carrying  on 
the  war.  These  are  the  facts. 

Since  the  institution  of  Government,  if  the 
citizen  or  subject  of  one  country  commit  an  or- 
dinary outrage  against  the  sovereignty  of  anoth- 
er, the  mode  of  punishment  is  a  plain  and  sim- 
ple one,  and  is,  I  believe,  almost  universally 
acquiesced  in  throughout  the  civilized  world. 
If  the  guilty  person  be  within  the  jurisdiction 
of  the  offended  sovereign,  he,  without  difficulty, 
punishes  him  ;  if  he  escape  and  return  into  his 
own  country,  his  own  sovereign  will  either  in- 
flict exemplary  punishment  upon  him,  or,  some- 
times, deliver  him  up  to  the  offended  State, 
there  to  receive  justice.  But,  sir,  if,  instead 
of  its  being  an  ordinary  crime,  it  have  a  hostile 
character ;  if  it  be  an  act  of  war,  in  alliance 
with,  or  under  the  auspices  of  the  enemies  of 
the  country  against  which  the  hostility  is  com- 
mitted, then  it  assumes  a  different  aspect ;  it  is 
either  sanctioned  by  the  nation  of  the  person 
committing  it,  or  it  is  not ;  if  it  be  sanctioned, 
then  it  is  cause  of  war  against  that  nation  ;  if 
it  be  not,  then  the  person,  by  thus  committing 
an  act  of  hostility,  imparts  to  himself  the  char- 
acter of  the  people  with  whom  he  unites  him- 
self. If  they  be  civilized,  he,  in  common  with 
them,  is  entitled  to  the  laws  of  civilized  war. 
If  they  bo  savage,  in  like  manner  he  must  be 
content,  having  embarked  himself  upon  the 
same  bottom,  to  share  the  same  fate.  What 
that  fate  may  rightfully  be,  will  now  be  the 
ubject  of  my  inquiry ;  and  here,  sir,  it  will  be 
necessary  to  ascend  to  first  principles,  in  order 
to  understand  the  rights  of  Avar,  in  the  various 
circumstances  in  which  nations  may  be  placed. 
"  War,"  says  Bynkershoek,  page  2,  "  is  a  con- 
test by  force."  The  author  goes  on  to  remark, 
that  every  force  is  lawful  in  war ;  that  it  is  law- 
ful to  destroy  an  enemy,  though  he  be  unarmed 
and  defenceless;  it  is  lawful  to  make  use  of 
poison,  of  missile  weapons,  &c. ;  in  short,  he 
idds,  that  every  thing  is  lawful  against  an  ene- 
my. This,  then,  is  the  original  and  funda- 
mental principle  of  the  rights  of  war.  In  the 
progress  of  time,  as  civilization  advanced,  and 
noderation  and  philanthropy  obtained  a  great 
prevalence,  the  nations  of  the  earth  have  in- 
grafted upon  this  principle  many  modifications, 
;he  whole  of  which  combined  constitute  what 
are  called  the  usages  of  civilized  warfare. 
Though,  therefore,  by  the  original  principle 


DEBATES  OF  CONGRESS. 


269 


JAXTJABY,  1819.] 


The  Seminole  War. 


[H.  OF  R. 


the  mere  existence  of  war  made  every  individ- 
ual, and  every  description  of  property  belong- 
ing to  each  country,  mutually  and  reciprocally 
hostile,  and  subject  to  destruction  in  every 
possible  mode,  yet,  since  the  usages  of  civiliz- 
ed warfare  were  introduced,  certain  instru- 
ments of  war  are  altogether  reprobated,  and 
persons  as  well  as  property  of  certain  descrip- 
tions, and  under  particular  circumstances,  are 
spared.  Sir,  at  the  moment  of  expressing  this 
sentiment,  I  behold  one  memorable  exception 
to  this  mitigated  rule,  in  an  act  perpetrated  by 
a  nation  conspicuous  for  its  civilization.  I  see 
the  Capitol  of  my  country  just  rearing  its  head 
from  a  heap  of  ruin  and  desolation  ;  in  its  de- 
struction a  lasting  monument  of  British  out- 
rage ;  in  its  re-edification  a  magnificent  emblem 
of  the  recuperative  energy  of  my  country !  But 
I  will  let  the  pall  of  oblivion  fall  upon  any  pain- 
ful recollections— I  will  return  to  my  subject. 
Those  usages  of  civilized  warfare  which  I  men- 
tioned a  moment  since  to  the  committee,  are 
the  subject,  though  not  of  express  yet  of  tacit 
compact ;  they  are  founded  upon  the  idea  of  an 
equivalent,  and  based  upon  the  principle  of  re- 
ciprocal obligation.  Thus  the  language  of  one 
nation  to  another  is,  spare  my  monuments  of 
art,  and  I  will  not  ravage  your  country — spare 
ray  people  engaged  in  the  peaceable  pursuits  of 
agriculture,  and  I  will  spare  your  women  and 
children.  Am  I  asked  for  the  proof  of  this  ? 
It  is  found  at  once  in  the  doctrine  of  retalia- 
tion, universally  recognized  as  a  sound  princi- 
ple of  public  law.  If,  contrary  to  the  rules  of 
modern  war,  you  put  my  soldiers,  when  made 
prisoners,  to  death,  in  return  I  may  inflict  the 
same  severity  upon  yours,  if,  by  the  fortune  of 
war,  they  shall  chance  to  fall  into  my  power ; 
because,  in  this  instance,  as  you  have  violated 
your  part  of  the  compact  in  relation  to  mitiga- 
ted war,  I  am  consequently  absolved  from  mine, 
and  restored  to  my  original  rights.  What  is  an 
exception  merely  in  civilized  States,  is  the  gen- 
eral rule  in  relation  to  savages;  because,  as 
they  never  acknowledge  the  obligations  of  the' 
rules  of  modern  war,  they  are  without  the  pale 
of  the  compact,  and  can,  therefore,  claim  no 
benefit  from  it.  But  as  against  them  we  have 
a  right,  if  we  choose,  to  exercise,  in  its  fullest 
extent,  the  original  rule  which  I  have  just  laid 
down.  True  it  is,  sir,  that  we  do  extend  to 
them  many  of  the  benefits  of  this  compact,  but 
it  is  a  gratuitous  act  on  our  part,  and  what, 
therefore,  they  have  no  right  to  demand ;  for, 
in  the  language  of  Bynkershoek,  though  jus- 
tice may  be  insisted  on  in.  war,  yet  generosity 
cannot. 

Sir,  it  was  Arbuthnot  who  poured  the  secret 
poison  of  discontent  into  the  minds  of  the  In- 
dians; it  was  he  who  awakened  the  sleeping 
tiger  and  let  him  loose  against  us,  with  all  his 
native  ferocity  whetted  by  exasperation;  it 
was  he  who  sharpened  with  new  keenness  the 
edge  of  the  tomahawk;  it  was  he  who  us^d  the 
deluded  savages  as  the  instrument  of  his  wicked 
purpose,  as  the  man  who  stabs  you  to  the  heart 


makes  use  of  the  poniard.  But,  said  the 
Speaker,  we  have  never,  in  a  long  series  of 
wars,  practised  retaliation  for  Indian  barbarity. 
Sir,  this  is  not  retaliation.  That  consists  in  a 
literal  execution  of  the  great  precept  of  "an 
eye  for  an  eye,  and  a  tooth  for  a  tooth  " — that 
"  measures  blood  by  drops,  and  bates  not  one 
in  the  repay."  It  is  never  appeased  until  it 
sacrifice  just  as  many  victims  as  the  enemy  has, 
and  those,  too,  of  the  same  grade,  if  within  its 
reach.  Thus,  if  the  Indians  had  killed  three 
hundred  of  our  men,  women,  and  children,  we 
should,  upon  this  principle,  put  to  death  an 
equal  number  of  theirs.  Retaliation  then  not 
only  may,  but  frequently  does,  fall  upon  the  in- 
nocent. The  execution  of  these  two  men  is,  in 
the  most  prominent  points  of  view,  the  reverse 
of  this.  Instead  of  the  innocent,  we  have  pun- 
ished the  guilty ;  instead  of  counting  the  vic- 
tims, and  sacrificing  an  equal  number,  though 
we  have  lost  hundreds,  we  have  only  executed 
units.  It  is  said,  however,  that  we  have  never 
departed  from  the  rules  of  modem  war  but  in 
burning  their  habitations  and  destroying  their 
food.  Is  this  departure,  indeed,  allowable;  and 
will  gentlemen  yet  say,  that  it  is  not  a  measure 
of  more  rigorous  severity  than  the  death  of 
the  two  men,  who  are  the  subject  of  this  dis- 
cussion ? 

When  we  destroy  their  habitations,  we  turn 
out,  not  only  their  warriors,  but  the  old  and 
the  young,  without  respect  to  age  or  sex,  with- 
out a  roof  to  shelter  them  from  the  pelting  of 
the  pitiless  storm.  The  miserable  pittance  of 
property  which  they  own,  is  all  consumed  by 
the  same  devouring  flame  which  destroys  their 
dwellings  and  makes  them  houseless  wanderers. 
When  we  destroy  their  food,  we  expose  them 
to  the  danger  of  all  the  horrors  of  famine  which 
may  involve  in  indiscriminate  death  the  guilty 
and  the  innnocent ;  whilst,  in  the  execution  of 
these  men,  the  guilty  only  have  suffered.  Gen- 
tlemen have,  indeed,  in  the  most  glowing  colors 
of  pathetic  eloquence  portrayed  to  us  the  suffer- 
ings of  Arbuthnot  and  Ambrister.  If  I  could 
dip  my  pencil  in  as  vivid  colors  as  they  have 
used,  and  if  I  had  occasion  to  use  them,  I,  too, 
could  present  a  picture  which,  I  am  persuaded, 
would  excite  the  keenest  sympathies  of  the  hu- 
man heart.  I  would  present  to  you,  not  two 
guilty  men,  suffering  death  according  to  the  sen- 
tence of  the  law,  but  a  scene  of  slaughtered  in- 
nocence— not  one  or  two  suffering  victims 
only,  but  a  group,  a  family  group.  That  is  but 
a  miniature  painting.  To  make  it  as  large  as 
life,  I  would  present  yon  almost  a  national 
group.  The  figures  represented  on  it  would  be, 
old  men  bending  beneath  a  weight  of  years,  in- 
humanly butchered ;  multitudes  of  women  and 
children  gored  with  wounds  and  weltering  in 
their  own  blood;  and  others,  sleeping  in  the 
arms  of  death,  with  here  and  there  a  solitary 
survivor  to  deplore  their  fate.  But,  sir,  I  will 
not  attempt  to  harrow  up  the  feelings  of  the 
committee  by  even  a  further  description  of 
such  scenes— ^it  is  not  necessary  ;  for  I  cannot 


270 


ABRIDGMENT  OF  THE 


H.  OF  R.] 


The  Seminole  War. 


[JANUARY,  1819. 


but  believe  that  the  execution  of  these  men 
stands  justified  by  the  laws  of  nature  and  o 
nations. 

But,  it  has  been  objected,  that  whatever  our 
rights  may  have  been,  it  was  not  competent  to 
the  commanding  General  to  execute  them.  Do 
gentlemen  mean  to  say,  that  their  offences  were 
cognizable  before  any  court  having  criminal  ju- 
risdiction ?  I  answer,  that  they  could  not  have 
been  tried  in  the  United  States ;  because  the 
acts  were  not  committed  within  our  jurisdic- 
tional  limits.  They  could  not  have  been  tried 
in  England,  for  the  same  reason.  And,  indeed, 
though  the  offences  were  committed  within  the 
territorial  limits  of  Spain,  yet  the  authors  of 
them  were  on  the  lands  owned,  or  at  least  oc- 
cupied, by  the  Indians.  I  do  not  believe  that 
they  could  have  been  tried  there — for,  I  will 
ask,  whether  we  should  claim  jurisdiction  to 
punish  an  offence  against  a  foreign  Government, 
committed  by  an  Indian  on  the  lands  occupied 
by  his  tribe  within  our  boundary  ?  This,  how- 
ever, is  an  objection  to  jurisdiction  founded  upon 
locality  only.  I  assume  a  much  higher  ground. 
I  object  to  it  upon  the  ground  of  the  nature  and 
character  of  the  act  committed.  My  principle 
is  this — that  it  is  a  right  directly  derived  from, 
and  appertaining  to  war,  and,  therefore,  the 
civil  power  has  no  jurisdiction  over  it. 

In  regard  to  the  court-martial,  gentlemen  say 
it  had  no  jurisdiction.  This  is  conceded  to  be 
correct ;  and  I  have  attempted  to  show,  that  the 
power  belonged  to  the  commanding  General. 
Although,  however,  the  court  had  no  jurisdic- 
tion to  decide  the  fate  of  the  two  men,  it  was 
not  improper  through  them  to  get  at  the  facts ; 
and  though  they  had  no  jurisdiction,  it  would 
have  been  desirable  that  the  General,  after  sub- 
mitting the  case  to  them,  should  have  followed 
the  sentence  which  they  pronounced,  but  for 
an  unanswerable  reason,  which,  I  believe,  has 
already  been  urged,  that  the  punishment  which 
they  pronounced  in  the  case  in  which  their 
sentence  was  not  followed  was  unknown  to  the 
national  law,  and  therefore  could  not  properly 
be  inflicted.  I  have  thus,  sir,  shown,  as  I  think, 
that  the  power  of  putting  these  men  to  death, 
belonged  to  us  as  one  of  the  rights  of  war,  and 
that  it  was  legitimately  exercised  by  the  com- 
manding General;  and  yet,  sir,  I  acknowledge 
that  I  feel  a  regret  at  their  execution — but  what 
kind  of  regret  ?  Just  such  as  I  would  feel  for 
the  execution  of  a  man  who  had  been  sentenced 
to  death  under  the  municipal  law  of  the  coun- 
try, and  in  whose  favor,  under  certain  circum- 
stances, I  might  join  in  a  petition  for  a  pardon, 
which  petition  was  rejected.  I  could  not,  how- 
ever, in  the  case  which  I  have  stated,  concur  in 
a  vote  of  censure  against  the  executive  officer 
for  refusing  this  pardon,  because  he  has  only 
executed  the  sentence  of  the  law ;  because  he 
has  carried  into  effect  the  public  justice  of  the 
country ;  and,  because  an  act,  conformably  to 
law,  and  in  accordance  with  the  principles  of 
justice,  even  if  you  call  it  stern  justice,  cannot 
be  morally  wrong. 


Mr.  SAWYER,  of  North  Carolina,  rose  and 
said — 

Mr.  Chairman :  As  it  is  not  my  intention  to 
go  over  the  same  grounds  that  other  gentlemen 
have,  my  observations  will  be  necessarily  few. 
And  I  am  sorry  to  be  obliged  to  differ  with  my 
friend  from  New  York,  in  the  outset,  with  re- 
spect to  the  powers  of  this  House  over  the  pres- 
ent question. 

I  think  the  principle  a  new  one,  that  Congress 
has  no  power  to  pass  any  resolution  of  condem- 
nation or  removal,  nor  of  censure,  of  any  mili- 
tary officer.  If  such  a  power  exists,  let  it  be 
pointed  out.  I  have  examined  the  constitution, 
clause  by  clause,  for  such  a  power,  but  I  have 
searched  in  vain.  The  Legislative  and  Execu- 
tive powers  are  distinctly  marked  and  independ- 
ently delegated,  and  we  cannot  pursue  this 
course  without  infringing  upon  the  rights  of  the 
Executive.  He  is,  by  the  constitution,  the 
Commander-in-chief  of  all  our  forces,  and  to 
him  alone  are  our  officers  responsible.  Besides, 
a  resolution  of  this  kind  implies  a  censure  on 
our  Executive,  by  intimating  that  he  had  been 
so  negligent  in  his  duty  or  partial  in  his  affec- 
tions, as  to  permit  a  fault  in  one  of  his  officers 
to  pass  unnoticed,  which  this  House  might  think 
worthy  of  animadversion.  I  have  too  much 
confidence  in  the  Executive  to  believe  he  would 
fail  to  do  his  duty,  upon  the  commission  of  any 
criminal  act  on  the  part  of  General  Jackson. 
But  I  am  yet  to  learn  whether  such  has  been 
the  case  on  the  part  of  the  General.  What  is 
the  true  state  of  the  case?  Arbuthnot  and 
Ambrister  were  apprehended  in  the  Indian 
country,  under  such  circumstances  as  would 
have  justified  their  immediate  execution.  But 
General  Jackson,  wishing  to  afford  proofs  to  the 
world  of  their  guilt,  ordered  a  special  court  of 
inquiry  to  convene  at  St.  Marks,  the  26th  of 
April  last,  for  the  purpose  of  investigating  the 
charges,  and  imbodying  the  evidence  against 
them.  [Here,  Mr.  S.  read  the  order,  &c.]  This 
court,  as  a  court  of  inquiry,  had  no  right  to 
pass  judgment.  They  were  sitting  merely  as 
jurors,  and  were  to  find  a  verdict  of  guilty  or 
not  guilty.  They  did  find  the  prisoners  guilty 
of  such  charges  as  subjected  them  to  the  pun- 
ishment of  death.  They  found  Arbuthnot  guilty 
of  both  charges ;  exciting  the  Creek  Indians  to 
war  against  the  United  States,  and  of  cornfort- 
"ng  and  supporting  the  enemy,  by  furnishing 
lim  with  the  means  to  carry  it  on.  This  was, 
n  fact,  treason  against  the  United  States;  for 
these  Creek  Indians  were  quasi  citizens,  enjoy- 
ing the  protection,  and  were  under  the  jurisdic- 
tion of  the  United  States,  and,  notwithstanding 
Arbuthnot  was  a  foreigner,  he  could  commit 
treason  against  the  United  States  as  well  as  a 
citizen,  and  would  be  either  punished  for  it 
ivilly,  by  being  turned  over  to  the  civil  au- 
hority,  or  by  martial  law,  for  such  other  of- 
ences  as  came  under  the  cognizance  of  that  tri- 
junal.  As  to  Ambrister,  it  was  proved  that  he 
gave  intelligence  to  the  enemy,  and  he  plead 
guilty  to  the  second  change,  that  of  being  ? 


DEBATES  OF  CONGTKESS. 


271 


JAMTAKY,  1819.] 


The  Seminole  War. 


[H.  OF  R. 


party  and  even  a  leader  in  the  war ;  of  course, 
they  brought  on  themselves  and  justly  deserved 
that  punishment,  which  the  right  of  retaliation 
entitled  us,  and  the  orders  of  General  Jackson 
commanded  him,  to  inflict  upon  the  savage  foe. 
The  prisoners  being  found  guilty  on'  such  charges 


to  assail  his  character?  Will  the  people  endure 
to  be  dragged  before  this  council  of  anatomists, 
to  undergo  the  worst  of  all  dissections  ?  I  for 
one  will  not,  by  any  act  of  mine,  sanction  the 
extension  of  this  censorial  power  over  my  con- 
stituents. The  age  of  proscription,  I  trust,  is 


as  subjected  them  to  capital  punishment,  there  over,  never  to  be  revived.  There  is  a  proper 
was  an  end  of  lie  authority  of  the  court,  and  it  tribunal,  clearly  marked  out 'by  the  constitution, 
remained  with  General  Jackson  to  apply  the  for  the  punishment  and  censure  of  every  griev- 
law  of  the  military  code,  and  see  it  executed,  j  ance ;  to  that  tribunal  General  Jackson  is  an- 
The  opinion  which  the  court  thought  proper  i  swerable,  and  no  other.  If  the  President  has 
afterwards  to  express,  that  the  offence  of  Am-  |  omitted  to  do  his  duty,  let  the  gentleman  im- 
orister  did  not  deserve  capital  punishment,  peach  him  ;  but  this  criminating  course,  in  this 
could  only  be  viewed  by  General  Jackson  as  a  |  House,  is  mere  Trrutum  fulmen,  without  any 
recommendation  to  mercy  by  several  respecta-  corresponding  power,  but  fraught  with  great 
ble  individuals ;  but  which,  in  obedience  to  the  mischief,  by  fixing  a  sting  in  the  bosom  of  a 
laws  of  the  army,  he  could  not  observe.  But  I  person  who  is  not  permitted  to  be  present  to 
it  was  inconsistent  with  the  sentence  which  '  make  his  defence.  What  effect  can  the  passage 
they  had  already  pronounced  against  Arbuthnot ;  of  this  resolution  have  ?  Can  it  deprive  General 
for  they  had  ordered  him  to  be  hung,  although  !  Jackson  of  his  commission?  If  the  President 


he  was  only  an  accessory  in  the  war,  and  how 
could  they  condemn  Ambrister  to  a  less  severe 
punishment,  who  was  a  principal  in  it !  General 
Jackson  was  merely  reconciling  their  own  de- 
cisions, when  he,  at  the  same  time,  conformed 
to  the  laws  of  his  country,  which  forbid  the 
infliction  of  torture,  and  was  the  minister  of 
even-handed  justice,  that  "returned  the  poison- 
ed chalice  to  their  lips  who  prepared  it." 


approves  his  conduct,  will  he  be  driven  to  act 
the  ungrateful  task  of  dismissing  from  his  ser- 
vice the  man  whom  he  may  think  deserves  well 
of  his  country,  by  any  officious  intermeddling 
on  our  part  ?  Sir,  I  trust  the  President  has  too 
high  a  sense  of  his  own  rights  and  dignity.  The 
Government — the  people — have  too  high  a  sense 
of  Jackson's  merit,  ever  to  give  him  up  as  a 
victim  to  the  manes  of  such  creatures  as  Ar- 


Although  I  am  hurt  at  the  zeal  with  which  I  |  buthnot  and  Ambrister.  So  far  from  censure, 
see  this  prosecution  carried  on,  and  the  joy  man-  j  he  deserves  the  grateful  thanks  of  this  House, 
ifested  at  it  from  a  certain  quarter  of  the  House,  I  and  I  trust  he  will  receive  them.  I  consider 
yet  I  cannot  be  so  uncharitable  as  to  impute  j  we  are  bound  to  tender  him  a  vote  of  thanks, 
their  motives  to  the  conduct  of  General  Jacks 


json  j  as  a  balm  to  his  wounded  spirit — as  an  antidote 

prior  to  this  event  Surely  no  gentleman  within  |  to  the  worst  of  all  poisons — that  which  is  inflict- 
these  walls  can  harbor  a  prejudice  against  him    ed  with  the  tooth  of  ingratitude  ? 
for  his  victories  over  any  of  our  enemies.    I 
must  believe  their  motives  are  pure,  but  I  can- 
not but  think  their  views  are  erroneous.   What 
would  they  have,  even  admitting,  for  argument's 
sake,  that  the  conduct  of  General  Jackson  was 


not  strictly  legal  ?  Would  they  wish  to  see  that 
man,  at  his  time  of  life,  grown  gray  in  his  coun- 
try's service,  dragged  before  a  military  tribunal 
to  answer  for  it?  Can  his  age — can  his  services 
— can  his  victories — plead  nothing  ?  Must  they 
all  be  buried  at  the  shrine  of  two  demi-devils, 
whose  conduct  has  drawn  tons  of  blood  from 
an  unoffending  country's  breast  ?  I  trust  not. 
The  blaze  of  Jackson's  glory  is  too  bright,  in 
my  eyes,  to  be  obscured  by  the  transaction.  But 
the  course  proposed  is  very  extraordinary.  Are 
we  a  self-constituted  tribunal,  to  whom  General 
Jackson  is  responsible  ?  What  purpose  can  it 
serve  to  pass  a  resolution  criminating  the  com- 
manding General?  Have  we  any  authority, 
and  can  we  claim  the  privilege  of  attacking  the 
characters  of  the  best  and  greatest  men  among 
us,  and  of  depriving  them  of  the  most  "  precious 
jewels  of  their  souls?"  This  is  a  new  species  of 
legislative  domination,  dangerous  to  the  liber- 
ties of  the  people.  If  you  claim  the  use  of  it, 
what  man  can  be  safe  ?  There  is  no  man  of 
elevated  rank  but  what  may  be  obnoxious  to 
some  member  of  this  House ;  and  would  it  be 


And  here  I  beg  leave  to  quote  the  General's 
own  words,  for,  as  ably  as  he  has  been  defended 
on  this  floor,  I  believe  his  own  defence,  consid- 
ering all  circumstances,  is  nearly  as  good  as 
any  that  can  be  made  for  him.  I  will  take  the 


liberty  of  reading  an  extract  from  his  letter  of 
the  5th  of  May  last,  dated  at  Fort  Gadsden,  to 
the  Secretary  of  War.  This  letter  affords  an- 
other proof  that  he  had  the  heart  to  conceive, 
the  hand  to  execute,  and  the  talents  to  defend, 
the  best  measures  which  the  urgency  of  the 
occasion  required. 

"  I  hope  the  execution  of  these  two  unprincipled 
villains  will  prove  an  awful  example  to  the  world,  and 
convince  the  Government  of  Great  Britain,  as  well  as 
her  subjects,  that  certain,  if  slow,  retribution  awaits 
those  iinchristian  wretches,  who,  by  false  promises, 
delude  and  excite  an  Indian  tribe  to  all  the  horrid 
deeds  of  savage  war.  Previous  to  my  leaving  Fort 
Gadsden,  I  had  occasion  to  address  a  communication 
to  the  Governor  of  Pensacola,  on  the  subject  of  per 
mitting  supplies  to  pass  up  the  Escambia  River  to 
Fort  Crawford.  This  letter,  with  another  from  St 
Marks,  on  the  subject  of  some  United  States  clothing, 
shipped  in  a  vessel  in  the  employ  of  the  Spanish 
Government  to  that  post,  I  now  enclose,  with  his 
reply.  The  Governor  of  Pensacola's  refusal  to  my 
demand,  cannot  but  be  viewed  as  a  hostile  feeling 
on  his  part,  particularly  in  connection  with  some  cir 
cumstances  reported  to  me  from  the  most  unque 


right  for  him  to  use  his  privilege  of  a  member  J  tionable  authority.    It  has  been  stated  that  the  In- 


272 


ABRIDGMENT  OF  THE 


H.  OF  R.] 


Regulation  of  Coins. 


[JANUARY,  1819. 


dians  at  war  with  the  United  States  have  free  access 
into  Pensacola,  that  they  are  kept  advised,  from  that 
quarter,  of  all  our  movements ;  that  they  are  sup- 
plied from  thence  with  ammunition  and  munitions  of 
v.-ar ;  and  that  they  are  now  collecting  in  a  body,  to 
the  amount  of  four  or  five  hundred  warriors,  in  that 
town  ;  that  inroads  from  thence  have  been  lately  made 
on  the  Alabama,  in  one  of  which  eighteen  settlers  fell 
bv  the  tomahawk.  These  statements  compel  me  to 
make  a  movement  to  the  west  of  the  Appalachicola, 
arid,  should  they  prove  correct,  Pensacola  must  be 
occupied  with  an  American  force,  the  Governor  treated 
according  to  his  deserts,  or  as  policy  may  dictate.  I 
shall  leave  strong  garrisons  in  Forts  St.  Marks,  Gads- 
den,  and  Scott,  and  in  Pensacola,  should  it  be  neces- 
sary to  possess  it.  It  becomes  my  duty  to  state  it  as 
wy  confirmed  opinion,  that  so  long  as  Spain  has  not 
the  power  or  will  to  enforce  the  treaties  by  which  she 
is  solemnly  bound  to  preserve  the  Indians  within  her 
territory  at  peace  with  the  United  States,  no  security 
can  be  given  to  our  southern  frontier,  without  occupy- 
ing a  cordon  of  posts  along  the  shore.  The  moment 
the  American  army  retires  from  Florida  the  war 
hatchet  will  be  again  raised,  and  the  same  scenes  of 
indiscriminate  massacre,  with  which  our  frontier  set- 
tlers have  been  visited,  will  be  repeated,  so  long  as 
the  Indians  within  the  territory  of  Spain  are  exposed 
to  the  delusion  of  false  prophets  and  poison  of  foreign 
intrigue ;  so  long  as  they  can  receive  ammunition, 
munitions  of  war,  from  pretended  traders  and  Spanish 
commandants,  it  will  be  impossible  to  restrain  their 
outrages.  The  burning  their  towns,  destroying  their 
stock  and  provisions,  will  produce  but  temporary  em- 
barrassments. Resupplied  by  Spanish  authorities, 
they  may  concentrate  and  disperse  at  will,  and  keep 
up  a  lasting  and  predatory  warfare  against  the  Unit- 
ed States,  as  expensive  to  our  Government  as  harass- 
ing to  our  troops.  The  savages,  therefore,  must  be 
made  dependent  on  us,  and  cannot  be  kept  at  peace 
without  being  persuaded  of  the  certainty  of  chastise- 
ment being  inflicted  on  the  commission  of  the  first 
offence.  I  trust,  therefore,  that  the  measures  which 
have  been  pursued  will  meet  with  the  approbation  of 
the  President  of  the  United  States ;  they  have  been 
adopted  in  pursuance  of  your  instructions,  and  under 
a  firm  conviction  that  they  alone  were  calculated  to 
insure  peace  and  security  to  the  Georgian  frontier." 

There  would  have  been  no  end  to  the  war,  if 
he  had  permitted  the  enemy  to  retreat  to  those 
strongholds,  the  Spanish  forts,  without  pursu- 
ing them  with  fiery  expedition.  The  trial  was 
made,  and  as  soon  as  our  forces  retraced  their 
steps,  the  Indians  recommenced  their  system  of 
robbing  and  murder.  Does  the  gentleman  re- 
quire that  we  should  be  at  the  expense  of  keep- 
ing up  a  regular  standing  force  throughout  the 
whole  extent  of  the  Georgia  frontier;  to  make 
it  an  armed  barrier  against  the  savages  ?  Ought 
he  not  to  be  satisfied  that  the  war  has  termi- 
nated in  the  manner  it  has,  in  the  complete 
dispersion  and  conquest  of  the  enemy,  by  the 
ouly  mode  in  which  it  could  be  done  promptly 
and  completely  ?  Ought  he  not  to  be  thankful 
that  his  constituents  can  now  pursue  their 
peaceful  avocations,  without  hourly  apprehen- 
sions of  murder  and  conflagration?  If  any 
irregularities  have  happened  in  the  course  of 
this  war,  leave  it  to  be  settled  between  us  and 


Spain ;  let  us  not  be  guilty  of  such  monstrous 
ingratitude  to  our  worthy  commander  a-;  tu 
forget  all  his  services,  his  midnight  vigils,  and 
his  uniform  success,  by  passing  a  string  of  res- 
olutions which  many  of  us  do  not  comprehend, 
and  which  he  never  could  have  intended  to  vio- 
late. For,  I  believe  it  is  not  usual  to  censure  a 
general  for  his  success ;  he  could  have  expected 
no  worse  had  he  been  beaten.  This  is  but  poor 
encouragement  to  our  officers. 


TUESDAY,  January  26. 
Honor  to  Learning  and  Philanthropy. 
Mr.  BASSETT  addressed  the  Chair,  and  said 
that  he  rose  to  perform  a  pleasing  task,  because 
it  was  connected  with  humanity.  It  was  to 
give  praise  and  honor  where  praise  and  honor 
were  due.  It  was,  continued  Mr.  B.,  said  last 
night,  from  that  chair,  that  sensible  objects 
most  forcibly  attracted  us.  My  heart  responds 
to  its  truth.  Most  sensibly  did  I  feel,  on  be- 
holding in  that  chair  a  man  whose  life  has  been 
devoted  to  the  amelioration  of  the  state  of  man ; 
one  who,  without  influence  of  kindred  or  coun- 
try, and  without  any  aid  save  that  of  a  common 
tongue,  has  passed  the  vast  Atlantic,  to  make 
known  the  hidden  powers  and  blessings  of 
knowledge.  Thousands,  said  Mr.  B.,  are  now 
enjoying  the  happy  fruits  of  his  exertions,  and 
millions  to  come  will  reap  then*  profits,  and 
drink  again  and  again  of  the  never-failing  spring. 
I  should  do  injustice  to  the  feelings  of  the  House, 
to  dwell  on  this  subject.  Mr.  B.  then  submitted 
the  following  resolution,  which  was  read  and 


Resolved,  That  Joseph  Lancaster,  the  friend  of 
learning  and  of  man,  be  admitted  to  a  seat  within 
the  hall  of  the  House  of  Representatives. 

The  bill  for  the  relief  of  Hannah  Ring  and 
Luther  Frink,  was  ordered  to  a  third  reading ; 
and  the  bill  for  the  relief  of  Lewis  Joseph  Beau- 
lieu,  was  taken  up,  and  ordered  to  lie  on  the 
table. 

Regulation  of  Coins. 

Mr.  LOWNDES,  from  the  committee  appointed 
to  inquire  whether  it  be  expedient  to  make  any 
amendment  in  the  laws  which  regulate  the  coins 
of  the  United  States,  and  foreign  coins,  made 
the  following  report : 

That  the  laws  of  the  United  States  make  aU  gold 
and  silver  corns  issued  from  their  Mint,  and  Spanish 
dollars,  and  the  parts  of  such  dollars,  a  legal  tender 
for  the  payment  of  debts.  The  gold  coins  of  Great 
Britain,  Portugal,  France,  Spain,  and  the  dominions 
of  Spain,  and  the  crowns  and  five  franc  pieces  of 
France,  are  also  declared  to  be  a  tender,  by  an  act 
passed  on  the  29th  of  April,  1818.  These  coins,  ex 
cepting  the  five  franc  pieces,  had  been  made  legal  by 
two  earlier  acts,  which  had  been  allowed  to  expire, 
and  their  renewal,  with  slight  modification,  must  be 
attributed,  not  to  a  disregard  of  the  inconveniences 
which  the  use  of  corns  so  various  and  unequal  in  their 
purity  must  produce,  but  to  the  exigencies  of  a  coun- 
try endeavoring  suddenly  to  recover  a  specie  circula- 
tion. The  act  of  1816  was  accordingly  passed  but 


DEBATES  OF  CONGRESS. 


273 


JAXCART,  1819.] 


The  Seminole  War. 


OF  R. 


for  tliree  years,  and  will  expire  on  the  29th  of  April, 
1819,  after  which,  no  foreign  coin  but  the  Spanish 
dollar  will,  under  our  present  laws,  pass  current  as 
money  within  the  United  States.  The  act  for  estab- 
lishing a  Mint  was  passed  in  April,  1792,  and  it  was 
then  expected  that  foreign  coins,  including  the  Span- 
ish dollar,  might  be  disused  after  three  years.  But, 
neither  an. examination  of  the  laws  which  regulate 
the  currency  of  American  and  foreign  corns,  nor  the 
observations  of  the  effects  which  they  have  as  yet  pro- 
duced, will  justify  us  in  expecting  that  a  continued 
reliance  upon  them  will  enable  us  to  dispense  at  any 
time  with  foreign  coins. 

To  preserve  the  coins  which  are  issued  from  the 
Mint  from  being  melted  and  exported,  the  laws  must 
give  them  some  advantages  in  internal  commerce 
over  foreign  coins  of  equal  purity  and  weight.  In  re- 
spect to  the  gold  coinage  of  the  United  States,  the 
Mint  depends  for  its  supply  of  bullion  upon  banks  or 
individuals,  as  it  does  in  the  coinage  of  silver.  But 
there  is  a  difficulty  in  the  operations  of  the  Mint, 
which  is  peculiar  to  the  coinage  of  the  gold.  The 
relative  value  of  gold  to  silver  is  fixed  by  our  law  at 
one  to  fifteen,  which  is  much  below  the  relative  value 
which  is  assigned  to  it  in  all  those  countries  from 
which  we  might  have  expected  to  procure  it.  In 
Spain  and  Portugal,  the  legal  value  of  gold  is  to  that 
of  silver  as  one  to  sixteen  ;  and  in  the  colony  of  Spain 
with  which  our  intercourse  is  most  frequent  and  val- 
uable, (Cuba,)  its  price  in  commerce  is  at  least  seven- 
teen for  one.  Hence,  we  are  not  only  precluded  in 
the  common  course  of  trade  from  obtaining  gold  from 
these  rich  sources  of  supply,  but  the  little  which  finds 
its  way  into  the  country  from  other  quarters,  is  drawn 
from  us  by  the  higher  estimate  which  is  there  placed 
upon  it.  In  France,  the  legal  value  of  gold  is  to  that 
of  silver  nearly  as  1  to  15  1-2.  In  most  parts  of 
Italy,  it  is  somewhat  higher.  In  England,  silver 
coin  is  only  current  in  small  sums ;  but  if  a  specie 
circulation  shall  be  restored  in  that  country  on  the 
basis  of  its  present  mint  regulations,  the  relative 
value  of  gold  to  silver  will  be  about  1  for  15  1-5.  The 
exaction  of  a  seignorage  on  its  silver  coins  makes  the 
comparison  less  easy;  but  the  merchant  who  shall 
carry  bullion  to  the  British  mint,  will  obtain  very 
nearly  the  same  amount  of  current  money  for  one 
ounce  of  pure  gold,  or  15  1-5  of  pure  silver.  In  Hol- 
land, the  relative  value  of  gold  to  silver  is  estimated 
(if  there  have  been  no  recent  changes  in  respect  to  it) 
at  1  to  about  14  3-4.  In  Germany,  and  the  north  of 
Europe,  the  value  may  be  stated  as  rather  below  an 
average  of  1  to  15.  The  West  Indies,  which  are 
probably  our  most  considerable  bullion  market,  esti- 
mate gold  in  proportion  to  silver  very  little,  if  at  all, 
below  an  average  of  1  to  16.  .And  this  is  done,  al- 
though some  of  the  most  considerable  colonies  belong 
to  powers  whose  laws  assign  to  gold  a  lower  relative 
value  in  their  European  dominions.  This  estimate, 
which  was  forced  upon  many  of  the  colonies  by  the 
necessity  of  giving  for  gold  the  price  which  it  com- 
manded in  their  neighborhood,  and  particularly  in 
the  countries  which  formed  the  great  sources  of  their 
supply,  seems  to  indicate  the  fair  proportion  between 
the  metals  in  the  West  Indies,  since  it  is  believed  to 
have  been,  in  most  instances,  confirmed  by  the  colo- 
nial laws,  ratHer  than  introduced  by  them.  The 
difference  established  by  custom  in  the  United  States, 
between  corned  gold  and  silver,  before  the  establish- 
ment of  the  present  Government,  seems  to  have  been 
nearly  as  1  to  15  6-10.  The  difference  proposed  by 
Congress,  in  their  resolution  of  the  8th  of  August, 
VoL.VI.-18 


1786,  was  nearly  1  to  15  1-4 ;  and  the  reduction  in 
the  valuation  of  gold  by  the  act  of  April  12th,  1792, 
to  the  proportion  of  1  to  15,  may  be  attributed  to  the 
belief,  which  was  expressed  in  the  report  on  which 
that  act  was  founded,  "  that  the  highest  actual  pro- 
portion in  any  part  of  Europe,  very  little,  if  at  all, 
exceeds  1  to  15  ;  and  that  the  average  proportion  was 
probably  not  more  than  1  to  14  8-10."  The  diffi- 
culty of  obtaining  correct  information  upon  points 
of  this  kind,  makes  it  not  improbable,  that  there  may 
have  been  some  error  as  to  the  state  of  the  Mint 
regulations  of  Europe  at  the  period  of  the  report.  But, 
be  this  as  it  may,  the  principle  which  seems  to  be 
assumed  in  it,  that  the  valuation  of  gold  in  this  coun- 
try should  be  higher  than  in  Europe,  would  lead  to 
the  conclusion,  that  the  present  valuation  of  1  to  15 
is  too  low. 

This  conclusion  is  confirmed  by  the  circumstance 
of  the  contract  made  not  long  since,  between  the 
Bank  of  the  United  States  and  Messrs.  Baring  and 
Reed,  for  the  supply  of  specie.  Under  this  contract, 
gold  and  silver  were  to  be  furnished,  if  it  were  prac- 
ticable, in  equal  amounts,  according  to  the  American 
relative  valuation  of  1  to  15.  Upwards  of  two  mil- 
lions of  dollars  of  silver  have  been  accordingly  sup- 
plied, but  not  an  ounce  of  gold. 

As  the  committee  entertain  no  doubt  that  gold  i? 
estimated  below  its  fair  relative  value,  in  comparison 
to  silver,  by  the  present  regulations  of  the  Mint ;  and 
as  it  can  scarcely  be  considered  as  having .  formed  a 
material  part  of  our  money  circulation  for  the  last 
twenty-six  years,  they  have  no  hesitation  in  recom- 
mending that  its  valuation  shall  be  raised,  so  as  to 
make  it  bear  a  juster  proportion  to  its  price  in  the 
commercial  world.  But  the  smallest  change  which  is 
likely  to  secure  this  object  (a  just  proportion  of  gold 
coins  in  our  circulation)  is  that  which  the  committee 
prefer,  and  they  believe  it  sufficient  to  restore  gold  to 
its  original  valuation  in  this  country,  of  1  to  15  6-10. 

Seminole  War. 

The  House  then  again  proceeded,  in  Com- 
mittee of  the  "Whole,  (Mr.  PITKIN  in  the  chair,) 
to  the  consideration  of  the  report  of  the  Mili-» 
tary  Committee,  and  the  amendments  moved 
thereto  by  Mr.  COBB,  touching  the  transactions 
of  the  Seminole  war. 

Mr.  MERCER  addressed  the  Chair  as  follows : 
The  resolutions  before  us  have  for  their  ob- 
ject neither  a  censure  of  General  Jackson  nor 
of  the  Executive.  Pursuing  the  natural  course 
of  legislation,  they  ascertain  the  existence  of  a 
public  abuse,  and  recommend  the  application  of 
a  constitutional  corrective.  They  spring  from 
an  inquiry  into  the  conduct  of  the  Seminole 
war,  to  which  the  President's  Message  at  the 
opening  of  the  present  session,  called  the  atten- 
tion of  the  House.  It  cannot  be  forgotten,  that, 
during  the  two  first  administrations  of  the 
Federal  Government,  the  President,  at  the 
commencement  of  every  session  of  Congress, 
met  in  person  the  two  Houses,  convened  to- 
gether, and  pronounced  the  address  which  his 
Secretary  now  conveys  to  us  in  the  form  of  a 
Message.  In  relation  to  every  part  of  the  ad- 
dress, the  two  Houses  separately  exercised  the 
unquestioned  right  of  responding.  These  re- 
sponses brought  into  brief  review  the  whole 
course  of  administration.  All  the  political  acts 


274 


ABRIDGMENT  OF  THE 


H.  OF  R.] 


The  Seminole  War. 


[JANUARY,  1819. 


and  the  actors  of  the  past  year  were  held  open 
to  the  scrutiny  and  opinion  of  either  Honse. 

Such  was  the  operation  given  to  this  Govern- 
ment by  the  framers  of  the  constitution,  who 
filled  the  first  Congress  which  assembled  after 
its  ratification.  Such  continued  to  be  its  oper- 
ation for  the  first  twelve  years  of  its  existence. 

During  the  last  eighteen  years,  this  practice 
has  been  disused,  but  it  would  be  difficult  to 
prove  that  the  powers  of  this  House  have  been 
abridged  by  the  substitution  of  the  President's 
Message  for  Iris  speech.  Like  the  latter,  the 
former  yet  undergoes,  at  the  opening  of  each 
session,  a  political  analysis,  which  terminates 
in  the  reference  of  every  important  member  of 
it  to  some  committee,  charged  with  the  duty  of 
reporting  an  opinion  upon  the  subject  which  it 
embraces,  and  of  recommending,  if  necessary, 
some  correspondent  act  of  legislation.  Hence 
the  origin  of  the  report  which  has  given  rise  to 
the  present  debate. 

Is  it  not  absurd  to  imagine,  even,  said  Mr.  M., 
that  the  President  of  the  United  States  can  ap- 
prise this  House  that  its  highest  powers  have 
been  usurped  ?  That  the  constitution  has  been 
violated,  and  yet  no  complaint  can  be  made  of 
the  usurpation,  nor  any  exertion  to  prevent  its 
recurrence  ? 

I  find  myself  arrested,  Mr.  Chairman,  on  the 
very  threshold  of  my  first  proposition,  by  the 
assertion  of  one  of  my  colleagues,  (Mr.  SMYTH,) 
that  the  Indians  cannot  wage  war ;  because,  he 
added,  they  do  not  make  prisoners  of  war ;  while 
another  honorable  member,  (Mr.  JOHNSON,)  who 
preceded  him  on  the  same  side  of  the  question, 
maintained  that  our  statute  book  contains  a 
declaration  of  perpetual  war  against  all  the  In- 
dian tribes  within  our  limits.  Let  the  statute 
book  answer  these  extraordinary  doctrines.  The 
aborigines  of  this  country  have  been  our  asso- 
ciates, or  our  neighbors,  for  more  than  two 
centuries;  and  we  have  maintained  towards 
them,  during  that  period,  relations  of  commerce 
and  amity,  as  well  as  of  war,  by  the  same  means 
by  which  we  have  regulated  our  intercourse 
with  other  States.  Instead  of  recurring  to  the 
treaty  and  correspondence  of  Ghent,  allow  me 
to  consult  the  volume  which  I  hold  in  my  hand, 
and  to  ascertain,  from  our  own  intercourse  with 
this  unfortunate  race  of  men,  in  what  light  we 
have  hitherto  regarded  them.  To  ascend  no 
further  back  than  to  the  formation  of  our  Union, 
the  first  volume  of  the  laws  of  the  United 
States  will  afford  us  Indian  treaties,  embracing 
every  variety  of  stipulation  known  in  the  dip- 
lomatic intercourse  of  the  most  polished  na- 
tions ;  from  the  articles  of  agreement  and  con- 
federation with  the  Delaware  nation,  a  treaty 
of  alliance  and  commerce,  concluded  at  Fort 
Pitt  in  1798,  down  to  the  articles  of  agreement 
and  capitulation,  a  treaty  of  conquest,  but  of 
peace  also,  concluded  at  Fort  Jackson  in  1814. 
In  direct  contradiction  of  the  assertion  of  my 
colleague,  we  find  among  the  intermediate  con- 
ventions stipulations  for  the  mutual  exchange 


doctrine  contended  for  by  the  honorable  mem- 
ber from  Kentucky,  the  far  greater  number  of 
them  are  treaties  of  peace,  promising  the  obli- 
vion of  past  injuries,  and  the  establishment  of 
perpetual  friendship.  Nor  will  a  recurrence  to 
the  history  of  the  United  States  authorize  art 
unfavorable  comparison  of  the  good  faith  of 
these  untutored  savages  with  that  of  our  more 
polished  European  allies.  With  the  Chickasaw 
and  Choctaw  nations  we  have  made  several 
treaties  of  boundary,  but  have  had  occasion  to 
make  no  treaty  of  peace  since  that  of  Hopewell, 
concluded  two  and  thirty  years  ago,  under  the 
old  confederation.  The  treaty  of  Greenville, 
with  the  Northwestern  Indians,  endured  from 
1795  till  the  battle  of  Tippecanoe,  in  1813.  The 
first  treaty  with  the  Creeks  and  Seminoles,  con- 
cluded with  the  White  Chief,  McGilvray.  in 
New  York,  in  1790,  was,  with  the  exception  of 
some  border  hostilities  with  Georgia,  of  ques- 
tionable origin,  and  terminated  by  the  treaty  of 
Colerain,  in  June,  1796,  preserved  inviolate  till 
1815.  Compare  these  dates,  sir,  with  those  of 
our  treaties  with  England,  France,  and  Spain. 
Call  to  mind  the  repeated  violations  of  these 
treaties,  and  then  ask  your  conscience  if  it  will 
permit  you  to  cast  an  imputation  of  bad  faith 
on  your  savage  neighbors. 

It  has  not,  and  I  presume  will  not  be  pretend- 
ed, that  the  destruction  of  the  negro  and  Indian 
fort  near  the  mouth  of  the  Appalachicola,  was 
required  by  any  absolute  necessity.  The  Gov- 
ernor of  Pensacola,  so  far  from  authorizing  the 
act,  expresses  his  expectation  "  that,  until  he 
receives  the  decision  of  his  Captain  General,  no 
steps  will  be  taken  by  the1  Government  of  the 
United  States,  or  by  General  Jackson,  prejudi- 
cial to  the  sovereignty  of  the  King  of  Spain,  or 
the  district  of  Appalachicola,  a  dependency  of 
his  Government."  It  cannot  be  pretended  that 
this  hostile  measure  was  taken  with  the  consent 
of  the  Seminole  Indians ;  and  if,  as  I  hope,  it 
was  done  without  the  order  of  the  President  of 
the  United  States,  it  was  certainly  without  any 
legitimate  sanction — the  authority  of  Con- 


If  the  alleged  reason  for  this  wanton  injustice 
were  deemed  sufficient  to  warrant  it,  "  that  the 
fort  had  become  a  refuge  for  runaway  negroes 
and  disaffected  Indians,"  where  would  it  carry 
us?  With  what  neighboring  nation,  civilized 
or  savage,  could  we  preserve  relations  of  amity  ? 
Will  it  be  pretended  that  we  have  a  right  to 
punish  disaffection  in  those  who  owe  us  no 
allegiance ;  or  to  recover  by  violence  the  persons 
of  our  fugitives,  whether  bond  or  free  ?  The 
attempt  to  gloss  over  this  cruelty  by  the  sug- 
gestion that  the  force  of  the  miserable  negroes 
was  "daily  increasing,  and  that  the  fertile 
banks  of  the  Appalachicola  were  about  to  yield 
them  every  article  of  subsistence,",  is  calculated 
to  shed  additional  horror  over  a  transaction 
wanton  in  its  motive,  and  savage  in  its  execu- 
tion. A  war  upon  the  peaceful  negro  settle- 
ments on  the  Wabash  would  be  equally  politic, 


of  prisoners  of  war ;  and,  in  hostility  with  the  |  and,  in  principle,  alike  justifiable. 


DEBATES  OF  CONGRESS. 


275 


JANUARY,  1819.] 


The  SeminoU  War. 


[H.  OF  R. 


I  have  thus  traced  the  Seminole  war,  Mr. 
Chairman,  to  the  unauthorized  invasion  of  East 
Florida  in  181G ;  but,  from  thence  to  the  month 
of  October  of  the  ensuing  year,  the  terror  in- 
spired by  this  act  seems  not  to  have  produced 
the  usual  retaliation  of  savages — the  indulgence 
of  private  revenge.  Along  a  line  of  four  hun- 
dred and  seventy  miles,  from  the  mouth  of  the 
St.  Marys  to  the  intersection  of  the  Perdido,  by 
the  thirty-first  degree  of  latitude,  we  hear,  in 
fact,  of  scarcely  an  Indian  aggression.  The 
destruction  of  their  fort,  and  the  murder  in  cold 
blood  of  two  of  their  chiefs,  must  have  inspired 
the  sentiment  of  hostility,  but  they  wanted  the 
means  of  indulging  it.  Even  at  the  moment 
when  the  friendly  Indians  of  Fowltown,  who 
had  preserved  their  neutrality  during  the  whole 
Creek  war,  were  assailed  by  order  of  the  Amer- 
ican General,  there  had  been  no  invasion  of 
our  territory  by  any  Indian  force.  Stories, 
indeed,  sir,  have  been  told  us  of  Indian  massa- 
cres, at  the  recital  of  which  my  very  soul  sick- 
ened ;  and,  were  it  not  for  the  documents  on 
our  table,  I  should  believe  that  the  tomahawk 
and  scalping-knife  had  deluged  our  Southern 
frontier  with  blood.  But,  in  addition  to  the 
President's  declaration  on  the  16th  of  Novem- 
ber, 1817,  that  we  were  at  peace  with  the  In- 
dian tribes,  I  discover  that,  with  but  two  ex- 
ceptions, that  murder  of  a  family  on  St.  Mary's 
River,  and  of  some  travellers  five  hundred 
miles  off  in  the  Alabama  Territory — transactions 
which  I  deplore  as  much  as  any  man — we  were 
ourselves  the  aggressors.  The  unfortunate  de- 
tachment of  Scott,  (the  attack  upon  which  is 
said  to  have  given "  a  new  character  to  the 
Seminole  war,  and  to  have  justified  the  invasion 
of  Florida,)  fell  a  victim  to  savage  revenge, 
upon  the  river  Appalachicola,  without  the  ter- 
ritory of  the  United  States.  After  the  destruc- 
tion of  the  Indian  fort  in  the  preceding  year, 
was  it  too  much  to  expect  that  the  Seminole 
Indians  would  resist  the  progress  of  another 
armed  force  through  the  bosom  of  their  terri- 
tory ?  Had  they  to  consult  authorities  for  the 
right  of  self-defence  ?  They  recurred  to  that 
which  nature  has  stamped  upon  the  hearts  of  all 
men.  Sir,  these  Indians  are  represented  to  have 
been  sufficiently  powerful  to  be  the  objects  of 
our  fears.  They  must  be  regarded  as  independ- 
ent of  us  from  our  own  express  acknowledg- 
ment. Spain  asserted  that  they  had  subverted 
her  sovereignty;  and,  under  our  constitution, 
war  could  not  be  waged  upon  an  independent 
neighboring  power  without  the  authority  of 
Congress.  At  one  moment,  indeed,  we  hear 
the  Indians  of  East  Florida  styled  wretched 
savages,  outlawed  Creeks,  fugitive  slaves.  At 
another  they  are  represented  to  be  capable  of 
bringing  a  force  of  thirty-five  hundred  men  into 
the  field,  a  force  equivalent  to  half  our  military 
establishment,  and  the  most  alarming  necessity 
is  plead  to  justify  the  infraction  of  the  neutrality 
of  Spain  in  our  hostilities  against  them. 

I  will  now  proceed  to  consider  the  alleged  ne- 
seizing  those  fortresses.  And,  first, 


that  of  St.  Marks.  General  Jackson,  as  early 
as  the  25th  day  of  March,  soon  after  crossing 
the  Florida  line,  announced  his  intention  of 
taking  St.  Marks  "  as  a  depot  for  his  supplies, 
should  he  find  it  in  the  possession  of  the  Span- 
iards, they  having  supplied  the  Indians."  That 
he  derived  no  right  to  take  it  from  the  latter 
use  of  it,  I  have  already  demonstrated,  and  that 
he  derived  none  from  the  use  which  he  meant 
to  make  of  it  himself,  an  attention  to  the  local 
position  of  St.  Marks  will  readily  evince.  St. 
Marks  is  situated  one  hundred  and  four  miles  to 
the  northwest  of  the  Suwannee  towns,  the  main 
object  of  General  Jackson's  campaign.  It  stands 
on  the  bank  of  the  river  to  which  it  has  given  or 
owes  its  name,  and  nine  miles  above  its  mouth. 
The  fort  is  surrounded  by  an  open  prairie,  about 
two  miles  across,  and  below  it  extends  an  open 
forest  of  pine.  As  a  military  depot,  a  position 
below  St.  Marks,  on  the  same  river,  would  have 
been  more  accessible  to  the  vessels,  which  were 
to  furnish  supplies  from  New  Orleans;  and  the 
labor  of  a  fatigue  party,  for  a  few  days,  would 
have  constructed,  of  the  adjacent  forest,  a  pro- 
tection sufficiently  strong  to  resist  the  attack  of 
any  savage  force  which  could  have  threatened 
the  safety  of  the  position.  Such  is  the  necessity, 
on  which  this  infraction  of  neutral  right  is 
grounded.  The  Spanish  fort  deriving  its  sup- 
plies, also,  from  the  water,  would  have  been 
dependent  on  the  American,  and  the  danger  of 
an  Indian  attack,  which  threatened  St.  Marks, 
before  the  arrival  of  the  American  army,  had 
ended  with  its  approach.  Nor  is  it  the  least 
extenuation  of  this  unauthorized  act  of  war, 
that  discoveries  were  made,  after  the  capture 
of  the  fort,  which  evinced  that  its  commander 
was  unfriendly  to  the  American  arms.  The 
antecedent  act  should  be  tried  by  its  own  evi- 
dence. The  subsequent  discoveries,  if  they 
amounted  to  any  thing,  constituted,  as  I  have  re- 
marked, a  cause  of  war  against  Spain,  which 
General  Jackson  had  no  right  to  declare,  or  to 
wage,  without  a  declaration. 

St.  Marks  was  more  than  a  hundred  miles 
from  the  Suwanee  towns.  To  reach  Pensacola, 
it  was  necessary  to  march  across  West  Florida 
one  hundred  and  fifty  miles  further  from  the 
principal  theatre  of  the  war.  The  necessity, 
however,  which  urged  the  occupation  of  the 
capital  of  West  Florida  is,  if  possible,  less  ap- 
parent than  that  which  was  plead  for  the  seizure 
and  occupation  of  St.  Marks.  The  defeated 
Indians  had  retired  down  the  peninsula  of 
Florida,  or  crossed  over  it  towards  St.  Augus- 
tine. Fort  Gadsden  and  the  Appalachicola 
River,  to  say  nothing  of  St.  Marks,  then  in  our 
possession,  cut  off  their  retreat  upon  Pensacola. 
Above  Pensacola  itself,  on  the  Canuco,  a  branch 
of  the  Escambia,  Fort  Crawford  served  as  a 
check  upon  the  Indians  in  that  vicinity,  and 
fifty  miles  from  this  last  position  stood  the 
American  fort  Montgomery,  on  the  Alabama. 
The  desert  country  between  the  Appalaohicola 
and  the  Bay  of  Pensacola,  contained  neither 
Spaniards  nor  Indians ;  yet,  on  the  5th  of  May, 


276 


ABRIDGMENT  OF  THE 


H.  OP  R.] 


The  Seminole  War. 


[JANUARY,  1819. 


after  having  discharged  a  part  of  his  force,  and 

S  reclaimed  the  war  to  be  at  an  end,  General 
ackson  announces  to  his  Government  his  in- 
tention to  occupy  Pensacola,  if  certain  reports, 
which  he  had  heard,  should  prove  trne,  while 
the  whole  tenor  of  his  letter  of  that  date  evinces 
a  determination  to  occupy  it  at  all  events.  He 
expresses  it  to  be  his  confirmed  opinion,  "  that, 
so  long  as  Spain  has  not  the  power  or  will  to 
enforce  the  treaty,  by  which  she  is  solemnly 
bound  to  preserve  the  Indians  within  her  terri- 
tory at  peace  with  the  United  States,  no  security 
can  be  given  to  our  Southern  frontier,  without 
occupying  a  cordon  of  posts  along  the  seashore." 
After  the  seizure  of  Pensacola,  he  enforces  the 
same  reasoning,  in  an  argument  in  favor  of  its 
restoration. 

In  the  subsequent  proceedings  of  General 
Jackson,  a  more  striking  illustration  is  offered 
of  the  extent  to  which  his  conduct  was  influ- 
enced by  this  threat.  Not  satisfied  with  the 
seizure  of  Pensacola,  without  resistance,  he 
proceeded  fourteen  miles  below  it,  invested,  and, 
after  a  heavy  cannonade  of  many  hours,  took 
the  fortress  of  the  Barancas  and  the  Governor, 
by  capitulation.  Nor  did  he  stop  here;  but, 
regarding  the  Spanish  troops  as  prisoners  of 
war,  and  all  West  Florida  as  a  conquered  coun- 
try, he  shipped  the  former  to  the  Havana,  and 
usurped  over  the  latter  the  civil,  as  well  as  mili- 
tary, administration.  One  of  my  honorable 
colleagues  has,  with  singular  felicity,  offered  the 
same  apology  for  these  defensive  measures  of 
the  American  commander  which  he  allows  to 
the  Emperor  of  France  for  subverting  the  Prus- 
sian monarchy.  The  honor  of  the  French  arms 
required  that  a  threat  should  be  repelled !  Sir, 
the  force  of  the  argument  will  appear  very 
nearly  the  same,  in  both  cases,  when  reference 
is  had  to  the  relative  strength  of  the  combat- 
ants; but  there  is  this  remarkable  difference 
between  the  Emperor  of  France  and  General 
Jackson,  that  the  former  was  the  acknowledged 
sovereign  of  France,  and  the  latter  had  merely 
usurped  the  authority  of  Congress  to  make  war 
upon  a  foreign  State.  Whether  General  Jack- 
son's conduct  was  in  obedience  to  his  orders,  as 
my  honorable  colleague  (Mr.  SMYTH)  has  so 
earnestly  and  ingeniously  maintained,  is  a 
question  between  him  and  the  authority  from 
which  he  derived  them,  except  so  far  as  regards 
the  pernicious  example  of  military  insubordina- 
tion, which  is  afforded  by  the  impunity  of  this 
act. 

Allow  me,  also,  Mr.  Chairman,  to  say,  that, 
although  Spain,  in  my  opinion,  has  given  us 
ample  cause  of  war,  I  am  decidedly  opposed  to 
a  declaration  of  hostilities  against  her.  We 
claim,  I  understand,  as  our  western  boundary, 
the  territory  west  of  the  Mississippi,  as  far  as 
the  Kio  del  Norte.  If  by  treaty  it  is  ours,  let 
it  be  occupied  by  our  arms ;  and,  having  taken 
possession  of  that  which  belongs  to  us,  let  us 
tender  to  Spain  the  exchange  of  that  part  of  it 
adjacent  to  her  Mexican  possessions,  for  Florida, 
which  she  does  not  want,  and  which  would  be 


to  us  of  great  value.  If  she  shall  now  reject 
this  proposition,  the  time  must  speedily  arrive 
when  she  will  perceive  it  to  be  her  interest  to 
accede  to  it.  So  far  would  I  go,  and  no  farther. 
Not  from  any  apprehension  of  the  power  of 
Spain,  but  for  reasons  of  policy,  too  obvious  to 
require  to  be  enforced.  A  war,  even  with 
Spain,  would  cripple  that  commerce,  on  the 
prosperity  of  which  materially  depends  the  fu- 
ture growth  of  our  yet  infant  navy.  In  such  a 
war  we  would  have  to  contend,  not  with  Spain 
alone,  but  to  encounter,  under  the  disguise  of  a 
Spanish  flag,  the  enterprise  and  resources  of 
France,  of  England,  and  I  greatly  fear  of  some 
of  the  most  abandoned  of  our  own  citizens. 

Having,  Mr.  Chairman,  consumed  so  much 
of  the  time  of  the  committee  on  the  first  propo- 
sitions which  I  proposed  to  sustain,  I  shall  pass, 
with  more  brevity,  over  the  last,  which  involves 
the  character  rather  than  the  constitution  of 
our  Government.  In  the  inquiry,  whether  the 
rules  of  judicial  proceeding  in  the  trial  of  mili- 
tary officers  have  been  wantonly  disregarded  in 
the  trial  and  execution  of  Arbuthnot  and  Am- 
brister,  an  unexpected  difficulty  is  started  by 
our  opponents,  who  question  whether  the  spe- 
cial court  which  tried  them  was  a  court-martial, 
or  a  mere  board  of  officers.  It  was  not  suffi- 
cient, it  seems,  that  General  Jackson  informed 
the  Secretary  of  War  that  "Arbuthnot  and 
Ambrister  were  tried  under  his  orders  by  a 
special  court  of  select  officers ;  legally  convicted ; 
legally  condemned;  and  most  justly  punished:" 
or,  that  he  calls  the  court  a  court-martial  wher- 
ever he  speaks  of  it,  whether  in  his  letters,  or 
his  general  orders.  His  friends,  acknowledging 
their  utter  incapacity  to  defend  him,  on  his 
grounds,  persist  in  denominating  the  court  a 
mere  board  of  officers.  Its  proceedings  they  re- 
gard as  subject  to  no  legal  restraint;  its  judg- 
ment as  mere  counsel  or  advice,  submitted  to 
the  discretion  of  the  General,  to  be  altered  or 
extended  at  his  mere  pleasure.  Is  their  view 
then,  sir,  correct?  Were  Arbuthnot  and  Am- 
brister tried  by  a  court-martial,  or  merely  ex- 
amined by  a  board  of  officers?  A  court-mar- 
tial is  either  a  general  court  for  the  trial  of  all 
offences  whatever,  or  a  regimental  or  garrison 
court,  for  the  trial  of  offences  not  capital.  The 
former  must  consist  of  five,  and  may  consist  of 
thirteen  officers.  The  latter  cannot  exceed 
three.  A  prisoner  was  here  sentenced  to  death, 
and  the  assemblage  of  officers  who  sentenced 
him  to  that  punishment  consisted  of  thirteen ; 
it  was,  therefore,  either  a  general  court-martial 
or  no  court  at  all.  A  general  court-martial  is 
required,  by  the  rules  and  articles  of  war,  to 
consist  of  "  any  number  of  commissioned  offi- 
cers from  five  to  thirteen;  but  it  shall  not  con- 
sist of  less  than  thirteen,  where  that  number 
can  be  convened  without  manifest  injury  to  the 
service."  The  court  which  tried  Arbuthnot  and 
Ambrister  consisted  of  thirteen  officers,  with  a 
supernumerary  appointed  to  act,  in  case  of  un- 
foreseen absence  or  incapacity  of  any  one  of 
that  number.  A  general  court-inartial  is  re- 


DEBATES  OF  CONGRESS. 


277 


JANUARY,  1819.] 


The  Seminole  Wa 


[H.  OK  K. 


quired  to  have  a  judge  advocate,  whose  duty  it 
is  to  administer  to  the  officers  the  oath  pre- 
scribed by  the  sixty-ninth  article  of  war,  and  to 
act  as  counsel  for  the  accused  as  well  as  the 
court.  The  court  which  tried  Arbuthnot  and 
Ambrister  had  a  judge  advocate,  Avho  adminis- 
tered the  oath  required  by  law,  and  interro- 
gated the .  witnesses.  The  prisoner  may  chal- 
lenge any  member  of  a  general  court-martial 
appointed  to  try  him.  Arbuthnot  and  Ambris- 
ter  were  called  upon  to  exercise  this  privilege. 
The  prisoner  before  a  court-martial  is  regularly 
arraigned  upon  charges  and  specifications  filed 
;igainst  him.  So  were  Arbuthnot  and  Am- 
brister.  He  is  entitled  to  counsel  if  he  requires 
it.  Arbuthnot  made  application  for  counsel, 
and  counsel  was  allowed  him.  A  court-mar- 
tial sits  with  open  doors,  except  when  it  decides 
a  question,  and  then  the  doors  are  closed.  So 
proceeded  the  court  which  tried  these  prison- 
ers. A  court-martial  has  only  a  limited  juris- 
diction, both  as  to  offences  and  persons.  So 
this  court  decided,  for,  of  the  third  charge  and 
specification  against  Arbuthnot,  the  court  de- 
cided, "  upon  the  suggestion  of  a  member,  after 
mature  deliberation,  that  it  had  no  jurisdiction." 
A  court-martial  can  sit,  unless  by  express  per- 
mission from  the  officer  creating  it,  only  between 
certain  hours  of  the  day.  This  court  was,  by 
order,  allowed  to  sit  without  regard  to  hours. 
In  the  organization  of  a  general  court-martial 
the  members  are  seated  alternately,  according 
to  rank,  on  each  side  of  the  President.  So  was 
this  court  arranged.  A  court-martial  records, 
along  with  a  minute  of  its  proceedings,  all  the 
testimony  laid  before  it.  So  did  this  court.  It 
is  its  special  province  to  decide  on  the  guilt 
ur  innocence  of  the  accused,  and  on  the  punish- 
ment, if  any,  which  shall  be  inflicted  upon 
them.  So  was  this  court  required  to  do,  and  so 
it  did.  A  general  court-martial  is  required  to 
pronounce  upon  every  charge  and  specification 
exhibited  against  a  prisoner.  This  court  obeyed 
this  requisition  by  acquitting  the  prisoner,  Ar- 
buthnot, of  being  a  spy,  and  responding  to  all 
the  charges  and  specifications  against  him  ex- 
cept that,  of  which  they  disclaimed  any  juris- 
diction. A  general  court-martial  cannot  sen- 
tence a  prisoner  to  death,  without  the  concur- 
rence of  two-thirds  of  its  members.  A  con- 
currence of  two-thirds  of  the  court  is  here 
certified. 

The  general  order  of  the  29th  of  April,  com- 
manding the  immediate  execution  of  Arbuthnot 
and  Ambrister,  uncondemned  even  to  this  day, 
nay,  more  than  tacitly  approved,  is,  Mr.  Chair- 
man, a  stain  on  the  records  of  the  judicial  proceed- 
ings of  this  nation,  to  the  insecurity  of  the  honor 
and  life  of  every  officer  and  soldier  of  the  armies 
of  the  United  States,  and  of  every  citizen  of 
America,  who  may  be  legally,  or  otherwise, 
subjected  to  the  judgment  of  a  court-martial ;  a 
proceeding  which  imperiously  calls  for  the  in- 
terposition of  the  authority  of  Congress,  in 
order  that,  instead  of  being  converted  into  a 
precedent  for  future  imitation,  it  may  be 


shunned  as  an  object  of  abhorrence.  Sir.  it  is 
no  little  cause  of  alarm  to  behold  the  highest 
military  court  of  criminal  justice,  which  should 
be  the  shield  of  innocence,  converted  into  a  rod 
of  oppression.  While  I  listened  with  equal  at- 
tention and  delight  to  the  eloquent  and  able 
argument  of  my  honorable  friend  from  New 
York,  I  thought  that  even  he  underrated  the 
security  which  a  military  court  is  designed  to 
afford  to  an  innocent  prisoner.  I  thought  he 
supposed  that  a  military  judge  was  not  sworn 
to  discharge  the  duties  of  his  office  with  fidelity 
and  impartiality.  [Mr.  STOBBS  arose  to  ex- 
plain. He  had  remarked,  he  said,  that  the 
charges  were  not  sworn  to  on  which  a  prisoner 
was  arrested.]  I  misunderstood  my  honorable 
friend,  said  Mr.  MEBCBB;  but  even  here  the 
charge  must  be  sanctioned  by  the  honor  of  an 
officer.  A  general  court-martial  derives  its  ap- 
pointment from  the  sound  discretion  of  the 
highest  military  authority  in  an  army ;  its  sen- 
tence is  inoperative  until  it  receives  his  appro- 
bation ;  and  any  officer  who  should  seek,  by  the 
instrumentality  of  such  a  court,  to  gratify  secret 
resentment  or  malignity,  would  render  himself 
odious  to  his  whole  corps. 

Who,  sir,  were  the  other  captives  condemned 
to  death  ?  It  has  been  said  of  some  of  the 
Suwanee  chiefs,  that  he  was  the  author  of  the 
massacre  of  Scott's  detachment,  destroyed,  as  I 
have  proved,  in  that  Indian  territory  which  our 
army  was  not  only  preparing  to  invade,  but 
had,  in  fact,  invaded ;  and  the  participation  of 
this  chief  La  the  bloody  massacre  which  closed 
this  scene,  is  unsnstained  by  any  proof  what- 
ever. 

As  to  his  unfortunate  comrade,  the  Indian 
Prophet,  what  are  his  imputed  crimes  ?  That 
he  was,  himself*,  the  victim  of  superstition ;  that 
he  deluded  his  wretched  followers.  Such  was 
the  guilt,  sir,  of  all  the  augurs  and  soothsayers 
of  the  ancient  republics,  sometimes  Praetors, 
Consuls,  and  Dictators,  not  to  Rome  alone,  but 
to  a  conquered  world.  A  guilt,  in  which  lies 
still  involved  three-fourths  of  the  human  race  ; 
many  of  whom  yet  groan,  in  cities,  in  palaces, 
and  temples,  beneath  a  superstition,  compared 
with  which,  the  religion  of  the  wandering  in- 
habitants of  our  western  wilds  is  simple,  peace- 
ful, and  consolatory.  Or  did  his  guilt  consist 
in  returning  home  with  a  foreign  commission, 
after  having  crossed  the  Atlantic  in  quest  of 
aid,  to  sustain  the  sinking  fortune  of  his  tribe? 
Has  it,  then,  become  a  crime,  in  our  day,  to 
love  our  country ;  to  plead  her  wrongs ;  to 
maintain  her  rights;  or  to  die  in  her  defence? 
Sir,  had  not  the  God  I  worship,  a  God  of  mercy 
as  well  as  truth,  taught  me  to  forgive  mine 
enemies,  did  he,  as  the  Great  Spirit  whom  the 
Seminole  adores,  allow  me  to  indulge  revenge  ; 
were  I  an  Indian,  I  would  swear  eternal  hatred 
to  your  race.  What  crimes  have  they  com- 
mitted against  us,  that  we  have  not,  with  supe- 
rior skill,  practised  upon  them  ?  Whither  are 
they  gone  ?  How  many  of  them  have  been  sent 
to  untimely  graves?  How  many  driven  from 


278 


ABRIDGMENT  OF  THE 


H.  OP  R.] 


The  Seminole  War. 


[JANUARY,  1819. 


their  lawful  possessions?  Their  tribes  and 
their  very  names  are  almost  extinct.  My  hon- 
orable colleague,  (Mr.  BAEBOUR,)  who  differs 
from  us  on  this  question — my  honorable  friend 
I  will,  call  him,  for  he  inspired  that  sentiment, 
while  he  eloquently  described  the  wrongs  and 
sufferings  of  this  unhappy  race — will  not  con- 
demn in  a  poor  Seminole  Indian  that  love  of 
country,  of  which,  if  it  be  indeed  a  crime,  no 
man  is  more  guilty  than  himself.  But  it  seems 
he  was  an  Indian.  The  Suwanee  chief,  his 
comrade,  was  so  too.  Arbuthnot  and  Ambris- 
ter,  who  inspired  their  counsels  and  led  them  to 
combat,  are  to  be  regarded  as  themselves,  and, 
under  the  law  of  retaliation,  they  were  all  li- 
able to  suffer  death,  at  the  pleasure  of  General 
Jackson.  And  thus,  Mr.  Chairman,  the  clem- 
ency which  has  been  observed,  for  two  centu- 
ries, in  all  our  conflicts  with  the  aborigines  of 
America,  is  at  length  discovered  to  have  been 
an  impolitic  abandonment  of  the  rights  which 
we  derive  from  the  laws  and  usages  of  war. 
Nay,  sir,  the  victories  of  all  our  former  com- 
manders, in  all  other  Indian  wars,  are  cast  into 
the  shade,  in  order  to  magnify  the  effect  of  this 
new  policy.  In  the  hard-fought  battle  of  Point 
Pleasant,  in  which  I  have  heard  that  three  hun- 
dred Virginians  fell,  my  colleague  (Mr.  SMYTH) 
tells  us,  that  only  eighteen  Indian  warriors 
were  found  dead  on  the  field.  Before  the  im- 
petuous charge  of  the  gallant  "Wayne,  but  twenty 
fell.  At  Tippecanoe,  but  thirty.  On  the  banks 
of  the  Tallapoosa,  General  Jackson  left  eight 
hundred  Indians  dead.  Sir,  it  is  consolatory  to 
humanity  to  look  beyond  these  fields  of  slaugh- 
ter, to  the  peace  which  followed  them,  the  only 
object  of  a  just  war.  From  the  battle  of  Point 
Pleasant  to  the  present  day,  Indian  hostilities 
have  ceased  in  Virginia.  The  victories  of 
Wayne  led  to  the  treaty  of  Greenville,  and  was 
followed  by  a  peace  of  eighteen  years.  The 
treaties  of  Hopewell,  of  New  York,  and  of  Cole- 
rain,  preceded  by  no  battles,  were  succeeded 
by  a  peace,  which,  with  the  Creeks  and  Semi- 
noles,  it  required,  after  the  lapse  of  nineteen 
years,  another  British  war  to  disturb;  and 
which,  with  the  Choctaw  and  Chickasaw  In- 
dians, endures  to  this  moment.  "While  the 
splendid  victory  of  Tallapoosa,  and  the  treaty 
of  Fort  Jackson,  have  not  yet,  it  is  said,  secured 
to  us  peace,  although  aided  by  our  new  code 
of  retaliation,  and  its  practical  commentary, 
the  execution,  in  cold  blood,  of  four  Indian 
captives. 

Mr.  COLSTON  said  that  he  rose  at  that  late  pe- 
riod of  the  debate,  trusting  that  the  committee 
would  excuse  his  trespassing,  for  a  short  time, 
upon  their  attention,  whilst  he  discharged  his 
duty  to  himself,  his  constituents,  and  his  coun- 
try, by  expressing  his  sentiments  on  this  im- 
portant question,  involving,  as  it  did,  the  co'nsti- 
tution  and  laws  of  the  country.  In  the  investi- 
gation of  it,  he  would  not  be  deterred  from  ex- 
pressing his  opinion  freely,  either  by  the  decla- 
rations of  those  high  in  authority,  that  General 
Jackson's  conduct  must  be  defended,  or  by  the 


character  of  the  individual  who  was  the  subject 
of  this  investigation,  or  by  any  of  those  ineitn- 
which  had  been  used  to  prevent  the  expression 
of  disapprobation  by  those  who  thought  his 
conduct  censurable. 

Sir,  had  an  ordinary  man  said  that  the  Gov- 
ernor of  an  independent  State  had  no  right  to 
issue  a  military  order  to  the  militia  of  that 
State,  under  his  command,  whilst  an  officer  of 
the  United  States  was  in  service,  we  should 
have  smiled  at  his  ignorance  of  our  peculiar 
form  of  Government;  but  the  same  doctrine, 
coming  from  General  Jackson,  becomes  dan- 
gerous. Had  one  individual  indulged  in  the 
same  style  of  correspondence  with  another  in- 
dividual, which  is  used  in  the  letters  to  the 
Governor  of  Georgia,  we  should  have  consid- 
ered it  rude ;  but,  coming  from  a  general  in  the 
service  of  the  United  States,  and  that  officer 
General  Jackson,  it  has  an  awful  squinting  to- 
wards the  degradation  of  State  authorities — the 
prostration  of  State  sovereignties,  with  the  pre- 
servation of  which  is  connected  the  best  inter- 
ests of  this  nation.  And,  finally,  had  a  man 
unknown  to  fame,  executed  two  individuals, 
without  any  law  of  this  nation  to  justify  it,  we 
should  have  found  no  difficulty  in  giving  to  the 
deed  a  name ;  but,  when  it  is  done  under  claim 
of  military  authority,  it  constitutes  a  political 
offence  of  a  much  higher  and  more  dangerous 
nature.  Such  acts,  he  must  confess,  roused  all 
his  jealousy  of  military  power  and  military 
usurpations. 

"With  regard  to  entering  Florida,  much  na- 
tional law  had  been  quoted  to  justify  the  meas- 
ure ;  but  all  those  principles  apply  to  sovereign 
powers,  and  only  serve  to  show  that  this  na- 
tion, in  its  high  sovereign  capacity,  would  have 
had  a  right  to  order  its  armies  into  that  prov- 
ince, without  giving  just  cause  of  offence  to 
Spain.  But  where  is  this  sovereign  power 
lodged  by  the  constitution  of  this  country  ?  In 
Congress,  unquestionably,  and  not  in  the  Ex- 
ecutive. I  am  not  prepared,  however,  to  say 
that,  being  once  involved  hi  war  with  the 
Seminoles,  the  Executive  had  no  right,  even 
under  our  form  of  Government,  to  order  the 
troops  into  Florida,  without  the  consent  of 
Congress,  as  an  incident  to  that  war.  But  here 
another  question  will  arise  as  to  the  power  of 
the  Executive  to  enter  into  that  war,  without 
a  law.  The  wars  which  have  heretofore  been 
waged  against  Indian  nations  have  always  been 
against  those  within  our  acknowledged  ter- 
ritorial limits.  The  use  of  the  army  against 
them  has  resembled  more  the  case  of  suppress- 
ing an  internal  enemy,  than  waging  a  foreign 
war.  The  President,  therefore,  has,  under  the 
authority  of  a  general  law,  exercised  the  power 
of  calling  out  the  militia,  and  sending  against 
them  the  military  force  of  the  United  States, 
without  a  particular  law  to  authorize  it;  but 
surely  the  case  is  very  different  in  relation  to 
Indian  nations  without  our  territorial  limits, 
and,  as  far  as  regards  us,  to  all  intents  and  pur- 
poses independent.  "With  regard  to  these,  he 


DEBATES  OF  CONGRESS. 


279 


JANUARY,  1819.] 


The  Seminole  War. 


[H.  OF  R 


had  no  doubt  the  assent  of  Congress  to  the 
war  was  as  necessary  by  the  constitution  as  in 
any  other  war  whatever,  although  he  had  no 
doubt  the  omission  to  obtain  that  assent  arose 
from  the  former  practice  of  the  Government, 
and  their  not  having  reflected  upon  the  change 
in  circumstances,  which,  in  the  present  instance, 
required,  a  change  of  that  practice.  He  was 
never  disposed  to  blame,  upon  slight  grounds, 
the  Executive  Magistrate  of  the  Government. 
But  these  two  last  questions  were  entirely  of 
a  domestic  nature,  and  were  only  differences  of 
opinion  as  to  the  mode  of  exercising  a  right  un- 
questionably belonging  to  the  nation ;  and,  as 
he  before  observed,  that  Spain  had  no  right  to 
complain  of  the  entrance  into  Florida,  so  also 
phe  has  no  right  to  inquire  into  the  legality  of 
this  war  against  the  Seminoles.  But,  with  re- 
gard to  other  acts  in  the  progress  of  the  war, 
of  which  Spain  has  just  reason  to  complain, 
which  might  have  involved  this  nation  in  a  for- 
eign war,  and  which  did,  in  effect,  amount  to  a 
war  on  her  part  against  Spain,  let  us  again 
recur  to  the  original  question,  whether  they 
proceed  from  the  Executive,  or  were  the  acts 
of  General  Jackson,  upon  his  own  responsi- 
bility. 

To  ascertain  this,  let  us  examine  his  orders. 
They  were  given  to  General  Gaines  on  the  16th 
of  December,  1817,  and  are  referred  to  in  the 
order  directing  General  Jackson  to  take  the  com- 
mand of  the  army.  In  those  orders  the  Exe- 
cutive strictly  conforms  to  the  established  laws 
of  nations ;  they  permit  the  army  to  cross  the 
Florida  line,  if  necessary,  but  expressly  direct 
that,  if  the  Indians  should  even  take  shelter 
under  a  Spanish  fort,  and  be  protected  by  them, 
not  to  attack  the  place,  but  report  it  to  the  War 
Department,  and  wait  for  further  orders.  Did 
General  Jackson  obey  these  orders?  Let  St. 
Marks,  Pensacola,  and  the  Barancas  answer. 
But  I  am  not  disposed  to  censure  General  Jack- 
son unjustly ;  there  may  have  been  some  reason 
for  his  taking  St.  Marks,  notwithstanding  his 
orders.  As  far  as  the  laws  of  nations  are  con- 
cerned, it  might  certainly  be  justified  by  a 
milder  code  than  that  from  which  he  has  drawn 
his  definition  of  a  pirate.  But  where  was  the 
necessity  of  taking  Pensacola  and  the  Barancas  ? 
General  Jackson  himself  shows  that  there  was 
none ;  for,  in  his  letter  of  the  20th  of  April,  he 
states  that  the  war  may  be  considered  at  an 
end — that  only  a  few  Bed  Sticks,  &c.,  remain- 
ed, who  were  not  a  formidable  enemy,  and  that 
even  if  the  war  were  renewed,  the  posts  they 
then  had,  with  only  a  small  military  force, 
would  be  sufficient  to  restrain  the  Indians.  If 
this  be  the  case,  where  the  necessity  of  taking 
Pensacola?  General  Jackson  himself  does  not 
put  it  upon  the  ground  of  necessity,  nor  entire- 
ly upon  the  ground  of  their  hostility,  manifest- 
ed by  affording  comfort  and  supplies  to  the  In- 
dians; for  that  could  not  have  justified  him, 
inasmuch  as  his  orders  had  forbidden  him  to 
attack  a  Spanish  fort,  even  under  circum- 
stances of  much  greater  hostility,  viz.,  the  In- 


dians taking  shelter  under  it,  and  being  pro- 
tected by  it.  "What,  then,  is  the  immediate 
cause  assigned  for  the  capture  of  that  place? 
He  states  that  on  the  23d  of  May,  being  then  in 
full  march  towards  Pensacola,  he  received  a  pro- 
test from  the  Governor  of  that  place,  which 
protest  Mr.  C.  was  surprised  to  hear  some  gen- 
tlemen call  a  threat.  Now,  what  was  this 
protest?  Only  that  he  disapproved  of  General 
Jackson's  conduct  in  approaching  his  command 
with  a  large  military  force,  in  a  tune  of  pro- 
found peace  between  the  two  nations,  without 
having  given  those  explanatioas  and  security 
against  aggressions  which  the  neutral  has  always 
aright  to  demand;  and  a  declaration,  that,  if 
the  aggression  was  continued,  that  is,  his  post 
attacked,  he  should  repel  force  by  force.  And 
this  General  Jackson  construes  into  such  a  mani- 
festation of  hostility,  that  he  no  longer  hesitated 
upon  the  course  to  be  pursued,  but  marched 
the  next  day  to  take  possession  of  the  place. 
A  manifestation  of  hostility,  sir !  "What  could 
the  Spanish  officer  have  done  less  ?  He  did  his 
duty  merely,  and  less  would  have  been  incon- 
sistent with  his  own  honor,  or  that  of  his  nation. 
In  this  transaction,  sir,  General  Jackson  seems 
to  have  yielded  to  the  impressions  of  anger,  that 
any  one  should  have  dared  to  oppose  the  slightest 
obstacle  to  his  wishes.  He  took  the  place  in 
violation  of  his  orders ;  and,  in  violating  them, 
he  violated  the  constitution  of  his  country,  and 
for  this  the  Congress  of  the  United  States 
should  express  their  decided  disapprobation. 
And  yet  some  gentlemen  speak  of  voting 
thanks.  Thanks,  sir,  for  what?  Mr.  C.  con- 
fessed that,  for  his  part,  in  the  conduct  of  the 
Seminole  war,  he  saw  but  little  to  approve,  and 
much,  very  much,  to  censure. 


WEDNESDAY,  January  27. 
Seminole  War. 

The  House  then  proceeded  to  the  orders  of 
the  day,  and  resumed  in  Committee  of  the 
Whole,  (Mr.  NELSON  in  the  chair,)  the  report  of 
the  Military  Committee  on  the  subject  of  the 
Seminole  war. 

Mr.  STBOTHEB  said,  that  at  that  late  hour  of 
the  day,  when  the  subject  had  been  so  much 
exhausted,  and  the  attention  of  the  committee 
so  much  wearied,  he  with  reluctance  engaged 
in  the  debate ;  but  his  excuse  would  be  found 
in  the  artificial  importance  the  subject  had  as- 
sumed by  the  wide  excursions  in  which  gentle- 
men had  indulged,  embracing,  in  the  scope  of 
their  arguments,  not  only  the  illustrious  chief 
against  whom  the  attack  is  directly  aimed,  but 
mounting  up  to  the  Executive,  and  charging 
him  with  a  violation  of  the  constitution. 

He  said,  the  advocates  of  these  resolutions 
ckimed  to  be  the  exclusive  guardians  of  the 
constitution :  a  portion  of  them,  he  admitted, 
held  the  title  by  prescription ;  they  had  sound- 
ed the  tocsin  when  the  midnight  judiciary  dis- 
ajipoarod;  they  had  raised  a  warning  voice 
I  against  the  embargo,  and  the  whole  restrictive 


280 


ABRIDGMENT  OF  THE 


H.  OF  R.] 


The  Seminole  War. 


[JASUAHY,  1819. 


system,  as  infractions  of  that  sacred  charter; 
and  they  protested  against  rejoicing  for  the 
brilliant  victories  achieved  by  our  heroic  armies 
and  gallant  navy,  as  unbecoming  a  moral  and 
religious  people :  when  now  called  upon,  as 
formerly,  to  put  the  finger  upon  the  principle 
which  is  wounded  in  that  instrument,  they 
cannot  agree  upon  the  point  where  it  is  to  be 
found ;  it  was  an  intangible,  fleeting  principle, 
which  eludes  the  grasp  of  examination.  He 
claimed  no  participation  in  the  vision,  but  he 
claimed  a  conscientious  discharge  of  duty,  and 
the  credit  of  the  humble  endeavor  to  vindicate 
the  honor  of  the  nation,  and  to  preserve  the 
constitution  inviolate. 

He  objected  to  the  mode  of  proceeding ;  he 
denied  Congress  had  power  to  proceed  in  this 
manner ;  the  bright  page  that  records  the  im- 
mortal deeds  of  our  ancestors,  and  the  happi- 
ness of  this  favored  people,  is  shaded  by  the 
paroxysms  of  party  heat.  The  Cdngress  of  the 
United  States  once  stepped  down  from  the  ele- 
vated duties  of  legislation,  to  censure  the  self- 
created  democratic  societies ;  it  was  then  the 
eloquent  Ames  sung  the  syren  song  that  spell- 
bound the  people :  the  delusion  was  but  for  a 
season ;  the  enchantment  dissolved ;  the  nation 
awakened  from  its  trance,  and,  gifted  with  the 
energy  that  freedom  bestows,  sprung  upon  that 
basis  of  correct  principle  upon  which  the  pres- 
ent Administration  stands ;  then  the  democratic 
party  contended,  in  vain,  that  the  right  to  the 
proceeding  was  not  vested  in  this  House.  On 
another  occasion,  when  the  army,  commanded 
by  St.  Clair,  sustained  a  bloody  and  disastrous 
defeat,  a  democratic  member  proposed  a  reso- 
lution, requesting  the  then  President,  General 
WASHINGTON,  to  set  on  foot  an  inquiry  into  the 
causes  of  that  inglorious  affair;  the  Federal 
majority  rejected  the  proposition  as  unconsti- 
tutional, and  improperly  interfering  with  the 
powers  of  the  Executive  department. 

Each  party  was  correct  when  contending  for 
the  negative,  as  will  appear  from  an  examina- 
tion of  the  question.  This  is  a  Government  of 
departments,  shedding  light,  emitting  heat,  and 
promoting  political  health.  When  each  re- 
volves in  its  peculiar  orbit,  the  limits  and  ex- 
tent of  each  are  distinctly  marked  out  in  the 
constitution.  Congress  can  speak  an  army  into 
existence;  by  repealing  the  law  that  gave  it 
being,  you  annihilate  it ;  or,  by  refusing  to  ap- 
propriate tl|,e  means  of  subsistence,  it  languishes 
and  expires.  The  management  of  this  army  is 
placed  in  the  hands  of  the  Executive ;  speak  it 
into  existence,  it  bounds  into  another  sphere 
beyond  your  control.  This  division  of  power 
is  wisely  ordained — guarding  against  this  dan- 
gerous machine  by  legislative  jealousy,  and  giv- 
ing it  energy  and  promptitude  of  movement  by 
the  Executive.  This  army,  existing  by  your 
will,  is  only  responsible  to  the  Executive  and 
the  Judiciary.  Personal  wrong,  and  the  inva- 
sion of  private  rights,  give  the  courts  jurisdic- 
tion. If  the  peace  of  the  nation  is  compro- 
mitted,  and  its  honor  tarnished,  the  Executive 


holds  the  corrective ;  and,  if  this  high  consti- 
tutional officer  sleeps  at  his  post ;  if  he  shield 
the  delinquent,  and  hesitates  to  redeem  the 
sullied  justice  of  his  country,  he  becomes  acces- 
sory— is  implicated  in  the  guilt,  and  subjects 
himself  to  punishment,  by  impeachment.  The 
inconvenience  and  impracticability  of  exercising 
this  power,  prove  it  is  not  granted  to  this  de- 
partment of  the  Government.  If  it  is  your 
right  and  your  duty  to  stoop  beneath  the  Com- 
mander-in-chief, to  lay  hold  of  a  Major  Gen- 
eral, it  is  equally  incumbent  upon  you  to  de- 
scend into  the  ranks ;  place  a  private  soldier 
into  legislative  inquisition,  and  gravely  discuss, 
and  sagely  decide,  upon  his  demerits.  'The  doc- 
trine contended  for  lays  hold  of  both  ends  of 
the  Military  Establishment.  He  said,  amidst 
the  awful  convulsions  of  the  French  revolution, 
the  convention  wasted  an  entire  night  in  exam- 
ining a  sergeant;  descending  from  "riding  in 
the  whirlwind,  and  directing  the  storm,"  to  the 
examination  of  a  soldier.  Some  claim  the  right 
to  censure,  as  the  correlative  of  the  practice  of 
giving  thanks.  He  denied  that  this  practice 
was  predicated  upon  right.  This  is  no  novel 
idea,  intended  for  the  present  moment.  In  a 
proposition  to  return  thanks  to  General  Wayne, 
for  the  brilliant  victory  of  the  Miami,  Mr.  Tracy 
and  others  denied  that  Congress  possessed  this 
power.  The  practice  has  grown  out  of  usur- 
pation. It  can  only  be  claimed  upon  the  pre- 
supposition that  Congress  represent  the  entire 
sovereignty  of  the  people,  and  reflect  their  feel- 
ings. On  the  contrary,  the  members  of  this 
House  are  only  special  agents,  for  limited  and 
defined  purposes.  This  power  is  not  delegated 
to  you  by  any  affirmative  grant,  nor  is  it  inci- 
dental to  any  express  grant.  When  Congress, 
warmed  by  the  gratitude  which  glowed  in  the 
bosom  of  this  nation,  poured  out  the  rich  liba- 
tion of  its  thanks,  and  entwined  the  laurel 
around  the  brow  of  the  hero,  no  one  paused  to 
inquire  if,  beneath  the  leaf,  the  asp  was  hid, 
whose  poison  would  wither  that  laurel,  and 
sting  the  wearer  to  death. 

No,  sir,  this  people  have  not  constituted  yon 
the  agents  to  confer  her  thanks,  or  to  select  ob- 
jects of  benevolence,  and  distribute  her  gratui- 
ties. More  arduous  employments  are  assigned 
— more  important  duties  imposed.  You  have 
been  tolerated  in  weaving  eulogies,  and  braid- 
ing and  festooning  them  with  all  the  art  of  taste 
and  criticism,  to  decorate  the  favorite  of  the 
day.  It  was  an  innocent  waste  of  time ;  it  did 
not  render  a  heroic  deed  more  brilliant,  nor  did 
it  sully  the  bright  chastity  of  a  well-earned  re- 
nown. But  when  you  censure,  you  desert  leg- 
islation; you  exercise  high  judicial  power;  you 
inflict  punishments  upon  ex  parte  examination ; 
you  deprive  a  man  of  that  property  which  he 
holds  in  a  cherished  reputation ;  that  property 
which  he  hugs  nearest  to  his  heart,  and  which 
is  the  richest  and  most  precious  patrimony  of 
his  descendants;  your  censure  "  rives  and  blasts 
like  the  lightning  of  heaven,"  leaving  its  victim 
exposed  to  scorn  and  contumely,  and  brings 


DEBATES  OF  CONGKESS. 


281 


JAXUAKY,  1819.] 


The  Seminole  War. 


[H.  OF  R. 


him  to  trial,  if  a  military  court  shall  be  ordered, 
with  presumed  guilt,  and  anticipated  convic- 
tion. By  practice  you  are  the  grand  almoners 
of  the  nation.  In  the  spirit  of  beneficence,  you 
made  a  magnificent  donation  to  a  South  Ameri- 
can province  ;  charity  cast  her  mantle  over  the 
act,  and  the  nation  would  not  rend  the  veil. 
Sir,  this,  nation  has  a  heart  to  feel,  and  magna- 
nimity to  forgive,  when  the  error  is  on  the  side 
of  generosity  and  humanity.  Build  upon  this 
acquiescence  a  right  to  punish ;  touch  but  a 
vested  right  in  the  humblest  citizen,  and  its 
justice  will  lead  you  back  to  the  constitution, 
the  instrument  of  your  power  and  their  pro- 
tection. 

But,  admitting  that  this  House  possess  the 
power,  the  transactions  of  the  Seminole  war  do 
not  justify  its  exercise.  The  advocates  of  the 
resolutions,  by  different  routes,  arrive  at  one 
common  conclusion:  one  contends  that  the 
President  made  war,  and  usurped  the  powers 
of  this  House ;  others  take  post  at  the  thirty- 
first  degree  of  south  latitude,  and  some  few 
push  on  to  Pensacola,  and  contend  that  there 
the  original  sin  was  committed — there  the  for- 
bidden fruit  was  eaten  that  stains  the  whole 
Government  with  the  guilt  of  violating  the  con- 
stitution, and  insulting  the  majesty  of  the  King 
of  Spain.  Many,  to  be  sure,  Mr.  Chairman, 
drop  by  the  way,  and  fill  up  the  intermediate 
chasms.  Did  the  President  make  war,  and 
usurp  the  powers  of  Congress,  the  just  exposi- 
tion of  our  constitution  is  best  seen,  and  most 
clearly  understood,  in  the  uninterrupted  prac- 
tice of  this  Government.  The  Administration 
of  Washington,  to  which  we  all  look  with  pride, 
and  many  with  regret,  as  the  good  old  consti- 
tutional times,  presents  the  first  link  in  that 
chain  of  precedent  which  reaches  down  to  the 
present  transaction.  This  Government  found 
several  of  the  States  engaged  in  hostilities  with 
the  Indians.  The  President  communicated  this 
circumstance  to  the  first  Congress,  who  imme- 
diately appropriated  money ;  a.nd  a  bloody  con- 
test ensued,  distinguished  only  by  appropria- 
tions and  defeat.  Harmar's  army  sprung  from 
an  appropriation  bill ;  that  commanded  by  the 
unfortunate  St.  Clair  stood  upon  the  same  basis, 
and  when  its  disastrous  defeat  roused  the  Gov- 
ernment to  the  miserable  condition  of  the  fron- 
tier, the  military  establishment  was  considera- 
bly increased,  and  placed  under  the  command 
of  the  gallant  Wayne,  who  infused  his  martial 
spirit  into  that  army,  and  achieved  the  victory 
which  gave  peace  and  tranquillity  to  the  ha- 
rassed and  bleeding  frontier.  As  early  as  1792, 
Congress  vested  power  in  the  President  to  call 
out  the  militia  to  suppress  insurrections,  or  re- 
pel invasion  from  any  foreign  power  or  Indian 
tribe.  The  power  transferred  by  that  act  being 
insufficient  to  the  purpose  contemplated,  in  1795 
another  law  was  enacted,  clothing  him  with 
further  power — authorizing  him  to  take  advan- 
tage of  the  indications  of  hostility — to  antici- 
pate the  approach  of  the  storm,  and  to  strike 
before  the  elements  of  havoc  and  desolation 


were  collected  together,  and  poured  upon  the 
frontier  in  fire  and  indiscriminate  massacre. 

Those  who  then  filled  the  Government  were 
fresh  from  the  Revolution,  and  were  animated 
by  the  spirit  which  is  embodied  in  your  con- 
stitution. No  passion  then  existed  in  which 
could  flourish  party  spirit ;  it  could  germinate, 
but  to  expire,  in  the  then  pure  state  of  our  po- 
litical atmosphere ;  in  the  calm  light  of  mild 
philosophy,  they  examined  their  duties  and 
transferred  this  power ;  these  were  the  men 
who  worshipped  Liberty  in  her  favorite  tem- 
ple, in  sincerity  and  in  truth ;  these  were  the 
men  whose  blood  and  suffering  elevated  yon  to 
the  rank  of  a  nation,  and  whose  wisdom  gave 
you  a  constitution  which  breaks  upon  the  view 
of  enslaved  and  benighted  Europe,  like  the  star 
in  the  East,  happy  harbinger  of  hope,  proclaim- 
ing there  is  power  sufficient  to  redeem  from 
thraldom  and  misery. 

This  treaty  is  said  to  have  violated  the  re- 
ligion of  the  Indians,  by  demanding  their 
prophets :  and  they  appeal  to  modern  Europe 
and  ancient  Eome,  to  suffuse  the  American 
cheek  with  the  blush  of  guilt.  Those  prophets 
were  not  the  ministers  of  religion — they  were 
political  agitators ;  instigators  to  war,  they 
were  not  the  messengers  of  peace  and  good  will 
towards  man,  that  stilled  the  tempest  of  the 
savage  soul,  and  called  the  chaos  into  light  and 
order ;  they  were  the  fit  and  supple  instruments 
of  Woodbine ;  they  breathed  confusion  and 
havoc — humanity  to  these  Indians,  and  the 
interest  of  this  country,  demanded  their  sur- 
render. Rome  never  lost  sight  of  policy ;  she 
transplanted  the  idols  of  the  subdued  provinces, 
and  incorporated  them  with  her  gods ;  and  by 
the  strong  tie  of  superstition,  chained  the  prov- 
ince to  the  foot  of  the  Capitol.  Yet  the  Druids 
were  extirpated,  and  the  forests  of  Germany 
tell  a  bloody  tale.  These  forests  still  echo  the 
expiring  groans  of  those  priests  who  smoothed 
the  brow  of  the  rugged  warrior  in  peace,  and 
nerved  his  arm  in  the  hour  of  battle.  England 
extracts  a  revenue  from  the  idolatrous  worship- 
pers of  the  bloody  Juggernaut,  whilst  the  Irish 
Catholic,  who  believes  in  the  same  God,  and 
relies  upon  the  same  Redeemer,  is  torn  from 
the  horns  of  the  altar,  a  victim  to  ecclesiastical 
pride,  and  the  jealousy  of  despotism.  The  gen- 
ius of  these  polished  and  religious  courts,  passed 
from  those  seats  of  science  and  the  arts,  into 
the  wilds  of  Africa;  it  dealt  in  slavery  and 
blood,  and  sundered  every  tie  that  connects 
man  to  his  species.  It  spread  its  wings  over 
the  East  Indies — fifty  millions  of  human  beings 
have  there  for  years,  been  hunted  as  lawful 
prey,  in  the  indiscriminate  chase  of  death.  The 
timid  Hindoo  has  been  swept  from  the  plains, 
and  is  now  pursued  to  the  mountain  top,  where 
he  sought  refuge  amidst  the  clouds.  This  Gov- 
ernment need  not  hang  its  head  upon  an  appeal 
to  Europe,  unless  the  mere  glitter  of  a  diadem 
shall  dazzle  and  confuse. 

Sir,  he  said,  the  western  frontier  is  that  por- 
tion of  the  world  where  civilization  is  making 


282 


ABKIDGMENT  OF  THE 


H.  OF  R.] 


The  Seminole  War. 


[JANUARY,  1810. 


the  most  rapid  and  extensive  conquest  on  the 
wilderness,  carrying  in  its  train  the  Christian 
religion,  and  all  the  social  virtues.  It  is  the 
point  where  the  race  of  man  is  most  progres- 
sive ;  establish  but  the  principle,  that  the  God 
of  nature  has  limited  your  march  in  that  direc- 
tion— that  the  Indian  is  lord  paramount  of  that 
wide  domain,  around  which  justice  and  religion 
have  drawn  a  circle  which  you  dare  not  pass — 
the  progress  of  mankind  is  arrested,  and  you 
condemn  one  of  the  most  beautiful  and  fertile 
tracts  of  the  earth  to  perpetual  sterility,  as  the 
hunting  ground  of  a  few  savages.  The  most 
celebrated  philosophers  have  spoken  a  different 
language,  and  the  ermine  of  the  judiciary  has 
interposed  against  these  theories,  and,  without 
a  stain,  given  this  country  to  civilization  and 
Christianity. 

Mr.  Chairman,  it  cannot  now  be  denied,  that, 
this  being  a  defensive  war,  resulting  from  the 
necessity  of  repelling  invasion,  military  move- 
ment was  the  bounden  duty  of  the  Executive, 
not  only  upon  the  principle  of  self-preservation 
— a  law  written  by  the  finger  of  nature  upon 
all  animated  creation — but  under  the  practice  of 
the  Government  and  the  laws  of  the  country ; 
and  it  will  be  found  that  the  rights  of  war,  ex- 
tended to  the  management  of  the  war  by  the 
international  law,  were  exercised  with  extra- 
ordinary forbearance — never  transcended.  It 
would  require  no  prophetic  spirit  to  predict, 
that,  so  long  as  you  confined  your  military  op- 
erations to  chasing  the  Indian  from  your  terri- 
tory, the  war  would  rage,  and  the  citizens 
would  continue  to  fall  under  the  tomahawk  and 
scalping-knife.  This  Government  has  ever  ex- 
ercised its  rights  with  forbearance :  in  the  love 
of  peace,  it  has  relinquished  many.  This  na- 
tion has  bent  under  the  weight  of  insult,  and 
seldom  appealed  to  the  exercise  of  her  rights, 
in  full  latitude,  until  compelled  to  it  by  prin- 
ciples identified  with  the  paramount  duty  of  all 
Governments.  How  long  were  your  citizens 
torn  from  their  families,  scourged  by  a  British 
captain,  and  compelled,  in  some  instances,  to 
point  the  cannon  against  their  countrymen? 
The  bitter  cup  of  humiliation  was  emptied  to 
the  dregs.  In  scorn,  it  was  said  this  Govern- 
ment could  not  be  kicked  into  a  war.  The 
nation  rose  in  the  majesty  of  its  strength,  and 
hurled  destruction  upon  the  foe  !•  Experience 
at  length  satisfied  the  Administration  that 
these  vexatious  and  cruel  incursions  could  only 
be  terminated  by  pursuing  the  erratic  Indian. 
At  length  the  ghost  of  the  departed  sovereignty 
of  Spain  in  Florida,  no  longer  alarmed.  It  fled 
before  the  demands  of  Georgia  and  Alabama 
for  protection;  and  the  extent  of  the  orders 
given  to  the  troops  was  communicated  to  you 
by  the  President,  in  his  Message  of  the  25th 
March,  1818.  He  told  you  that  "Orders  had 
been  given  to  the  General  in  command,  not  to 
enter  Florida,  unless  it  be  in  pursuit  of  the  ene- 
my, and,  in  that  case,  to  respect  the  Spanish 
authority  wherever  it  is  maintained;  and  he 
will  be  instructed  to  withdraw  his  forces  from 


this  province,  as  soon  as  he  shall  have  reduced 
that  tribe  to  order,  and  secured  our  fellow-citi- 
zens in  that  quarter,  by  satisfactory  arrange- 
ments against  its  unprovoked  and  savage  hos- 
tilities in  future."  How  did  you  proceed  upon 
the  receipt  of  this  Message?  It  was  the  basis 
of  legislative  acts,  legitimatizing  what  had  been 
done ;  countenancing  the  doctrine  the  Message 
contained;  and  embracing  its  views,  you  di- 
rected a  brigade  of  militia  to  be  called  into 
service ;  you  increased  the  pay  of  the  Georgia 
militia  engaged  in  the  Semiuole  war.  He  said 
he  recollected  the  proposition  was  made  by  his 
friend  from  that  State,  (Mr.  COBB.)  He  felt  a 
repugnance  to  it,  but  his  objections  melted 
away  under  the  fervid  zeal  and  eloquence  of 
that  gentleman ;  and  a  large  appropriation  was 
made  to  meet  the  expenses  of  the  war.  Here 
is  a  shield  broad  enough  and  thick  enougli  to 
protect  the  Executive  from  attack,  the  work  of 
your  own  hands. 

But,  considering  the  subject  unaccompanied 
with  this  quasi  declaration  of  war  and  the  aux- 
iliary measures,  the  step  was  strictly  justifiable. 
If  Spam  had  been  a  neutral  power,  and  the  In- 
dians belligerent,  not  inhabiting  her  territory 
and  being  within  her  sovereignty,  but  merely 
retreating,  then  the  Americans  would  have  had 
an  indisputable  right  to  pursue  them  by  the 
usages  of  nations.  "We  will  find  this  doctrine 
in  Vattel,  515.  It  is  certain  that  on  my  ene- 
my's being  defeated,  and  too  much  weakened 
to  escape  me,  even  if  my  neighbor  affords  him 
a  retreat,  his  conduct,  so  pernicious  to  my  safe- 
ty and  interests,  would  be  incompatible  with 
neutrality.  If,  therefore,  my  enemy  on  a  defeat 
retires  into  a  neutral  country,  he  is  to  cause 
the  troops  as  soon  as  possible  to  continue  their 
march,  and  not  permit  them  to  watch  an  op- 
portunity to  attack  me,  because  otherwise  he 
*ives  me  a  right  to  enter  his  territory  in  pursuit 
of  my  enemy — a  misfortune  that  often  attends 
nations  unable  to  command  respect.  The  ene- 
my not  only  retreated  into  the  Spanish  terri- 
tory, and  watched  an  opportunity  to  attack  our 
citizens,  but  were  the  inhabitants  of  the  coun- 
try, and  kept  the  Spanish  authorities  in  sub- 
jection. It  was  said  by  a  member  from  New 
York,  (Mr.  STORES,)  that  the  line  should  not 
have  been  crossed,  until  application  had  been 
made  to  the  Spanish  Court.  For  months  had 
your  soil  been  polluted  by  the  foot  of  savage 
invasion ;  for  months  had  this  land,  sacred  to 
liberty,  to  justice,  and  to  humanity,  been  crim- 
soned by  the  blood  of  its  inhabitants ;  yet  there 
should  have  been  a  pause  in  our  movements 
until  a  messenger  had  crossed  the  Atlantic  to 
call  the  attention  of  Ferdinand  to  the  condition 
of  his  subjects — to  awaken  him  to  a  sense  of 
duty,  and  to  ask  him  to  re-assume  the  sover- 
eignty of  the  Floridas,  which  he  had  carelessly 
.ost.  Your  messenger  would  have  found  him 
tambouring  a  petticoat  for  the  Virgin,  sur- 
rounded by  lazy  monks,  dreaming  of  schemes 
;o  establish  the  Inquisition,  under  whose  tor- 
tures hypocrisy  flourishes,  and  religion  expires. 


DEBATES  OF  CONGRESS. 


283 


JANUARY,  1819.] 


The  Seminole  War. 


[H.  OF  R. 


Tbe  Indian  is  only  vulnerable  in  his  town.  An 
Indian  war  can  only  be  terminated  by  destroy- 
ing his  means  of  subsistence,  and  penetrating 
his  fastnesses,  where  he  flies  for  shelter,  until, 
like  the  tiger,  in  the  still  darkness  of  the  night, 
he  can  spring  upon  his  prey.  It  was  said,  the 
present  Secretary  of  War  gave  vigor  to  the 
operations ;  that  he  boldly  ordered  the  com- 
mander of  our  forces  to  terminate  the  war.  It 
was  the  patriotic  vigor  that  meets  the  exi- 
gency. Let  that  distinguished  statesman  pur- 
sue the  course  he  has  commenced,  and  ere  long 
the  hand  of  gratitude  will  crown  him  with  the 
proudest  honors  of  the  Republic. 

The  execution  of  Ambrister  and  Arbuthnot  is 
said  to  be  unconstitutional ;  but  ingenious  gen- 
tlemen have  not  condescended  to  point  out  the 
provision  which  is  invaded,  unless,  as  his  col- 
league (Mr.  COLSTON)  had  contended,  the  con- 
stitution had  repealed  the  law  of  nations,  making 
this  a  transaction  casus  ommus,  and  carrying 
back  the  right  of  punishment  to  the  old  ground 
of  natural  law,  where  authority  sufficient  would 
be  found  for  the  measure.  On' the  contrary  this 
people,  when  they  assumed  a  stand  amongst  the 
powers  of  the  earth,  became  entitled  to  the 
benefit  of  all  the  law  of  nations.  The  constitu- 
tion only  distributes  the  exercise  of  these  rights 
amongst  a  variety  of  departments,  defining  what 
portion  of  sovereignty  shall  be  exercised  by  the 
one  and  the  other — all  the  sovereign  power  that 
attaches  to  an  independent  government  in  its 
foreign  relations  and  intercourse  existing  in,  and 
to  be  performed  by  one  of  these  departments,  or 
by  the  co-operation  of  all.  This  Government 
claims  all  the  rights  of  war  and  peace  permitted 
to  be  exercised  by  the  law  of  nations.  This  law, 
and  the  practice  and  usage  of  all  governments, 
vest  the  right  of  punishing  incendiaries  like 
those  in  the  commanders  of  armies.  Your  con- 
stitution does  not  interdict  the  exercise  of  this 
power  in  this  ordinary  mode,  nor  is  it  confined, 
by  that  instrument,  to  any  particular  depart- 
ment, nor  has  it  been  the  subject  of  legislation. 

Mr.  S.  said,  that,  although  this  was  ample  vin- 
dication, he  placed  the  justification  of  these  exe- 
cutions upon  different  ground.  He  did  not  con- 
sider these  men  British  subjects.  The  doctrine 
of  perpetual  allegiance — once  a  subject  always 
a  subject — was  not  to  be  found  in  his  political 
creed.  The  right  of  expatriation  was  admitted 
by  this  Government — the  tide  of  emigration 
flowed  into  this  country  upon  that  principle ; 
and  its  preservation  is  the  shield  of  a  large  por- 
tion of  your  population,  Avho  have  sought  refuge 
here  from  tyranny  and  persecution.  The  evi- 
dence of  the  exercise  of  this  right  is,  residence 
or  acceptance  of  office.  When  an  effort  was 
made  in  this  House,  by  an  able  and  zealous  friend 
to  the  rights  of  man,  to  prescribe  a  mode  for  the 
exercise  of  this  right,  it  was  rejected,  for  the 
simple  reason  that  the  right  then  stood  upon 
the  surest  basis.  These  men  had  become  mem- 
bers of  the  Indian  tribe — they  had  incorporated 
themselves  with  the  savages.  Ambrister  com- 
manded a  detachment,  and  marched  at  the  head 


of  an  army,  composed  of  negroes  and  Indians, 
to  meet  the  American  troops.  Arbuthnot  was 
admitted  into  the  council  of  the  nation,  as  a 
chief ;  he  was  the  minister  of  foreign  relations 
of  the  Seminole  tribes  and  their  dependencies, 
St.  Marks  and  Pensacola.  Appointed  and  com- 
missioned to  his  high  office  by  special  power  of 
attorney,  he  corresponded,  officially,  with  Brit- 
ish Governors  and  Spanish  commandants;  he 
communicated  with  the  British  Minister  near 
the  American  Government,  until  the  interesting 
correspondence  was  interrupted  by  the  weight 
of  postage.  Sir,  he  said,  it  would  have  been  an 
interesting  spectacle  to  have  seen  the  arrival,  in 
this  circle  of  etiquette,  of  this  representative  of 
Hillishajo,  Bowlegs,  Nero,  and  the  Spanish 
commandants;  he  would  have  been  a  little 
smoked  with  monarchy,  and  great  commotion 
would  have  resulted  from  the  difficulty  of  fixing 
his  rank  in  the  scale  of  fashion.  These  men 
having  incorporated  themselves  with  the  In- 
dians— having  voluntarily  stepped  down  from 
civilized  society  and  Christian  warfare,  made 
common  cause  with  the  savages,  and  contributed 
to  their  indiscriminate  massacre ;  they  were  sub- 
ject to  the  same  treatment  that  the  usages  of 
the  country  and  the  laws  of  war  permitted  to 
be  inflicted  upon  the  savage.  Hillishajo  was 
hung;  his  memory  is  not  embalmed,  nor  his 
fame  perpetuated,  by  a  single  plaintive  strain. 
Yet  Hillishajo  was  a  king  and  a  prophet;  he 
had  swept  your  frontier  with  a  besom  of  deso- 
lation ;  no  feeling  of  his  heart  protected  the  in- 
fant or  the  timid  female ;  indiscriminate  murder 
marked  his  operations.  Ambrister  and  Arbuth- 
not, enlightened  by  the  Christian  dispensation, 
which  breathes  peace  and  good  will  towards 
man,  whetted  his  appetite  for  blood ;  stimulated 
him,  by  false  and  deceptive  promises,  to  tear 
the  scalp  from  the  infant's  head,  and  plunge  the 
tomahawk  in  the  aged  matron's  breast,  and 
drove  him  inevitably  to  the  fate  he  deservedly 
met.  They  were  apprehended  in  the  fact,  and 
condign  punishment  inflicted. 

Mr.  WALKEK,  of  North  Carolina.  Mr.  Chair- 
man, it  is  with  considerable  difficulty  I  approach 
this  subject,  which  has  been  discussed  with  so 
much  interest  and  ability  by  those  who  have 
preceded  me  in  this  debate,  as  almost  to  pre- 
clude any  further  inquiry;  like  a  body  com- 
pletely anatomized,  leaves  little  room  for  the 
most  skilful  artist  to  improve  upon  the  plan ;  • 
much  less  one  who  does  not  profess  to  be  very 
learned  in  the  constitution  or  laws  of  nations, 
and  has  no  pretensions  to  literary  or  legal  ac- 
quirements. The  ground  which  I  shall  attempt 
to  take  will  be  founded  in  plain  facts  and  com- 
mon sense.  I  do  not  calculate  on  giving  any 
illustration  on  the  subject  in  a  legal  point  of 
view,  as  every  point  has  been  brought  to  the 
law  and  to  the  testimony,  by  gentlemen  whose 
talents  and  abilities  have  proved  them  adequate 
to  the  task.  But  I  shall  briefly  state  the  prin- 
ciples and  reasons  that  shall  govern  my  vote  on 
this  important  and  interesting  question.  Im- 
portant, sir,  as  it  will  stamp  a  character  on  this 


284 


ABRIDGMENT  OF  THE 


H.  OF  R.] 


The  Seminole  War. 


[JANUARY,  1819. 


uation,  that  will  last  for  ages,  and  may  be  a  pre- 
cedent for  future  legislators,  when  we  who  are 
about  to  give  this  vote  will  be  sleeping  in  the 
dust ;  important,  as  it  respects  the  feelings  of 
the  nation,  as  we  are  accountable  to  them  who 
sent  us  here,  and  the  people  are  competent  judges 
of  our  political  opinions,  and  we  must  return 
and  submit  to  the  tribunal  of  public  opinion. 
But,  sir,  it  is  materially  important,  as  it  will 
take  into  view  the  character  and  conduct  of  one 
of  our  most  illustrious  citizens,  and  one  of  the 
greatest  captains  the  world  ever  saw,  whose 
achievements  and  military  fame  have  not  been 
surpassed  by  any  who  has  gone  before  him. 
Sir,  from  the  high  consideration  I  have  for  the 
honor  and  dignity  of  my  country,  and  the  es- 
teem and  veneration  I  entertain  for  the  charac- 
ter of  that  brave  and  meritorious  officer,  I  ap- 
proach this  vote  with  a  due  solemnity. 

Sir,  the  Seminole  war,  which  has  made  such 
au  earthquake  in  this  House,  and  on  which  so 
much  eloquence  has  been  displayed,  and  against 
which  the  constitution,  the  laws  of  our  own 
country,  and  the  laws  of  nations,  have  all  been 
arrayed,  so  inconsiderable  in  the  beginning,  has 
become  so  magnified  as  to  end  in  this  House. 
Sir,  I  have  paid  a  due  attention  to  the  debates 
on  both  sides  of  this  question,  and  with  much 
satisfaction  have  heard  it  clearly  proved  that 
the  war  was  authorized  consistently  with  the 
constitution  and  laws  of  our  country,  and  that 
it  was  promptly  and  correctly  carried  on  with 
energy  and  decision,  and  terminated  in  the  event 
to  the  honor  and  interest  of  the  TJnited  States ; 
and  all  the  lucid  explanations  delivered  in  sup- 
port of  that  war,  have,  to  my  mind,  been  like 
so  many  candles  lighted  to  the  sun.  Truth  may 
be  embellished,  but  cannot  be  changed.  The 
necessity  and  expediency  of  that  expedition  al- 
ways appeared  clear  as  the  light,  duly  author- 
ized by  the  President,  the  proper  organ  of  Ex- 
ecutive power ;  and  in  the  prosecution  of  that 
war,  I  have  seen  nothing  done  but  what  ought 
to  be  done,  and  nothing  else  could  be  done  to 
effect  the  purpose.  The  nature  and  efiects  of 
savage  warfare  have  been  ably  depicted  by  gen- 
tlemen who  preceded  me;  but,  as  truth  may 
sometimes  be  twice  told,  I  will  proceed  to  ex- 
emplify some  of  its  horrors,  which  I  not  only 
know  by  the  hearing  of  the  ear,  but  mine  eye 
hath  seen  it.  Savages  do  not  war  as  civilized 
nations,  by  formal  declaration.  No,  sir,  they 
come  as  a  thief  in  the  night ;  when  peace  and 
safety  cover  our  dwellings,  then  cometh  their 
dreadful,  secret,  and  horrible  depredations,  when 
least  expected ;  the  instruments  of  death  are  in 
their  hands,  destruction  attends  their  footsteps, 
no  kind  messenger  to  give  us  the  watchword, 
no  intimation  of  their  approach ;  the  blow  is 
struck  before  it  is  known,  and  darkness,  the 
pavilion  that  covers  their  deep  design,  and  am- 
bush secures  them  from  the  eye  of  the  traveller, 
where  neither  age  nor  sex  is  spared  ;  the  hoary 
head,  the  sprightly  youth,  the  suckling  infant, 
and  the  tender  and  trembling  mother,  all  indis- 
criminately fall  victims  to  their  savage  fury ; 


and  those  who  are  so  unfortunate  as  to  come 
within  their  grasp,  and  are  made  prisoners,  are 
often  reserved  for  a  death  more  horrible  than 
death  itself — for  the  burning  stake  or  bloody 
hatchet,  the  savage  yell  sounding  through  the 
forests,  and  desolation  and  destruction  on  every 
side.  Hear  the  words  of  a  great  man  on  the 
subject  of  savage  warfare:  "The  darkness  of 
midnight  shall  glitter  with  the  blaze  of  your 
dwellings,  and  the  war-whoop  shall  wake  the 
sleep  of  the  cradle."  Such  a  war  was  com- 
menced by  the  Seminoles  on  the  frontiers  of 
Georgia,  unprovoked  and  unknown  to  us.  When 
application  was  made  by  the  Executive  of  that 
State  for  a  defensive  force  to  repel  the  enemy, 
did  they  then  request  the  President  to  consult 
the  constitution  or  the  Sibyl  books  to  inquire 
into  his  Executive  powers,  whether  he  could 
send  an  army  to  their  relief  ?  No  such  reserve 
in  any  of  their  messages ;  they  must  have  an 
army,  they  must  have  a  general ;  it  was  then 
constitutional,  highly  approved,  and  graciously 
received ;  but  now,  Mr.  Chairman,  when  their 
battles  are  fought  and  victory  gained,  peace  con- 
cluded, and  order  and  tranquillity  restored — oh. 
it  is  now  unconstitutional,  and  their  voice  is 
against  the  hand  that  saved  them.  But  reverse 
the  subject ;  sometimes  things  appear  most  true 
and  best  proved  by  their  opposite.  Suppose  the 
President  had  hesitated,  and  adopted  the  policy 
gentlemen  so  strongly  urge  on  this  floor,  and 
told  the  people  of  Georgia  that  he  doubted  his 
Executive  powers,  and  that  the  constitution  did 
not  authorize  him  to  send  an  army  over  the 
Spanish  line,  and  so  passed  by  on  the  one  side ; 
and  that  General  Jackson,  at  the  head  of  his 
army,  advanced  to  the  Spanish  line,  had  also 
hesitated,  and  said,  hitherto  I  go,  and  no  farther, 
and  passed  by  on  the  other  side ;  what  good 
Samaritan  would  they  have  found  to  come  that 
way,  and  heal  the  wounds  of  their  bleeding 
country  ?  I  fear  they  would  have  found  none. 
What  would  have  been  then,  and  what  now, 
the  situation  of  the  people  of  Georgia?  For 
aught  we  know,  the  blood  of  the  defenceless  in- 
habitants might  be  yet  streaming,  and  the  Sem- 
inoles  encamped  in  battle  array  on  the  banks 
of  the  Oconey.  But  the  President  chose  the 
better  part,  and  acted  as  he  ought  to  have  done ; 
sent  our  army  under  the  command  of  a  General 
whose  character  and  abilities  were  adapted  to 
the  enterprise — ever  active,  ever  fortunate — 
and  whatsoever  his  hand  found  to  do,  did  it 
with  his  might. 

I  have  always  entertained  a  high  sense  of  the 
merit  of  military  men  who  have  given  their  aid 
to  rescue  their  country  from  oppression,  and  to 
secure  the  rights  and  liberties  of  mankind ;  their 
reputation  is  dearly  earned ;  they  have  to  en- 
counter the  extremes  of  every  climate,  the  in- 
clemency of  every  season,  and  all  the  conflicts 
of  a  military  life,  and  deaths  and  dangers  await 
them  at  every  post ;  while  we,  who  are  here, 
are  gaming  the  plaudits  of  our  country,  on  a 
political  eminence,  as  legislators,  with  good  ac 
commodations,  and  faring  sumptuously  every 


DEBATES  OF  CONGRESS. 


285 


JANUARY,  1819.] 


The  Seminole  War. 


[H.  OF  K. 


day ;  they  would  be  cheered  by  a  crumb  from 
our  tables  while  suffering_and  fighting  the  bat- 
tles of  our  country.  Sir,  1  am  not  among  those 
who  pay  an  unlimited  devotion  to  any  man's 
rank  or  character,  abstractly,  or  because  he  is 
so ;  but  it  is  my  pride,  and  I  ever  feel  it  a  grate- 
ful and  pleasant  duty  to  pay  my  tribute  of  re- 
spect to  every  faithful  servant  of  his  country, 
whether  in  the  cabinet  or  the  field,  or  in  any 
condition  of  life.  General  Jackson  to  me  is  per- 
sonally unknown,  but  I  cannot  be  mistaken  in 
giving  my  support  to  a  man  who  has  rendered 
such  eminent  services  to  his  country ;  who  has 
fought  our  battles,  gained  our  victories,  and  re- 
stored peace  and  tranquillity  to  our  Southern 
frontier.  I  trust,  on  this  question,  we  will  pay 
a  due  regard  to  public  feeling,  and  do  justice  to 
him  who  has  done  so  much  for  us,  and  declare  to 
this  nation,  and  to  the  world,  that  GeneralJack- 
son  well  deserves  the  gratitude  of  his  country. 

Mr.  KHEA,  of  Tennessee,  addressed  the  House 
as  follows: 

The  United  States  of  America  and  Great  Brit- 
ain terminated  the  war  of  the  Revolution  by  the 
definitive  Treaty  of  Peace  made  at  Paris.  The 
nations  and  tribes  of  Indians,  over  whom  British 
influence  prevailed,  were  allies  of  Great  Britain 
in  that  war,  and  perpetrated  barbarous  cruel- 
ties. Desolation,  burning,  and  murder,  attended 
their  movements — their  paths  were  stained  with 
blood — the  tomahawk  and  scalping-knife  spared 
neither  age  nor  sex — a  price  was  paid  for  scalps, 
from  the  mangled  heads  of  men,  women,  and 
children,  and  triumphed  over  by  the  enemies  of 
the  people  contending  for  liberty. 

The  United  States  of  America,  in  the  year 
one  thousand  seven  hundred  and  seventy-eight, 
made  articles  of  agreement  and  confederation 
with  the  Delaware  nation  of  Indians — that  treaty 
provided  for  perpetual  peace  and  friendship 
through  all  generations — the  territorial  rights 
of  that  nation  were  amply  provided  for.  The 
Delawares  were  the  first  with  whom  the  United 
States  treated,  and  were  pre-eminently  honored ; 
and  it  seems,  by  the  sixth  article  of  the  treaty, 
that,  in  that  year,  it  was  contemplated  to  in- 
stitute an  Indian  State,  with  the  Delawares  at 
its  head,  with  a  right  to  a  representation  in 
Congress.  The  wandering  life  and  habits  of  the 
Indians  frustrated  that  benevolent  plan.  The 
experience  of  Indian  disposition  manifests  the 
impracticability  of  a  confederacy  of  that  nature. 
It  appears  by  a  separate  article  of  the  treaty 
made  with  the  "Wyandot,  Delaware,  Chippewa, 
and  Ottawa  nations,  that  the  Delawares  were 
not  able  to  resist  British  influence — they  fell  off. 
Three  chiefs,  Kehlamond,  Hengue  Pashees,  and 
Wycocalind,  only,  with  their  families,  continued 
to  hold  the  chain  of  friendship  with  the  United 
States. 

The  war  of  the  Eevplution  ended ;  the  terri- 
torial limits  of  the  United  States  were  defined ; 
the  nations  of  Indians,  allies  of  Great  Britain  in 
the  war,  were  not  protected  or  covered  by  the 
Treaty  of  Peace ;  they  were  left  to  the  humanity 
and  mercy  of  the  United  States.  Hence  it  is  in- 


I  ferred,  that  all  right  whatever  to  lands  claimed 

'  by  Indian  nations,  who  were  allies  of  Great 

Britain  in  time  of  the  war,  and  residing  within 

the  limits  of  the  United  States,  were  void,  and 

ceased  to  be. 

The  United  States,  in  the  year  1784,  by  treaty, 
gave  peace  and  protection  to  the  Senecas,  Mo- 
hawks, Onondagas,  and  Cayugas.  The  Oneidas 
and  Tuscaroras  were  secured  in  the  possession 
of  the  lands  they  lived  on,  and  the  boundaries 
of  the  Six  Nations  were  fixed. 

The  United  States,  by  treaties  made  in  the 
year  1785,  gave  peace  and  protection  to  the 
Wyandot,  Delaware,  Chippewa,  and  Ottawa  na- 
tions of  Indians,  and  to  the  Cherokee  nation — 
and  these  nations  acknowledged  themselves  un- 
der the  protection  of  the  United  States  of  Amer- 
ica, and  of  no  other  sovereign  whatever.  Lands 
were  allotted  to  them,  respectively,  to  live  and 
hunt  on. 

The  United  States,  in  the  year  1786,  by 
treaties,  gave  peace  and  protection  to  the  Choc- 
taw,  Chickasaw,  and  Shawanee  nations  of  In- 
dians, respectively,  and  they  acknowledged 
themselves  to  be  under  the  protection  of  the 
United  States,  and  no  other  sovereign  what- 
ever. Lands  were  allotted  to  them,  to  live  and 
hunt  on. 

The  United  States  of  America,  in  the  year 
1790,  made  a  treaty  with  the  Creek  nation  of 
Indians.  The  first  article  provides  that  there 
shall  be  perpetual  peace  and  friendship  between 
all  the  citizens  of  the  United  States  of  America, 
and  all  the  individuals,  towns,  and  tribes,  of  the 
upper,  middle,  and  lower  Creeks,  and  Seminoles, 
composing  the  Creek  nation.  By  the  second 
article,  the  kings,  chiefs,  and  warriors,  for  them- 
selves and  all  parts  of  the  Creek  nation  within 
the  limits  of  the  United  States,  acknowledged 
themselves  and  ah1  parts  of  the  Creek  nation,  to" 
be  under  the  protection  of  the  United  States, 
and  of  no  other  sovereign  whatever.  A  bound- 
ary line  was  designated,  and  the  lands  allotted 
were  guaranteed  to  them  to  live  and  hunt  on. 
The  second  article  of  the  treaty  manifests  that 
the  Creek  nation  had  been  hostile  to  the  United 
States.  Two  other  treaties  were  made  with 
the  Creek  nation;  one  in  1802,  the  other  in 
1806,  whereby  ample  provision  was  made  for 
their  comfort,  and  to  promote  their  civilization. 
Great  Britain,  by  the  Treaty  of  Peace,  acknowl- 
edged the  United  States  to  be  free,  sovereign, 
and  independent ;  that  he  treated  with  them  as 
such,  and  for  himself,  his  heirs,  and  successors, 
relinquished  all  claims  to  the  government,  pro- 
prietary, and  territorial  rights  of  the  same,  and 
every  part  thereof.  The  United  States  of  Amer- 
ica, by  that  treaty,  became  the  acknowledged 
sovereign  of,  and  over,  all  the  territories  within 
the  boundaries  designated  by  that  treaty,  agree- 
ably to  the  principles  of  the  confederation. 
The  nations  and  tribes  of  Indians,  allies  of  Great 
Britain,  and  enemies  to  the  UniU-J  Sratos,  in 
the  Revolutionary  war,  not  covered  and  pro- 
tected by  the  Treaty  of  Peace,  no  longer  re- 
tained any  right  or  claim  to  landa  within  the 


286 


ABRIDGMENT  OF  THE 


H.  OF  R.] 


The  Seminole  War. 


[JANUARY,  1819. 


limits  of  the  United  States ;  all  their  rights  and 
claim  to  land  therein  became  void,  and  ceased 
to  be,  the  Delaware  nation  not  excepted. 

The  United  States,  said  Mr.  E.,  proceeding  on 
this  principle,  made,  after  the  Treaty  of  Peace 
with  Great  Britain,  treaties  with  the  several 
nations  and  tribes  of  Indians  within  their  terri- 
torial limits ;  and  gave  peace  to,  and  received 
them  into  their  protection,  and  these  nations 
and  tribes  acknowledged  themselves  under  the 
protection  of  the  United  States  of  America,  and 
of  no  other  sovereign  whatever.  The  United 
States  allotted  lands  to  them  to  live  and  hunt  on. 

The  treaty  of  Holston  was  made  with  the 
Cherokee  nation  of  Indians,  in  the  year  1791, 
and  that  nation  again  acknowledged  themselves 
to  be  under  the  protection  of  the  United  States, 
and  of  no  other  sovereign  whatever. 

The  Creek  nation,  soon  after  the  treaty  of 
1 790,  began  to  manifest  a  disposition  hostile  to  the 
people  of  the  United  States  living  on  the  south- 
western frontier.  That  disposition  was  known 
to  have  been  excited  by  foreign  emissaries  in- 
ducing the  Indians  to  believe  that  the  United 
States  had  wrongfully  taken  land  from  them. 
In  the  year  1792,  the  Creeks  began  their  ravages 
on  the  frontier,  and  murdered  several  persons. 
A  large  body  of  them,  aided  by  a  considerable 
reinforcement  of  Cherokees,  crossed  Tennessee 
river,  marched  to  the  Cumberland  settlements, 
attacked  Buchanan's  fort  there,  and,  being  re- 
pulsed with  great  loss,  returned,  after  having 
committed  depredations  and  murders,  conform- 
ably to  their  usual  manner.  The  Indians  con- 
tinued the  war  on  the  frontier  of  the  south- 
western territory,  until  another  treaty  was  made 
with  the  Cherokees,  at  Philadelphia,  in  the 
year  1794.  The  articles  of  which  were  stipu- 
lated to  be  considered  as  permanent  additions 
to  the  treaty  of  Holston. 

In  the  year  1795,  a  treaty  of  amity,  friendship, 
limits,  and  navigation,  was  made  between  the 
United  States  of  America  and  Spain :  and  after- 
wards, in  the  year  1796,  another  treaty  was 
made  at  Colerain,  in  Georgia,  with  the  Creek 
nation,  and  by  it  the  treaty  of  1790  is  declared 
to  be  obligatory  on  the  contracting  parties,  ex- 
cept as  provided  for  by  the  treaty  of  Colerain. 
So  ended  that  war  with  the  Creek  Indians  and 
Cherokees. 

A  variety  of  circumstances  manifested  that, 
in  the  time  of  the  Kevolutionary  war,  frequent 
communications  had  been,  between  the  northern 
and  southern  nations  of  Indians ;  and  that  their 
hostilities,  by  certain  excitements,  against  the 
people  of  the  United  States,  operated  to  the 
same  object,  namely  :  the  depression  of  the 
people  of  this  nation.  That,  also,  said  Mr.  R., 
appears  to  have  operated  in  the  time  of  the  war 
I  have  been  speaking  of;  during  that  war  a 
powerful  confederacy  of  Indian  nations  carried 
on  a  destructive  war  against  the  United  States 
on  the  north-western  frontier.  The  British  Gov- 
ernment retained  the  north-western  posts,  and 
erected  and  garrisoned  another  within  the  limits 
of  the  United  States.  The  Indians  carried  on 


the  war  in  their  usual  savage  manner ;  murder- 
ing, scalping,  and  destroying.  General  Harmar 
was  sent  with  a  body  of  forces  against  them, 
but  did  not  prevail.  General  St.  Glair,  with  a 
larger  body  of  troops,  was  ordered  against 
them ;  he  was  defeated  with  great  loss.  Gen- 
eral Wayne  was  ultimately  sent  against  them 
with  a  more  numerous  army ;  and  he  defeated 
the  Indians.  The  treaty  of  amity,  commerce, 
and  navigation,  between  the  United  States  and 
Great  Britain,  was  made  in  November,  1794, 
by  which  Great  Britain  stipulated  to  surrender 
the  north-western  posts.  In  August,  1795,  a 
treaty  of  peace  was  made  at  Greenville,  between 
the  United  States  and  the  "Wyandots,  Delawares, 
Shawanees,  Ottawas,  Chippewas,  Patawatimies, 
Miamis,  Eel  Eivers,  Weas,  Kickapoos,  Pianke- 
shaws,  andKaskaskias — and  so  ended  that  Indian 
war ;  but  not  until  a  treaty  had  been  made  with 
Great  Britain.  I  take  notice  of  these  past  events 
first,  said  Mr.  K.,  that  the  connection  of  the  In- 
dian war  operations  of  the  several  Indian  nations, 
and  the  influence  of  foreign  agency  may  be  ob- 
served, that  the  exciting  causes  be  considered,  in 
order  to  illustrate  the  subject  under  consideration, 
and  that  the  Indian  character  may  be  understood. 

The  northern  and  southern  nations  of  Indians 
engaged  in  the  wars  on  the  northwest  and  south- 
west frontiers,  which,  said  Mr.  R.,  I  have  been 
speaking  of,  had,  in  and  by  the  first  treaties  made 
with  them,  respectively,  after  the  Revolutionary 
war,  acknowledged  themselves  to  be  under  the 
protection  of  the  United  States  of  America,  and 
of  no  other  sovereign  whatever.  In  making 
and  carrying  on  war  against  the  people  of  the 
United  States,  they  renounced  and  abandoned 
that  protection ;  they  violated  the  treaties  they 
had  made  with  the  United  States,  and  put  them- 
selves out  of  their  protection ;  the  forfeiture  might 
have  been  taken  against  them ;  but  humanity,  the 
consideration  of  their  ignorance  of  the  obligations 
of  social  compact  and  morality,  and  compassion 
for  their  miserable  condition,  prevailed  ;  and, 
in  pursuance  thereof,  the  several  treaties  alluded 
to  were  made  with  them,  and  various  other 
treaties,  previous  to  the  year  1811. 

The  Indian — rude,  wild,  and  savage — igno- 
rant of  the  principles  of  morality,  of  the  doc- 
trines of  Christianity,  and  of  the  kno  wledge  of  the 
true  God — is  prone  to  superstition,  to  fanaticism, 
and  to  a  vain  desire  of  knowing  future  events, 
not  within  the  view  of  man.  In  the  year  1807, 
an  Indian  chief  of  the  Shawanee  nation,  who 
has  been  named  the  Prophet,  excited  by  foreign 
corruption,  is  said  to  have  began  to  propagate 
his  delusions  among  the  northern  Indian  nations ; 
and,  of  them,  to  form  a  strong  confederacy 
against  the  United  States.  The  influence  of  that 
Indian  chief  increased  in  that  and  succeeding 
years.  Large  quantities  of  goods  were  delivered 
to  the  Indians  by  British  agents ;  and  British 
emissaries  excited  them  to  war,  insinuating  that 
they  would  now  be  aided  by  their  great  father 
in  driving  back  the  Americans,  and  recovering 
the  lands  the  Americans  had  taken  from  them. 
The  United  States  were  pay  ing  large  annual  subsi- 


DEBATES  OF  CONGRESS. 


287 


JAMJAKT,  1819.] 


The  Seminole  War. 


[H.  OP  R. 


dies  to  the  Indian  nations  ;  but  the  influence  of 
British  corrupt  agents,  the  distribution  of  goods, 
arms,  and  ammunition,  and  the  declarations  of 
the  Indian  fanatical  prophets,  prevailed  against 
the  peace  of  the  Indians.  In  the  year  1811,  a 
confederacy  of  Indian  nations  was  formed ;  and, 
in  the  month  of  November  of  that  year,  the  battle 
of  Tippecanoe  was  fought,  in  which  the  Ameri- 
can army  defeated  the  deluded,  hostile  Indians. 

In  the  month  of  June,  1812,  the  Congress  of 
the  United  States  passed  an  act  declaring  that 
war  be,  and  did  exist,  between  the  United  King- 
doms of  Great  Britain  and  Ireland  and  the 
United  States  of  America.  The  promulgation 
of  that  act  excited  more  strenuous  efforts  of 
British  agents  and  emissaries  to  instigate  the 
Indians  to  continue  the  war. 

In  the  month  of  August,  1811,  the  Shawanee 
chief,  Tecumseh,  brother  to  the  fanatic  prophet, 
passed  down  the  Wabash  Kiver  with  a  party  of 
about  six  Shawanees,  six  Kickapoos,  and  six  of 
some  tribe  far  to  the  northwest,  as  they  said,  the 
name  of  which  they  refused  to  tell,  on  his  way 
to  the  Creek  nation.  The  object  of  his  visit 
could  not  be  mistaken — to  excite  the  Creek  and 
other  southern  nations  of  Indians  to  war  against 
the  United  States,  was  his  object.  Indian  fanat- 
ic prophets  increased  in  the  northern  Indian 
nations.  The  Creek  Indians  had,  soon  after  the 
visit  of  Tecumseh,  their  fanatic  prophets  also, 
inciting  them  to  war,  of  whom  Hillishajo,  or 
Francis,  appears  to  have  been  one.  Strong 
suspicion  is  attached  to  six  of  the  persons  ac- 
companying Tecumseh  on  his  visit  to  the  Creeks ; 
they  would  not  tell  to  what  tribe  they  belonged. 
Who  they  were  has  not  been  perfectly  ascer- 
tained. The  effects  of  the  visit  of  Tecumseh  to 
the  Creek  nation  soon  became  apparent.  An 
infuriated  fanaticism  was  propagated  among 
them ;  they  were  taught  to  believe  themselves 
invincible.  The  greatest  part  of  them  were 
hostile ;  they  prepared  for  war,  and  soon  after 
began  their  ravages  on  the  frontier.  They  at- 
tacked Fort  Mimms,  took  it,  and  massacred  al- 
most all  the  people  who  were  in  it.  War  with 
the  Creek  nation  was  inevitable. 

The  Executive  of  the  United  States  had  or- 
dered fifteen  hundred  men  from  Georgia,  and  as 
many  from  Tennessee,  to  be  called  out  in  defence 
of  the  frontier.  The  fifteen  hundred  men  from 
Tennessee  were  not  raised  previous  to  the 
meeting  of  the  General  Assembly  of  that  State. 
That  General  Assembly  convened  at  Nashville 
in  September,  1813.  The  destruction  at  Fort 
Mimms  and  other  ravages  of  the  savages  were 
known ;  and  it  was  understood  that  a  large  force 
of  them  was  preparing  to  attack  the  frontier 
settlements.  The  tune  was  precious,  the  dan- 
ger was  imminent,  and  did  not  admit  of  delay. 
The  southern  frontier  of  Tennessee,  including 
Madison  county,  is  about  four  hundred  miles 
long,  without  any  fort  or  place  of  strength,  and 
liable  to  the  incursion  of  the  savage.  A  partial 
success  of  the  hostile  Indians  would  have  added 
to  their  force  a  large  number  of  warriors  from 
the  neighboring  nations  of  Indians.  The  Gen- 


eral Assembly  of  Tennessee,  sanctioned  by  the 
Constitution  of  the  United  States  of  America, 
immediately  enacted  a  law  to  raise  and  complete, 
with  the  fifteen  hundred  men  previously  ordered, 
an  effective  force  of  five  thousand  men;  and 
also  a  law  to  raise  and  appropriate  $300,000,  to 
pay  and  support  the  troops  while  in  service. 
That  army  was  raised  with  all  possible  despatch. 
General  Jackson,  who  was  Major  General  of 
militia  in  Tennessee,  took  the  command.  To 
prevent  the  ravages  of  the  Indians  on  the 
frontiers,  the  troops  poured  out  from  Tennessee; 
and,  expecting  soon  to  meet  the  enemy  and  fin- 
ish the  war,  they  crossed  Tennessee  Eiver,  and 
commenced  operations  on  the  frontiers  of  the 
Creek  nation.  The  war  was  carried  on  with 
various  success,  several  battles  were  fought.  The 
General  with  his  intrepid  troops  approached  the 
strong  fortifications  of  the  enemy  at  the  Horse 
Shoe.  He  ordered  an  assault ;  the  fortification 
was  stormed ;  the  battle  raged  hand  to  hand, 
within  the  fort ;  and  ceased  with  the  destruc- 
tion of  nearly  all  the  Indian  warriors  in  the  fort. 
General  Jackson  afterwards  marched,  with  part 
of  his  troops,  to  the  Hickory  Ground ;  and  there, 
meeting  with  a  large  body  of  troops  from 
Georgia,  he  left  the  country  in  their  possession, 
and  returned  with  his  army  to  Tennessee.  The 
proceedings  of  General  Jackson  with  the  army 
under  his  command,  against  the  hostile  Creeks, 
were  approved,  and  the  State  of  Tennessee  was 
relieved,  by  the  General  Government,  from 
payment  of  the  expense.  The  hostile  Creek 
Indians  were  beaten,  but  the  war  was  not 
finished.  In  this  war,  the  Cherokee  Indians 
aided  against  the  Creeks,  and  did  good  service. 
Soon  after  his  return  from  the  Creek  nation, 
General  Jackson  was  appointed  a  Brigadier 
General,  with  brevet  of  Major  General;  that 
was  soon  followed  by  being  appointed  a  Major 
General  in  the  armies  of  the  United  States. 
The  Creek  Indians  wished  for  peace ;  General 
Jackson  was  appointed  commissioner  to  treat 
with  them ;  and,  in  the  month  of  August,  1814, 
he  concluded  a  treaty  with  the  Creek  nation. 
Hillishajo,  or  Francis,  the  fanatic  prophet,  and 
some  more  chiefs  of  that  nation,  did  not  attend 
the  making  of  that  treaty ;  they,  with  others  of 
the  hostile  Creeks,  retired  towards  Florida, 
from  whence  to  carry  on  the  war  against  the 
people  of  the  United  States. 

The  Seminoles,  a  part  of  the  Creek  nation, 
were  party  to  the  treaty  of  1790;  and  David 
Francis,  alias  Meemagechee,  appears  to  have 
signed  it.  The  Seminoles  had  acknowledged 
themselves  under  the  protection  of  the  United 
States,  and  of  no  other  sovereign  whatever. 
Lands,  in  common  with  other  tribes  of  the  Creek 
nation,  were  allotted  to  them.  Other  treaties, 
as  has  been  observed,  were  made  with  the  Creek 
nation ;  one  as  late  as  November,  1805,  and  rati- 
fied in  June  following.  Of  the  benefits  stipulated 
for  in  these  treaties,  the  Seminoles  participated. 
In  all  disputes  or  wars  between  the  United 
States^nd  foreign  powers,  the  Indian  nations 
who  OKL  acknowledged  themselves  under  the 


288 


ABRIDGMENT  OF  THE 


H.  OF  R.] 


The  Seminole  War. 


[JANUARY,  1819. 


protection  of  the  United  States,  ought  to  have 
continued  neutral.  They  suffered  themselves 
to  be  made  the  willing  instruments  of  war 
against  the  United  States,  by  the  persuasion  of 
emissaries  of  foreign  nations,  who  trafficked  in 
blood,  whose  goods  were  poison,  whose  friend- 
ship was  destruction.  In  a  letter  from  Governor 
Mitchell  to  Mr.  Monroe,  of  September,  1812,  he 
informs  that  the  Governor  of  Augustine  has 
had  sufficient  influence  with  the  Indians  residing 
in  Florida,  called  the  Seminoles,  to  induce  them 
to  fall  upon  the  defenceless  settlers  on  the  St. 
Johns  and  St.  Marys.  On  the  St.  Johns  they 
had  killed  and  scalped  eight  or  ten  persons; 
and  on  the  Georgia  side  of  St.  Marys,  they  had 
killed  and  scalped  one  and  wounded  two  more. 
Colonel  Smith,  in  a  letter  dated  September  22, 
1812,  informs  Governor  Mitchell  that,  on  the 
12th  of  that  month,  the  escort  with  the  pro- 
vision wagons,  under  command  of  Captain  Wil- 
liams, was  attacked  by  a  party  of  Indians  and 
negroes,  to  the  number  of  fifty  or  sixty,  from 
St.  Augustine.  Captain  Williams's  command 
consisted  of  a  non-commissioned  officer  and 
nineteen  privates,  besides  drivers.  The  wagons 
were  lost;  both  the  officers  and  six  privates 
wounded,  Captain  Williams  mortally,  the  non- 
commissioned officer  killed.  Colonel  Williams, 
in  December,  in  that  year,  marched  with  a  vol- 
unteer corps  from  Tennessee  to  aid  in  defending 
the  frontiers  of  Georgia  from  the  incursions  of 
the  Seminole  Indians.  About  that  time,  the 
movement  of  the  Creek  Indians,  incited  to  war 
by  their  fanatics,  was  extensive.  They  would 
have  war,  and  war  came  upon  them ;  they  put 
themselves  out  of  the  protection  of  the  United 
States,  by  making  war  against  them ;  and,  by 
so  doing,  all  the  hostile  Creeks  and  Seminoles 
who  refused  to  agree  to  the  treaty  of  August, 
1814,  made  themselves  outlaws ;  Hillishajo, 
and  Hemathlemico,  chiefs  of  the  Creek  nation, 
being  of  that  number. 

In  August,  1814,  a  British  force  took  posses- 
sion of  Pensacola  and  the  Fort  of  Barancas.  A 
Colonel  Nicholls  commanded  the  land  force, 
part  of  which  was  a  corps  of  colonial  marines, 
in  which  George  Woodbine  was  a  captain,  and 
Robert  C.  Ambrister  a  lieutenant.  On  the  29th 
of  August,  in  that  year,  and  about  twenty  days 
after  the  date  of  the  treaty  made  with  the  Creek 
nation  at  Fort  Jackson,  Colonel  Nicholls,  who, 
it  is  presumed,  had  a  knowledge  of  that  treaty, 
issued  his  proclamation  from  Pensacola,  inviting 
persons  of  every  description  to  join  and  aid  him 
to  abolish  (as  he  said)  American  usurpation  in 
the  country,  and  to  put  the  lawful  owners  in 
possession ;  stating  that  he  was  at  the  head  of  a 
large  body  of  Indians,  well  armed,  disciplined, 
and  commanded  by  British  officers.  On  the 
31st  of  that  month  he  addressed  a  letter  to  Mr. 
Lafitte,  informing  him  that  he  had  arrived  in 
the  Floridas  for  the  purpose  of  annoying  the 
only  enemy  Great  Britain  had  in  the  world. 
He  continued  not  long  at  Pensacola  and  Baran- 
cas. General  Jackson,  having,  on  the^th  of 
that  month,  concluded  the  treaty  wifn  the 


Creeks,  and  approached  Pensacola  with  an 
American  force,  compelled  the  invading  British 
to  evacuate  Pensacola,  and  to  abandon  the  Ba- 
rancas, after  having  blown  up  the  fortifications. 
After  that,  General  Jackson  retired  with  the 
army  under  his  command  from  Pensacola,  and 
hastened  to  New  Orleans  to  resist  the  British  at 
that  place.  Colonel  Nicholls,  after  having  been 
driven  from  Pensacola  and  Barancas,  moved  to 
Appalachicola,  and  erected  his  fort  for  the  re- 
ception of  hostile  Indians  and  negroes,  from 
whence  he  might  sally  out,  with  his  motley 
crew  of  black,  white,  and  red  combatants,  and 
annoy  the  defenceless  frontiers  of  the  United 
States. 

Colonel  Nicholls  retained  his  post  at  Appa- 
lachicola several  months  after  the  ratification  of 
the  Treaty  of  Ghent.  His  correspondence  with 
Colonel  Hawkins,  commencing  on  the  28th  of 
April,  1815,  shows  that  he  did  not  consider  that 
the  peace  made  between  the  United  States  and 
Great  Britain  had  put  an  end  to  his  operations 
at  his  fort,  or  to  his  negotiation  with  the  Indi- 
ans against  the  United  States ;  that  he  enclosed 
a  copy  of  part  of  the  ninth  article  of  the  Treaty 
of  Ghent,  stating  that  the  Indians  had  accepted 
and  signed  it,  and  requested  Colonel  Hawkins 
to  understand  their  territories  to  be  as  they 
stood  in  1811 ;  that  they  had  signed  a  treaty  of 
offensive  and  defensive  alliance  with  Great 
Britain,  as  also  one  of  commerce  and  naviga- 
tion ;  that  he  was  desired  by  the  Indian  chiefs 
to  say  to  Colonel  Hawkins,  that  they  do  not 
find  that  his  citizens  were  evacuating  their 
lands,  according  to  the  9th  article  of  the  Treaty 
of  Peace,  but  that  they  were  fresh  provisioning 
the  forts.  By  a  letter  from  General  Gaines,  of 
the  22d  May,  1815,  it  appears  that  Colonel 
Nicholls  was  then  at  Appalachicola,  with  about 
900  Indians  and  450  negroes,  under  arms. 
Hillishajo,  or  Francis,  and  other  chiefs  of  the 
Creek  nation,  with  others  who  did  not  attend  at 
the  Treaty  of  Fort  Jackson,  who  continued  hos- 
tile, are  presumed  to  be  of  that  party,  and,  with 
Colonel  Nicholls,  exciting  to  continue  the  war. 

After  having  instigated  the  Indians  to  con- 
tinue the  war,  by  inducing  them  to  believe  that, 
by  the  ninth  article  of  the  Treaty  of  Ghent,  they 
were  entitled  to  repossess  the  territory,  as  in 
1811 ;  and  having  furnished  them  with  a  large 
quantity  of  arms  and  ammunition  to  carry  on 
the  war,  Colonel  Nicholls  departed  for  Great 
Britain,  taking  with  him  Hillishajo,  the  fanatic, 
and  an  address  from  hostile  chiefs  to  the  King 
of  England.  It  appears  by  a  letter  of  Colonel 
Hawkins,  of  the  28th  of  May,  1815,  and  by  the 
letters  of  General  Gaines,  of  the  month  of  De- 
cember, 1817,  and  of  January,  1818,  that  hos- 
tilities were  continued  by  the  Indians ;  in  the 
course  of  which,  it  appears  that  Edward  Daniels, 
taken  prisoner,  was  tarred  and  burnt  alive; 
that  Mrs.  Garret  and  her  two  children  were 
murdered — she  and  the  eldest  scalped ;  Lieu- 
tenant Scott  and  his  party,  in  a  boat,  fired  on — 
six  men  of  thirty,  and  one  woman  of  seven, 
escaped — four  little  children  taken  by  the  legs 


DEBATES  OF  CONGRESS. 


289 


JANUARY,  1819.] 


The  Seminole  War. 


[H.  OF  R. 


and  their  brains  dashed  out  against  the  boat, 
with  other  murders,  and  ravages,  and  barbari- 
ties. The  time  had  arrived  when  it  was  abso- 
lutely necessary  for  the  United  States  to  exert 
their  power  to  put  an  end  to  the  war.  The 
salus  popitli,  or,  in  other  words,  the  safety  of 
the  people,  the  supreme,  irrevocable  law  of  all 
nation?,  demanded  that  this  savage  war,  carried 
on  by  Indians  out  of  the  protection  of  the 
United  States,  and  negroes,  and  continued  to 
be  excited  by  foreign  emissaries,  who  had 
identified  themselves  with  the  savages,  be  ter- 
minated. 

On  the  26th  of  December,  181T,  the  Depart- 
ment of  War  addressed  a  letter  to  Major  Gen- 
eral Andrew  Jackson,  then  at  Nashville,  Ten- 
nessee, ordering  him  to  repair,  with  as  little 
delay  as  practicable,  to  Fort  Scott,  and  assume 
the  immediate  command  of  the  forces  in  that 
quarter  of  the  southern  division ;  advising  him 
of  the  strength  of  the  forces  there — that  General 
Gaines  estimated  the  strength  of  the  Indians  at 
2,700 ;  and  to  call  on  the  Executives  of  the  ad- 
jacent States,  if,  in  his  opinion,  the  troops  of  the 
United  States  were  too  few  in  number  to  beat 
the  enemy ;  and  to  adopt  the  necessary  meas- 
ures to  terminate  a  conflict  which  it  has  ever 
been  the  desire  of  the  President,  from  consider- 
ations of  humanity,  to  avoid,  but  Avhich  is  now 
made  necessary  by  their  settled  hostilities.  On 
the  16th  of  January,  1818,  the  Secretary  of 
War  wrote  to  General  Gaines,  informing  him 
that  the  honor  of  the  United  States  requires 
that  the  war  with  the  Seminoles  should  be  ter- 
minated speedily,  and  with  exemplary  punish- 
ment for  hostilities  so  unprovoked;  and  that 
orders  were  issued,  directing  the  war  to  be  car- 
ried on  within  the  limits  of  Florida,  should  it 
be  necessary  to  its  speedy  and  effectual  termi- 
nation. These  orders,  I  presume,  have  been 
received.  That,  as  soon  as  it  was  known  that 
he  had  repaired  to  Amelia  Island,  in  obedience 
to  orders,  and  it  being  uncertain  how  long  he 
might  be  detained  there,  the  state  of  things  at 
Fort  Scott  made  it  necessary  to  order  General 
Jackson  to  take  command  there.  From  his 
known  promptitude,  it  is  presumable  his  arrival 
may  be  soon  expected.  A  letter  from  the  Sec- 
retary at  War,  of  the  29th  January,  1818,  to 
General  Jackson,  acknowledges  the  receipt  of 
letters  from  him  of  the  12th  and  13th  of  that 
month ;  and  that  the  measur.es  he  had  taken  to 
bring  an  efficient  force  into  the  field  were  ap- 
probated ;  and  expressing  a  confident  hope  that 
a  speedy  and  successful  termination  of  the  In- 
dian war  will  follow  his  exertions. 

On  the  20th  of  January.  1818,  General  Jack- 
son wrote  to  the  Secretary  of  War  further  in- 
formation respecting  the  measures  by  him 
adopted  to  carry  on  the  war,  and  that  he  would 
leave  Nashville  on  the  22d  of  that  month  for 
Fort  Scott,  via  Fort  Hawkins.  On  the  6th  of 
February,  1818,  the  Secretary  of  War  wrote  to 
General  Jackson,  (Fort  Scott,  Georgia,)  ac- 
knowledging the  receipt  of  his  letter  of  ihr  'Jmh 
ultimo,  and  acquainting  him  of  tho  entire  ap- 
VOL.  VI.— 19 


probation  of  the  President  of  all  the  measures 
he  had  adopted  to  terminate  the  war ;  that  the 
honor  of  our  army,  as  well  as  the  interest  of 
the  country,  requires  that  it  should  be  terminat- 
ed as  soon  as  practicable.  It  appears  that  Gen- 
eral Jackson  was  at  Fort  Hawkins  on  the  10th 
of  February,  1818;  at  Hartford,  in  Georgia,  on 
the  14th ;  at  Fort  Early  on  the  26th ;  and  on 
the  25th  of  March,  1818,  at  Fort  Gadsden,  east 
bank  of  Appalachicola,  where  formerly  Negro 
Fort  stood.  Having  reached  Fort  Scott  on  the 
9th,  with  the  brigade  of  Georgia  militia,  900 
bayonets  strong,  and  some  friendly  Creeks, 
when,  on  the  morning  of  the  10th,  he  assumed 
the  command — ordered  the  live  stock  to  be 
slaughtered,  and  issued  to  the  troops,  with  one 
quart  of  corn  to  each  man,  and  the  line  of 
march  to  be  taken  up  at  twelve,  meridian, 
Near  St.  Marks,  on  the  8th  April,  1818,  the 
General  writes  to  the  Secretary  of  War  that  he 
had  defeated  a  negro  and  Indian  force — pursued 
them  through  the  Mickasukian  towns ;  that  the 
towns  were  consumed,  and  the  greatest  abun- 
dance of  corn,  cattle,  &c.,  brought  in;  that 
Captain  McKever  had  secured  Francis,  or  Hillis- 
hajo,  the  great  prophet,  and  Hemathlemico,  an 
old  Red  Stick  chief,  and  that  Arbuthnot,  a 
Scotchman,  and  suspected  as  an  instigator  of 
the  war,  was  found  in  St.  Marks ;  that  there 
were  found  in  the  council-house  of  Kenhagu's 
town,  the  King  of  the  Mickasukians,  more  than 
fifty  fresh  scalps,  and  in  the  centre  of  the  square 
the  old  Ked  Stick's  standard  (a  red  pole)  was 
erected,  crowned  with  scalps,  recognized,  by  the 
hair,  as  torn  from  the  heads  of  the  unfortunate 
companions  of  Scott ;  that  Indians  and  negroes 
combined  had  demanded  the  surrender  of  St. 
Marks ;  that  the  Spanish  garrison  was  too  weak 
to  defend  it;  that  he  had  occupied  it  with  an 
American  garrison,  and  the  commandant  and 
garrison  furnished  with  transportation  to  Pen- 
sacola.  On  the  9th  of  April,  from  camp  sixteen 
miles  from  St.  Marks,  on  march  to  Suwanee, 
the  General  wrote  to  the  Secretary  of  War, 
"  There  is  little  room  to  doubt  but  what  one  of 
the  chiefs  found  slain  on  the  field  in  advance  of 
the  Mickasukian  villages,  was  Kenhajee.  Fran- 
cis, or  Hillishajo,  and  Hemathlemico,  the  prune 
instigators  of  this  war,  have  been  hung.  The 
latter  commanded  the  party  who  so  inhumanly 
sacrificed  Scott  and  his  companions." 

General  Jackson  was  authorized  by  the  su- 
preme law  of  nature  and  nations,  the  law  of 
self-defence,  corresponding  with  the  great  na- 
tional maxim,  namely,  the  safety  of  the  people 
is  the  supreme  law,  to  enter  the  Spanish  terri- 
tory of  Florida  in  pursuit  of,  and  to  destroy, 
hostile,  murdering  savages,  not  bound  by  any 
obligation,  who  were  without  the  practice  of 
any  moral  principle  reciprocally  obligatory  on 
nations. 

FRIDAY,  January  29. 

Seminole  War. 
The  House  resumed,  in  Committee  of  the 


290 


ABRIDGMENT  OF  THE 


H.  OF  R] 


The  Seminole  War. 


[JANUARY,  1819. 


Whole,  (Mr.  BASSETT  in  the  chair,)  the  consid- 
eration of  the  report  of  the  Military  Committee, 
on  the  transactions  of  the  Seminole  war. 

Mr.  HOPKINSON,  of  Pennsylvania,  addressed 
the  House  as  follows : 

Mr.  Chairman,  if,  after  the  discussion  this 
subject  has  undergone,  I  were  to  promise  the 
committee  to  present  it  with  entire  novelty,  I 

to  perform,  and  which  would  betray  a  pre- 
sumption, of  which,  I  trust,  I  am  incapable.  I 
have  the  hope,  however,  that  I  may  be  able  to 
offer  some  principles  in  relation  to  it  which 
have  not  yet  been  presented,  and  are  entitled  to 
some  influence  on  the  decision  of  the  commit- 
tee, and  to  make  some  new  applications  of  prin- 
ciples already  established. 

The  matters  in  controversy  seem  to  me  to 
obtain  infinite  importance,  from  the  connection 
they  have  with  the  character  of  our  country. 
"We  stand  in  a  most  peculiar  and  responsible 
situation  in  this  respect.  The  nations  of  Eu- 
rope, from  their  contiguity,  may  be  said  to  form 
a  family  or  an  association  of  nations,  controlled 
by  and  accountable  to  each  other.  They  have 
alliances  which  all  respect,  ties  which  all  must 
feel,  balances  and  checks  which  all  are  interest- 
ed to  preserve,  and  rules  of  conduct  in  their 
mutual  intercourse  which  all  are  made  to  obey. 
The  American  people,  removed  far  from  the 
rest  of  the  civilized  world,  and  placed  beyond 
the  control  of  the  policy  or  force  of  Europe, 
have  none  of  those  means  to  keep  them  to  the 
path  of  justice.  They  acknowledge  no  guide 
authorized  to  direct  them  but  their  own  con- 
sciences, and  feel  no  responsibility  but  to  their 
God.  This,  sir,  is  a  trying  and  a  tempting  situ- 
ation, placing  us  on  the  highest  ground  of  vir- 
tue, if  we  do  not  abuse  it;  but  exposing  us  to 
infinite  danger  from  the  suggestions  of  pride, 
interest,  and  self-love.  But,  sir,  let  us  not  for- 
get that  we  belong  to  the  family  of  civilized 
nations,  and  be  most  forward  to  prove  our  de- 
votion to  those  rules  of  conduct  which  the  ex- 
perience and  wisdom  of  ages  have  established, 
as  necessary  for  the  peace  and  usefulness  of  all. 
Let  us  cherish  those  laws  which  increase  the 
blessings  of  peace  and  mitigate  the  calamities 
of  war. 

The  dangers  which  our  country  may  appre- 
hend from  the  encouragement  of  a  military 
spirit  in  our  people,  have  been  eloquently  por- 
trayed on  this  occasion.  It  is  undoubtedly  true 
that  a  strong  disposition  of  this  sort  has  been 
manifested,  and  was  rapidly  rising,  in  the  peo- 
ple of  the  United  States ;  and  a  greater  evil 
could  hardly  befall  us  than  the  consummation 
of  its  ascendency.  There  is  something  so  in- 
fatuating in  the  pomp  and  triumphs  of  war,  that 
a  young  and  brave  people  who  have  known  but 
little  of  its  destructive  miseries  may  require  to 
be  guarded  against  falling  into  the  snare,  and 
led  to  direct  their  energies  to  other  and  better 
objects.  It  is  worthy  of  remark  that,  in  the 
various  ways  in  which  the  genius  and  powers 
of  men  display  themselves,  the  military  course 


is  the  only  one  eminently  dangerous  to  his  spe- 
cies. Genius  in  every  other  department,  how- 
ever dazzling  and  powerful,  is  never  hurtful — is 
generally  a  blessing  to  the  world.  The  stupen- 
dous genius  of  Newton  elevated  the  dignity  of 
man,  and  brought  him  nearer  to  his  God ;  it 
gave  him  a  path  to  walk  in  the  firmament,  and 
knowledge  to  hold  converse  with  the  stars. 
The  erratic  comet  cannot  elude  his  vigilance, 
nor  the  powerful  sun  disappoint  his  calculations. 
Yet,  this  genius,  so  mighty  in  the  production 
of  good,  was  harmless  of  the  evil  as  a  child.  It 
never  inflicted  injury  or  pain  on  any  thing  that 
lives  or  feels.  Shakspeare  prepared  an  inex- 
haustible feast  of  instruction  and  delight  for  his 
own  age  and  the  ages  to  come ;  but  he  brought 
no  tears  into  the  world  but  thoije  of  fictitious 
woe,  which  the  other  end  of  his  wand  was  al- 
ways ready  to  cure.  It  is  military  genius  alone 
that  must  be  nourished  with  blood,  and  can  find 
employment  only  in  inflicting  misery  and  death 
upon  man. 

The  character  and  services  of  General  Jack- 
son have  called  forth  eloquent  eulogiums  from 
various  parts  of  the  House.  I  have  no  disposi- 
tion to  depreciate  them,  although  I  think  some 
of  the  praise  bestowed  upon  them  has  been 
somewhat  extravagant.  I  cannot  think  him 
the  greatest  commander  this  country  has  pro- 
duced ;  much  less  is  he  the  greatest  general  of 
the  age ;  an  age  so  productive  of  military  won- 
ders. He  is  unquestionably  a  man  of  undaunted 
courage,  of  indefatigable  perseverance,  of  strik- 
ing decision  and  celerity,  and  of  great  resources. 
If  his  private  virtues,  of  which  I  know  nothing, 
are  equal  to  his  public  services,  he  is,  assuredly, 
a  man  worthy  of  all  estimation.  These  things 
will  not  influence  my  opinion  or  my  vote,  in 
the  discussion  and  decision  of  questions  of  na- 
tional law  and  public  importance,  which  have 
no  other  connection  with  the  character  or  ser- 
vices of  General  Jackson,  than  that  they  have 
arisen  out  of  transactions  in  which  he  has  been 


e  have  seen,  in  this  debate,  a  very  laborious 
examination  of  books,  for  principles  applicable 
to  the  questions  in  discussion ;  and  authorities 
have  been  quoted,  without  end,  on  the  several 
points.  In  truth,  however,  this  is  not  the  diffi- 
culty of  the  case;  the  principles  of  the  laws  of 
nations,  which  have  relation  to  it,  are  very  clear 
and  unquestionable;,  and  the  inquiry  should  be 
into  the  facts  and  circumstances  of  this  cam- 
paign. These  being  distinctly  ascertained,  the 
decision  of  the  law  upon  them  will  be  found  at 
once.  Indeed,  it  is  the  excellence  of  that  sys- 
tem which  is  called  the  laws  of  nations,  that 
there  is  little  in  it  that  is  technical  or  arbitrary ; 
the  rule  is,  generally,  that  which  the  sound  un- 
derstanding and  common  sense  of  every  man 
would  suggest  to  him,  if  he  had  never  read  a 
line  on  the  subject.  My  object  will  be  to  draw 
the  attention  of  the  committee  to  the  prominent 
points  of  inquiry ;  to  fix  with  precision  the  facts 
in  relation  to  each,  and  show  the  principles  of 
national  law  which  ought  to  govern  us  in  de- 


DEBATES  OF  CONGRESS. 


291 


JANUARY,  1819.] 


The  Seminole  War. 


[H.  OF  R. 


ciding  upon  them.  General  Jackson  has  been 
arraigned ;  first,  for  crossing  the  line  separating 
the  United  States  from  Florida;  second,  for 
taking  the  fortress  of  St.  Marks  from  the  Span- 
ish authorities ;  third,  for  taking  Pensacola  and 
Barancas ;  fourth,  for  the  execution  of  Ambris- 
ter  and  Arbuthnot.  I  beg  leave  to  premise 
that,  in  discussing  a  transaction  in  which  so 
many  distinct  questions  arise,  it  will  necessarily 
happen  that  different  gentlemen  of  the  commit- 
tee will  agree  upon  some,  and  disagree  upon 
others ;  and  even  when  they  come  to  the  same 
result  of  approbation  or  disapprobation,  it  may 
be  for  reasons  wholly  different.  This  renders  a 
particular  explanation  of  the  ground  of  opinion 
more  necessary  than  in  ordinary  cases.  In 
crossing  the  Florida  line  and  entering  upon  the 
Spanish  territory,  General  Jackson  certainly 
violated  the  neutral  and  national  rights  of 
Spain,  unless  he  can  show  it  was  done  for  rea- 
sons, and  under  circumstances,  which,  by  the 
agreement  of  nations,  or,  in  other  words,  by  the 
laws  of  nations,  justify  it,  and  remove  its  offen- 
sive character.  Several  grounds  of  defence 
have  been  taken  for  this  act,  both  by  General 
Jackson  and  on  this  floor.  And  here  I  may  re- 
mark, in  relation  to  this  part  of  the  case,  as  well 
as  some  of  the  others,  that  it  is  unfortunate  for 
a  man,  when  he  has  done  that  which  is  really 
right  and  defensible,  to  stumble  upon  a  bad 
reason  for  it.  His  reason  will  be  successfully 
attacked,  and  he  will  appear  to  stand  condemned, 
when,  in  truth,  his  injudicious  defence  only  has 
been  overthrown.  So  it  has  happened  to  the 
General.  It  has  been  said  for  him,  that  he  was 
justified  in  crossing  the  Spanish  line  to  attack 
the  Indians,  because  Spain  had,  by  her  treaty, 
stipulated  that  she  would  restrain  the  Indians 
within  her  territory  from  hostilities  against  the 
United  States ;  and  that,  not  having  done  this, 
we  had  a  right  to  pass  into  the  territory  to  do 
that  for  her  and  ourselves  which  she  was  bound, 
but  had  failed  to  do.  It  is  obvious,  on  the  least 
reflection,  that  this  defence  can  avail  nothing. 
If  Spain  had  failed  to  perform  her  treaties  with 
the  United  States,  it  was  a  matter  to  be  adjusted 
by  the  two  Governments,  and  not  by  a  Com- 
mander-in-chief, at  th'e  head  of  his  army. 
Spain  might  give  reasons  for  the  failure  satis- 
factory to  this  Government,  and  had  a  right  to 
an  opportunity  to  do  so.  But  the  conclusive 
view  of  this  point  is  this :  If  the  territory  of 
Spain  was  violated  or  attacked,  to  compel  her 
to  perform  her  treaty  stipulation,  or  to  punish 
her  for  not  doing  so,  or  because  she  had  not 
done  so,  the  act  connected  with  the  object  was 
undoubtedly  an  act  of  war ;  it  placed  us  in  a 
state  of  war,  and  changed  our  relations  with 
Spain. 

The  United  States  are  at  war  with  certain 
tribes  of  Indians  inhabiting  the  Spanish  territo- 
ry. I  do  not  inquire,  as  some  gentlemen  have 
done,  into  the  origin  of  this  war,  or  decide  who 
was  the  immediate  aggressor.  The  command- 
ing General,  whose  conduct  we  are  now  investi- 
gating, has  nothing  to  do  with  this  question. 


It  is  his  duty  to  fight  the  battles  of  his  country, 
and  carry  on  the  war  according  to  the  laws  of 
his  country.  Those  who  send  him  into  the  field 
must  answer  for  the  war.  I  may  say,  however, 
that  I  presume  the  origin  of  this  war  is  the 
same  with  all  our  Indian  wars.  It  lies  deep 
beyond  the  power  of  eradication,  in  the  mighty 
wrongs  we  have  heaped  upon  the  miserable  na- 
tions of  these  lands.  I  cannot  refuse  them  my 
heartfelt  sympathy.  Eeflect  upon  what  they 
were,  and  look  at  them  as  they  are.  Great  na- 
tions dwindled  down  into  wandering  tribes,  and 
powerful  kings  degraded  to  beggarly  chiefs. 
Once  the  sole  possessors  of  immeasurable  wilds, 
it  could  not  have  entered  into  their  imagination 
that  there  was  a  force  on  earth  to  disturb  their 
possessions  and  overthrow  their  power.  It  en- 
tered not  into  their  imagination,  that  from  be- 
yond that  great  water,  which  to  them  was  an 
impassable  limit,  there  would  come  a  race  of 
beings  to  despoil  them  of  their  inheritance  and 
sweep  them  from  the  earth.  Three  hundred 
years  have  rolled  into  the  bosom  of  eternity 
since  the  white  man  put  his  foot  on  these  silent 
shores ;  and  every  day,  every  hour,  and  every 
moment,  has  beenr  marked  with  some  act  of 
cruelty  and  oppression.  Imposing  on  the  cre- 
dulity or  the  ignorance  of  the  aborigines,  and 
overawing  their  fears  by  the  use  of  instruments 
of  death  of  inconceivable  terror.  The  strangers 
gradually  established  themselves,  increasing  the 
work  of  destruction  with  the  increase  of  their 
strength.  The  tide  of  civilization,  for  so  we 
call  it,  fed  from  its  inexhaustible  sources  in  Eu- 
rope, as  well  as  by  its  own  means  of  augmenta- 
tion, swells  rapidly  and  presses  on  the  savage. 
He  retreats  from  forest  to  forest,  from  mountain 
to  mountain,  hoping,  at  every  remove,  he  has 
left  enough  for  his  invaders,  and  may  enjoy  in 
peace  his  new  abode.  But  in  vain ;  it  is  only 
in  the  grave,  the  last  retreat  of  man,  that  he 
will  find  repose.  He  recedes  before  the  swell- 
ing waters ;  the  cry  of  his  complaint  becomes 
more  distant  and  feeble,  and  soon  will  be  heard 
no  more.  I  hear,  sir,  of  beneficent  plans  for 
civilizing  the  Indians,  and  securing  their  pos- 
sessions to  them.  The  great  men  who  make 
these  efforts  will  have  the  approbation  of  God 
and  their  own  conscience ;  but  this  will  be  all 
their  success.  I  consider  the  fate  of  the  Indian 
as  inevitably  fixed.  He  must  perish.  The  de- 
cree of  extermination  has  long  since  gone  forth ; 
and  the  execution  of  it  is  in  rapid  progress. 
Avarice,  sir,  has  counted  their  acres,  and  power 
their  force ;  and  avarice  and  power  march  on 
together  to  their  destruction.  You  talk  of  the 
scalping-knife;  what  is  it  to  the  liquid  poison 
you  pour  down  the  throats  of  these  wretched 
beings?  You  declaim  against  the  murderous 
tomahawk;  what  is  it,  in  comparison  with  your 
arms,  your  discipline,  your  numbers  ?  The  con- 
test is  in  vain ;  and  equally  vain  are  the  efforts  of 
a  handful  of  benevolent  men  against  such  a  com- 
bination of  force,  stimulated  by  avarice  and  the 
temptations  of  wealth.  When,  in  the  docu- 
ments on  your  table,  I  see  that,  in  this  tri- 


292 


ABRIDGMENT  OF  THE 


H.  OF  R.] 


The.  Seminole  War. 


[JASDARY,  1819. 


umphant  march  of  General  Jackson,  he  meets, 
from  time  to  time,  (the  only  enemy  he  saw,) 
groups  of  old  men  and  women,  and  children, 
gathering  on  the  edge  of  a  morass,  their  villages 
destroyed,  their  corn  and  provisions  carried  ofl^ 
houseless  in  the  depth  of  winter,  looking  for 
death  alternately  to  famine  and  the  sword,  my 
heart  sickens  at  a  scene  so  charged  with  wretch- 
edness. To  rouse  us  from  a  sympathy  so  deep, 
so  irresistible,  we  are  told  of  the  scalping-knife 
and  the  tomahawk ;  of  our  slaughtered  women 
and  children.  We  speak  of  these  things  as  if 
women  and  children  were  unknown  to  the  In- 
dians— as  if  they  have  no  such  beings  amongst 
them ;  no  such  near  and  dear  relations ;  as  if 
they  belong  only  to  us.  It  is  not  so.  The  poor 
Indian  mother,  crouching  in  her  miserable  wig- 
wam, or  resting  under  the  broad  canopy  of 
heaven,  presses  her  naked  infant  to  her  bosom 
with  as  true  and  fond  emotion  as  the  fairest  in 
our  land ;  and  her  heart  is  torn  with  as  keen 
anguish  if  it  perish  in  her  sight. 

In  the  fall  of  1817,  hostilities  had  broken  out 
between  the  United  States  and  the  Seminole 
Indians,  residing  in  Florida,  and  assumed  ap- 
pearances of  danger  and  ferocity,  requiring  im- 
mediate and  effectual  suppression.  On  the  30th 
of  November  of  that  year,  a  boat,  commanded 
by  Lieutenant  Scott,  containing  forty  men,  some 
women,  and  I  believe  some  children,  when  as- 
cending the  Appalachicola  Kiver,  was  fired 
upon  by  a  party  of  ambuscaded  Indians,  and 
the  whole  party  killed,  wounded,  or  taken  pris- 
oners. Previous  to  this  occurrence,  other  mur- 
ders and  robberies  had  been  perpetrated.  It  is 
said  by  General  Gaines,  in  one  of  his  talks,  that 
the  murderers  and  robbers  had  been  demanded 
of  the  Indians,  and  refused ;  and  that  a  council 
had  been  held  by  them  at  Mickasuky,  at  which 
war  with  the  United  States  was  determined 
upon.  On  the  15th  December,  1817,  our  trans- 
ports, passing  up  the  river  to  reach  our  forts, 
were  attacked  from  both  shores,  and  placed  in 
imminent  danger.  On  the  9th  of  January,  1818, 
bodies  of  Indians,  in  the  whole  from  eight  to 
twelve  hundred,  were  collecting  on  the  Appa- 
lachicola, for  the  purpose  of  cutting  off  our  sup- 
plies. From  these  facts  it  is  obvious  that  war 
existed  with  as  much  formality  and  more  ac- 
tivity than  is  usual  with  Indian  hostilities. 
Such  was  the  state  of  things  in  December,  1817, 
and  the  beginning  of  '18.  In  order  to  show 
that  our  Government  was  truly  desirous  to  re- 
spect, even  to  an  imaginary  line,  the  sovereign- 
ty and  neutrality  of  Spain,  and  ceased  to  do  so 
only  when  circumstances  made  it  necessary,  and 
of  course  justifiable,  it  may  be  proper  to  look 
to  the  orders  issued  by  the  War  Department  on 
the  30th  of  October,  1817.  In  a  letter  of  that 
date  to  General  Gaines,  he  is  told  that  the 
President  approves  of  the  march  of  the  troops 
from  Fort  Montgomery  to  Fort  Scott ;  that  he 
flatters  himself  the  appearance  of  this  force  will 
restrain  the  Indians,  and  induce  them  to  make 
reparation  for  the  murders  they  had  committed. 
Should  they,  however,  refuse  to  make  repara- 


tion, "  it  is  the  wish  of  the  President,"  says  the 
Secretary,  "that  you  should  not,  on  that  ac- 
count, pass  the  line  and  make  an  attack  upon 
them  within  the  limits  of  Florida,  until  you 
shall  have  received  further  instructions  from 
this  department."  We  see  in  these  orders  a 
scrupulous  attention  to  the  neutral  rights  of 
Spain,  and  a  very  discriminating  observance  of 
the  laws  of  nations.  The  two  objects  to  be  at- 
tained, were  the  restraint  of  the  hostilities  and 
depredations  of  the  Indians,  and  to  induce  them 
to  make  reparation  for  those  committed.  For 
the  attainment  of  them  the  President  relies  on 
the  appearance  of  the  force  of  our  troops ;  but, 
should  he  be  disappointed  in  this  hope,  he  di- 
rects that  the  line  shall  not  be  passed,  because 
reparation  is  refused,  without  further  orders 
from  the  department.  Now,  whether  we  might 
pass  the  line  for  the  purpose  of  restraining  hos- 
tilities, would  depend  upon  the  nature  and  ne- 
cessity of  the  case ;  but  it  is  most  clear  that  we 
have  no  such  right  merely  to  obtain  reparation 
for  past  injuries,  or  to  chastise  the  enemy  for 
refusing  it.  The  line  is,  therefore,  accurately 
drawn  by  the  President,  according  to  the  rules 
of  national  law.  He  forbids  the  passage  pe- 
remptorily for  a  cause  not  justified  by  that  law ; 
and,  as  to  the  other  object,  directs  that  he  shall 
be  consulted  before  so  important  a  step  is  taken. 
On  the  26th  December,  when  the  order  issued 
to  General  Jackson,  to  take  command  of  the 
army,  our  situation  was  no  longer  so  secure  as 
in  October  preceding.  The  enemy  had  greatly 
increased  in  number ;  they  had  taken  positions 
fatal  to  our  garrisons,  by  cutting  off  all  supplies 
from  them ;  they  had  destroyed  a  considerable 
party  of  men  going  to  those  forts ;  they  had  at- 
tacked our  transports,  and  manifested  a  deter- 
mination to  press  the  war  with  all  their  power 
and  all  their  cruelty.  The  change  of  circum- 
stances required  a  corresponding  change  in  the 
measures  of  defence.  On  the  9th  of  December, 
a  letter  is  addressed  from  the  Executive  to  Gen- 
eral Gaines,  for  his  government.  Fowltown 
had  now  been  attacked  and  destroyed  by  Gen- 
eral Gaines.  The  President  again  expresses  the 
hope  that  this  correction  will  induce  the  Indians 
to  abstain  from  further"  depredations,  and  sue 
for  peace.  He  refers  the  General  to  the  letters 
of  30th  October  and  2d  December,  as  manifest- 
ing his  views,  and  directs  that  he  should  con- 
form to  them.  At  the  same  time  he  says, 
"  Should  the  Indians  assemble  in  force  on  the 
Spanish  side  of  the  line,  and  persevere  in  com- 
mitting hostilities  within  the  limits  of  the  United 
States,  you  will,  in  that  event,  exercise  a  sound 
discretion  as  to  the  propriety  of  crossing  the 
line,  for  the  purpose  of  attacking  them  and 
breaking  up  their  towns."  This  order,  if  care- 
fully attended  to,  will  evince  the  same  desire  in 
our" Executive,  not  to  tread  on  Spanish  ground, 
but  under  circumstances  justified  by  law.  It  is 
not  to  be  done  because  the  Indians  assemble  in 
force  on  the  Spanish  side,*  unless,  in  addition  to 
this,  they  persevere  in  committing  hostilities 
within  the  limits  of  the  United  States.  That 


DEBATES   OF  CONGRESS. 


293 


JASUABY,  1819.] 


The  Seminole  War. 


[H.  OF  R. 


is,  if  the  Spanish  side  of  the  line  is  used  as  a 
position  from  which  they  make  their  attacks, 
and  a  refuge  in  which  they  shelter  themselves 
from  our  attacks,  from  pursuit  and  defeat,  then 
you,  exercising  a  sound  discretion,  may  pass  the 
line.  Under  such  circumstances,  it,  in  fact,  be- 
comes a  necessary  measure  of  preservation,  and 
may,  indeed,  be  considered  rather  as  a  defensive 
than  an  offensive  operation.  So  far  it  is  clear, 
to  my  understanding,  that  all  the  orders  issued 
from  the  War  Department  are  strictly  warrant- 
ed by  national  law,  and  exhibit  a  proper  and' 
scrupulous  regard  for  the  rights  of  Spain.  I 
find,  however,  in  a  letter  to  General  Games,  of 
the  16th  December,  that  which,  in  my  opinion, 
cannot  be  thus  justified ;  and  I  am  at  a  loss  to 
discover  why  the  department  abandoned  the 
sure  ground  on  Avhich  it  stood  for  that  which 
seems  to  me  to  be  absolutely  indefensible.  In 
this  letter  the  General  is  instructed,  "  Should 
the  Seminole  Indians  still  refuse  to  make  repa- 
ration for  their  outrages  and  depredations  on 
the  citizens  of  the  United  States,  it  is  the  wish 
of  the  President  that  you  consider  yourself  at 
liberty  to  march  across  the  Florida  line,  and  to 
attack  them  within  its  limits,  should  it  be  found 
necessary,  unless  they  should  shelter  themselves 
under  a  Spanish  fort.  In  the  last  event  you 
will  immediately  notify  this  department."  I 
have  already  shown,  and  it  is  unquestionable, 
that  the  necessity  which  justifies  the  violent  in- 
vasion of  a  neutral  country,  must  be  to  prevent, 
to  avoid,  to  be  relieved  from,  an  injury  or  dan- 
ger of  high  moment,  and  not  to  revenge  a 
wrong,  however  atrocious,  or  obtain  redress  for 
depredations,  however  destructive.  This  dis- 
tinction, so  obvious  and  so  just,  has  been  care- 
fully marked  by  the  President  in  all  his  pre- 
vious orders.  Why  it  was  disregarded  in  this 
letter  I  cannot  say.  On  or  about  the  llth  of 
March,  1818,  General  Jackson  crossed  the  river, 
passed  down  on  the  east  side,  and  arrived  on 
the  16th  at  Fort  Gadsden,  which  is  within  the 
Spanish  line  of  Florida.  Let  us  then  shortly 
sum  up  the  circumstances  by  which  he  must  de- 
fend this  measure,  and  compare  them  with  the 
reasons  Spain  may  justly  urge  against  it;  and, 
by  a  fair  comparison  between  them,  we  shall 
be  able  to  decide  whether,  by  the  law  of  na- 
tions, we  stand  justified  or  condemned  for  this 
intrusion  upon  neutral  territory.  We  defend 
on  these  uncontradicted  facts,  that  our  enemy, 
in  very  considerable  force,  had  assembled  on  or 
near  the  line  separating  the  two  countries,  part 
of  which  line  was  a  navigable  river,  the  free 
passage  of  which  was  essential  to  our  safety,  as, 
without  it,  neither  supplies,  nor  provisions,  nor 
munitions  of  war,  nor  reinforcements  of  men, 
could  be  transported  to  our  garrisons  within  our 
own  territory,  beset  by  the  Indians,  and  in  dan- 
ger of  falling  into  their  hands,  if  deprived  of 
tl.i-  u-sistance.  We  defend  on  the  obvious  fa- 
cility with  which  the  enemy  might  make  his 
destructive  incursions  into  our  country,  and  the 
impossibility  of  restraining  him,  if  he  is  to  find 
a  shelter  from  pursuit  and  punishment  the  mo- 


ment he  repasses  the  line.  Wo  defend,  in  the 
third  place,  on  the  interminable  nature  of  a  war 
thus  carried  on  with  such  so.  enemy ;  the  enor- 
mous expense  to  the  United  States  in  this  pro- 
tracted hostility ;  the  daily  loss  of  valuable  lives 
by  disease  and  the  sword ;  and  the  infinite  loss 
and  inconvenience  of  keeping  our  militia  in  the 
field,  from  their  homes  and  business,  when  the 
means  of  terminating  the  conflict  were  so  di- 
rectly in  their  view  and  so  entirely  in  their 
power.  Such  is  the  necessity  under  which  we 
claim  the  right  to  enter  the  Spanish  territory, 
without  thereby  changing  our  pacific  relations 
with  that  power.  What  can  Spain  oppose  to 
this  to  warrant  her  in  refusing  this  passage  to 
pur  troops,  or  in  complaining  of  it  as  a  hostile 
invasion  of  her  rights?  Positively  nothing. 
No  injury^  no  inconvenience  did  result,  or  could 
have  resulted,  to  her  from  the  act.  Look  at  the 
situation  of  the  country  we  entered ;  it  was  not 
a  populous  city,  whose  peace  might  be  endan- 
gered and  disturbed  by  the  presence  of  an  army; 
it  was  not  through  flourishing  villages  and  cul- 
tivated farms  we  passed,  where  the  property  of 
the  inhabitants  might  be  pillaged  or  destroyed 
by  the  disorders  of  a  large  military  force ;  but  a 
mere  waste  and  wilderness,  on  which  the  foot 
of  civilized  man  had  scarcely  trod,  in  which  the 
interest  of  the  Spanish  monarchy  is  but  nomi- 
nal, and  of  the  existence  of  which  the  greater 
part  of  the  Spanish  people  are  utterly  ignorant. 
Above  all,  and  which  is  perhaps  the  first  con- 
sideration hi  these  cases,  the  permission  of  this 
passage,  nor  the  taking  of  it,  would  not  expose 
Spain  to  any  danger  from  our  enemy,  or  expose 
her  to  the  danger  of  being  brought  into  the  war 
on  account  of  it.  I  leave  the  crossing  of  the 
Spanish  line  on  this  justification,  being  well 
satisfied  it  is  entirely  consistent  with  the  most 
rigid  observance  of  neutral  rights,  as  recognized 
and  guarded  by  the  laws  of  nations.  I  agree 
that  permission  should  have  been  asked,  if  cir- 
cumstances would  have  allowed ;  but  the  same 
necessity  which  justifies  the  measure,  in  this 
instance  justifies  the  adoption  of  it  without  such 
request. 

The  occupation  of  St.  Marks  by  the  American 
troops  followed  the  entrance  into  Florida,  and 
is  the  next  proceeding  to  be  considered.  It  is 
admitted  by  our  Government  that  stronger  rea- 
sons must  be  found  for  taking  possession  of  this 
fortress  than  for  the  mere  entrance  upon  Span- 
ish territory ;  that  is,  the  necessity  must  be  more 
urgent  and  powerful ;  still,  however,  it  is  but  a 
stronger  case  under  the  same  principle.  The 
seizure  of  a  post  or  fortress  belonging  to  a  neu- 
tral power  is  so  high  and  hazardous  an  inter- 
ference with  the  rights  of  property  as  well  as 
sovereignty,  that  it  calls  for  a  corresponding 
justification.  This  is  found  in  what  Vattel  calls 
extreme  necessity  ;  it  must  be  indispensable  for 
preservation  from  immediate  destruction ;  this 
again  is  but  the  dictate  of  the  common  sense  of 
mankind.  The  right  of  an  individual  in  his 
house,  is  as  perfect  and  inviolable  as  that  of  a 
nation  irf  its  forts ;  a  man's  house  is  eniphati- 


294 


ABRIDGMENT  OF  THE 


H.  OF  R.] 


The.  Seminole  War. 


[JANUARY,  1819. 


cally  called  his  castle,  and  as  such  protected  by 
the  law.  But  assuredly  it  would  be  no  illegal 
violation  of  this  sanctuary,  if,  pursued  by  an  as- 
sassin, I  should  take  refuge  in  my  neighbor's 
dwelling ;  and  forcibly  too,  if,  under  such  cir- 
cumstances, he  would  refuse  or  prevent  me. 
The  necessity  here  required  must  be  immediate 
and  extreme.  It  is  not  enough  that  the  position 
taken  will  be  a  convenient  means  of  annoyance 
to  the  enemy;  a  prevention  of  future  danger; 
or  an  effective  instrument  for  offensive  or  de- 
fensive operations  in  the  war.  No  prospective 
advantage  or  danger  will  satisfy  the  law.  Self- 
preservation  ;  a  deliverance  from  immediate, 
direct,  and  extreme  peril,  must  be  the  end  to  be 
obtained  by  means  so  extreme.  This  is  the 
principle ;  how  does  it  apply  to  the  occupation 
of  St.  Marks  ?  Before  I  examine  the  facts  in  re- 
lation to  this  transaction,  I  beg  leave  to  dispose 
of  a  justification  set  up  for  General  Jackson, 
which  I  hold  to  be  altogether  untenable.  It  is 
said  that  Spain  had  by  her  treaty  stipulated  to 
restrain  the  Indians  within  her  territory  from 
hostile  incursions  into  the  United  States ;  and 
that,  not  having  done  this,  whether  from  ina- 
bility or  design,  the  right  devolves  upon  us  to 
enter  the  Spanish  territory  and  do  that  for  our- 
selves which  she  was  bound,  but  has  failed  to  do 
for  us ;  and  to  take  her  forts  in  execution  of  this 
design.  To  this,  I  answer  briefly,  that,  what- 
ever cause  of  complaint  this  omission  may 
have  given  to  the  United  States  against  Spain ; 
and  whatever  cause  of  war  it  might  have  afford- 
ed, if  the  complaint  was  not  attended  to  and  a 
satisfactory  explanation  given,  yet  it  can  give 
no  authority  to  a  military  commander  to  com- 
mit an  act  of  hostility,  and  involve  his  country 
in  a  war  without  its  concurrence.  It  is  for  a 
higher  and  a  safer  power  in  our  Government  to 
judge  when  treaties  have  been  broken,  and  what 
measures  of  redress  should  be  resorted  to  against 
the  delinquent.  To  invade  the  country  of 
another,  because  a  treaty  has  not  been  ob- 
served, is  to  punish  for  the  delinquency ;  and, 
among  nations,  punishment  can  be  inflicted 
only  by  war.  Such  an  attempt  cannot  be  made 
consistent  with  neutral  relations ;  and  we  must 
always  keep  in  mind,  that,  whatever  the  Gene- 
ral has  done,  which  is  not  consistent  with  these 
relations,  which  he  had  no  right  to  change,  he 
has  done  without  authority.  I  may,  however, 
use  this  failure  on  their  part  in  support  of  the 
plea  of  necessity.  It  may  be  considered,  in  a 
degree,  as  both  the  cause  and  the  evidence  of 
the  necessity.  It  is  the  cause,  inasmuch  as  if 
Spain  had  performed  her  treaty  stipulation  and 
restrained  her  Indians,  we  should  have  no  de- 
sire or  necessity  of  entering  her  territory  to 
prevent  their  hostile  attacks  upon  us.  It  is  the 
evidence,  inasmuch  as  if  the  Indian  force  was 
really  so  formidable  as  to  overpower  the  force 
of  Spain,  so  that  she  was  unable  to  restrain  it 
on  performance  of  her  stipulation,  it  is  not  for 
her  to  say  that  the  danger  to  us  from  this  force 
was  so  inconsiderable  and  trifling  as  not  to  justi- 
fy any  strong  measures  on  our,  part*  to  guard 


against  it.  I  come  now  to  turn  your  attention 
to  the  facts  and  allegations  relied  upon  for  the 
capture  of  St.  Marks.  In  General  Jackson's 
letter  of  the  8th  April,  1818,  he  tells  us  he  left 
Fort  Gadsden  on  the  26th  March ;  that  on  the 
1st  April  he  was  joined  by  Mclntosh ;  and  on 
the  same  day  discovered  a  small  party  of  In- 
dians, which  he  dispersed;  he  continued  the 
pursuit  of  them  througli  the  Mickasukey  vil- 
lage, where  he  burnt  three  hundred  houses.  He 
then  says,  "  as  I  had  reason  to  believe  a  portion 
of  the  hostile  Indians  had  fled  to  St.  Marks,  I 
directed  my  march  to  that  fortress."  He  after- 
wards found  the  Indians  and  negroes  had  de- 
manded the  surrender  of  that  fort ;  and  that  the 
Spanish  garrison  was  too  weak  to  defend  it ; 
and  adds,  that  there  were  circumstances  re- 
ported, producing  a  strong  conviction  on  his 
mind,  that,  if  not  instigated  by  the  Spanish  au- 
thority, the  Indians  had  received  the  means  of 
carrying  on  the  war  from  that  quarter;  and 
that  St.  Marks  was  necessary  as  a  depot  to  in- 
sure success  to  his  operations.  These  considera- 
tions determined  General  Jackson  to  occupy  the 
fort.  We  here  see  several  reasons  urged  in 
justification  of  this  measure,  some  of  which  are 
good  and  some  bad.  While,  therefore,  I  admit 
the  justification,  I  desire  to  state  the  ground  on 
which  I  rest  it,  lest  I  might  be  supposed  to 
adopt  all  the  reasons  given  for  it.  In  this  case 
the  principle  on  which  we  approve  or  disap- 
prove is  every  thing ;  as  it  is  the  principle,  as- 
sumed and  sanctioned  by  the  House,  which  will 
govern  future  cases. 

Three  grounds  are  taken  by  the  General:  1st, 
that  the  Spanish  authorities  in  this  quarter  had 
instigated  and  supplied  the  enemy.  If  this  fact 
were  made  out  even  stronger  than  it  is  by  the 
evidence,  I  should  not  hold  it  to  be  a  justifica- 
tion for  the  measure  taken  by  the  army,  and, 
for  the  reason  so  often  mentioned,  that  a  cap- 
ture on  account  would  be  a  hostile  capture ;  an 
act  of  war  against  Spain ;  would  be  inconsistent 
with  our  neutral  relations  with  that  power.  It 
was,  doubtless,  a  just  cause  of  the  most  serious 
and  determined  complaint  by  our  Government 
against  Spain ;  it  would  be  a  just  cause  of  war 
if  Spain  refused  all  reasonable  satisfaction  for  the 
outrage :  but  both  the  cause  and  the  expediency 
of  such  a  war  was  to  be  decided,  not  by  a  mili- 
tary commander  of  our  army,  but  by  the  Repre- 
sentatives of  the  people,  with  whom  alone  this 
high  and  vital  power  is  intrusted.  Still  less,  if 
possible,  is  the  General  justified  by  the  second 
consideration  suggested  by  him  in  his  defence ; 
that  St.  Marks  was  a  necessary  depot  to  insure 
success  in  his  operations  against  our  enemy.  I 
will  not  abuse  the  patience  of  the  committee  by 
showing  them  that  by  no  known  law  of  nations, 
by  no  principle  of  common  justice  or  common 
sense,  can  I  take  forcible  possession  of  the  prop- 
erty of  another  ;  can  I  violate  his  most  sacred 
and  essential  rights,  merely  for  my  convenience, 
or  to  insure  success  in  a  contest  to  which  he  is 
not  a  party,  and  in  which  he  has  no  concern. 
Such  a  doctrine  is  monstrous,  and  subversive 


DEBATES  OF  CONGRESS. 


295 


JANUARY,  1819.] 


The  Seminole  War. 


[H.  OF  R. 


of  the  very  foundations  of  public  and  private 
rights.  What,  then,  remains  for  his  justifica- 
tion ?  It  is  this — that  a  surrender  of  this  for- 
tress had  been  demanded  by  our  enemy ;  that 
the  neutral  power  was  confessedly  too  weak  to 
resist  the  demand  or  prevent  the  execution  of 
the  menace  with  which  it  was  accompanied,  of 
taking  forcible  possession  if  refused.  For  the 
proof  of  this  fact,  I  look  not  to  dubious  circum- 
stances, or  witnesses  of  doubtful  credit.  We 
have  it  in  the  unequivocal  declarations  of  the 
Governor  of  Pensacola  and  the  commandant  of 
St.  Marks.  We  have  these  declarations  proved, 
not  only  by  unexceptionable  witnesses,  but  un- 
der the  hand  of  the  commandant  in  his  letter 
of  the  Yth  of  April.  When  these  officers  of 
the  Spanish  authority  were  charged  with  giving 
aid  and  countenance  and  protection  to  our  ene- 
my, in  violation  both  of  the  general  and  the 
treaty  duties  of  Spain,  they  defend  or  excuse 
themselves  by  displaying  the  force  and  ferocity 
of  the  Indians ;  by  their  menaces  to  take  pos- 
session of  the  fort,  and  the  inability  to  prevent 
it.  If  these  assertions  are  to  make  the  apology, 
they  must  be  taken  to  be  true,  and,  if  true,  they 
may  be  used  by  both  parties,  they  may  serve  to 
justify  such  proceedings  on  our  part  as  are 
fairly  justified  by  them.  This,  then,  being  the 
case,  what  is  the  principle  of  national  law  that 
should  govern  it  ?  I  hold  it  to  be  entirely  clear, 
that,  when  a  fort,  or  any  other  means  of  war- 
fare, will,  with  reasonable  certainty,  fall  into 
the  hands  of  one  of  the  belligerents,  and  be  by 
him  used  against  the  other,  the  party  thus  en- 
dangered may  prevent  the  evil,  on  the  rights  of 
self-defence,  by  taking  even  forcibly,  the  instru- 
ment from  the  neutral;  and  that  this  is,  in 
point  of  law,  no  hostile  attack  upon  the  neu- 
tral, nor  right  to  be  considered  by  him  as  an 
act  of  war,  or  a  breach  of  his  neutral  relation. 
If  arms,  artillery,  munitions  of  war,  belonging 
to  a  neutral,  were  about  to  be  taken  by  our 
enemy,  can  anybody  doubt  we  might  prevent 
this  evil  (if  the  neutral  could  not)  by  seizing 
them  ourselves ;  making  afterwards  proper  sat- 
isfaction to  the  neutral.  I  know,  sir,  that  I 
here  come  directly  upon  a  transaction  which 
made  much  clamor  in  the  world,  particularly  in 
this  part  of  it,  when  it  occurred — I  mean  the 
seizure  of  the  Danish  fleet,  lying  at  Copenhagen, 
by  the  British.  Taking  the  state  of  the  fact  to 
be  as  I  have  represented,  I  cannot  doubt  of  the 
justification  of  the  act.  It  is  the  common  sense 
of  mankind.  Let  me  put  a  familiar  case.  Two 
men  are  engaged  in  one  of  these  avenues  in  mu- 
tual strife ;  it  is  the  contest  of  death.  One  of 
them  perceives  a  stranger  passing  by  who  has 
no  concern  whatever  in  the  quarrel ;  who  is  a 
neutral.  But,  this  stranger  lias  in  his  hand  a 
drawn  sword,  which  the  combatant  certainly 
knows  will  be  taken  and  used  against  him  by 
his  antagonist,  unless  he  prevents  it  by  seizing 
the  sword  himself.  He  knows  the  neutral  can- 
not prevent  it,  if  he  will.  Will  any  man  say, 
that,  in  this  situation,  lie  would  not  be  justified 
in  disregarding,  for  a  moment,  and  in  a  point 


comparatively  insignificant,  the  rights  of  the 
stranger,  and  taking  from  him  the  weapon  which 
he  cannot  retain,  and  which  in  the  hands  of  his 
adversary  might  be  fatal  to  him  ?  I  agree,  sir, 
that  the  belligerent  using  this  violence  takes  a 
high  responsibility  upon  himself,  and  is  bound 
to  make  out  his  justification  in  the  manner  I 
have  stated,  with  great  certainty  and  by  un- 
equivocal evidence.  On  what  principle  but 
this  can  our  Government  justify  itself  for  taking 
and  still  holding  Amelia  Island?  It  had  fallen 
into  the  possession,  not,  indeed,  of  a  regular 
force,  and  civilized  enemy,  but  of  a  gang  of 
brigands,  pirates,  and  fugitives  from  justice. 
From  its  local  situation  our  country  was  ex- 
ceedingly exposed  to  the  lawless  depredations 
of  these  robbers.  Spain,  the  rightful  owner  of 
the  soil,  was  unable  to  break  up  the  nest  and 
expel  the  murderers  from  it,  or  prevent  the  in- 
juries which  they  were  able  to  inflict  upon  us 
by  the  use  of  the  Spanish  territory.  Assured- 
ly, then,  the  most  obvious  principles  of  self-de- 
fence authorized  us  to  deprive  the  enemy  of 
this  means  of  annoying  us ;  to  take  from  them, 
not  from  Spain,  a  position  of  which  she  has 
been  unjustly  deprived,  and  which  was  so  dan- 
gerous to  us.  It  was  no  violation  of  the  neu- 
tral rights  of  Spain ;  there  was  nothing  in  it  of 
which  she  could  reasonably  complain.  The  oc- 
cupation of  St.  Marks  by  General  Jackson 
stands  on  the  same  principles;  the  admission 
and  declarations  of  the  Spanish  authorities  com- 
manding in  the  fort.  One  part  of  this  transac- 
tion I  confess,  is  not  sufficiently  explained.  It 
appears  that  the  commandant  and  garrison 
were  transported  to  Pensacola;  but  it  does  not 
clearly  appear  whether  this  was  done  by  the 
orders  of  the  General,  or  in  compliance  with 
their  own  wishes.  It  needs  not  a  word  to  sat- 
isfy the  committee,  that,  when  a  belligerent 
does  find  himself  under  a  necessity  to  appropri- 
ate to  himself  the  rights  and  property  of  another, 
he  must  do  it  with  all  possible  respect  to  those 
rights,  and  with  as  little  inconvenience  and  in- 
jury as  practicable  to  the  neutral.  He  may  not, 
therefore,  in  a  case  like  the  present,  expel  the 
neutral  from  his  possession;  he  should  hold  out 
a  joint  occupation  of  the  place,  and  hold  it  as 
inoffensively  as  the  nature  of  his  situation  will 
allow.  Upon  this  point,  I  do  not  find  sufficient 
light  in  the  testimony  to  justify  or  condemn  the 
General.  I  shall  trouble  the  committee  no 
longer  with  the  seizure  of  St.  Marks,  having  ex- 
plained the  grounds  on  which  alone  it  appears 
to  me  it  can  be  defended  consistently  with  our 
neutral  relations  with  Spain. 

I  propose  next  to  consider  the  case  of  Pensa- 
cola. The  capture  of  this  place,  with  the  fort 
of  Barancas,  must  be  tried  and  tested  by  the 
principles  I  have  already  submitted  to  the  com- 
mittee. It  must  be  defended  either  by  show- 
ing it  was  necessary  to  preserve  our  army  from 
some  immediate,  unjust,  and  extreme  peril,  or 
that  there  was  such  reasonable  certainty  as  ex- 
isted in  the  case  of  St.  Marks,  that,  if  not  occu- 
pied by  our  troops,  it  would  fall  into  the  hands 


ABRIDGMENT  OF  THE 


H.  OF  R.] 


The  Seminole  War. 


[JANUARY,  1819. 


of  our  enemy,  and  by  them  be  used  as  a  means 
of  annoyance  against  us.  This  brings  us  to  a 
question  of  fact  to  be  decided  by  the  evidence. 
On  the  7th  of  April  General  Jackson  took  pos- 
session of  St.  Marks.  On  the  20th  of  April  he 
writes  that  the  destruction  of  Bowlegstown, 
with  the  possession  of  St.  Marks,  will  end  the 
Indian  war  for  the  present ;  and,  should  it  be 
renewed,  the  position  taken  will  enable  a  small 
party  to  put  it  down.  He  states  he  is  informed 
a  few  Red  Sticks  at  Pensacola  point  were  fed 
and  supplied  by  the  Governor  of  Pensacola; 
that  he  will  reconnoitre  there,  and  then  return 
home  for  his  health.  On  the  26th  of  April,  he 
writes  that  he  will  proceed  directly  to  Nash- 
ville. "  My  presence  in  this  country  can  be  no 
longer  necessary."  He  expressly  declares,  that 
the  Indians  are  scattered;  cut  off;  and  that 
"they  no  longer  have  the  power,  if  they  had 
the  will,  of  again  annoying  our  frontier."  In 
another  letter,  written  on  the  5th  of  May,  he 
says,  the  resistance  of  the  enemy  had  been 
feeble ;  that  it  had  been  a  war  of  movements 
and  partial  rencontres ;  that  the  Red  Sticks  had 
been  severely  convinced;  and  the  Seminoles 
were  too  weak  in  numbers  to  believe  they  could 
maintain  a  war  against  the  United  States.  In 
this  same  letter  of  the  5th  of  May,  he  gives  the 
first  intimation  of  an  intention  to  occupy  Pen- 
sacola. It  has  been  stated,  he  says,  the  Indians 
have  free  access  into  Pensacola ;  are  kept  ad- 
vised of  our  movements ;  supplied  with  muni- 
tions of  war,  and  are  collecting  in  that  city  to 
the  amount  of  four  or  five  hundred ;  that  in- 
roads from  thence  are  made  into  Alabama,  and 
eighteen  settlers  had  been  killed.  If  this  is 
correct,  says  the  General,  Pensacola  must  be 
occupied  by  the  American  troops ;  the  Govern- 
or treated  according  to  his  deserts,  or  as  policy 
may  dictate.  The  General  then  gives  his  "  con- 
firmed opinion  "  that,  as  long  as  Spain  has  not 
the  power  or  the  will  to  enforce  the  treaties  by 
which  she  is  bound  to  restrain  the  Indians,  our 
frontier  can  have  no  security  without  occupy- 
ing a  cordon  of  posts  along  the  seashore.  Such 
are  the  facts  and  reasons  by  which  the  General 
defends  the  violent  and  hostile  seizure  of  Pensa- 
cola and  Barancas,  and  his  subsequent  proceed- 
ings respecting  them.  In  these  facts  and  rea- 
sons we  must  find  that  necessity  which  alone, 
by  the  law  of  nations,  can  justify  measures  so 
extraordinary.  It  would  be  a  waste  of  time  to 
make  a  particular  analysis  of  the  evidence  to 
show  how  utterly  insufficient  it  is  to  the  pur- 
pose. 

The  war  at  an  end;  the  enemy  dispersed, 
exterminated,  and  broken  down  ;  having  no 
longer  the  power,  if  he  should  have  the  will,  to 
annoy  us ;  the  commanding  General  returning 
home,  because  his  presence  can  no  longer  be  ne- 
cessary ;  the  position  taken  being  fully  adequate 
to  put  down  the  war,  should  the  foe  have  the 
temerity  to  renew  it;  and  yet,  with  all  this 
mass  of  facts  testified  by  the  General  himself, 
and  this  confidence  of  opinion  expressed  by 
himself,  we  are  to  bo  told  of  necessities ;  of 


dangers ;  of  inroads  and  murders,  which  shall 
justify  us  in  one  of  the  most  high-handed  meas- 
ures that  one  nation  can  take  against  another. 
No,  sir,  these  were  not  the  motives ;  it  was  not 
because  a  few  miserable,  defeated,  starving  Red 
Sticks  were  fed  by  the  Governor  of  Pensacola ; 
it  could  not  be  because  the  enemy  was  kept  ad- 
vised from  them  of  the  movements  of  our  army, 
after  the  war  was  over  and  all  movement  but 
towards  their  homes  had  ceased ;  it  was  not  be- 
cause the  Indians  had,  as  they  always  had,  a  free 
access  into  Pensacola,  that  our  General  chose 
to  wrest  by  military  force  this  place  from  the 
hands  of  its  owner,  in  violation  of  the  laws  of 
civilized  nations ;  and,  being  an  act  of  war,  in 
violation  of  the  constitution  of  his  country.  It 
is  not  because  Spain  is  not  in  a  condition  to  in- 
sist upon  her  rights,  or  resent  the  violation  of 
them,  that  the  act  is  the  more  justified.  The 
General  did  that  which,  in  other  circumstances, 
would  have,  rightfully,  on  the  part  of  the  of- 
fended nation,  involved  us  in  a  war;  and  it 
will  hardly  be  said  such  a  power,  under  our 
constitution,  is  vested  in  any  military  com- 
mander. But,  sir,  the  true  motive  of  this  bold 
step  is  exposed.  The  General  has  a  confirmed 
opinion  that,  unless  Spain  performs  her  treaty 
with  the  United  States,  a  cordon  of  posts  along 
the  seashore  will  be  necessary  ;  and  he  accord- 
ingly proceeds,  without  further  consultation 
with  his  own  Government,  to  occupy  these  posts. 
Here,  then,  we  have  a  military  officer  under- 
taking to  judge  whether  a  treaty  with  a  foreign 
power  has  been  broken,  and  without  inquiring 
what  reason  or  excuse  that  power  may  have  in 
explanation ;  without  inquiring  whether  his 
own  Government  has  been  reasonably  satisfied 
on  the  subject ;  without  examining  what  course 
the  policy  and  interests  of  his  own  country  may 
dictate  in  such  a  case,  he  proceeds  to  apply,  of 
his  own  will  and  authority,  the  remedy  he 
deems  most  proper ;  that  is,  to  wage  immediate 
war  on  the  other  party ;  he  takes  into  his  hands 
the  highest  power  the  people  can  exercise  them- 
selves or  grant  to  others — the  power  of  putting 
:  nation  in  jeopardy ;  of  expending  its  blood 
and  treasure,  and  involving  it  hi  the  countless 
calamities  of  war.  The  people  of  the  United 
States  have  intrusted  this  power  only  to  their 
immediate  representatives,  and  General  Jack- 
son has  walked  over  our  heads,  and  the  heads 
of  the  people,  in  assuming  it  himself.  This 
must  not  be. 

Mr.  ASTDERSOST,  of  Kentucky,  said  that  he  con- 
curred with  those  gentlemen  who  considered  the 
questions  involved  in  the  resolutions  as  intrins- 
ically of  the  first  magnitude,  and  fully  meriting 
the  free  discussion  which  they  had  received ; 
but,  he  said,  it  was  true  that  the  House  of 
Representatives  could  give  importance  to  any 
question.  Such  was-  the  character  and  station 
which  this  House,  under  the  constitution,  must 
always  hold  before  the  people,  that  every  sub- 
ject which  excites  interest  and  feeling  here, 
will  command  the  attention  of  the  nation.  In 
giving  his  opinions  on  the  questions,  he  should 


DEBATES  OF  CONGRESS. 


297 


JANUARY,  1819.] 


The  Seminole  War. 


[H.  OF  R. 


only  be  anxious  to  give  expression  to  those 
sentiments  which  he  held,  without  stopping  j 
moment  to  inquire  whether  they  are  consistem 
with  those  of  gentlemen  who  voted  with  him 
In  examining  the  military  transactions  which 
gave  rise  to  the  debate,  he  acknowledged  that 
he  had  felt  an  anxiety  to  find  that  the  Ameri- 
can officer  was  in  the  right ;  but  the  first  con- 
,  sideration  with  him  was,  that  in  giving  his 
opinions  and  his  vote,  he  himself  should  be  ex- 
actly right.  On  great  political  questions,  it  has 
been  sometimes  thought  admissible  to  act  from 
partisan  feelings, — to  express  only  those  opin- 
ions which  are  sanctioned  by  party,  and  would 
conduce  to  success  in  the  great  end  desired — 
but,  in  a  case  where  the  character  of  a  high 
officer  was  involved,  where  our  conduct  should 
partake  of  judicial  sacredness,  it  would  disgrace 
a  statesman  to  withhold  any  opinion  because  it 
differed  from  that  of  those  with  whom  he  voted. 
The  situation  of  Arbuthnot  is  different  from 
that  of  Ambrister  in  one  point ;  he  was  not  found 
hi  the  ranks  of  the  enemy,  but  hi  a  neutral  fort. 
Most  of  the  gentlemen  who  have  supported  the 
resolutions,  admit  that  he  had  been  previously  an 
associate  in  the  war,  but  contend  that,  as  at  the 
time  of  his  capture  he  was  a  non-combatant,  the 
analogy  between  his  case  and  that  of  the  English- 
man is  destroyed.  The  reason  of  the  case  certain- 
ly will  not  bear  them  out,  and  they  have  not  pro- 
duced any  authority  on  the  subject.  It  cannot 
be  contended  that  if  the  General  of  the  enemy 
was  taken  in  a  farm-house,  either  on  his  route 
from  one  wing  of  the  army,  to  the  other,  or  en 
a  journey  to  his  family,  that  he  would  not  be  a 
prisoner  of  war,  although  he  might  be  entirely 
alone,  and  even  destitute  of  arms.  If  Tecum- 
seh,  in  the  latter  part  of  the  war,  had  been 
captured  in  Canada,  engaged  in  the  work  of  a 
country  laborer,  would  that  fact  alone  have  de- 
prived him  of  his  war  character,  and  released 
him  from  its  penalties  ?  The  true  distinction  is 
this :  when  an  officer  has  resigned,  or  a  soldier 
has  been  discharged,  or  either  has  hi  so  effect- 
ual a  way  seceded,  as  to  be  no  longer  a  mem- 
ber of  the  enemy's  armament,  then  the  military 
character  ceases,  and  not  before.  No  tempora- 
ry absence  will  produce  the  end  contended  for ; 
it  must  be  an  absence  attended  with  circum- 
stances clearly  showing  a  permanent  secession. 
Frequently  the  most  effectual  aid  is  given,  by  a 
partisan,  who  is  absent,  and  who  is  physically 
a  non-couibatant,  by  advice  and  other  modes 
of  co-operation.  In  this  case,  where  the  pre- 
vious association  must  be  conceded,  there  are 
no  circumstances  which  indicate  a  separation 
from  the  enemy.  As  far  as  any  evidence  arises 
from  his  situation  in  the  fort,  to  which  the 
enemy  had  constant  access,  it  is  altogether 

r'ust  him.  There  is  a  fact  connected  with 
subject,  which  deserves  consideration. 
Among  civilized  nations,  only  a  small  portion  of 
the  community  is  attached  to  the  army,  and  of 
course  the  rules  of  war  apply  only  to  the-.-  \\\m 
constitute  it;  the  peasantry  of  the  country  is 
not  subject  to  any  of  the  penalties  of  the  sol- 


dier ;  bat  among  the  Indians,  there  is  no  such 
distinction ;  among  them  none  exists,  except 
that  which  is  produced  by  age  and  sex.  Every 
man  is  a  warrior.  Every  one,  whom  you  take, 
is  a  prisoner,  whether  he  be  hi  arms  o'r  at  rest. 
There  is  no  military  enrolment  among  them ;  if 
he  belongs  to  the  nation,  he  belongs  to  the 
army.  This  is  certainly  true,  and  is  founded 
on  habits  invariably  preserved  by  the  Indians. 
Among  us,  and  all  European  nations,  that  por- 
tion of  the  community  engaged  in  husbandry, 
or  in  raising  food  for  the  army,  is  secured  from 
the  rules  of  war;  but  among  the  Indians,  all 
the  men  fight,  and  the  food  is  raised  by  the 
women,  and,  of  course,  this  security  from  war 
is  confined  to  them.  If  an  Indian  chief,  found 
in  the  situation  of  Arbuthnot,  would  have  been 
a  prisoner  of  war,  surely  he  was. 

In  a  war  with  the  Indians,  who  receive  no 
heralds,  and  respect  no  flags,  and  with  whom 
the  massacre  of  prisoners  is  not  an  exception 
from  their  usual  conduct,  but  the  general  prac- 
tice itself,  it  cannot  be  required  of  General 
Jackson  that  he  should  have  been  guilty  of  the 
folly  of  sending  to  the  Indians  any  individual 
of  his  army  to  demand  satisfaction  for  that 
which  was  the  common  custom  of  the  nation. 
The  idea  expressed  hi  this  resolution  is  contain- 
ed in  one  passed  hi  relation  to  the  execution  of 
Colonel  Hayne,  an  American  officer,  although 
it  is  not  conveyed  hi  language  so  distinct: 
Resolved,  That  the  conduct  of  Major  General 
Greene,  in  taking  necessary  measures  of  retalia- 
tion, be,  and  hereby  is,  approved."  These  res- 
olutions clearly  convey  the  opinion  of  the  Old 
Congress,  that  the  commanding  officers  of 
separate  armies  possessed  this  contested  power 
by  virtue  of  their  commissions.  Circumstances 
may  be  easily  supposed,  in  which  the  utility  of 
retaliation  would  be  entirely  lost,  if  this  power 
must  hi  every  case  be  granted  by  the  Legisla- 
ture ;  hi  every  war,  which  is  to  be  concluded 
n  a  single  campaign,  (and  this  may  be  the  char- 
acter of  many  of  the  Indian  wars,)  if  the  officer 
did  not  possess  it  until  he  could  refer  the  case 
X)  Congress,  and  procure  the  authority,  the 
:ime  would  have  passed  at  which  it  could  avail 
ihn ;  the  effect  he  would  desire  to  produce,  on 
the  conduct  of  the  enemy,  would  be  lost,  and 
;he  reference  useless.  This  would  always  be 
the  case  where  the  seat  of  war  was  at  a  great 
distance  from  head-quarters.  This  view  of  the 
subject  is  strongly  supported  by  the  situation 
of  an  officer  in  a  besieged  town.  Here  all  com- 
munication with  his  superiors  is  cut  off,  and  if 
we  deny  to  him  this  power  of  coercing  his 
enemy  to  humanity,  his  situation  is  miserable 
ndeed;  his  countrymen  have  failed  to  give 
lim  authority,  and  his  enemies  have  deprived 
lim  of  the  means  of  acquiring  it.  If  this 
sower  was  lodged  in  the  President,  then  there 
?an  be  no  difficulty,  as  General  Jackson  has 
•eceived  the  subsequent  sanction  of  his  supe- 
ior.  But  there  is  a  letter  of  instruction,  under 
vhicli  General  Jackson  might,  it'  he  were  dis- 
>osed,  cover  almost  any  thing,  certainly  every 


ABRIDGMENT  OF  THE 


H.  OF  R.] 


The  Seminole  War. 


[JANUARY,  1819. 


thing  which  lie  did.  In  the  letter  of  the  16th 
January,  from  the  War  Department,  there  are 
these  remarkable  and  extraordinary  words : 
"  The  honor  of  the  United  States  requires  that 
the  war  with  the  Seminoles  should  be  termi- 
nated speedily,  and  with  exemplary  punish- 
ment for  hostilities  so  unprovoked."  It  is  very 
difficult  to  ascertain  the  precise  instructions 
which  the  Secretary  meant  that  these  words 
should  convey.  They  cannot  mean  that  the 
American  officer  should  march  rapidly,  fight 
gallantly,  and  slay  all  who  resisted  in  battle ; 
all  this  required  no  order.  It  is  certain  that 
no  authority  has  been  exercised,  which  these 
words  are  not  broad  enough  to  convey.  Mr.  A. 
said  he  did  not  contend  that  the  Secretary 
thought  of  such  a  case  as  had  occurred,  or  that 
General  Jackson  wished  to  deduce  his  justifica- 
tion from  it,  but  he  would  most  confidently  as- 
sert, that,  if  the  officer  were  in  the  course  of  a 
trial  driven  to  extremity,  these  words  give  him 
an  ample  patent. 

Mr.  A.  said,  that  it  was  now  manifest  to  the 
committee  that  he  derived  no  part  of  General 
Jackson's  authority  from  the  sentence  of  the 
court-martial ;  his  power  was  possessed  with- 
out their  interference,  and  might  be  exercised 
in  direct  opposition  to  it.  It  may  then  be  de- 
manded, why  was  it  convened  ?  This  still  pro- 
duces no  difficulty.  It  might  be  convenient  to 
the  General  to  have  its  opinion  and  advice ;  or 
to  have  its  aid  in  ascertaining  the  facts.  But 
you  might  go  still  farther,  Mr.  Chairman,  and 
admit,  that  to  convene  the  court  was  useless, 
and  that  General  Jackson's  conduct  to  it  was 
indecorous  and  insulting,  and  still  the  question 
before  us  is  not  affected ;  his  lawful  authority 
was  still  the  same.  Any  individual  in  private 
life  may  ask,  and  then  reject,  the  advice  of  his 
friends ;  this  indeed  is  very  rude,  but  his  right 
is  undisputed.  The  commander  of  an  army 
frequently  convenes  his  officers  to  hear  their 
opinions  on  the  propriety  of  fighting  or  retreat- 
ing, but  no  one  ever  doubted  his  authority  to 
reject  their  advice.  The  order  for  convening 
the  officers  in  this  case,  and  the  circumstances 
of  their  having  proceeded  under  all  the  forms 
of  a  court,  cannot  change  their  character.  If 
the  General  possesses  the  power  without  them, 
their  sentence  can  be  no  more  than  advice. 

It  is  evident,  said  Mr.  A.,  from  the  reasons 
which  I  have  assigned,  that  my  ground  of  jus- 
tification does  not  cover  Pensacola.  As  the 
occupation  of  both  posts  is  presented  in  the 
resolution  for  censure,  he  could  not,  in  any 
event,  vote  for  the  general  resolution ;  but  he 
would  not  rest  his  vote  on  that  ground ;  he 
would  as  promptly  oppose  the  one  as  the  other. 
Before  he  could  give  his  assent  to  this  proposi- 
tion, it  must  be  established  that  every  difference 
of  opinion  authorized  a  vote  of  disapprobation. 
Before  he  proceeded  to  examine  the  case,  he 
would  make  a  reply  to  an  observation  which 
had  been  repeatedly  made  in  the  debate.  It 
had  been  said  that  the  passage  of  these  resolu- 
tions would  convey  no  censure  directly  on  the 


officer ;  that  his  name  is  not  mentioned.  Gen- 
tlemen say  that  the  first  and  third  resolutions 
are  merely  preambles,  or  recitals  of  the  mis- 
chief, which  shows  the  necessity  of  adopting 
the  others,  and  founding  a  law  on  them.  But, 
Mr.  Chairman,  every  vote  which  passes  this 
House  receives  a  part  of  its  character  from  the 
debate  which  precedes  it ;  and,  after  the  man- 
ner of  this  debate,  and  the  spirit  which  has 
marked  it,  it  is  in  vain  to  say  that  the  passage 
of  these  resolutions  would  not  convey  the 
highest  censure. 


SATTTBDAY,  January  30. 
Seminole  War. 

The  House  then  proceeded  to  the  order  of  the 
day,  and  again  took  up,  in  Committee  of  the 
Whole,  the  report  of  the  Military  Committee, 
on  the  subject  of  the  Seminole  war. 

Mr.  LOWKDES,  of  South  Carolina,  said,  that 
before  he  entered  into  the  consideration  of  the 
arguments  on  which  he  supposed  that  the  de- 
termination of  the  resolutions  before  the  com- 
mittee should  principally  depend,  he  would  ad- 
vert, for  a  moment,  to  some  observations  made 
by  the  Speaker,  in  relation  to  the  treaty  of  Fort 
Jackson.  His  absence  from  this  country  at  the 
period  of  the  treaty,  and  for  some  time  after  it, 
sufficiently  accounted  for  his  information  being 
incorrect  upon  this  topic.  He  had  said  that  it 
would  have  been  worthy  the  generosity  of  the 
Government  to  have  given  some  consideration 
to  the  Indians,  for  the  cessions  of  land  which  it 
obtained.  The  records  of  the  country  would 
show  that  this  was  the  course  actually  pursued. 
After  the  ratification  of  the  treaty  of  Fort  Jack- 
son, the  journal  of  the  commissioners  who  made 
't,  was  laid  before  the  House  of  Representatives. 
It  contained  a  declaration  of  the  chiefs  who 
signed  the  treaty,  that  they  were  not  satisfied 
with  its  terms,  although  they  would  not  with- 
hold the  signature  which  was  insisted  on.  The 
same  paper  furnished  the  proof  that  the  ces- 
sions in  the  treaty  were  not  made  with  the  free 
consent  of  the  chiefs,  and  an  exposition  of  the 
terms  on  which  that  consent  would  have  been 
given.  The  House  of  Representatives,  he  be- 
ieved,  by  a  unanimous  vote,  passed  a  bill, 
which  gave  to  the  Indians  the  terms,  with 
which,  at  the  conferences  at  Fort  Jackson,  they 
had  declared  that  they  would  be  fully  satisfied. 
This  bill  had  become  a  law,  and,  if  the  condi- 
tions of  the  treaty  had  been  such  as  it  was  harsh 
to  exact,  the  Government,  which  gave  a  sum 
exceeding  one  hundred  thousand  dollars,  as  an 
equivalent  for  a  cession  which,  by  treaty,  was 
;o  have  been  made  without  any  equivalent,  had 
pursued  precisely  the  conduct  which  the  Speaker 
aad  declared  he  could  have  wished. 

Mr.  L.  would  not  say  that  the  act  was  liberal 
and  magnanimous.  Such  praise  should  be  re- 
served for  greater  occasions.  But  it  AVOS  just. 
Nor  had  he  ever  heard,  nor  did  he  believe,  that 
the  conduct  of  the  United  States,  after  the 
treaty  of  Fort  Jackson,  had  given  ground  of 


DEBATES  OF  CONGRESS. 


299 


JANUARY,  1819.] 


The  Seminole  War. 


[H.  OF  R. 


complaint  to  the  Creek  nation,  inhabiting  with- 
in their  boundaries.  Fugitives,  indeed,  from 
the  nation,  unwilling  or  afraid  to  trust  them- 
selves among  their  countrymen,  had  sought 
refuge  in  Florida,  but  their  flight  did  not  divest 
the  nation  of  the  rights  of  negotiation  and  gov- 
ernment. Nor  did  they  pretend  it.  They  sought 
only  lor  personal  safety,  and,  at  the  date  of  the 
Tre'aty  of  Ghent,  there  was  no  war  between  the 
United  States  and  any  part  of  the  Creek  nation. 

Mr.  L.  said  that  he  considered  himself  fortu- 
nate in  having  an  opportunity  of  addressing 
the  Chair,  immediately  after  the  gentleman  from 
Kentucky,  (Mr.  AXDEBSON,)  who  had  just  taken 
his  seat.  He  did  not  concur,  in  general,  in  the 
conclusions  which  that  gentleman  had  formed, 
but  he  should  gladly  follow  his  example,  in  ab- 
staining from  the  discussions  of  questions  which 
were  not  necessary  to  the  decision  of  the  resolu- 
tions before  the  committee.  And  upon  questions 
of  this  sort  more  than  half  of  the  debate  ap- 
peared to  him  to  have  turned. 

There  was  no  resolution  before  the  commit- 
tee declaring  that  the  President  was  not  au- 
thorized to  direct  the  march  of  our  troops  into 
those  parts  of  the  Seminole  country  which  lay 
beyond  the  boundary  of  the  United  States.  He 
should  not  discuss  the  question.  He  unequivo- 
cally admitted  the  right. 

There  was  no  resolution  before  the  commit- 
tee declaring  that  the  Government  of  the  United 
State-.*  was  not  authorized,  by  the  unfriendly 
conduct  of  Spain,  to  occupy  Florida,  or  to  resort 
to  general  hostilities.  He  would  not  discuss 
this  question.  He  agreed  with  every  member 
who  had  spoken,  that  Congress  had  the  right 
to  declare  war  against  Spain,  if  it  thought  it 
expedient  so  to  do. 

But  had  General  Jackson  the  right  to  take 
possession  of  St.  Marks  and  Pensacola?  Had 
the  President  of  the  United  States  the  right  ? 
The  rights  of  his  subordinate  officer  were  not 
greater  than  his  own. 

Gentlemen  must  recollect  the  deliberations 
upon  this  subject  during  the  last  session ;  the 
notice  of  a  proposal  by  a  member  from  Georgia 
for  the  seizure  of  Florida — the  decision  of  the 
Committee  of  Foreign  Kelations  against  the 
expediency  of  seizing  it — the  acquiescence  of 
the  House  in  the  opinion  of  their  committee.  If 
any  man  had  suggested,  during  the  last  session, 
that  Congress,  by  avoiding  the  determination 
of  the  question  of  occupying  Florida,  would 
have  left  it  open  to  the  decision  of  the  President, 
or  the  General,  the  suggestion  would  have  been 
heard  with  utter  incredulity.  If,  Congress 
could  have  believed  that  by  their  omission  to 
act,  the  power  of  changing  the  pacific  relations 
of  the  country  would  have  been  devolved  upon 
any  executive  officer,  ho  did  not  doubt  that 
they  would  have  directed,  explicitly,  what 
those  relations  should  be.  But  who  could  have 
foreseen  that  the  very  circumstances  which  in 
March  last  were  insufficient  to  give  the  sanction, 
even  of  political  expediency,  to  the  occupation 
of  Florida,  were  soon  after  to  be  the  principal 


constituents  of  a  military  necessity,  which  would 
justify  a  General  in  taking  what  the  Congress 
of  the  United  States  had  determined  not  to  take  ? 

The  power  of  declaring  war  is  given  only  to 
Congress.  To  employ  the  army  of  the  nation 
for  the  purpose  of  taking  possession  by  force  of 
the  territory,  the  towns,  and  even  the  forts  of 
a  foreign  State,  seems  to  fulfil  every  condition 
which  can  be  necessary  to  constitute  an  act  of 
war.  If  such  an  act  be  done  by  an  officer  who 
has  authority  to  do  it,  it  is  war.  It  was  war, 
then,  if  General  Jackson  was  authorized  by  his 
office,  or  by  the  legal  orders  of  the  President,  to 
take  possession  of  Pensacola ;  and  to  say  that 
he  was  authorized  by  neither,  is  at  once  to  ad- 
mit the  truth  of  the  position  taken  in  the  resolu- 
tion. A  necessity,  •  indeed,  which  would  make 
the  act  involuntary,  would  change  its  character 
of  hostility ;  but  he  must  reserve  this  topic  of 
necessity  for  another  part  of  his  argument.  It» 
was  not  alone,  however,  the  power  of  declaring 
war  which  was  given  to  Congress ;  the  power 
of  employing  force  against  the  property  or  pos- 
sessions of  a  foreign  nation,  under  circumstan- 
ces which  do  not  amount  to  war,  is  also  confided 
to  the  same  authority. 

The  framers  of  the  constitution  did  not  re- 
pose that  happy  confidence  in  Executive  or  mili- 
tary officers  which  might  have  induced  them  to 
give  to  Congress  only  the  right  of  proclaiming 
a  solemn  and  general  war,  and  to  leave  to  the 
Executive  or  the  military  the  right  of  engaging 
in  partial  hostilities.  If  the  people  of  Pen- 
sacola, encouraged  by  the  local  government, 
had  employed  their  ships  in  directly  plundering 
our  property,  the  principles  of  national  law 
would  justify  the  United  States  in  giving  to 
their  citizens  the  indemnity  which  the  capture  of 
Spanish  ships  would  afford.  But  by  whom  must 
this  capture  be  authorized ;  by  whom  must  letters 
of  marque  be  issued — in  other  words,  by  whom 
must  the  employment  of  force  against  the  prop- 
erty of  a  foreign  nation,  under  circumstances 
which  do  not  amount  to  war,  be  directed  ? 
By  the  Congress  of  the  United  States,  And  is 
there,  then,  plausibility  in  the  argument  which 
supposes  that  the  President  or  the  General  may 
take,  by  force,  the  acknowledged  territory  of  a 
foreign  power,  or  even  besiege  and  assault  his 
forts — and  this,  under  a  constitution  which,  by 
the  plainest  words,  reserves  to  the  Legislature 
the  exclusive  power  of  authorizing  the  capture 
even  of  a  schooner  on  the  high  seas  ? 

Mr.  L.  considered  it  clear  that  the  President 
had  no  right  to  authorize  the  capture  of  St. 
Marks  and  Pensacola.  And  the  documents 
upon  the  table  sufficiently  proved  that  such 
was  the  view  he  had  taken  of  his  own  powers. 
To  have  retained  Pensacola,  even  until  the 
meeting  of  Congress,  would  have  been,  he  says, 
to  have  changed  the  relations  between  the  two 
countries.  To  such  a  change  (he  adds)  the 
power  of  the  Executive  is  incompetent.  To 
have-  retained  Pensacola  for  a  month  or  two, 
against  the  will  of  Spain,  would  have  been  war ; 
the  order  for  its  restoration  was  therefore  given, 


ABRIDGMENT  OF  THE 


H.  OF  R.] 


The  Seminde  War. 


[JANUARY,  1819. 


promptly,  and  without  the  slightest  intimation 
of  any  change  in  the  condition  of  the  Indian 
enemy,  or  of  our  own  army,  which  would  make 
its  retention  less  necessary  or  less  justifiable 
than  its  original  capture.  Are  we,  then,  to  be- 
lieve that,  to  have  retained  possession  of Pensa- 
cola  for  a  few  months,  against  the  will  of  Spain, 
would  have  been  war,  and  that  to  have  taken  it 
by  force,  to  have  entered  it  by  military  capitu- 
lation, was  not  an  act  of  war;  that  it  did  not 
even  imply  any  change  in  the  state  of  our  foreign 
relations,  to  which  the  power  of  the  Executive 
was  incompetent  ? 

Mr.  L.  had  referred  to  the  President's  convic- 
tion of  a  want  of  authority  on  his  part,  to  re- 
tain or  to  take  Pensacola,  with  no  view  of  sub- 
stituting authority  for  argument:  but  by  an  in- 
genious construction  of  vague  and  general 
phrases,  an  attempt  had  been  made  to  show 
that  powers  sufficiently  large  had  been  given 
to  General  Jackson  to  authorize  the  occupation 
of  Pensacola.  He  did  not  wish  to  engage  in 
this  verbal  criticism.  A  sufficient  proof  that 
the  President  did  not  design  to  give  any  power 
for  occupying  Pensacola,  was  found  in  this,  that 
he  did  not  consider  himself  authorized  to  give 
any.  Argument,  however,  upon  this  subject, 
was  as  unnecessary  as  criticism.  The  gentle- 
man from  New  York  (Mr.  STOKES)  had  proved, 
by  the  extracts  which  he  had  read  from  the 
President's  message  and  from  Mr.  Adams's  let- 
ter, that  the  occupation  of  St.  Marks  and  Pen- 
sacola was  without  the  authority  of  the  Govern- 
ment, and  on  the  responsibility  of  the  command- 
ing General. 

The  President,  then,  had  no  right  to  give  an 
order  for  the  occupation  of  the  places  in  ques- 
tion, and  he  had  given  none.  But  he  had  given 
orders,  the  fair  and  obvious  import  of  which 
forbade  the  occupation  of  St.  Marks  and  Pensa- 
cola. If  the  Indians  took  shelter  under  a  Span- 
ish fort,  «the  General  was  not  to  attack  them, 
but  to  notify  the  Department  of  the  fact.  Now, 
he  would  ask  the  committee  for  a  moment  to 
suppose  that  the  Indians,  beaten  and  pursued 
through  their  swamps,  had  .  actually  taken  re- 
fuge under  the  guns  of  Pensacola.  What  would 
have  been  the  situation  of  General  Jackson? 
What  his  powers  and  duties  ?  The  very  exi- 
gency foreseen,  and  provided  for  by  the  instruc- 
tions of  the  War  Department,  would  have 
occurred.  He  could  not  have  attacked  the 
Indians  or  the  fort,  because  it  sheltered  them ; 
could  he  have  attacked  both  for  other  reasons  ? 
What  would  have  been  his  letter  of  justification 
to  the  Secretary  of  War  if  he  had  done  so  ?  Sir, 
the  very  contingency  has  occurred  which  your 
letter  has  anticipated.  The  Indians  have  taken 
shelter  under  a  Spanish  fort.  Not  authorized 
on  this  account  to  have  attacked  them,  I  should 
have  merely  notified  the  Department  of  the 
fact.  But  other  circumstances  justified  a  dif- 
ferent conduct.  I  found  not  merely  that  the 
Indians  had  taken  shelter  under  a  Spanish  fort, 
but  that  when  there  the  Spaniards  gave  them 
aid  and  comfort,  and  access  and  information, 


and  ammunition  and  provision.  On  these 
grounds  they  became  associates  in  the  war. 
Must  not  the  answer  of  the  Executive  Govern- 
ment to  a  letter  of  this  sort  have  been  that,  in 
ordering  no  attack  to  be  made  upon  Indians 
sheltered  under  a  Spanish  fort,  the  Preskli-nt 
had  ordered  that  upon  no  evidence  of  associa- 
tion or  connection  between  Indians  and  Span- 
iards, should  the  General  undertake  to  attack 
the  fort  of  a  nation  with  which  we  were  at 
peace ;  that  the  President  well  understood  that 
Indians  do  not  move  with  magazines  and  pro- 
visions, and  all  the  equipage  of  war  ;  that  when 
he  anticipated  the  event  of  their  taking  shelter 
under  a  Spanish  fort,  all  those  acts  of  communi- 
cation, aid,  and  supply,  were  supplied,  without 
which  their  shelter  would  have  been  decoy  and 
destruction  ?  If  all  the  circumstances  on  which 
General  Jackson  rests  his  defence  for  occupying 
Pensacola,  had  been  enforced  by  the  much 
stronger  circumstance  of  an  embodied  Indian 
force  lying  at  the  time  under  its  walls,  he  would 
have  disobeyed  his  instructions  in  attacking 
either  the  Indians  or  the  fort.  Does  it  come  to 
this,  that  General  Jackson  was  authorized  to 
attack  the  fort  because  the  Indians  had  not 
taken  shelter  under  it  ? 

But  what  occasion,  it  has  been  said,  is  there 
to  do  any  thing  on  the  subject  ?  None ;  if  Gen- 
eral Jackson  did  not  exceed  the  powers  with 
which  he  was  intrusted ;  but  if  he  exerted  one 
of  the  highest  prerogatives  of  government  which 
is  confined  to  no  less  authority  than  the  entire 
Legislature  of  the  country,  are  we  willing  to 

and  when  we  do  not  to  let  anybody  else  as- 
sume them  ?  The  character  of  General  Jackson 
is  said  to  be  implicated  in  the  vote  which  is 
proposed.  The  opinion  of  the  world  and  of 
posterity  will  not  be  affected  by  that  vote. 
There  is  nothing  in  the  fact  or  the  resolution  to 
impeach  his  military  glory  or  his  patriotism. 
But  the  character  of  the  country  does  not  de- 
pend alone  upon  its  military  exploits.  Its  civil 
institutions,  its  liberty  and  laws,  are  elements 
of  the  national  reputation  quite  as  valuable. 
To  suppress  our  disapprobation,  if  it  were  merit- 
ed, would  not  raise  the  character  of  General 
Jackson,  but  would  impair  our  own. 

He  could,  indeed,  suppose  cases  where  power 
not  given  by  the  constitution  might  be  assumed 
by  an  Executive  officer  rightly  and  necessarily ; 
but  he  could  suppose  none  in  which  this  as- 
sumption should  be  passed  over  in  silent  acqui- 
escence. Indemnity  might  be  extended  to  the 
officer  and  justification  to  the  act,  but  the  abso- 
lute necessity,  which  could  alone  furnish  that 
justification,  should  be  recorded  by  the  vigi- 
lant guardians  of  the  constitution. 

He  should  therefore  vote  without  hesitation 
for  the  resolution  disapproving  the  occupation 
of  St.  Marks  and  Pensacola.  But  upon  the 
subjects  of  the  other  resolutions,  his  views  dif- 
fered from  those  of  the  gentlemen  with  whom 
he  fully  concurred  in  that  of  which  he  had  been 
speaking  hitherto. 


DEBATES  OF  CONGRESS. 


301 


FEBRUARY,  1819.] 


The  Seminole  War. 


[H.  OP  R. 


As  to  the  condemnation  of  Ambrister,  he  be- 
lieved, that  the  power  of  military  execution 
was  inseparably  connected  with  that  of  direct- 
ing the  military  force  of  the  State  against  an 
enemy.  That  enemy  must  be  attacked.  Who 
has  the  power  of  receiving  their  capitulation 
or  surrender?  of  admitting  them  into  the  peace 
of  the  country  ?  Not  only  the  usages  of  war, 
but  the  principles  of  humanity  and  virtue,  re- 
quire that  the  unresisting  enemy  should  be 
spared  in  general ;  but  this  obligation  of  mercy 
is  not  universal.  It  is  not  held  to  extend  to 
those  who  have  broken  their  parole ;  nor,  by  a 
much  stronger  reason,  to  those  who  make  of 
war  an  indiscriminate  massacre.  The  right  of 
military  execution  was,  indeed,  at  least  as  easily 
to  be  'deduced  from  first  principles,  as  that  of 
execution  for  civil  crimes.  In  neither  case  was 
wanton  severity  to  be  justified.  The  Execu- 
tive Magistrate  must  decide  whether  mercy  can 
be  safely  extended  to  the  obdurate  offender 
against  municipal  law,  and  the  commanding 
General,  whether  quarter  can  be  prudently 
given  to  the*  savage,  who  himself  does  not  give 
it.  He  did  not  mean,  however,  to  engage  in 
the  argument  upon  this  topic,  which  had  been 
very  fully  discussed,  but  merely  to  state  the 
opinion  that,  in  ordering  the  execution  of  Am- 
brister, against  the  advice  of  a  council  which 
he  had  summoned,  General  Jackson  had  not 
exceeded  his  military  authority,  although  he 
had  indeed  assumed  a  high  responsibility. 

The  case  of  Arbuthnot  appeared  to  him  dif- 
ferent in  its  principles.  He  did  not  see  how 
the  right  of  military  execution  could  be  applied 
to  any  man,  who  was  found  under  the  protec- 
tion of  a  nation  with  which  we  were  at  peace. 
He  supposed  it  restricted  to  enemies  taken  in 
war,  and  limited  both  in  time  and  place. 
Whether  our  occupation  of  St.  Marks  were 
friendly  or  hostile,  he  did  not  understand  how 
its  inhabitants,  whether  combatants  or  not, 
had  become  subject  to  military  execution.  Nor, 
though  it  were  true,  that  an  atrocious  crime 
would  otherwise  have  gone  unpunished,  did  he 
admit  that  a  military  tribunal  should  be  called 
in  whenever  it  may  be  feared  that  justice  would 
otherwise  be  disappointed  of  its  victim.  Mr. 
L.  said  that  he  had  been  struck  with  the  indif- 
ference which  had  been  displayed  throughout 
the  argument  to  what  he  deemed  most  impor- 
tant principles  of  national  law  ;  that  the  juris- 
diction of  crimes  shall  be  confined  to  the  nation 
in  which  they  are  committed,  and  that  the 
Government  which  is  injured  must  obtain  its 
redress  from  the  nation  which  permits  them  to 
pass  unpunished.  He  knew  no  State  more  in- 
terested in  the  maintenance  of  these  principles 
than  the  United  States.  They  were,  indeed, 
necessary  to  the  independence  of  all  nations. 

Mr.  L.  said  that  he  should  not  vote  for  either 
of  the  bills  which  it  was  proposed  to  bring  in. 
For  the  bill  which  required  the  sanction  of  the 
President,  in  time  of  Indian  war,  to  tin 
tion  of  a  captive,  he  objected,  because,  if  this 
power  should  be  lodged  in  an  executive  officer 


at  all,  in  what  officer  it  should  be  lodged  must 
depend  upon  considerations  only  of  expediency ; 
and  it  was  necessary  to  its  prompt  and  useful 
exercise,  that  the  decision  of  the  General  should 
not  wait  upon  that  of  the  President. 

Where  the  troops  of  the  United  States  can- 
not be  marched  beyond  our  boundary  without 
committing  an  act  of  war  against  a  nation  with 
which  we  are  at  peace,  he  believed  that  the 
constitution  now  prohibits  their  march,  unless 
by  the  authority  of  Congress.  Mr.  L.  had  no 
faith  in  the  benefits  of  the  supplementary  law 
which  was  proposed.  But  there  might  be  many 
cases  in  which  troops  might  be  properly  march- 
ed beyond  the  United  States  without  com- 
mencing war;  either  where  war  had  been 
made  against  us  by  another  nation,  or  where  a 
territory,  in  our  neighborhood,  was  abandoned 
by  its  Government.  He  could  not  willingly 
add  to  the  evils  of  an  act  which  he  deeply  re- 
gretted, by  making  it  the  occasion  of  an  im- 
provident law. 


MONDAY,  February  1. 
Seminole  War. 

The  House  then  again  resolved  itself  into  a 
Committee  of  the  Whole  on  this  subject,  Mr. 
BASSETT  in  the  Chair. 

Mr.  H.  NELSON  resumed  the  remarks  which 
he  commenced  on  Saturday,  and  spoke  about 
two  hours -in  opposition  to  the  resolutions  of 
censure. 

Mr.  TYLER,  of  Virginia,  said  that  he  owed  an 
apology  to  the  committee  for  rising  at  so  late 
a  period  of  the  debate  to  address  it.  He  pro- 
posed to  present  a  very  brief  sketch  of  the 
views  he  had  taken  on  this  interesting  subject. 
At  the  onset,  I  close  in,  Mr.  Chairman,  with 
the  position  laid  down  by  the  gentleman  who 
has  just  addressed  you,  (Mr.  NELSON,)  and  say, 
that,  however  great  may  have  been  the  ser- 
vices of  General  Jackson,  I  cannot  consent  to 
weigh  those  services  against  the  constitution  of 
the  land.  Other  gentlemen  will,  no  doubt, 
yield  me  the  correctness  of  this  position.  Your 
liberties  cannot  be  preserved  by  the  fame  of 
any  man.  The  triumph  of  the  hero  may  swell 
the  pride  of  your  country — elevate  you  in  the 
estimation  of  foreign  nations — give  to  you  a 
character  for  chivalry  and  valor ;  but  recollect, 
I  beseech  you,  that  the  sheet  anchor  of  our 
safety  is  to  be  found  in  the  constitution  of  our 
country.  Say  that  you  ornament  these  walls 
with  the  trophies  of  victory — that  the  flags  of 
conquered  nations  wave  over  your  head,  what 
avails  these  symbols  of  your  glory  if  your  con- 
stitution be  destroyed?  To  this  pillar  then 
will  I  cling.  Measures  not  men — and  I  beg 
gentlemen  to  recollect  it,  has  ever  been  our 
favorite  motto.  Shall  we  abandon  it  now? 
Why  do  gentlemen  point  to  the  services  of  the 
hero  in  former  wars  ?  For  his  conduct  there 
lie  ha>  received  a  nation's  plaudits,  and  won 
our  gratitude.  We  come  to  other  acts.  If  our 


302 


ABRIDGMENT  OF  THE 


or  R.] 


The  Seminole  War. 


[FEBRUARY,  1819. 


motto  be  just,  we  must  look  alone  to  the  ac£, 
not  the  actor.  It  is  only  then  that  we  shall 
judge  correctly.  A  Eepublic,  sir,  should  sub- 
stitute the  Koman  Manlius,  and  disapprove  the 
conduct  of  her  dearest  son,  if  that  son  has  erred. 
From  what  quarter  do  you  expect  your  liber- 
ties to  be  successfully  invaded?  Not  from  the 
man  whom  you  despise ;  against  him  you  are 
always  prepared  to  act — his  example  will  not 
be  dangerous.  But,  sir,  you  have  more  to  fear 
from  a  nation's  favorite ;  from  him  whose  path 
has  been  a  path  of  glory ;  who  has  won  your 
gratitude  and  confidence — against  his  errors 
you  have  to  guard,  lest  they  should  grow  into 
precedents  and  become  in  the  end  the  law  of 
the  land.  It  is  the  precedent  growing  out  of 
the  proceeding  in  this  case  that  I  wish  to  guard 
against.  It  is  this  consideration,  and  this  only, 
which  will  induce  me  to  disapprove  the  conduct 
of  General  Jackson. 

Our  sympathies  have  been  appealed  to  in  his 
behalf.  There  exists  no  cause  for  the  appeal. 
Are  we  about,  by  this  vote,  to  wither  the  lau- 
rels which  bloom  on  his  brow — to  deprive  him 
of  character,  of  standing-?  No,  sir,  we  arraign 
not  his  motives.  On  all  hands  it  is  conceded 
to  his  supporters  that  his  motives  were  correct. 
Did  we  insist  that  he  had  intendedly  violated  the 
constitution  and  the  law,  then  should  we  make 
a  charge,  which,  if  supported,  would  properly 
degrade  him  in  the  estimation  of  all  good  men. 
But  we  make  no  such  charge — we  disapprove 
only  his  acts.  Is  this  a  vote  of  censure  of  the 
odious  character  which  it  has  been  represented 
to  be  ?  Censure  implies  bad  motives  and  bad 
acts.  Say,  if  you  please,  that  I  have  shot  my 
arrow  over  the  house  and  wounded  my  brother. 
He  complains  of  my  act,  not  my  intentions, 
because  he  is  aware  they  were  innocent ;  but, 
although  he  neither  upbraids  nor  censures  me, 
the  wound  still  festers  in  his  side.  Is  there  not 
even  a  wide  distinction  between  a  vote  of  cen- 
sure, in  the  obvious  acceptation  of  the  term, 
and  a  vote  of  disapproval?  Is  there  any  thing 
more  common  than  for  an  officer  ordering  a 
court-martial  to  disapprove  the  sentence  of  the 
court,  and  direct  it  to  reconsider  its  opinion — 
and  yet,  was  ever  such  disapproval  esteemed  a 
censure  on  the  court  ?  An  inferior  court  gives 
an  erroneous  opinion ;  an  appeal  is  taken  to  a 
superior  tribunal;  the  opinion  of  the  inferior 
court  is  reversed — was  such  reversal  ever  con- 
strued to  imply  a  censure  on  the  judge  ?  You 
differ  from  me  in  opinion.  You  disapprove  my 
premises  and  the  deductions  therefrom.  Sir, 
was  it  ever  heard  of  before,  that  this  difference 
of  opinion  required  us  to  regard  each  other  as 
such  objects  of  censure,  as  to  interrupt  our  har- 
mony or  mutual  respect  and  confidence?  We 
do  nothing  here  but  combat  the  opinions  and 
actions  of  the  General,  and  if  gentlemen  will 
have  it  so,  of  the  Executive.  Shall  we  be  de- 
nied the  liberty  of  boldly  and  manfully  express- 
ing this  difference  of  sentiment?  Sir,  I  pro- 
test against  this  slavery  of  the  mind.  The  body 
may  be  enchained  and  bowed  to  earth,  but  that 


ethereal  essence  resists  your  power  aud  scoffs 
all  efforts  to  enthral  it. 

What  are  the  points  of  difference  arising  out 
of  this  case  ?  Gentlemen  justify  the  capture  of 
St.  Marks  on  the  plea  of  necessity ;  we  contend 
that  no  such  necessity  existed ;  and  believing 
so,  we  disapprove  the  capture.  We  agree,  in 
our  premises,  that  the  General  would  only  have 
been  authorized  to  seize  a  neutral  post,  in  order 
either  to  save  his  army,  or  to  guard  the  post 
against  the  imminent  hazard  of  falling  into  the 
hands  of  his  enemy.  We  call  upon  gentlemen 
for  the  proof  of  the  existence  of  such  necessity, 
or  of  such  danger.  The  letter  of  the  Governor 
of  Pensacola,  informing  General  Jackson  that 
the  garrison  of  St.  Marks  was  too  weak  to  de- 
fend itself  against  a  hostile  attack,  and'  that 
the  enemy  had  made  demonstrations  of  an  in- 
tention to  seize  it,  will  not  justify  him  in  having 
taken  possession  at  the  time  he  did.  Before  he 
approached,  the  danger  had  retired;  no  force 
was  before  it,  nor  within  a  great  distance  of  it ; 
nor  had  he  any  enemy  in  his  rear,  and  his  army 
was  easily  thrown  between  the  fort  and  the 
foe.  Sir,  every  document  on  your  table  goes 
to  prove  that  the  Indians  were  defeated,  their 
forces  broken,  and  that  they  had  sought  shelter 
and  protection  from  the  ruin  and  destruction 
which  pursued  them,  in  their  swninps  and 
hiding  places.  An  attack  on  St.  Marks  was, 
therefore,  rendered  improbable.  But  admit, 
for  the  sake  of  argument,  that  this  was  not  the 
case ;  nay,  Mr.  Chairman,  to  give  to  our  oppo- 
nents the  strongest  of  all  possible  cases,  let  us 
imagine  the  Indians  in  possession  of  the  fort — 
would  your  army  have  been  in  danger  ?  Can 
any  gentleman  believe  it?  Sir,  did  you  ever 
hear  of  an  Indian  using  cannon  in  action  ? 
Their  situation  would,  indeed,  have  been  ludi- 
crous. I  submit  it,  in  the  spirit  of  candor,  to 
gentlemen  to  say,  if  the  General  could  more  ar- 
dently have  wished  for  any  event,  than  that 
the  enemy  should  have  concentrated  the  whole 
of  his  forces  at  St.  Marks,  with  the  settled  de- 
termination of  holding  the  post.  He  would 
have  been  saved  the  fatigue  of  marching  fur- 
ther; one  action  would  have  terminated  the 
sufferings  of  his  army;  the  defence  would  have 
been  weak  and  unavailing,  and  a  new  spark  of 
glory  would  have  illumined  the  crest  of  the 
hero. 

The  remarks  which  I  have  made  relative  to 
the  seizure  of  St.  Marks,  are  now  strongly  ap- 
plicable to  that  of  Pensacola.  It  is  in  vain  you 
tell  me  that  the  Governor  was  destitute  of 
principle — had  violated  his  neutrality — had  giv- 
en shelter  to  a  poor,  miserable,  broken,  and  de- 
feated foe — a  foe,  who,  like  the  hunted  beast  of 
the  forest,  had  held  you  but  a  moment  at  bay, 
and  was  then  flying  to  his  secret  places,  far 
from  the  haunts  of  civilized  man,  to  hide  him- 
self from  the  desolating  vengeance  which  pur- 
sued him.  Sir,  I  carry  you  back  to  my  first 
position.  Congress,  and  not  the  General,  was 
alone  authorized  to  make  war  upon  him.  Will 
it  be  said,  that  necessity,  which  justifies  all 


« 


DEBATES  OF  CONGRESS. 


303 


FEBRUARY,  1819.] 


The  Seminole  War. 


[H.  OF  R. 


things,  authorized  its  capture  ?  Where  is  it  to 
be  found?  Indians  retreated  to  the  town — 
were  in  possession  of  it,  if  gentlemen  will  ask 
the  admission.  We  require  that  the  General 
shall  look  to  his  orders.  It  is  the  very  case 
they  contemplate — he  must  report  to  the  Exec- 
utive. But  a  threat  is  made — you  are  braved 
to  your  teeth.  The  gauntlet  of  defiance  is 
thrown — you  are  threatened  with  an  attack — 
let  it  come  on.  The  storm  has  no  terror  for 
the  brave,  nor  can  the  frown  of  the  Spaniard 
shake  the  soul  of  the  hero.  But  there  was  no 
danger  to  be  apprehended.  The  Governor  had 
no  force  with  which  to  make  the  attack.  My 
honorable  friend  from  Virginia,  (Mr.  BABBOUR,) 
in  graduating  the  necessity  of.  this  case,  states, 
that  if  the  attack  had  been  made,  Jackson 
would  have  been  justified  in  seizing  Pensacola. 
True,  his  right  to  seize  might  have  existed,  but 
he  could  have  held  it  only  for  a  moment.  The 
assailant  vanquished,  the  General  would  have 
been  compelled  to  have  returned  to  him  his 
armor. 

As  to  the  remaining  points  of  inquiry,  I  shall 
be  very  brief.  Sir,  my  only  object  is  to  present 
you  what  I  esteem  the  strong  points  of  these 
questions.  I  do  not  wish,  even  if  I  had  the 
power,  to  perplex  you  with  subtle  and  ingenious 
reasoning.  My  object  is  to  meet  the  questions 
fairly — to  encounter  the  arguments  of  honorable 
gentlemen  with  such  force  as  I  can,  and  to  con- 
tribute, as  far  as  my  humble  talents  will  per- 
mit me,  in  elucidating  this  interesting  subject. 
If,  Mr.  Chairman,  the  capture  of  St.  Marks  was 
unauthorized,  the  execution  of  Arbuthnot  must 
of  necessity  have  been  so.  Spain  was  a  neutral 
in  the  war.  Her  flag,  therefore,  for  he  was  in 
St.  Marks,  protected  Arbuthnot  from  your 
power.  This  is  the  principle  for  which  we  have 
never  ceased  to  contend.  The  same  principle 
prevails  on  the  land  and  on  the  ocean.  If  this 
man  had  been  on  board  a  Spanish  vessel,  ac- 
cording to  this  rule,  one  of  your  naval  officers 
would  have  had  no  authority  to  have  dragged 
him  from  on  board  that  vessel  and  punished 
him  with  death. 

The  execution  of  Ambrister  and  the  two  In- 
dian chiefs  I  consider  equally  indefensible.  Al- 
though the  reasoning  applicable  to  the  case  of 
Arbuthnot  is  not  applicable  to  that  of  Ambris- 
ter, yet  all  the  reasons  which  go  to  show  the 
impropriety  of  the  execution  of  the  latter,  apply 
also  to  the  former.  I  shall  not  stop  to  inquire 
whether  the  court-martial  was  properly  organ- 
ized, or  proceeded  with  due  solemnity  and  form. 
This  has  already  been  sufficiently  canvassed, 
and  in  my  estimation  constitutes  only  a  second- 
ary branch  of  inquiry.  I  reason  from  great 
principles  recognized  by  the  law  of  nations. 
That  law  recognizes  but  one  reason  cogent 
enough  to  authorize  a  General  to  put  to  death  his 
prisoners.  And  that  is,  "  where  the  safety  of 
his  men  requires  it."  Was  that  safety  impli- 
cated by  suffering  a  wretch  to  live  ?  Was  the 
existence  of  his  men  or  his  army  endangered  in 
the  life  of  a  miserable  vampire  who  had  crawled 


from  the  sinks  of  European  corruption,  and  had 
visited  this  western  shore,  either  to  exist  in  the 
commission  of  crime  himself,  or  on  the  enormi- 
ties of  others  ?  Or  did  the  continuance  of  the 
lives  of  his  Indian  captives  threaten  discomfi- 
ture and  overthrow  ?  It  cannot  be  pretended. 
The  first  was  too  insignificant  to  have  excited 
such  fears — the  power  of  the  last  was  broken, 
and  all  their  efforts  defeated.  The  rifle  and 
tomahawk  had  been  struck  from  their  hands, 
and  they  were  prisoners,  defenceless  and  dis- 
armed. Sir,  would  it  not  have  better  comported 
with  your  national  character,  if,  instead  of  exe- 
cuting these  captives,  the  General  had  said  to 
them,  "  go,  I  give  you  your  liberty :  go  to  your 
few  surviving  warriors,  and  tell  them  that  that 
nation  against  whose  defenceless  frontiers  you 
have  raised  the  murderous  scalping-knife,  with 
whom  you  have  ever  been  at  war,  whose  blood 
you  have  delighted  to  drink — that  nation,  so 
abused,  so  insulted,  has  no  law  to  punish  you : 
it  restores  you  to  your  native  forests,  and  has 
only  to  ask  that  you  will  abandon  your  enmities, 
and  instruct  your  warriors  how  to  respect  her 
rights."  I  cannot  but  think  that  this  would 
better  have  accorded  with  the  principles  of  hu- 
manity and  the  laws  of  nations. 


TTTESDAY,  February  2. 
The  Seminole  War. 

The  House  then  again  went  into  Committee 
of  the  Whole,  Mr.  SMITH  of  Maryland  in  the 
Chair,  on  this  subject 

Mr.  POINDEXTEB  spoke  near  three  hours  in 
support  of  his  opinions,  and  in  reply  to  gentle- 
men on  the  other  side  of  the  question. — His 
speech  follows,  entire. 

Mr.  POINDEXTEB  addressed  the  Chair  as  fol- 
lows: 

I  rise,  Mr.  Chairman,  under  the  influence  of 
peculiar  sensibility,  to  offer  my  sentiments  on 
the  subject  before  tie  committee.  We  are  call- 
ed upon  to  disrobe  a  veteran  soldier  of  the  well- 
earned  laurels  which  encircle  his  brow,  to  tar- 
nish his  fame  by  severe  reproaches,  and  hand 
down  his  name  to  posterity  as  the  violator  of 
the  sacred  instrument  which  constitutes  the 
charter  of  our  liberties,  and  of  the  benevolent 
dictates  of  humanity,  by  which  this  nation  has 
ever  been  characterized  and  distinguished. 
Were  the  sacrifice  of  this  highly  meritorious 
citizen  the  only  evil  with  which  the  proposed 
resolutions  are  fraught,  I  should  derive  some 
consolation  from  the  reflection,  that  there  is  a 
redeeming  spirit  in  the  intelligence  and  patriot- 
ism of  the  great  body  of  the  people,  capable  of 
shielding  him  against  the  deleterious  conse- 
quences meditated  by  the  propositions  on  your 
table.  But  there  is  another,  and  more  serious 
aspect,  in  which  the  adoption  of  these  resolutions 
must  be  viewed ;  the  direct  and  infallible  tend- 
ency which  they  involve,  of  enfeebling  the 
arm  of  this  Government,  in  our  pending  nego- 
tiation with  Spain ;  of  putting  ourselves  in  the 


304 


ABRIDGMENT  OF  THE 


H.  OF  R.] 


The  Seminole  War. 


[FEBRUARY,  1819. 


wrong,  and  the  Spanish  Monarch  in  the  right, 
on  the  interesting  and  delicate  points  which 
have  so  long  agitated  and  endangered  the  peace 
of  the  two  countries.  I  wish  not  to  be  under- 
stood as  attributing  to  honorable  gentlemen, 
who  advocate  the  measure,  such  motives ;  they 
are,  doubtless,  actuated  alone  by  a  sense  of  duty. 
I  speak  of  the  effects  which  our  proceedings  are 
calculated  to  produce,  without  intending  to 
cast  the  slightest  imputation  on  those  who  en- 
tertain different  opinions.  Sir,  do  we  not  know 
with  what  delight  and  satisfaction  the  Minister 
of  Spain  looks  on  the  efforts  which  are  made 
on  this  floor  to  inculpate  the  Executive  of  the 
United  States,  for  having  committed  against  his 
immaculate  master  an  act  of  hostility,  in  the 
entrance  into  Florida,  and  the  temporary  occu- 
pation of  St.  Marks  and  Pensacola  ?  With  what 
avidity  and  pleasure  he  peruses  the  able  and 
eloquent  arguments  delivered  in  the  popular 
branch  of  the  Government,  in  support  of  the 
weighty  allegations  which  he  has  already  ex- 
hibited of  the  hostile  and  unwarrantable  con- 
duct of  the  commander  of  our  army,  during  the 
late  campaign  against  the  Seminole  Indians? 
And,  sir,  whatever  may  be  the  purity  of  inten- 
tion, which  I  shall  not  presume  to  question,  on 
the  part  of  gentlemen  who  censure  the  course 
pursued  by  the  commanding  General,  this  de- 
bate will  afford  a  valuable  fund,  on  which  Spain 
will  not  fail  to  draw,  on  all  future  occasions,  to 
show  that  the  pacific  relations  which  she  has 
endeavored  to  maintain,  have  been  violated, 
without  an  adequate  cause,  by  the  United  States. 
Shall  we  put  it  in  her  power  to  make  this  de- 
claration to  the  civilized  world,  and  establish 
the  fact  by  a  reference  to  the  Journal  of  the 
House  of  .Representatives  ?  I  hope  and  believe 
we  shall  not.  Sir,  the  nature  of  our  free  in- 
stitutions imperiously  requires  that,  on  all  ques- 
tions touching  controversies  with  foreign  powers, 
every  Department  of  this  Government  should 
act  in  concert,  and  present  to  the  opposite  party 
one  undivided,  impenetrable  front.  The  observ- 
ance of  this  rule  accords  with  every  dictate  of 
patriotism ;  and  is  the  basis  on  which  alone  we 
can  preserve  a  proper  respect  for  our  rights 
among  the  great  family  of  nations.  Internal 
divisions  are  often  fatal  to  the  liberties  of  the 
people ;  they  never  fail  to  inflict  a  deep  wound 
on  the  national  character ;  the  lustre  and  purity 
of  which  it  is  our  primary  duty  to  preserve 
unsullied,  to  the  latest  posterity.  Can  it  be 
necessary  to  call  to  the  recollection  of  the  com- 
mittee the  peculiar  and  delicate  posture  of  our 
relations  with  Spam  ?  A  protracted  and  diffi- 
cult negotiation,  on  the  subject  of  boundary  and 
spoliations,  is  still  progressing  between  the 
Secretary  of  State  and  their  accredited  Minister, 
at  this  place ;  the  result  is  yet  extremely  doubt- 
ful; it  may,  and  I  trust  will,  eventuate  in  a 
treaty  satisfactory  to  the  parties,  on  all  the 
points  in  contest;  but,  if  Spain  should  con- 
tinue to  reject  the  moderate  and  reasonable  de- 
mands of  this  Government,  the  indisputable 
rights  of  this  nation  must  and  will  be  asserted 


and  vindicated  by  a  solemn  appeal  to  anus.  I 
ask  if,  iii  such  a  crisis,  it  is  cither  wise  or  pru- 
dent to  pronounce,  in  the  face  of  the  world, 
that  we  have  been  the  aggressors,  and  that  war 
in  its  most  offensive  and  exceptionable  sense  has 
been  already  commenced  by  General  Jackson, 
under  the  sanction  of  the  President  of  the  Unit- 
ed States  ?  I  hazard  nothing  in  affirming  that 
such  a  departure  from  the  established  usages  of 
nations  is  without  a  parallel  in  the  history  of 
any  country,  ancient  or  modern.  Under  what- 
ever circumstances  danger  may  threaten  us  from 
abroad,  it  is  from  this  House  that  the  energies 
of  the  people  are  to  be  aroused  and  put  in  mo- 
tion ;  it  is  our  province  to  sound  the  alarm,  and 
give  the  impulse  which  stimulates  every  portion 
of  the  Union  to  a  simultaneous  and  manly  exer- 
tion of  its  physical  strength,  to  avenge  the  in- 
sulted honor  and  violated  interests  of  our  coun- 
try. We  are  the  legitimate  organ  of  public 
sentiment ;  and  it  is  incumbent  on  us  to  animate 
and  cherish  a  spirit  of  resistance  to  foreign  en- 
croachments among  our  constituents,  by  urging 
the  justice  of  our  cause,  and  the  necessity  of 
their  vigorous  co-operation  in  support  of  the 
constituted  authorities,  who  are  responsible  to 
them  for  the  faithful  execution  of  the  high  and 
important  duties  with  which  they  are  intrusted. 
These  are  the  means  by  which  we  shall  perpet- 
uate our  Republican'form  of  Government,  and 
transmit  its  blessings' to  future  generations.  But 
we-are  required  on  the  present  occasion  to  for- 
get the  wrongs  of  which  we  have  so  long  and 
so  justly  complained ;  to  abandon,  for  a  while, 
the  lofty  attitude  of  patriotism,  and  to  tell  the 
American  people,  in  anticipation  of  a  rupture 
with  Spain,  that  it  is  a  war  of  aggression  on  the 
part  of  their  chief  Executive  Magistrate,  com- 
menced in  Florida  without  proper  authority ; 
that  the  Spanish  Government  can  consider  it 
in  no  other  light  than  premeditated,  offensive 
war,  made  on  them  with  a  view  of  extending 
the  territorial  limits  of  the  United  States.  The 
expression  of  these  opinions,  by  this  body,  must 
cast  a  shade  over  the  American  name,  which 
no  lapse  of  time  can  obliterate ;  and,  while  we 
nerve  the  arm  of  the  enemy,  we  shall  approach 
the  contest  with  an  open  denunciation  against 
the  President,  who  is  charged  with  its  prosecu- 
tion to  a  speedy  and  favorable  termination.  He 
is  denied  the  cheering  consolation  of  Union,  in 
the  Government  over  which  he  has  been  called 
to  preside,  at  a  period  of  national  peril,  when 
every  man  ought  to  be  invited  to  rally  around 
the  standard  of  his  country.  Sir,  how  is  this 
most  novel  and  extraordinary  aberration  from 
the  legislative  functions  of  the  House  attempted 
to  be  explained  and  justified  ?  By  gloomy  pic- 
tures of  a  violated  constitution ;  pathetic  appeals 
to  humanity,  in  favor  of  a  barbarous  and  unre- 
lenting foe ;  and  lamentations  over  the  blighted 
honor  and  magnanimity  of  the  nation.  I,  too, 
am  a  conservator  of  the  constitution ;  I  venerate 
that  stupendous  fabric  of  human  wisdom ;  I  love 
my  country,  and  will  endeavor  to  rescue  it  from 
the  odious  imputations  which  have  been  so 


DEBATES  OF  CONGRESS. 


305 


FEBRUARY,  1819.] 


The  Seminole  War 


[H.  OF  R 


freely  cast  on  it  in  the  progress  of  this  discus- 
sion. I  admonish  gentlemen,  who  manifest  such 
ardent  zeal  to  fortify  the  powers  of  this  House 
against  military  usurpations,  that  they  do  not 
suffer  that  zeal  to  precipitate  them  into  an  error 
equally  repugnant  to  a  sound  construction  of 
the  constitution.  The  report  of  the  Committee 
on  Military  Affairs,  taken  in  connection  with 
the  amendments  proposed  hy  the  honorable 
member  from  Georgia,  (Mr.  COBB,)  may  be 
classed  under  two  general  divisions.  1st.  Res- 
olutions  of  censure,  on  the  conduct  of  General 
Jackson,  in  Florida,  for  a  violation  of  the  orders 
of  the  President,  and  of  the  constitution;  and 
for  the  unlawful  execution  of  the  incendiaries, 
Arbuthnot  and  Ambrister.  2d.  Instructions  to 
the  committee  to  prepare  and  report  two  several 
bills,  the  object  of  which  is  to  divest  this  nation 
of  some  of  the  most  essential  attributes  of 
sovereignty.  I  shall  pass  over  the  latter  branch 
of  this  subject  without  observation ;  believing, 
as  I  do,  notwithstanding  the  high  respect  which 
I  entertain  for  the  mover,  that  it  is  not  seriously 
the  intention  of  honorable  gentlemen,  by  an  act 
of  legislation,  to  abrogate  the  rights  of  this 
nation,  founded  on  the  universal  law  of  nature 
and  of  nations.  Self-denial,  though  sometimes 
an  amiable  quality  in  an  individual  member  of 
society,  when  applied  to  the  whole  community, 
renders  it  obnoxious  to  insult  and  oppression, 
and  is  a  voluntary  degradation,  below  the  rank 
of  other  sovereignties,  to  which  no  American 
ought  ever  to  submit.  Neutral  rights,  and  the 
usages  of  war,  are  already  well  established  and 
understood  by  all  civilized  powers;  and  it  is 
not  to  be  presumed  that  the  interpolations  which 
are  proposed  would  be  reciprocated,  and  consti- 
tute the  basis  of  new  principles  of  public  law  ; 
we  may  prostrate  our  own  dignity,  and  paralyze 
the  energies  of  our  country,  but  we  shall  find 
no  nation  so  pusillanimous  as  to  follow  our  disin- 
terested example. 

Considering,  therefore,  these  propositions  as 
merely  nominal,  intended  only  to  enlarge  the 
group,  and  give  diversity  to  the  picture,  I  shall 
leave  them  without  further  animadversion,  and 
proceed  to  investigate  the  resolutions  levelled  at 
the  fame,  the  honor,  and  reputation,  of  General 
Andrew  Jackson;  and,  through  him,  at  the 
President,  under  whose  orders  he  acted,  and  by 
•whom  he  has  been  sustained  and  vindicated. 
Sir,  I  hold  it  to  be  the  indispensable  duty  of 
every  tribunal,  whether  legislative  or  judicial, 
to  examine  with  caution  and  circumspection 
into  its  jurisdiction  and  powers,  on  every  ques- 
tion brought  before  it  for  adjudication  ;  and  this 
rule  ought  more  particularly  to  be  observed  in 
cases  involving  personal  rights  and  interests, 
where  the  party  to  be  affected  by  the  decision 
is  not  permitted  to  answer  in  his  own  defence. 
I  ask,  then,  sir,  has  the  House  of  Representatives, 
as  a  distinct  and  separate  brancli  of  Congress, 
the  constitutional  power  to  institute  an  inquiry 
into  the  conduct  of  a  military  officer,  and  to 
sentence  him  to  be  cashiered,  suspended,  or 
censured  ?  I  demand  a  satisfactory  and  explicit 
VOL.  VI 20 


response  to  this  interrogatory,  founded  on  a  re- 
ference to  the  constitution  itself,  and  not  on  the 
undefined  notions  of  expediency,  in  which  gen- 
tlemen may  indulge ;  and  if  it  be  not  given,  as. 
I  am  very  sure  it  cannot,  we  shall  become  the 
violators  of  that  fair  fabric  of  liberty,  and  erect 
a  precedent  more  dangerous  in  its  tendency, 
than  the  multiplied  infractions  which  have  been 
so  vehemently  alleged  against  General  Jackson, 
admitting  them  all  the  force  and  latitude  which 
the  most  enthusiastic  censor  could  desire.  Sir, 
it  is  high  time  to  bring  back  this  debate  to  first 
principles,  and  to  test  our  jurisdiction  over  this 
case,  by  a  recurrence  to  the  structure  of  the 
Government  of  which  we  are  a  component  part. 
Let  us  pluck  the  beam  from  our  own  eyes,  be- 
fore we  seek  to  expel  the  mote  which  gentle- 
men seem  to  have  discovered  in  the  vision  of 
General  Jackson.  The  sages  and  patriots  who 
established  the  foundation  of  this  Republic  have, 
with  a  wisdom  and  forecast  bordering  on  inspi- 
ration, carefully  marked  and  distributed  the 
powers  delegated  in  the  constitution  to  the 
Federal  Government  among  the  several  depart- 
ments, Legislative,  Executive,  and  Judiciary. 
No  principle  is  better  settled,  or  more  generally 
conceded,  than  that  the  powers  properly  belong- 
ing to  one  of  these  departments  ought  not  to  be 
directly  administered  by  either  of  the  others. 
The  violation  of  this  maxim  leads,  by  inevitable 
results,  to  the  downfall  of  our  Republican  in- 
stitutions, and  the  consolidation  of  all  power  in 
that  branch  which  shall  possess  the  strongest 
influence  over  the  public  mind.  Upon  the  in- 
dependent exercise  of  the  powers  confided  to 
each  department,  uncontrolled,  directly  or  in- 
directly, by  the  encroachments  of  either,  de- 
pends the  security  of  life,  liberty,  and  property, 
and  the  stability  of  that  constitution  which  is 
the  pride  of  our  country  and  the  admiration  of 
mankind.  The  honorable  gentleman  from 
Georgia  has  adverted  to  the  opinions  of  the 
immortal  author  of  the  letters  of  Publius,  the 
late  Chief  Magistrate  of  the  United  States ;  and 
the  honorable  Speaker  has  also  invited  our 
attention  to  that  great  constitutional  lawyer. 
They  triumphantly  ask,  what  he  would  say  on 
the  present  question,  were  he  a  member  of  this 
House  ?  I  will  not  follow  the  example  of  these 
gentlemen,  by  substituting  declamation  for 
historical  truth,  or  vague  surmises,  and  assumed 
premises,  for  record  evidence ;  but,  while  I  ac- 
cord to  the  distinguished  statesman  and  patriot, 
whose  exertions  so  eminently  contributed  to 
the  establishment  of  this  Government,  and 
whose  exposition  of  its  fundamental  principles 
cannot  be  too  highly  appreciated,  all  the  merit 
of  a  useful  life,  devoted  to  the  public  service, 
guided  by  wisdom,  virtue,  and  integrity;  I 
appeal  with  pleasure  and  confidence  to  his  able 
pen  in  support  of  the  position  which  I  have  ad- 
vanced, and  which  I  deem  an  important  point 
in  the  case  under  consideration.  In  the  view 
taken  by  Mr.  Madison,  of  the  "  meaning  of  the 
mixim  which  requires  a  separation  of  the  de- 
partments of  power,"  he  repels  the  arguments 


306 


ABRIDGMENT  OF  THE 


H.  OF  R.] 


The  Seminole  War. 


[FEBRUARY,  1819. 


of  the  opponents  to  the  adoption  of  the  consti- 
tution, founded  on  the  apprehension  of  Execu- 
tive supremacy  over  the  Legislative  and  Judi- 
•  ciary,  which,  it  was  contended,  would  ultimate- 
ly render  that  branch  the  sole  depository  of 
power,  and  subject  the  people  of  this  country 
to  the  despotic  will  of  a  single  individual.  Com- 
paring the  powers  delegated  to  the  Executive, 
with  those  granted  to  the  Legislature,  and  the 
probable  danger  of  an  assumption  by  either  of 
the  functions  appertaining  to  the  other,  he  says : 

"  In  a  Government  where  numerous  and  extensive 
prerogatives  are  placed  in  the  hands  of  a  hereditary 
monarch,  the  Executive  department  is  very  justly 
regarded  as  the  source  of  danger,  and  watched  with 
all  the  jealousy  which  a  zeal  for  liberty  ought  to  in- 
spire. In  a  democracy,  where  a  multitude  of  people 
exercise  in  person  the  legislative  functions,  and  are 
continually  exposed,  by  their  incapacity  for  regular 
deliberation  and  concerted  measures,  to  the  ambitious 
intrigues  of  their  Executive  Magistrates,  tyranny 
may  well  be  apprehended,  on  some  favorable  emer- 
gency, to  start  up  in  the  game  quarter.  But,  in  a  rep- 
resentative Republic,  where  the  Executive  Magis- 
tracy is  carefully  limited,  both  in  the  extent  and  du- 
ration of  its  power,  and  where  the  legislative  power 
is  exercised  by  an  assembly,  which  is  inspired,  by  a 
supposed  influence  over  the  people,  with  an  intrepid 
confidence  in  its  own  strength  ;  which  is  sufficiently 
.numerous  to  feel  all  the  passions  which  actuate  a 
multitude,  yet  not  so  numerous  as  to  be  incapable  of 
pursuing  the  objects  of  its  passions,  by  means  which 
reason  prescribes ;  it  is  against  the  enterprising  am- 
bition of  this  department  that  the  people  ought  to  in- 
dulge all  their  jealousy,  and  exhaust  all  their  precau- 
tions. The  legislative  department  derives  a  superi- 
ority in  our  Government  from  other  circumstances. 
Its  constitutional  powers  being  at  once  more  exten- 
sive, and  less  susceptible  of  precise  limits,  it  can, 
with  the  greater  facility,  mask,  under  complicated 
and  indirect  measures,  the  encroachments  which  it 
makes  on  the  co-ordinate  departments." 

The  correctness  of  the  reasoning  and  predic- 
tions of  this  great  and  good  man,  who  is  called 
by  the  honorable  Speaker  the  father  of  the  con- 
stitution, has  been  often  demonstrated  in  the 
practical  operations  of  this  body,  and  never 
more  forcibly  than  on  the  present  occasion. 
Scarcely  a  session  of  Congress  passes  without 
some  effort  to  enlarge  the  scope  of  our  powers 
by  construction  or  analogy ;  and  unless  these 
systematic  advances  in  this  House  to  crush  the 
co-ordinate  departments,  by  an  unlimited  exer- 
cise of  authority  over  all  subjects  involving  the 
general  welfare,  be  resisted  with  firmness  and 
perseverance,  they  will,  at  no  distant  period, 
eventuate  in  the  destruction  of  those  salutary 
checks  and  balances  so  essential  to  the  duration 
of  our  happy  form  of  Government,  and  to  the 
security  of  civil  and  political  liberty.  I  depre- 
cate every  measure  calculated  to  establish  a 
precedent,  which,  in  its  effects,  may  lead  to 
such  dangerous  consequences.  An  enlightened 
statesman  has  said  that  the  concentrating  all 
the  powers  of  Government  in  the  legislative 
body  is  of  the  very  essence  of  despotism;  and 
it  is  no  alleviation  that  these  powers  will  be  ex- 


ercised by  a  plurality  of  hands,  and  not  by  a 
single  one.  "  An  elective  despotism  was  not 
the  Government  we  fought  for  ;  but  one  which 
should  not  only  be  founded  on  free  principles, 
but  in  which  the  powers  of  Government  should 
be  so  divided  and  balanced  among  the  several 
bodies  of  magistracy,  as  that  no  one  could  tran- 
scend their  legal  limits  without  being  effectually 
checked  and  restrained  by  the  others." 

Sir,  whenever  these  principles  shall  cease  to 
be  respected  by  the  councils  of  this  country,  I 
shall  consider  the  grand  experiment  which  we 
have  made  in  the  administration  of  a  govern- 
ment of  limited  powers,  founded  on  a  written 
instrument,  in  which  they  are  specified  and  de- 
fined, as  altogether  abortive,  and  as  affording 
strong  proof  of  the  regal  maxim,  that  man  is 
incapable  of  self-government.  If  honorable 
gentlemen  mean  any  thing  by  the  reverence 
which  they  profess  to  feel  for  the  constitution, 
I  conjure  them  to  look  to  its  provisions,  and 
forbear  to  adopt  a  measure  in  direct  violation 
both  of  its  letter  and  spirit.  By  article  2d, 
section  2,  it  is  provided  that  "  the  President 
shall  be  Commander-in-chief  of  the  Army  and 
Navy  of  the  United  States,  and  of  the  militia  of 
the  several  States,  when  called  into  actual  ser- 
vice;" and  by  the  8th  section  of  the  1st  article, 
Congress  is  vested  with  power  to  "  make  rules 
for  the  government  and  regulation  of  the  land 
and  naval  forces."  Congress  has  long  since  ful- 
filled this  duty ;  rules  and  articles  of  war  have 
been  sanctioned,  and  have  continued  to  govern 
the  army  from  its  organization  up  to  the  pres- 
ent time ;  in  these  the  great  principles  of  sub- 
ordination and  responsibility  are  graduated  and 
established,  from  the  Commander-in-chief  down 
to  the  most  petty  officer  and  common  soldier. 
The  President  is  placed  by  his  country  at  the 
head  of  its  physical  force,  u  to  execute  the  laws 
of  the  Union,  suppress  insurrection,  and  repel 
invasion ;"  he  is  the  ultimate  tribunal  to  decide 
all  questions  touching  the  operations  of  the 
army,  and  the  conduct  of  the  officers  who  com- 
pose it.  If  there  be  any  power,  clearly  and  ex- 
clusively belonging  to  the  Executive,  it  is  that 
which  appertains  to  the  government  of  the 
Army  and  Navy  of  the  United  States.  Our 
whole  system  of  laws  recognizes  it ;  and  until 
this  extraordinary  attempt  to  erect  the  House 
of  Representatives  into  a  court-martial,  with  a 
view  to  cast  an  indelible  stain  on  the  character 
of  General  Jackson,  without  a  fair  and  impar- 
tial trial,  in  which  he  might  confront  his  accu- 
sers and  be  heard  in  his  defence,  no  instance 
can  be  shown,  since  the  foundation  of  the  Gov- 
ernment, where  the  President  has  been  inter 
rupted  in  the  full  exercise  of  his  legitimate  au- 
thority over  the  military  officers  under  his  com- 
mand. The  abuse  of  this  power,  or  the  im- 
proper direction  and  application  of  the  public 
forces,  by  the  Chief  Magistrate,  or  by  any  sub- 
ordinate officer,  with  his  privity  and  assent,  in 
a  manner,  or  for  the  accomplishment  of  objects 
dangerous  to  the  liberties  of  the  people,  or  sub- 
versive of  the  laws  and  constitution  of  the 


DEBATES  OF  CONGRESS. 


307 


FEBRUARY,  1819.] 


The  Seminole  War. 


[H.  OF  R. 


Union,  will  find  a  ready  and  suitable  corrective 
in  this  House,  by  an  application  of  its  power  to 
originate  impeachment  against  the  President, 
Vice  President,  and  all  civil  officers,  for  treason, 
bribery,  or  other  high  crimes  and  misdemeanors. 
In  this  sense  only  can  we  be  regarded  as  the 
grand  inquest  of  the  nation,  and  not  to  the  un- 
limited extent  for  which  gentlemen  have  con- 
tended. The  power  to  impeach  the  President 
is  expressly  delegated ;  all  other  civil  officers 
are  liable  to  the  same  scrutiny,  and  the  total 
omission,  in  the  article  of  the  military  depart- 
ment, is,  to  my  mind,  conclusive  evidence  that 
they  were  never  intended  to  be  subject  to  the 
control  of  Congress,  except  in  the  usual  course 
of  legislation,  under  the  power  to  raise  and 
support  armies.  And  this  opinion  is  strengthen- 
ed by  the  clause  of  the  constitution  to  which  I 
have  referred,  directing  Congress  to  provide  for 
the  government  and  regulation  of  the  land  and 
naval  forces.  The  principle  of  official  responsi- 
bility is  to  be  found  in  every  page  of  the  con- 
stitution ;  not  a  vague,  uncertain  responsibility, 
but  that  which  is  unequivocal,  certain,  and 
definite.  We  are  answerable,  at  stated  periods, 
to  the  people  by  whom  we  have  respectively 
been  chosen.  The  President  is  accountable  to 
the  nation  at  large  at  the  expiration  of  his  term 
of  service ;  and,  in  the  mean  time,  we  hold  a 
salutary  check  over  his  ambition,  if  he  evince 
such  a  disposition,  by  means  of  impeachment. 
In  like  manner  the  whole  civil  department  may 
be  punished  for  a  wanton  prostitution  of  their 
official  functions.  The  military  and  naval  offi- 
cers who  command  our  army  and  navy  are  re- 
sponsible directly  to  the  Executive,  who  is  their 
chief,  and,  through  him,  indirectly,  to  the  Rep- 
resentatives of  the  people.  Every  link  in  the 
chain  is  essential  to  the  beauty  and  symmetry 
of  the  whole;  and,  if  preserved  unbroken, 
affords  the  most  ample  security  against  any  usur- 
pation of  power  withont  a  prompt  and  efficient 
remedy  to  detect  and  restrain  it.  It  is  now  pro- 
posed to  make  this  House  the  focus  of  every 
power  granted  to  the  Federal  Government ;  to 
mount  the  ramparts  which  separate  the  depart- 
ments, and  compel  every  man  who  holds  a  com- 
mission to  bow  with  submission  to  the  gigantic 
strength  of  this  numerous  assembly.  Those 
whom  we  cannot  impeach  we  will  censure,  and 
record  their  names  as  fit  objects  for  the  scorn 
and  detestation  of  posterity.  Already  we  hold 
the  purse  and  the  sword  of  the  nation.  All 
legislation,  must  receive  our  concurrence,  in 
connection  with  the  President  and  Senate, 
before  it  has  the  force  and  effect  of  law.  The 
treaty-making  power  may  be  controlled  by 
us  where  an  appropriation  is  required  to  fulfil 
the  contract — the  judiciary  is  at  our  feet,  both 
in  respect  to  the  extent  of  its  jurisdiction  and 
the  liability  of  its  members  to  the  summary 
process  of  impeachment — the  President  and 
heads  of  department,  foreign  ministers,  and  the 
whole  catalogue  of  civil  officers,  stand  in  awe 
of  our  frowns,  and  may  be  crushed  by  the 
weight  of  our  authority.  I  ask,  then,  sir,  if 


the  officers  of  the  army  and  navy  are  rendered 
subservient  to  us  as  a  censorial,  inquisitorial 
body,  whether  it  will  not  amount  to  the  "  very 
definition  of  despotism."  Yes,  sir,  we  shall,  if 
these  resolutions  pass,  bear  testimony  of  the 
soundness  of  the  political  axiom,  that  it  is 
"  against  this  department  that  the  people  ought 
to  indulge  all  their  jealousy,  and  exhaust  all 
their  precautions."  But  the  constitution,  in 
this  respect,  has  received  a  construction  almost 
contemporaneously  with  its  adoption.  As  early 
as  the  year  1792,  a  resolution  was  submitted, 
by  a  distinguished  member  from  Virginia,  in 
the  House  of  Representatives,  requesting  the 
President  to  institute  an  inquiry  into  the  causes 
of  the  defeat  of  the  army  under  the  command 
of  Major  General  St.  Clair.  The  agitation  pro- 
duced by  that  momentous  disaster  seemed  to 
demand  an  investigation  of  the  conduct  of  the 
commanding  General.  A  great  public  calamity 
is  always  calculated  to  awaken  feelings  which, 
for  a  moment,  usurp  the  empire  of  reason,  and 
lead  to  excesses  which  sober  reflection  would 
condemn.  It  was  not,  therefore,  wonderful, 
that  a  man  of  the  soundest  intellect,  and  most 
enlightened  understanding,  should  have  felt  it 
his  duty  to  call  the  attention  of  the  President  to 
a  subject  so  deeply  interesting  to  the  country, 

signal  and  unfortunate  defeat.  The  proposition 
was  fully  discussed,  and  finally  rejected  by  a 
large  majority,  on  the  ground  that  it  was  an  un- 
warrantable interference  with  the  constitutional 
functions  of  the  Chief  Magistrate.  The  sub- 
stance of  the  debate  may  be  found  in  the  news- 
papers of  that  day ;  and  among  those  who  ob- 
jected to  the  measure  are  the  names  of  Madison, 
Ames,  Baldwin,  and  many  others  who  partici- 
pated in  the  formation  of  the  constitution,  and 
who  were,  consequently,  better  qualified  to  give 
to  it  a  sound  interpretation.  A  committee  was 
subsequently  appointed  to  inquire  into  the  ex- 
penditure of  the  public  money  in  that  campaign, 
and  other  subjects  of  a  general  nature,  connect- 
ed with  the  legislative  duties  of  Congress. 
Again  :  in  the  year  1810,  a  committee  was 
raised  to  inquire  into  the  conduct  of  General 
James  Wilkinson,  in  relation  to  a  variety  of 
charges  which  had  been  publicly  made  against 
him  ;  they  were  authorized  to  send  for  persons 
and  papers.  The  General  was  notified  of  their 
sittings,  allowed  to  attend  in  person  before 
them,  to  cross-examine  the  witnesses,  to  con- 
front his  accusers,  to  exhibit  evidence  in  his 
defence,  and  make  such  explanations  as  he 
might  think  necessary  to  a  vindication  of  his 
conduct.  The  committee,  after  a  very  laborious 
investigation,  simply  reported  the  facts  to  the 
House,  who  resolved  that  the  same  be  trans- 
mitted to  the  President  of  the  United  States. 
No  opinion  was  expressed  or  intimated,  as  to 
the  guilt  or  innocence  of  the  General ;  no  re- 
quest was  made  of  the  President  to  institute  a 
court-martial,  but  he  was  left  to  the  exercise  of 
his  own  discretion,  unbiassed  by  the  slightest 
indication  of  the  impression  which  the  develop- 


308 


ABRIDGMENT  OF  THE 


H.  OF  R] 


The  Seminole  War. 


[FEBRUARY,  1819. 


ment  had  made  on  the  House  of  Representa- 
tives. The  result,  we  all  know,  was,  that  a 
general  court-martial  was  immediately  convened, 
and  General  Wilkinson  was  honorably  acquit- 
ted: both  principle  and  precedent,  therefore, 
combine  in  recommending  a  rejection  of  these 
resolutions,  which  claim  for  this  House  a  power, 
not  merely  to  request  another  department  to 
perform  a  particular  duty,  but  assume  the  right 
to  adjudicate  the  case,  and  sentence  an  officer  to 
irretrievable  infamy,  without  a  hearing,  and 
•without  appeal,  save  only  to  his  God  and  the 
purity  of  his  own  conscience. 

Permit  me,  sir,  to  present  to  the  view  of  the 
committee  some  of  the  unavoidable  conse- 
quences which  will  flow  from  this  premature  and 
unauthorized  proceeding.  We  announce  to  the 
President,  and  to  the  nation,  that  General 
Jackson,  in  the  prosecution  of  the  Seminole  war, 
has  violated  his  orders  and  broken  the  consti- 
tution of  his  country,  and  that,  in  the  trial  and 
execution  of  Arbuthnot  and  Arabrister,  he  has 
been  guilty  of  the  horrid  crime  of  official  mur- 
der. We,  on  the  part  of  the  whole  people,  be- 
come the  informers,  and  thereby  impose  on  the 
President,  as  commander-in-chief  of  the  army, 
the  indispensable  obligation  to  adopt  one  of  two 
alternatives — either  to  dismiss  from  the  service 
that  officer,  under  our  denunciations,  or  to  as- 
semble a  regular  court-martial  to  investigate 
these  charges,  according  to  the  forms  prescribed 
in  the  laws  enacted  for  the  government  of  the 
army  of  the  United  States.  The  latter  course, 
being  the  one  best  adapted  to  the  attainment  of 
justice,  would,  in  all  probability,  be  pursued. 
He  details  a  court-martial,  composed  of  high- 
minded  military  men ;  charges  and  specifications 
are  exhibited;  and  the  General,  for  the  first 
time,  is  allowed  to  answer  to  them — guilty  or 
not  guilty.  He  is  put  on  his  trial,  and  at  the 
very  threshold  he  is  informed  that  he  has 
already  been  found  guilty  by  the  highest  tribunal 
in  the  Union— the  Representatives  of  the  Amer- 
ican people.  He,  nevertheless,  proceeds  in 
his  defence,  and  is  ultimately  convicted,  and 
cashiered.  Would  not  history  record  such  a 
conviction  as  the  result  of  our  prejudication  of 
the  case  ?  Would  not  the  whole  world  attri- 
bute the  downfall  of  this  man  to  the  monstrous 
persecution  and  flagrant  injustice  of  that  un- 
grateful country  which  he  had  so  nobly  de- 
fended ?  Yes,  sir,  to  the  latest  posterity  we 
should  be  regarded  as  having  passed  an  exparte 
decree  of  condemnation,  which  the  court-martial 
were  bound  to  register,  to  secure  themselves 
from  similar  animadversion.  But  let  us  suppose 
that,  unawed  by  the  imposing  dictum  which  we 
shall  have  pronounced,  the  court-martial  acquit 
the  General  of  the  several  charges  and  specifi- 
cations on  which  he  has  been  arrested.  We 
should  then  have  the  military  of  the  country 
arrayed  against  this  body:  we,  acting  under  the 
solemn  obligation  of  our  oaths,  declare,  that 
General  Jackson  has  been  guilty  of  high  crimes 
and  misdemeanors ;  we  are  enabled  to  tear  from 
him  his  epaulettes ;  and,  when  tried  by  his  peers, 


our  opinions  are  scouted,  and  he  is  maintained 
in  the  high  rank  from  which  we  would  have 
degraded  him.  In  such  a  controvery  the  only 
arbiter  is  force.  Sir,  take  either  horn  of  the  di- 
lemma, and  we  have  abundant  reason  to  shun 
the  consequences  which  must  follow  the  adop- 
tion of  the  proposed  resolutions. 

Our  total  inability  to  enforce  the  will  of  the 
majority,  demonstrates  most  clearly  the  absence 
of  the  right  to  express  that  will ;  for,  whatever 
any  branch  of  the  Government  can  constitution- 
ally decide,  the  means  necessary  to  carry  its  de- 
cision into  execution  can  never  be  withheld  or 
questioned.  Sir,  I  have  been  not  a  little  amused 
at  the  evasive  contortions  of  honorable  gentle- 
men, who,  to  avoid  the  perplexing  difficulties  by 
which  they  are  enveloped,  gravely  affirm,  that 
neither  the  report  of  the  Military  Committee, 
nor  the  resolutions  respecting  the  seizure  of  the 
posts  of  St.  Marks  and  Pensacola,  and  fortress 
of  Barancas,  contain  a  censure  of  General  Jack- 
son ;  that  they  are  harmless,  inoffensive  expres- 
sions of  opinion,  upon  the  passing  events  relating 
to  the  state  of  the  Union.  I  put  it  to  those 
gentlemen — for  the  argument  has  been  resorted 
to  by  all  who  have  spoken — whether,  if  I  were 
to  address  either  of  them  in  conversation,  and 
say,  in  the  language  of  the  propositions  before 
the  committee,  "Sir,  you  have  violated  the 
Constitution  of  the  United  States,  and  of  course 
you  are  perjured.  You  have  sentenced  to  death, 
and  executed  two  of  your  fellow-men,  without 
a  fair  trial,  and  contrary  to  all  law,  human  and 
divine ;  consequently,  your  hands  are  stained 
with  their  blood ;"  would  they  calmly  reply, 
that  my  expressions  conveyed  no  censure  on 
them,  and  were  not  repugnant  to  their  feelings 
or  character,  nor  inconsistent  with  contempo- 
raneous assurances  of  my  high  respect  and  con- 
sideration ?  Common  sense  revolts  at  conclu- 
sions so  ridiculous,  drawn  from  such  premises. 
Add  to  this  the  express  charge  of  a  violation  of 
orders,  which  the  President,  it  seems,  is  not 
competent  to  determine  for  himself,  and  I  may 
venture  to  defy  any  gentleman  to  cover  a  mili- 
tary officer  with  more  odious  epithets,  or  more 
vindictive  censure.  No  man,  however  elevated 
his  station,  can  withstand  the  overwhelming 
force  of  such  an  assault  on  his  reputation,  com- 
ing from  this  august  body,  after  mature  and 
solemn  deliberation.  The  exalted  mind  of 
General  Jackson  would  prefer  even  death  to 
this  fatal  blow,  aimed  at  that  which  is  more 
dear  to  him  than  life — his  well-earned  fame  and 
irreproachable  honor.  Sir,  the  immortal  Wash- 
ington was  charged  with  a  violation  of  the 
constitution,  in  drawing  money  from  the  Treas- 
ury to  pay  the  militia  who  served  in  the  cam- 
paign against  the  insurgents  in  1Y94,  without  an 
appropriation  made  bylaw:  but  at  that  day 
the  secret  of  our  power  to  censure  had  not  been 
discovered,  and  the  transaction  passed  without 
animadversion.  It  has  remained  for  us  to  put 
in  motion  this  new  engine  of  inquisitorial  crimi- 
nation, and  to  wield  it  against  a  man  whose 
arm  was  never  extended  but  in  defending  the 


DEBATES  OF  CONGRESS. 


309 


FEBRUABY,  1819.] 


The  Seminole  War. 


[H.  OF  R. 


liberty  and  safety  of  his  country  against  the 
complicated  enemies  by  whom  it  has  been  as- 
sailed, and  whose  pure  and  unblemished  patriot- 
ism, combined  with  his  invincible  valor,  forti- 
tude, and  perseverance,  have  shed  over  his  brow 
a  resplendent  ray  of  glory  which  neither  clouds 
nor  tempests  can  obscure,  so  long  as  virtue  shall 
predominate  over  the  envious  and  malignant 
passions  of  the  human  heart.  Yes,  sir,  we  are 
importuned  to  execrate  the  bloody  deeds  of  the 
Seminole  war,  to  chant  requiems  over  the 
tombs  of  Arbuthnot  and  Ambrister,  and  to 
mourn  over  the  wreck  of  our  fallen  constitu- 
tion ;  and,  in  an  instant,  as  if  by  enchantment, 
the  horrid  picture  vanishes  from  our  affrighted 
imaginations,  and  eludes  even  the  grasp  of  keen- 
eyed  malice  ;  and  we  hear  the  moral  integrity 
and  innocence  of  all  these  transactions  an- 
nounced from  the  same  lips  which  utter  their 
condemnation.  The  motives  and  intentions  of 
General  Jackson  are  eulogized  and  applauded  by 
his  most  inveterate  accusers.  All  the  errors 
ascribed  to  him,  and  for  which  honorable  gen- 
tlemen are  prepared  to  immolate  his  character, 
and  render  his  name,  hitherto  so  dear  to  his 
countrymen,  odious  and  detestable,  are  attrib- 
uted to  the  impetuous  ardor  of  his  zeal  to  pro- 
mote the  general  good,  and  give  peace  and 
security  to  our  defenceless  frontier. 

lie  fills  a  space  in  the  public  eye,  and  com- 
mands a  portion  of  the  affection  and  confidence 
of  his  fellow-citizens,  too  copious  and  extensive 
to  be  tolerated  by  the  sharp-sighted  politician, 
whose  splendid  eloquence  fades  and  evaporates 
before  the  sunshine  of  renown,  lighted  up  by 
the  unparalleled  achievements  of  the  conqueror 
of  the  veterans  of  Wellington.  These  modern 
casuists  endeavor  to  magnify  an  unintentional 
violation  of  the  constitution  into  a  crime  of  the 
blackest  enormity,  which  can  neither  be  ex- 
tenuated nor  forgiven.  Are  they  willing  to 
make  this  system  of  political  ethics  applicable  to 
themselves,  and  to  have  their  names  specified 
on  the  Journal  as  culprits  at  the  bar  of  an 
offended  people,  stamped  with  infamy  and 
disgrace,  if  at  any  time  they  have,  with  the  best 
intentions,  given  a  vote,  which,  on  a  review  of 
the  subject,  was  found  to  conflict  with  some 
provision  of  the  constitution  ?  What  member 
of  this  House  can  say,  with  certainty,  that  he 
has,  on  all  occasions,  construed  the  constitution 
correctly  ?  And  who  among  us  would  be  satis- 
fied to.  stake  all  his  hopes  and  prospects  on  the 
issue  of  an  investigation,  which,  disregarding 
all  respect  for  the  purity  of  the  motive,  should 
seek  only  to  discover  an  inadvertent  error,  re- 
sulting from  a  defect  of  judgment  in  the  attain- 
ment of  objects  identified  with  the  best  interests 
of  the  nation  ?  Sir,  if  I  mistake  not,  the  hon- 
orable Speaker,  and  several  other  gentlemen, 
who  have  manifested  great  solicitude,  and  dis- 
played a  torrent  of  eloquence  to  urge  the  expe- 
diency of  passing  the  proposed  censure  on  the 
conduct  of  General  Jackson,  and  who  unhesitat- 
ingly admit  the  innocence  of  his  intentions,  wi  mid 
be  placed  in  an  unpleasant  situation  by  the  ope- 


ration of  the  rule  which  they  are  anxious  to 
prescribe  in  this  case.  A  few  short  years  past, 
these  honorable  gentlemen  were  the  champions 
who  resisted  the  renewal  of  the  charter  of  the 
old  Bank  of  the  United  States.  At  that  day 
they  held  the  original  act  of  incorporation  to 
be  a  usurpation  of  power,  not  delegated  to  Con- 
gress by  the  constitution,  and  to  their  exertions 
we  were  indebted  for  the  downfall  of  that  in- 
stitution. The  same  distinguished  members,  at 
a  subsequent  period,  acting  under  the  high  ob- 
ligations of  duty,  and  the  solemnity  of  their 
oaths  to  support  the  Constitution  of  the  United 
States,  aided  and  assisted  in  establishing  the 
mammoth  bank,  which  now  threatens  to  sweep 
with  the  besom  of  destruction  every  other 
moneyed  institution  in  the  nation  into  the  gulf 
of  ruin  and  bankruptcy.  It  will  not  be  pre- 
tended that  both  these  opposite  opinions  were 
correct ;  and  yet  I  should  be  very  sorry  either 
to  impugn  the  motives  which  actuated  those 
gentlemen  in  the  instances  referred  to,  or  to 
pass  a  censure  on  their  conduct  for  an  uninten- 
tional violation  of  the  constitution,  calculated 
to  withdraw  from  them  the  confidence  of  their 
constituents.  There  was  a  time,  Mr.  Chairman, 
when  the  Republican  phalanx  in  every  quarter 
of  the  Union  regarded  the  specification  of 
powers  in  the  constitution  as  the  limitation  of 
the  grant,  within  which  every  department  ought 
to  be  strictly  confined.  But  at  this  day  we  are 
told,  that  this  literal  construction  of  the  instru- 
ment is  too  narrow  for  the  expanded  views  of  an 
American  statesman — mere  "  water  gruel,"  in- 
sipid to  the  palate,  and  requiring  the  addition  of 
a  little  fuel  to  give  it  energy  and  action  to  con- 
duct this  nation  to  the  high  destinies  which 
await  it  No  power  can  be  called  for  by  an 
existing  exigency,  or  a  favorite  system  of  policy, 
which,  according  to  the  doctrines  now  advanced, 
may  not  be  found  necessary  and  proper  to  carry 
into  effect  some  one  of  the  specified  powers  in 
the  constitution.  The  flexible  character  of 
man,  and  the  frailty  of  human  nature,  afford 
an  ample  apology  for  these  oscillations,  and 
wretched  indeed  would  be  our  situation  if  crime 
consisted  in  error,  unaccompanied  by  the  pre- 
existing will  to  perpetuate  it.  No  man  who 
respects  his  feelings  or  his  character  would  ac- 
cept a  public  trust  on  such  conditions.  As  well 
might  we  censure  the  Supreme  Court  for  having 
given  a  decision  which  we  deemed  contrary  to 
the  constitution,  and  where  no  corruption  could 
be  alleged  against  the  judges  who  pronounced 
it ;  which  is  an  essential  ingredient  to  constitute 
an  offence  for  which  a  judicial  officer  is  liable  to 
impeachment.  In  such  a  case  our  censure 
might  be  retorted  by  an  attachment  for  con- 
tempt, and  the  honorable  Speaker,  representing 
the  majesty  of  the  House,  would  be  compelled 
to  answer  the  charge  by  purgation,  or  otherwise, 
as  the  wisdom  of  the  House  should  direct.  I 
mention  this  to  show  the  absurdity  and  ineffi- 
ciency of  every  attempt  to  transcend  the  powers 
secured  to  us  by  the  constitution.  Sir,  I  am 
sick  to  loathing  of  this  incongruous,  novel,  and 


310 


ABRIDGMENT  OF  THE 


H.  OF  R.] 


The  Seminole  War. 


[FEBRUARY,  1819. 


impotent  effort  to  wound  the  sensibility  of  a 
hero,  who  has  sacrificed  whatever  of  health  or 
fortune  he  possessed,  and  staked  his  life  in  com- 
mon with  the  soldier  by  whose  side  he  fought,  that 
our  exposed  and  unprotected  frontier  might  once 
more  repose  in  peace  and  tranquillity,  undisturb- 
ed by  the  midnight  yell  of  the  merciless  savage. 

The  hero  of  New  Orleans  wanted  not  a  petty 
Indian  war  to  satiate  his  ambition,  or  add  fresh 
laurels  to  the  wreath  already  bequeathed  to  him 
by  his  country.  It  was  a  war  of  hardships,  fa- 
tigues, and  privations,  in  which  for  himself  he 
had  nothing  to  hope  but  the  consolation  of  hav- 
ing accomplished  the  object  for  which  he  took 
the  field,  and  of  receiving  the  approbation  of  the 
President,  to  whom  alone  he  was  responsible  for 
all  the  incidents  of  the  campaign  in  which  he  par- 
ticipated. Of  this  reward,  so  well  merited,  and 
so  freely  bestowed,  we  now  seek  to  rob  him,  by 
fulminating  resolutions  and  vindictive  eloquence, 
against  what  honorable  gentlemen  are  pleased 
to  call  a  patriotic  unintentional  violation  of  the 
constitution. 

I  aver,  without  the  fear  of  contradiction,  that 
the  United  States  have,  on  all  occasions,  without 
a  single  exception  to  the  contrary,  acted  on  the 
defensive  in  the  commencement  of  every  war 
with  our  Indian  neighbors ;  that  they  have 
never  turned  a  deaf  ear  to  the  voice  of  concil- 
iation ;  and  we  have  abundant  evidence  that 
the  late  Seminole  war  was  of  a  character  simi- 
lar, in  all  respects,  to  those  which  preceded  it. 
The  finger  of  British  intrigue,  and  of  Spanish 
duplicity  and  connivance,  are  visible  from  the 
very  inception  of  these  hostilities  to  their  final 
termination.  I  will  not  detain  the  committee 
by  entering  into  a  methodical  and  critical  ex- 
amination of  the  documents,  in  the  hands  of 
every  gentleman  ;  showing  the  means  employ- 
ed to  excite  this  war,  the  preparations  made 
for  its  prosecution,  and  the  guarantee  of  ulti- 
mate aid  from  the  British  Government  to  re- 
cover the  lands  for  which  the  outlawed  Creeks 
contended.  They  are  voluminous  and  multi- 
farious ;  many  of  them  official,  and  all  leading 
to  the  unavoidable  conclusion,  that  nothing 
short  of  a  restoration  of  these  lands,  upon  the 
most  humiliating  terms,  could  avert  the  im- 
pending blow.  I  will  endeavor  to  present  a 
summary  of  the  prominent  occurrences,  on 
which  I  may  safely  rest  the  vindication  of  this 
Government  against  the  charge  of  aggression. 
The  occupation  of  a  strong  military  post  on  the 
Appalachicola,  the  asylum  of  fugitive  slaves, 
of  vagabonds,  and  banditti,  of  hostile  Indians, 
and  of  all  who  would  enlist  under  the  English 
jack,  or  the  bloody  flag,  is  the  first  certain  in- 
dication of  the  approaching  rupture.  It  was 
the  nucleus  from  which  all  the  subsequent  pro- 
ceedings generated  and  matured.  The  Gov- 
ernment of  Spain  tacitly  acquiesced  in  this 
open  violation  of  its  neutral  territory.  Not 
even  the  redoubtable  Don  Jose  Mazoff  was 
heard  to  complain,  except  for  the  seduction  and 
employment  of  negroes  belonging  to  Spanish 
subjects,  in  this  tri-colored  collection  of  out- 


laws and  murderers.  The  demands  made  on 
the  United  States,  as  the  sole  condition  on 
which  peace  could  be  preserved,  and  the  objects 
contemplated  in  the  erection  of  this  Negro  fort, 
are  specifically  announced  by  that  prince  of 
scoundrels,  Colonel  Edward  Nicholls,  in  his 
several  letters  to  Colonel  Hawkins,  then  the 
Creek  agent.  This  fellow  sometimes  styles 
hi'mself  "commander  of  the  British  forces  in 
the  Floridas,"  and  at  others  "  commander  of 
His  Britannic  Majesty's  forces  in  the  Creek 
nation."  And  on  one  of  his  communications 
is  endorsed  "on  His  Britannic  Majesty's  ser- 
vice ! "  What  forces  had  Great  Britain  in  the 
Floridas,  or  in  the  Creek  nation?  At  peace 
with  Spain  and  the  United  States,  by  what  au- 
thority could  that  Government  station  a  mili- 
tary force  within  the  territories  of  either? 
These  extraordinary  transactions,  it  is  true, 
have  been  verbally  disavowed,  but  they  have 
never  been  explained  in  the  manner  called  for 
by  their  mischievous  tendency,  and  necessary 
to  exempt  the  British  Ministry  from  the  well- 
grounded  suspicion  of  a  participation  in  them. 
On  the  28th  of  April,  1815,  Nicholls  informed 
Colonel  Hawkins  that  the  chiefs  had  come  to  a 
determination  "  not  to  permit  the  least  inter- 
course between  their  people  and  those  of  the 
United  States.  They  have,  in  consequence, 
(said  he,)  ordered  them  to  cease  all  communi- 
cation, either  directly  or  indirectly,  with  the 
territory  or  citizens  of  the  United  States." 
They  further  warned  the  citizens  of  the  United 
States  from  entering  the  territory  or  communi- 
cating, directly  or  indirectly,  with  the  Creek 
people ;  and  they  describe  their  territory  to  be 
as  it  stood  in  the  year  1811.  They  add  their 
adhesion  to  the  Treaty  of  Ghent,  as  an  inde- 
pendent ally  of  His  Britannic  Majesty.  If  a 
doubt  exists  as  to  the  intent  and  meaning  of 
this  insolent  letter,  which  was  itself  sufficient 
cause  for  hostile  operations  on  our  part,  it  is 
fully  removed  by  a  subsequent  letter  from  the 
same  individual,  "commanding  His  Britannic 
Majesty's  forces  in  the  Creek  nation,"  dated  at 
the  British  post  on  the  Appalachicola  River, 
May  12th,  1815.  He  says,  "I  have  ordered 
them  (the  Indians)  to  stand  on  the  defensive, 
and  have  sent  them  a  large  supply  of  arms  and 
ammunition,  and  told  them  to  put  to  death, 
without  mercy,  any  one  molesting  them." 
Again:  "They  have  given  their  consent  to 
await  your  answer  before  they  take  revenge ; 
but,  sir,  they  are  impatient  for  it,  and  well 
armed,  as  the  whole  nation  now  is,  and  stored 
with  ammunition  and  provisions,  having  a 
stronghold  to  retire  upon  in  case  of  a  superior 
force  appearing."  He  likewise  threatens  the 
"  good  and  innocent  citizens  on  the  frontier," 
and  admonishes  our  agent  "  that  they  do  not 
find  that  our  citizens  are  evacuating  their  lands 
according  to  the  ninth  article  of  the  Treaty  of 
Ghent."  After  this  undisguised  exposition  of 
their  sine  qua  non,  their  means  of  annoyance, 
their  security  from  attack  by  a  superior  force  in 
the  "stronghold,"  which  the  sagacity  of  their 


DEBATES  OF  CONGRESS. 


311 


FEBRUARY,  1819.J 


TkeSeminole  War. 


[H.  OF  R. 


leader  had  provided,  and  their  impudent  threat 
of  war  and  vengeance  against,  "  the  good  and 
innocent  citizens  on  the  frontier,"  what  man, 
whose  mind  is  free  from  the  despotic  sway  of 
prejudice,  can  hesitate  as  to  the  settled  deter- 
mination of  these  Indians,  to  commence  hos- 
tilities on  the  United  States,  whenever  they 
should  be  ordered  to  strike  by  their  good  friend 
Colonel  Nicholls  ?  To  ascertain  with  certainty 
how  tar  they  might  depend  on  British  protec- 
tion, Nicholls  and  Hillishajo  proceeded  to 
London,  with  the  famous  address  of  all  the 
chiefs  to  their  good  father,  King  George.  This 
paper,  of  which  Colonel  Nicholls  is  both  the 
hero  and  the  author,  breathes  the  same  spirit 
of  enmity  to  this  country,  which  runs  through 
the  whole  of  his  letters  and  correspondence. 
In  order  to  recommend  themselves  to  the  favor 
of  the  king,  they  assure  him  that  they  "  have 
fought  and  bled  for  him  against  the  Americans ; 
that  they  will  truly  keep  the  talks  which  his 
chief  has  given  them,  if  he  will  be  graciously 
pleased  to  continue  his  protection ;  that  they 
are  determined  to  cease  having  any  communi- 
cation with  the  Americans,  and  warn  them  to 
keep  out  of  their  nation."  These  talks,  which 
they  gave  a  pledge  truly  to  keep,  were  to  "  put 
to  death,  without  mercy,  every  American  who 
should  be  found  on  the  lands  ceded  by  the 
Treaty  of  Fort  Jackson."  The  deputation  was 
received  with  every  mark  of  politeness  and  at- 
tention. Hillishajo  was  honored  by  the  Prince 
Kegent  with  the  rank  of  Brigadier  General  in 
His  Majesty's  service,  and  presented  with  a 
splendid  suit  of  British  uniform,  together  with 
a  rifle,  tomahawk,  and  scalping-knife,  of  British 
manufacture,  with  the  royal  arms  engraven 
upon  each  of  them.  These  circumstances  at- 
tracted the  attention  of  Mr.  Adams,  our  Minis- 
ter there,  and  several  notes  were  addressed  by 
him  to  Earl  Bathurst  and  Lord  Castlereagh,  on 
the  subject  of  the  unwarrantable  proceedings  of 
Nicholls,  in  Florida,  and  of  the  address  before 
noticed,  which  was  called  a  treaty  oifensive  and 
defensive.  To  these  notes,  no  written  reply 
was  furnished;  they  carefully  avoided  a  cor- 
respondence, in  writing,  relative  to  these  trans- 
actions; and  Lord  Bathurst,  when  pressed  by 
our  Minister  in  a  conversation,  observed,  "to 
tell  you  the  truth,  Colonel  Nicholls  is,  I  believe, 
a  man  of  activity  and  spirit,  but  a  very  wild 
fellow."  He  sent  him  word  that  he  had  no 
authority  to  make  a  treaty  offensive  and  defen- 
sive with  these  Indians,  and  that  the  Govern- 
ment would  not  make  any  such  treaty.  He 
declined  seeing  him  on  that  project,  but  express- 
ed his  intention  of  having  an  interview  with 
him  on  the  affairs  of  Florida,  generally.  This 
guarded  course  of  conduct,  combined  with  sub- 
sequent events,  go  far  to  strengthen  the  belief 
that  the  proceedings  of  Nicholls  on  all  the 
other  points  were  not  disapproved,  although 
they  could  not  receive  the  open  approbation 
of  the  British  Cabinet.  That  war  was  to  be 
made  on  the  United  States  by  the  Indians  in 
Florida,  and  their  white  and  black  allies,  is  a 


fact  established  by  such  a  crowd  of  testimony, 
that  it  would  be  difficult  to  select  that  which 
would  be  deemed  most  conclusive  and  satisfac- 
tory. I  will  select  only  one  deposition,  which 
is  so  well  supported,  and  affords  such  precise 
information,  that  I  beg  leave  to  read  it  to  the 
committee : 

"  The  deposition  of  Samuel  Jervais. 

"  Samuel  Jervais  being  duly  sworn,  states,  that  he 
has  been  a  sergeant  of  marines  in  the  British  service 
for  thirteen  years  past ;  that,  about  a  month  ago,  he 
left  Appalachicola,  where  he  had  been  stationed  for 
several  months ;  that  the  English  Colonel,  Nicholls, 
had  promised  the  hostile  Indians,  at  that  place,  a 
supply  of  arms  and  ammunition,  a  large  quantity  of 
which  had  been  delivered  to  them  a  few  days  before 
his  departure,  and  after  the  news  of  a  peace  between 
England  and  the  United  States  being  confirmed,  had 
reached  Appalachicola  ;  that,  among  the  articles  de- 
livered, were,  of  cannon  four  12-pounders,  one  howit- 
zer, and  two  cohorns,  about  three  thousand  stand  of 
small  arms,  and  near  three  thousand  barrels  of  pow- 
der and  ball ;  that  the  British  left  with  the  Indians 
between  three  and  four  hundred  negroes,  taken  from 
the  United  States,  principally  from  Louisiana ;  that 
the  arms  and  ammunition  were  for  the  use  of  the 
Indians  and  negroes,  for  the  purposes,  as  it  was  un- 
derstood, of  war  with  the  United  States;  that  the 
Indians  were  assured  by  the  British  commander  that, 
according  to  the  Treaty  of  Ghent,  all  the  lands  ceded 
by  the  Creeks  in  treaty  with  General  Jackson,  were 
to  be  restored  ;  otherwise  the  Indians  must  fight  for 
those  lands,  and  that  the  British  would,  in  a  short 
time,  assist  them. 

his 

"SAML.  K   JERVAIS. 
mark. 

"  Sworn  and  subscribed  to  before  me,  this  9th  May, 
1815,  at  the  town  of  Mobile. 

"  L.  JUDSON,  J.  P." 

The  evidence  of  this  man  is  substantially  sus- 
tained by  Lieutenant  Loomis,  who  so  gallantly 
commanded  the  expedition  which  blew  up  the 
Negro  Fort,  and  with  it  all  the  miserable  miscre- 
ants who  had  sought  refuge  within  its  walls. 
Besides  the  letter  of  Lieutenant  Loomis  to  Com- 
modore Patterson,  I  am  authorized  by  a  naval 
officer  of  high  respectability,  to  state  that,  at 
the  time  this  fort  was  destroyed,  there  were  in 
it  eight  hundred  barrels  of  powder;  three  thou- 
sand stand  of  British  muskets,  packed  in  cases ; 
equipments  complete  for  five  hundred  dragoons ; 
pistols,  cutlasses,  and  carbines;  four  twenty- 
four  pounders,  taken  from  the  British  Frigate 
Cydnus,  with  the  name  of  that  ship  on  them ; 
one  field-piece,  mounted;  and  two  five-and-a- 
half  inch  brass  howitzers.  Such  were  the  pre- 
parations made  for  the  war,  which  was  sus- 
pended only  for  the  arrival  of  the  red  chief 
Hillishajo,  and  his  companion  Colonel  Nich- 
olls. The  destruction  of  this  "  stronghold,"  on 
which  the  Indians  might  retire  in  case  of  dis 
comfiture,  and  of  the  arms  and  ammunition 
which  had  been  deposited  there,  induced  Nich 
oils  to  procrastinate  his  return  to  Florida,  and 
to  appoint  as  his  successor  in  the  good  work 
which  he  had  begun,  Alexander  Arbuthnot,  of 


312 


ABRIDGMENT  OP  THE 


H.  OP  R] 


The  Scminole  War. 


[FEBRUARY,  1819. 


the  island  of  New  Providence.  This  man  made 
his  appearance  in  Florida,  in  the  character  of 
an  English  trader,  in  the  year  1817,  and  simul- 
taneously the  war-whoop  resounded  through 
the  forests,  and  the  blood  of  our  citizens  began 
to  flow  on  the  borders  of  Georgia  and  the  Ala- 
bama territory.  I  shall  presently  take  a  closer 
view  of  the  means  resorted  to  by  this  infernal 
missionary  to  kindle  the  flame  of  war  and  ven- 
geance among  the  deluded  Seminoles  and  Bed 
Sticks.  It  is  enough  on  this  part  of  the  argu- 
ment to  show  that  they  were  successful,  and 
that  actual  violence  was  committed  on  the 
"good  and  peaceable  inhabitants  of  the  fron- 
tier," in  conformity  with  the  menace  of  his 
predecessor,  Nicholls;  and  that  the  United 
States  were  compelled  to  take  up  arms  and 
chastise  the  savages,  in  their  own  defence,  after 
repeated  efforts  to  bring  them  to  a  sense  of 
justice  and  of  their  own  interests,  by  friendly 
talks  and  pacific  remonstrances. 

Need  I  ransack  the  documents  on  our  files, 
to  collect  the  evidence  of  the  murders  and  rob- 
beries which  preceded  the  determination  of  this 
Government  to  commence  offensive  operations 
against  the  Indians  in  Florida?  They  must  be 
fresh  in  the  recollection  of  every  gentleman. 
They  have  been  so  often  repeated  by  my  hon- 
orable friends,  that  I  will  forbear  the  painful 
task  of  recounting  them.  The  cruel  massacre 
of  aged  mothers  and  helpless  infancy  were 
spread  along  the  whole  line  of  our  Southern 
frontier  in  that  quarter.  The  threatened  war 
soon  ripened  into  full  maturity.  The  murders 
committed  on  our  unoffending  citizens  were 
openly  avowed,  and  justified  under  the  hollow 
and  unfounded  pretence  of  retaliation  for  simi- 
lar outrages  alleged  to  have  been  practised  by 
the  Georgians  on  their  people.  As  early  as  the 
5th  of  February,  1817,  the  Governor  of  Georgia 
made  a  solemn  appeal  to  the  General  Govern- 
ment, for  the  protection  of  the  exposed  settle- 
ments within  the  limits  of  the  State  over  which 
he  presided.  He  details  circumstances  calcu- 
lated to  leave  no  doubt  of  the  hostile  spirit  of 
the  savages,  and  of  the  active  preparations 
which  were  making  by  "Woodbine  and  Nicholls 
to  carry  their  hellish  designs  into  execution. 
Scenes  of  cruelty,  at  the  recital  of  which 
humanity  shudders,  followed  in  succession; 
and  still  the  Executive  paused,  and  demanded 
the  punishment  only  of  the  offenders.  On  the 
24th  of  February,  1817,  fifteen  Indian  warriors 
entered  the  peaceful  dwelling  of  the  unfortu- 
nate Garret,  a  citizen  of  Wayne  county,  in 
Georgia ;  finding  in  it  only  Mrs.  Garret  and  her 
two  infant  children,  the  eldest  of  whom  was 
three  years  old,  and  the  other  in  its  mother's 
arms,  on  whom  she  had  bestowed  her  tender 
smiles  and  caresses  for  the  short  period  of  two 
months.  The  helpless  condition  of  this  family, 
their  natural  protector  being  absent,  innocent 
and  unoffending,  alike  incapable  of  inflicting  or 
repelling  injury  and  insult,  surrounded  by  a 
band  of  armed  ruffians,  exhibited  a  picture  of 
human  misery  and  heart-rending  distress, 


which  might  well  have  tamed  the  ferocity  of 
the  most  bloody  monster  who  ever  trod  the 
face  of  the  habitable  globe.  But  their  cries 
and  entreaties  were  unavailing :  the  unhappy 
mother  was  twice  shot  through  the  body,  stab- 
bed, and  scalped ;  her  two  babes  murdered ; 
her  house  robbed  of  all  the  valuables  which  it 
contained ;  and,  to  complete  the  melancholy 
catastrophe,  the  lighted  torch  was  applied  to 
the  building,  where  once  they  enjoyed  the 
sweets  of  domestic  comforts,  qnd  where  now 
their  mangled  and  lifeless  forms  lay  prostrate, 
covered  with  the  warm  blood  yet  streaming 
from  their  hearts;  and  the  flames  which  as- 
cended to  heaven,  wafted  their  spirits  into  the 
presence  of  a  just  God,  while,  amidst  the  de- 
vouring element,  their  ashes  mingled  in  one 
common  grave !  The  mind  which  can  contem- 
plate with  calm  composure  deeds  of  cruelty  and 
barbarity  like  these,  must  be  destitute  of  that 
refined  sensibility  which  ennobles  and  dignifies 
our  nature  in  all  the  social  relations  of  life. 

This  act  alone,  independent  of  the  black  list 
which  both  preceeded  and  followed  it,  was 
open,  unqualified  war  on  the  United  States,  un- 
less the  criminal  perpetrators  of  these  crimes, 
whose  enormity  resembles  more  the  tales  of 
fiction  and  romance,  than  the  narrative  of  real 
unsophisticated  truths,  should  receive  the 
prompt  and  condign  punishment  which  they 
so  justly  merited.  General  Gaines,  in  obe- 
dience to  instructions,  demanded  the  murder- 
ers, and  admonished  the  chiefs  and  warriors  of 
the  consequences  which  would  result  from  a 
refusal  to  comply  with. his  demand.  It  was  not 
only  refused,  but  fresh  outrages  of  a  similar 
character  were  repeated,  until  the  seizure  and 
indiscriminate  massacre  of  a  boat's  crew,  under 
the  command  of  Lieutenant  Scott,  put  an  end 
to  all  hope  of  conciliation,  and  the  Secretary  of 
War,  by  the  direction  of  the  President,  ordered 
the  commanding  General  to  cross  the  Florida 
line,  and  terminate  speedily  this  war,  "with 
exemplary  punishment  for  hostilities  so  unpro- 
voked." The  honor  of  the  United  States  re- 
quired that  every  drop  of  innocent  blood  which 
had  been  so  wantonly  shed,  should  be  washed 
out  by  the  most  ample  atonement;  and,  to 
effect  this  object,  General  Jackson  was  directed 
to  assume  the  immediate  command  of  the 
forces  in  that  quarter  of  the  southern  divi- 
sion. 

I  trust,  sir,  I  have  said  enough  to  satisfy  the 
committee,  that,  on  our  part,  the  war  was 
strictly  defensive,  entered  into  reluctantly,  after 
every  reasonable  expedient  to  avoid  it  had  been 
resorted  to  in  vain. 

Yes,  sir,  the  territory  of  Florida  is  emphati- 
cally a  country  "  open  to  all  comers."  The 
British  found  a  hearty  welcome  there  during 
the  late  war.  The  outlawed  Creeks  received 
the  right  hand  of  fellowship  from  Governor 
Mazot,  and  his  retinue  of  official  dignitaries; 
fugitive  negroes  and  banditti  are  welcome 
guests,  when  associated  in  arms  against  the 
United  States;  and  I  am  persuaded  the  devil 


DEBATES  OF  CONGRESS. 


313 


FEBRUARY,  1819.] 


The  Seminole  War. 


[H.  OP  R 


himself  would  have  received  holy  orders,  had 
he  made  his  appearance  at  Pensacola  in  the 
character  of  a  foe  to  this  country.  We  alone 
were  excluded  from  the  high  privilege  of  meet- 
ing our  enemies  on  that  soil  which  was  prosti- 
tuted to  every  purpose  which  could  in  any  man- 
ner subserve  their  views,  and  contribute  to  our 
annoy auce.  The  fortress  of  Barancas  was  peace- 
ably put  into  the  possession  of  a  British  and  In- 
dian force,  in  our  recent  conflict  with  Great 
Britain.  The  negro  fort  was  erected  on  the 
Appal  achicola,  with  the  avowed  intention  of 
war  with  the  United  States.  The  vilest  reptiles 
in  creation  were  collected  to  carry  the  nefarious 
projects  of  the  incendiary  Nicholls  into  execu- 
tion, and  not  a  murmur  was  heard,  either  from 
Pizarro  or  Mazot,  or  the  Governor  General  of 
Havana.  But  the  moment  we  send  a  force  to 
suppress  these  hostile  combinations,  Spanish 
sensibility  breaks  through  the  cloud  by  which  it 
had  been  concealed.  Protests  and  manifestoes 
proclaim  to  the  world  the  wrongs  committed  by 
this  Government,  in  the  violation  of  the  ter- 
ritorial sovereignty  of  the  adored  Ferdinand. 
With  a  full  knowledge  of  this  fraudulent  neu- 
trality on  the  part  of  Spain,  and  of  our  rights 
as  a  nation,  to  the  means  of  self-preservation, 
the  President  would  have  been  unmindful  of 
the  high  trust  and  confidence  reposed  in  him, 
had  lie  not  ordered  the  army  into  Florida,  to 
terminate  the  war,  with  "exemplary  punish- 
ment for  hostilities  so  unprovoked."  The 
occupation  of  the  posts  of  St.  Marks  and  Pen- 
sacola, and  the  fortress  of  Barancas,  was  a  ne- 
cessary means  of  accomplishing  the  end  for 
which  General  Jackson  entered  the  Spanish  ter- 
ritory. They  rest  on  the  same  general  prin- 
ciples, and,  if  a  distinction  is  taken  which  would 
justify  the  one  and  condemn  the  other,  it  must 
be  founded  on  a  diversity  of  facts,  in  reference 
to  the  facilities  and  privileges  granted  by  the 
authorities  of  Spain,  to  the  other  belligerent. 
For  there  is  a  universal  rule,  to  which  there 
is  an  exception,  that  whatever  a  neutral  power 
grants  or  refuses  to  one  of  the  parties  at  war, 
she  must  in  like  manner  grant  or  refuse  to  the 
other  ;  and,  if  she  departs  from  this  strict  line 
of  impartiality,  by  favoring  either  to  the  injury 
of  the  other,  the  injured  nation  may  do  herself 
justice,  and  take  ly  force  what  is  unjustly  denied 
to  her. 

Such  is  the  law  by  which  the  conduct  of  all 
civilized  nations  is  regulated  and  governed.  It 
remains  only  for  me  to  glance  at  the  most  prom- 
inent points  in  the  evidence  to  show  its  ap- 
Elication,  and  thereby  rescue  General  Jackson 
•om  the  imputation  of  having  snatched  from 
Congress  the  power  delegated  in  the  constitu- 
tion to  u  declare  war."  I  ask  then,  sir,  did  the 
Governors  of  St.  Marks  and  Pensacola  allow 
the  Indians  and  negroes  free  access  into  their 
fortifications,  and  supply  them  with  arms  and 
ammunition  to  carry  on  the  war  in  which  they 
were  engaged  with  the  United  States.  To  es- 
tablish these  facts,  with  regard  to  the  former, 
I  am  perplexed  with  the  difficulty  of  selecting 


that  part  of  the  testimony  which  might  be 
deemed  least  susceptible  of  doubt  or  equivoca- 
tion. The  whole  volume  is  full  of  details  show- 
ing the  abominable  duplicity  and  perfidy  of  the 
treacherous  Luengo.  St.  Marks  was  the  coun- 
cil-house of  the  Indians,  in  which  all  their  plans 
of  operation  were  discussed,  in  concert  with  the 
commandant  and  his  friend,  Arbuthnot,  be- 
tween whom  there  existed  the  most  perfect 
cordiality.  St.  Marks  was,  in  all  respects,  sub- 
stituted for  the  negro  fort,  which  had  been 
destroyed  by  the  gunboats  under  the  command 
of  Lieutenant  Loomis.  To  that  place  they  re- 
treated, immediately  after  this  disaster  befell 
them,  and  ever  since  they  have  made  it  the 
depot  of  plundered  property,  known  to  be  so  by 
Luengo  himself,  who  even  made  contracts  with 
the  depredators  for  the  beef,  cattle,  and  other 
property  which  they  might  capture  from  the 
people  of  Georgia.  Having  been  charged,  by 
General  Jackson,  with  conduct  so  contrary  to 
the  pacific  relations  existing  between  Spain 
and  the  United  States,  Luengo,  in  his  defence, 
written  at  Pensacola,  on  the  18th  of  May,  1818, 
more  than  one  month  after  the  occupation  of 
the  post  by  the  American  troops,  when  all  his 
powers  of  prevarication  were  taxed  to  excul- 
pate himself  from  these  charges,  in  reply  to  the 
information  which  had  been  communicated  to 
the  commanding.  General,  that  he  had  supplied 
the  Indians  and  negroes  with  munitions  of  war, 
states:  "I  thought  that  I  had  convinced  him 
of  the  contrary  in  my  answer,  in  which  I  rep- 
resented to  him,  that  no  one  could  better  re- 
move from  his  mind  any  unfavorable  impression 
on  this  point  than  Mr.  William  Hambly,  who, 
during  his  stay  here,  repeatedly  interpreted  to 
me  the  anxiety  of  the  chiefs  to  obtain  such  sup- 
plies, and  that  he  could  also  inform  him  that  I 
uniformly  counselled  them  to  avoid  the  destruc- 
tion which  has  overtaken  them,  and  which  I 
foresaw  from  the  first."  Now,  sir,  what  is  the 
evidence  of  Mr.  Hambly,  whose  credibility  is 
admitted  by  the  Spanish  commandant,  and 
whose  situation  enabled  him  to  give  a  full  and 
precise  statement  of  facts  ?  The  letter  address- 
ed by  him,  together  with  Edward  Doyle,  to 
General  Jackson,  exposes  the  transactions  of 
St.  Marks  in  so  clear  a  light,  that  I  beg  leave  to 
read  it  to  the  committee : 

"  William  Hambly  and  E.  Doyle  to  General  Jackson. 

FORT  GADSDEN,  May  2,  1818. 
"  SIR  :  We  beg  leave  to  submit  to  yon  the  follow- 
ing facts.  On  the  13th  December,  1817,  we  were 
violently  torn  from  our  settlement,  on  the  Appala- 
chicola  River,  by  a  number  of  Indians,  headed  by 
Chenubby,  a  chief  of  the  Fowl-Town  tribe,  carried  to 
Mickasuky,  and  delivered  to  Kenagee,  King  of  the 
Mickasukians.  Kenagee  carried  us  to  the  Negro 
Towns,  on  the  Suwanee,  and  thence  to  the  Spanish 
fort  St.  Murks ;  to  the  commandant  of  which  he  de- 
livered us  as  prisoners  of  war,  captured  under  the  or- 
ders of  a  Mr.  Arbnthnot,  reported  to  us  as  a  British 
agent.  At  St.  Marks  we  were  treated  as  prisoners, 
and  not  permitted  to  wander  beyond  the  walls  of  the  4 
garrison.  While  at  that  post,  the  ingress  and  egress 


314 


ABRIDGMENT  OF  THE 


H.  OF  R.] 


The  Seminole  War. 


[FEBRUARY,  1819. 


of  Indians  hostile  to  the  United  States  was  unrestrain- 
ed ;  and  several  councils  were  held ;  at  one  of  which 
Kenagee,  king  of  the  Mickasukians  ;  Francis  or  1  Ii His 
Hajo;  Hemathlemico,  the  chief  of  the  Autosses;  and 
the  chief  of  Kolemies,  all  of  the  old  lied  Stick -party; 
and  Jack  Mealy,  chief  of  the  Ochewas,  were  present. 
When  it  was  reported  that  these  chiefs,  and  their 
warriors,  were  entering  Fort  St.  Marks  for  the  pur- 
pose of  holding  a  council,  Hambly  represented  to  the 
commandant  the  impropriety  of  permitting  such  pro- 
ceedings within  the  walls  of  a  Spanish  fortress,  the 
officer  of  which  was  hound  to  preserve  and  enforce 
the  treaties  existing  between  the  King  of  Spain  and 
the  United  States  ;  he  replied  to  Hambly  with  some 
degree  of  warmth,  observing  that  it  was  not  in  his 
power  to  prevent  it.  On  the  Indians  coming  into  the 
fort,  at  their  request  we  were  confined.  The  council 
was  held  in  the  commandant's  quarters.  He,  the 
commandant,  was  present,  but  strictly  forbade  the  in- 
trusion of  any  of  the  officers  of  the  garrison.  The 
Indians  were  in  the  habit  of  driving  to  Fort  St. 
Marks,  and  disposing  of  cattle  to  the  commandant 
and  other  Spanish  officers.  While  at  that  post,  three 
or  four  droves  were  brought  in,  acknowledged  by  the 
Indians  to  have  been  stolen  from  the  citizens  of  the 
United  States,  and  purchased  by  the  Spanish  officers. 
Wo  were  present  at  most  of  these  contracts,  and 
Hambly  often  referred  to  as  an  interpreter  between 
the  purchaser  and  seller.  Chenubby,  a  Fowl-Town 
Indian,  once  applied  to  Hambly  to  mention  to  the 
commandant  that  he  was  about  visiting  the  frontiers 
of  Georgia,  on  a  plundering  expedition,  and  wished 
to  know  whether  he  would  purchase  the  cattle  brought 
in.  A  contract  was  entered  into,  and  Chenubby, 
some  time  after,  brought  in,  and  disposed  of,  eleven 
head  of  cattle  to  the  Spanish  commandant  of  Fort  St. 
Marks.  These  same  cattle  were  those  purchased  by 
you,  from  the  commandant,  as  his  private  property. 
"WILLIAM  HAMBLY, 
"EDWARD  DOYLE." 

In  support  of  the  statement  made  by  these 
men,  I  might  refer  to  many  others  in  the  vol- 
ume of  documents  which  have  been  printed, 
on  this  subject.  I  will,  however,  dispense  with 
a  detailed  view  of  them,  and  barely  add  an 
extract  from  a  letter  of  Lieutenant  Gadsden, 
whose  reputation  as  a  soldier  and  man  of  honor 
and  veracity,  places  him  above  the  reach  of 
suspicion. 

"  J.  Gadsden  to  General  Jackson. 

"  FORT  GADSDEN,  May  3,  1818. 
"  SIR  :  In  conversation  with  the  commandant  of 
Fort  St.  Marks,  on  the  subject  of  having  that  work 
occupied  by  an  American  garrison,  I  had  occasion  to 
notice  the  aid  and  comfort  that  the  hostile  party  of 
Indians  had  received,  as  reported,  from  him;  that 
they  had  free  access  within  the  walls  of  his  fort,  and 
that  it  was  well  known  no  small  supplies  of  ammu- 
nition had  been  received  from  that  quarter.  In  re- 
ply, he  stated  that  his  conduct  had  been  governed  by 
policy;  the  defenceless  state  of  his  work,  and  the 
weakness  of  his  garrison,  compelled  him  to  conciliate 
the  friendship  of  the  Indians,  to  supply  their  wants, 
and  to  grant  what  he  had  not  the  power  to  deny,  and 
to  throw  open,  with  apparent  willingness,  the  gates  of 
his  fortress,  lest  they  should  be  forced  by  violence ; 
that  he  had  been  repeatedly  threatened  by  Indians 


and  negroes,  and  that  his  security  depended  upon  ex- 
hibiting an  external  friendship.  Respectfully,  yours, 
&c. 

"JAMES  GADSDEN,  Aide-de-camp." 

From  the  testimony  of  these  respectable  wit- 
nesses, and  many  others  to  whom  I  think  it  un- 
necessary to  refer,  it  is  evident  that  the  enemy 
had  the  unlimited  use  of  this  fort  for  all  the  pur- 
poses of  war ;  that  their  stolen  property  was 
received,  and  contracted  for  by  the  command- 
ant, knowing  it  to  be  such  ;  and  that  they  were 
supplied  with  arms  and  ammunition,  and  every 
other  material,  to  enable  them  to  continue  their 
aggressions  on  the  unprotected  inhabitants  of 
Georgia  and  the  Alabama  Territory.  The  only 
apology  offered  by  the  commandant  for  his  un- 
friendly and  unwarrantable  conduct  was,  that 
he  had  been  repeatedly  threatened  by  the  In- 
dians and  negroes,  and  that  his  security  depend- 
ed upon  exhibiting  an  external  friendship.  It 
is  immaterial  whether  we  take  the  facts  or  the 
excuse,  for  either,  unconnected  with  the  other, 
will  amount  to  a  justification  of  General  Jack- 
son in  taking  forcible  possession  of  that  post. 
"  To  conduct  prisoners,  or  convey  stores,  to  a 
place  of  safety,  are  acts  of  war,  consequently 
not  to  be  done  in  a  neutral  country,  and  who- 
ever would  permit  them  would  depart  from  the 
line  of  neutrality  by  favoring  one  of  the  parties." 
Again,  "  necessity  may  even  authorize  the  tem- 
porary seizure  of  a  neutral  town,  and  putting  a 
garrison  therein  with  a  view  to  cover  ourselves 
from  the  enemy,  or  to  prevent  the  execution  of 
his  designs  against  that  town.  "—Vattel,  342-'4. 
The  truth  is,  that  our  enemy  was  denied  noth- 
ing which  he  asked,  and  we  were  refused  the 
humble  privilege  of  putting  the  place  in  a  state 
of  defence  against  an  enemy  who  ought  to  have 
been  considered  common  to  Spain  and  the  United 
States.  In  such  a  case,  to  have  hesitated  would 
have  been  pusillanimous  and  disgraceful  in  the 
commanding  General.  Passing  from  St.  Marks 
to  Pensacola,  there  is  no  substantial  change 
either  of  principle  or  fact.  General  Jackson,  it 
is  true,  at  the  date  of  his  letter  to  the  Secretary 
of  War,  from  St.  Marks,  thought  the  war  at  an 
end.  His  health  having  been  much  impaired 
by  the  hardships  and  fatigues  of  the  service  in 
which  he  was  engaged,  he  had  determined  to 
return  to  Nashville;  but  subsequent  informa- 
tion, of  which  we  have  the  most  authentic 
proof,  satisfied  him  that  he  had  not  yet  effected 
the  object  of  the  campaign,  The  Indians,  de- 
prived of  their  accustomed  resort  at  St.  Marks, 
flew  to  Pensacola,  where  they  had  always  been 
received  with  open  arms  by  the  Governor.  Ex- 
peditions were  fitted  out,  and  massacres  com- 
mitted, by  parties  of  hostile  Indians,  going  di- 
rectly from  that  place  to  the  Escainbia  and 
Alabama. 

I  will  not  detain  the  committee  by  a  reference 
to  the  correspondence  and  depositions  at  large, 
furnishing,  as  they  do,  indubitable  evidence  of 
the  hostile  disposition  of  the  Governor  of  Pen- 
sacola, and  of  the  aid  given  by  him  to  the  sav- 


DEBATES  OF  CONGRESS. 


315 


FEBRUARY,  1819.] 


The  Seminole  War. 


[H.  OF  K. 


ages,  for  the  express  purpose  of  committing  mur- 
ders on  the  people  of  the  United  States.  Thirty 
or  forty  witnesses,  many  of  them  subjects  of 
His  Catholic  Majesty  in  Florida,  and  long  resi- 
dent there,  testify  to  these  facts.  Provisions, 
arms,  and  munitions  of  war,  were  regularly 
issued  to  the  Creeks  and  Seminoles,  from  the 
King's  storehouse,  during  both  wars  in  which 
we  have  been  engaged  with  these  tribes  of  In- 
dians. Numerous  bodies,  of  from  two  to  five 
hundred  Indians,  driven  from  other  parts  of 
Florida,  were  seen  in  and  near  to  Pensacola, 
but  a  few  days  after  the  approach  of  our  army ; 
they  were  armed  and  equipped  for  war  by  Gov- 
ernor Mazot.  The  leaden  aprons  were  taken 
from  the  ordnance  at  the  Barancas,  and  run  into 
bullets,  to  obtain  the  necessary  supply  of  that 
article.  The  massacre  of  Stokes's  family,  of 
travellers  from  Georgia  to  the  Alabama,  and  of 
our  frontier  settlers  in  that  quarter,  may  all  be 
attributed  to  the  free  admission  of  the  hostile 
Indians  into  Pensacola,  and  the  assistance  af- 
forded them  by  the  Spanish  Governor.  General 
Jackson  was  well  informed  of  these  circumstan- 
ces, and  saw  in  them  certain  indications  that  all 
his  previous  operations  were  worse  than  useless, 
if  he  returned  without  leaving  an  American 
garrison  at  Pensacola.  He  accordingly  moved 
towards  that  town,  after  having  discharged  the 
Georgia  militia,  whose  services  were  no  longer 
necessary.  He  made  Governor  Mazot  distinctly 
acquainted  with  his  views,  and  the  basis  on 
which  his  conduct  was  founded  ;  that  he  entered 
the  territory  of  his  Catholic  Majesty,  not  as  the 
enemy  but  as  the  friend  of  Spain,  to  inflict 
merited  punishment  on  the  common  disturber 
of  the  peace  of  both  countries ;  that  he  meant 
nothing  more  than  to  place  an  American  force 
in  Peusacola  and  the  Barancas,  which  should  be 
sufficient  to  guarantee  the  security  of  the  United 
States  from  a  protracted  savage  war.  He  never 
intimated  an  intention  of  disturbing  either  the 
civil  or  military  authorities  of  Spain.  In  return, 
Governor  Mazot  protested  against  the  entrance 
of  the  American  commander  into  his  territory, 
for  any  purpose  ;  ordered  him,  in  the  name  of 
the  King,  to  depart  forthwith,  and  threatened 
to  repel  force  by  force,  if  he  persisted  in  his  in- 
tentions. The  well-known  valor  and  intrepidity 
of  General  Jackson  took  fire  at  his  insulting 
menace  ;  he  would  have  preferred  an  honorable 
grave,  under  the  walls  of  the  Spanish  fort,  to  a 
cowardly,  disgraceful  retrograde,  under  the  gas- 
conading threat  of  this  impotent  instrument  of 
a  monarch,  whose  very  name  excites  the  smile 
of  contempt  throughout  the  civilized  world. 
He  moved  directly  to  the  town  of  Pensacola, 
and  mark,  I  beseech  you,  sir,  the  conduct  of 
Governor  Mazot.  The  Indian  warriors  who 
were  with  him,  and  their  families,  were  shipped 
in  public  vessels  across  the  bay  to  the  Island  of 
Santa  liosa.  He  retired  before  the  American 
army,  who  really  intended  to  do  him  no  vio- 
lence, into  the  fortress  of  San  Carlos  de  Baran- 
cas, where  he  permitted  himself  to  tremble  and 
equivocate  for  a  day  or  two,  and  then,  by  his 


own  request,  the  fort  was  delivered  into  tho 
hands  of  General  Jackson,  and  the  Spanish 
troops,  with  this  magnanimous  Governor  at 
their  head,  were  transported  to  the  Island  of 
Cuba.  We  are  told  by  honorable  gentlemen, 
that  this  last  measure  gave  to  the  transaction 
all  the  pomp  and  circumstance  of  war.  That 
the  Spanish  troops  were  made  prisoners  of  war, 
and  forced  to  quit  the  country  in  which  they 
were  stationed  under  the  protection  of  their 
sovereign.  There  would  indeed  be  some  plausi- 
bility in  the  conclusion,  if  the  premises  assumed 
were  not  destitute  of  foundation.  Every  pro- 
posal relating  to  the  surrender  of  the  fort  came 
from  Governor  Mazot ;  it  was  by  his  own  de- 
sire that  vessels  were  provided  for  the  trans- 
portation of  the  garrison,  and  the  officers  at- 
tached to  the  civil  administration,  and  of  the 
Alabama  Chief  Hopayhoal,  and  family,  to  the 
Havana.  It  was  his  own  puerile  resistance 

lation.  General  Jackson  never  contemplated 
an  act  of  hostility  against  Spain  ;  his  sole  object 
was  to  give  peace  and  security  to  his  own 
country,  and  to  guard  against  the  renewal  of 
hostilities  by  prohibiting  the  customary  supplies 
which  the  Seminoles  and  Eed  Sticks  received 
from  this  faithless,  unprincipled  Governor. 

Mr.  P.  continued.  Sir,  said  he,  I  have  been 
mortified  and  disgusted  at  the  sickly  agonies 
and  sympathetic  effusions  which  have  been  so 
often  repeated  by  honorable  members  on  the 
subject  of  the  trial  and  execution  of  the  instiga- 
tors of  the  Seminole  war,  Arbuthnot  and  Am- 
brister.  Inflated  appeals  to  our  humanity  and 
magnanimity  have  rung  through  this  hall  to  ex- 
cite our  commiseration  for  these  guilty  men. 
They  have  failed  to  reach  either  my  judgment  or 
the  feelings  of  my  heart  My  sympathies, 
thank  God,  are  reserved  for  the  bleeding  and 
suffering  citizens  of  my  own  country ;  and  ob- 
jects of  that  description,  in  abundance,  are  ex- 
hibited to  our  view  in  the  narrative  of  events 
connected  with  the  short  but  bloody  career  of 
these  foreign  incendiaries  in  Florida.  The  pun- 
ishment inflicted  on  them  was  more  than  mer- 
ited by  the  enormity  of  their  crimes ;  the  ex- 
ample, I  trust,  will  be  a  salutary  warning  to 
British  agents  on  the  whole  extent  of  our  In- 
dian frontier;  and,  if  future  outrages  of  the 
same  kind  should  be  practised,  we  owe  it  to  the 
safety  and  honor  of  our  country  to  retaliate  on 
the  offenders  with  the  utmost  rigor  and  severity, 
until  the  subjects  of  foreign  nations  shall  be 
taught  to  dread  our  vengeance,  if  they  do  not 
respect  our  rights.  Sir,  it  is  not  my  intention 
to  enter  into  a  detailed  argument  on  the  vari- 
ous technical  objections  which  have  been  re- 
sorted to  by  gentlemen  skilled  in  the  nicety  of 
special  pleading,  to  show  that  a  count  or  an  in- 
uendo  is  wanting  in  the  declaration,  or  that 
judgment  has  not  been  pronounced  according  to 
the  forms  in  such  case  made  and  provided. 
Such  trash  may  serve  to  supply  the  vacuum  of 
empty  declamation,  but  I  can  never  consent  to 
convert  this  great  political  theatre  into  a  court 


316 


ABRIDGMENT  OF  THE 


H.  OF  R.] 


The  Seminole  War. 


[FEBRUARY,  1819. 


of  errors  and  appeals,  sitting  to  scan  the  record 
and  regulate  the  proceedings  of  inferior  tribu- 
nals. My  views  are  directed  to  measures  in  re- 
ference to  their  operation  on  the  general  wel- 
fare of  my  country,  and,  whenever  that  effect 
is  produced,  I  would  not  retrace  the  step,  un- 
less the  honor  of  the  nation  imperiously  de- 
manded the  sacrifice.  The  proceedings  of  the 
special  court  convened  by  General  Jackson  on 
this  occasion,  have  been  fully  and  ably  defended 
by  honorable  gentlemen  whose  profound  knowl- 
edge of  military  science  and  the  practical  usages 
of  war  gives  to  their  opinions  and  arguments 
the  weight  of  authority,  and  supersedes  the  ne- 
cessity of  further  investigation.  If,  indeed,  er- 
rors in  point  of  form  were  committed  by  the 
court,  or  if  they  misunderstood  the  powers 
vested  in  them  by  the  order  of  the  commanding 
General,  it  does  not  become  the  dignity  of  this 
House  to  ascribe  these  irregularities  to  General 
Jackson;  it  is  to  the  general  order  we  must 
look  for  a  definition  of  the  duties  which  the 
court  were  required  to  perform.  They  were 
instructed  to  "  record  the  documents  and  testi- 
mony in  the  several  cases,  and  their  opinion  as 
to  the  guilt  or  innocence  of  the  prisoners,  and 
what  punishment,  if  any,  should  be  inflicted." 
Call  it,  therefore,  a  court-martial,  or  by  what- 
ever other  name  you  please,  these  were  the 
powers  conveyed  to  it,  and  no  assumed  title 
could  enlarge  the  grant  or  substantially  change 
its  character.  The  opinion  of  the  court  was 
given  in  the  form  of  a  sentence  and  carried  into 
execution,  but  the  same  result  would  have  fol- 
lowed if  there  had  been  no  departure  from  the 
literal  import  of  the  order.  To  cavil  at  such 
petty  inaccuracies,  where  substantial  justice 
has  been  done,  is,  I  repeat  it,  unbecoming  the 
dignity  of  the  House  of  Representatives.  That 
these  perfidious  miscreants  met  the  fate  which 
their  conduct  merited  cannot  be  seriously  doubt- 
ed by  any  one.  On  the  principle  of  reprisals  it 
was  lawful  to  execute  them,  and,  as  criminals  of 
the  highest  grade,  whose  guilty  hands  involved 
a  whole  country  in  scenes  of  massacre  and  rob- 
bery, they  fell  just  victims  to  the  offended  laws 
of  nature  and  of  nations.  "  Those  who,  with- 
out authority  from  their  sovereign,  exercise 
violence  against  an  enemy  and  fall  into  that 
enemy's  hands,  have  no  right  to  expect  the 
treatment  due  to  prisoners  of  war ;  the  enemy 
is  justifiable  in  putting  them  to  death  as  ban- 
ditti." Again,  "  the  violences  committed  by  the 
subjects  of  one  nation  against  those  of  another, 
without  authority,  are  looked  upon  as  robberies, 
and  the  perpetrators  are  excluded  from  the 
rights  of  lawful  enemies ;"  and,  also,  "  whatso- 
ever offends  the  State,  injures  its  rights,  disturbs 
its  tranquillity,  or  does  it  a  prejudice,  in  any 
manner  whatever,  declares  himself  its  enemy, 
and  exposes  himself  to  be  justly  punished  for 
it."  (Vattel,  162.)  Sir,  can  any  gentleman 
compare  these  principles  of  national  law  with 
the  evidence  in  the  trials  of  Arbuthnot  and 
Ambrister,  and  seriously  contend  that  they  have 
suffered  unjustly,  and  contrary  to  law;  that 


they  have  been  doomed  to  perish  under  the 
rod  of  military  despotism  ?  I  frankly  confess 
it  would  require  a  stubborn  determination  to 
persevere  in  error,  which  I  do  not  possess,  to 
draw  conclusions  so  inconsistent  with  such 
premises.  Some  gentlemen  have  attempted  to 
make  a  distinction  between  the  guilt  of  these 
men.  Ambrister,  say  they,  was  taken  in  arms ; 
he  commanded  the  negroes  and  Indians;  led 
them  into  battle ;  was  identified  witli  them, 
and,  therefore,  deserved  death.  Arbuthnot,  we 
are  told,  was  a  mere  merchant,  a  dealer  in  the 
articles  which  the  Indians  were  accustomed  to 
purchase. 

I  have,  in  the  preceding  part  of  my  remarks, 
had  occasion  to  advert  to  the  objects  for  which 
this  man  entered  Florida,  and  the  part  which  he 
took  in  exciting  the  Indians  to  war.  If  Nicholls 
was  an  innocent  dealer  in  "  the  articles  which  the 
Indians  were  accustomed  to  purchase,"  so  was 
Arbuthnot ;  their  views  were  the  same ;  they 
held  the  same  language  to  the  savages,  and 
each  gave  a  pledge  of  British  aid,  in  case  war 
should  be  waged  for  the  recovery  of  the  lands 
ceded  by  the  Treaty  of  Fort  Jackson.  He  fre- 
quently assured  the  chiefs  that  he  had  authority 
to  correspond  with  his  Majesty's  Minister  at 
Washington,  with  Governor  Cameron,  of  New 
Providence,  and  the  Governor  General  of  Ha- 
vana, on  the  subject  of  necessary  supplies  for 
carrying  on  the  war ;  and  that  he  was  in  pos- 
session of  a  letter  from  Earl  Bathurst,  which 
informed  him  that  Mr.  Bagot  was  instructed  on 
that  subject.  On  the  back  of  a  letter  addressed 
by  him  to  that  Minister,  he  states  the  aggregate 
force  embodied  among  the  Indians  and  the  posi- 
tions at  which  they  were  posted,  and  requests 
a  supply  of  arms  and  ammunition,  specified  in 
the  following  memorandum : 

"A  quantity  of  gunpowder,  lead,  muskets,  and 
flints,  sufficient  to  arm  1,000  to  2,000  men. 

Muskets,  1 ,000 ;  more  smaller  pieces,  if  possible. 

10,000  flints;  a  proportion  for  rifle,  put  up  sepa- 
rate. 

50  casks  gunpowder ;  a  proportion  for  rifle. 

2,000  knives,  six  to  nine  inch  blade,  good  quality. 

1,000  tomahawks  ;   100  IDS.  vermilion. 

2,000  Ibs.  lead,  independent  of  ball  for  musket." 

This  paper  speaks  for  itself;  it  cannot  be  mis- 
understood ;  and  shows,  most  clearly,  the  par- 
ticipation of  Arbuthnot  in  providing  the  means 
necessary  to  the  prosecution  of  the  Seminole 
war.  He  was  the  prime  minister  of  the  hostile 
Indians ;  had  a  full  power  of  attorney  to  make 
talks,  and  act  for  them  in  all  cases  whatsoever; 
and  if  Ambrister,  who  was  but  a  subordinate 
agent,  was  justly  sentenced  to  suffer  death, 
what  excuse  can  be  offered  for  the  man  who 
put  the  whole  machinery  of  war,  massacre,  and 
robbery,  in  motion?  Can  it  be  said  that  he 
had  not  disturbed  the  tranquillity  of  the  United 
States?  I  presume  it  cannot,  and,  of  course, 
according  to  the  maxims  of  public  law,  to  which 
I  have  referred,  he  had  "declared  himself  our 
enemy,  and  exposed  himself  to  be  justly  pun- 
ished." It  is  unnecessary  for  me  to  enlarge  the 


DEBATES  OF  CONGRESS. 


317 


FEBRUARY,  1819.] 


The  Seminole  War. 


[H.  OF  R. 


discussion  on  the  right  of  the  commanding  Gen- 
eral to  retaliate  on  the  enemy  for  the  acts  of 
cruelty  and  barbarity  which  were  practised  in 
the  progress  of  this  war.  Honorable  gentlemen, 
who  controvert  the  right,  have  shown  no  in- 
stance iu  which  it  was  denied,  either  in  Europe 
or  America ;  and,  in  support  of  it,  we  have  the 
examples-  of  Washington  and  many  other  gen- 
eral officers,  who  fought  in  the  war  of  the  Revo- 
lution.  Yes,  sir,  General  Jackson  had  the  right 
to  inflict  punishment  on  these  outlaws.  I  re- 
joice that  he  exercised  that  right ;  and,  if  we 
do  not  paralyze  and  destroy  the  good  effects  of 
the  act,  it  will  contribute,  in  no  small  degree,  to 
the  future  peace  and  security  of  our  frontier. 
But  the  honorable  Speaker  has  said  that  we 
have  no  right  to  practise  retaliation  on  the  In- 
dians ;  that  we  have  foreborne  to  do  so  from 
the  earliest  settlement  of  the  country,  and  that 
it  has  become  the  common  law  of  the  land, 
which  we  are  bound  not  to  violate.  Sir,  from 
what  source  does  the  gentleman  derive  the 
principle  that  a  right,  inherent  in  the  nature  of 
man,  which  he  inhales  with  his  first  breath — 
which  "grows  with  his  growth  and  strengthens 
with  his  strength" — which  has  the  fiat  of  God 
for  its  sanction,  and  is  incorporated  in  the  code 
of  all  the  nations  of  the  earth,  becomes  extinct 
with  regard  to  those  who  may  forbear  to  exer- 
cise it,  from  motives  of  policy  or  humanity,  for 
any  number  of  years  ?  That  a  common  law  is 
thereby  entailed  on  the  American  people,  to 
the  latest  generations,  by  which  they  are  re- 
quired to  bend  beneath  the  tomahawk  and 
scalp  ing-knife  of  the  savage,  and  submit  to 
every  cruelty  and  enormity,  without  the  privi- 
lege of  retaliating  on  the  enemy  the  wrongs  and 
injuries  we  have  suffered  by  his  wanton  trans- 
gression of  the  rules  of  civilized  warfare  ?  We 
have,  it  is  true,  tolerated  much  of  the  inhuman 
conduct  of  the  aborigines  towards  our  frontier  in- 
habitants. We  have  endeavored  to  teach  them, 
by  examples  of  humanity  and  magnanimity,  the 
blessings  and  advantages  of  civilization ;  but  in- 
stances are  not  wanting  of  the  most  severe  retali- 
ation on  these  monsters  for  their  deeds  of  barbar- 
ity. If,  however,  there  was  not  a  solitary  case 
on  record,  of  the  exercise  of  the  right,  it  remains 
inviolate  and  inviolable.  No  community  has 
the  power  to  relinquish  it  and  bind  posterity  in 
the  chains  of  slavish  non-resistance.  The  gen- 
tleman's common  law  will  not  do  for  the  free- 
men of  the  United  States ;  it  is  unique  and  ab- 
surd. Sir,  if  the  committee  will  pardon  the  di- 
gression, this  novel  idea  of  common  law  re- 
minds me  of  an  occurrence  which  is  said  to 
have  happened  in  the  early  period  of  the  settle- 
ment of  the  present  polite  and  flourishing  State 
of  Kentucky :  A  man,  in  personal  combat,  de- 
prived his  antagonist  of  the  sight  of  an  eye  by 
a  practice  familiar  at  that  day,  called  gouging  ; 
the  offender  was  prosecuted  and  indicted  for 
the  outrage;  he  employed  counsel  to  defend 
him,  to  whom  he  confessed  the  fact.  Well, 
sir,  said  the  lawyer,  what  shall  I  say  in  your 
defence  ?  Why,  sir,  said  he,  tell  them  it  is  the 


custom  of  the  country !  And  I  presume  if  the 
honorable  Speaker  had  presided  on  the  trial,  he 
would  have  said,  "Gentlemen  of  the  jury,  it  is 
the  common  law  of  Kentucky,  and  you  will 
find  a  verdict  for  the  defendant."  But,  sir,  to 
be  serious,  let  me  bring  the  case  home  to  the 
honorable  Speaker  himself.  Suppose  a  band  of 
these  barbarians,  stimulated  and  excited  by 
some  British  incendiary,  should,  at  the  hour  of 
midnight,  when  all  nature  is  wrapt  in  darkness 
and  repose,  sound  the  infernal  yell,  and  enter 
the  dwelling  of  that  honorable  gentleman,  and 
in  his  presence  pierce  to  the  heart  the  wife  of 
his  bosom  and  the  beloved  and  tender  infant  in 
her  arras— objects  so  dear  to  a  husband  and 
a  father — would  he  calmly  fold  his  arms  and 
say,  well,  'tis  hard  !  but  it  is  the  common  law 
of  the  country,  and  I  must  submit !  No,  sir ; 
his  manly  spirit  would  burn  with  indignant 
rage,  and  never  slumber  till  the  hand  of  retribu- 
tive justice  had  avenged  his  wrongs. 

"  Mercy  to  him  who  shows  it,  is  the  rule, 

And  righteous  limitation  of  the  act, 

By  which  Heaven  moves  in  pardoning  guilty  man ; 

And  he  that  shows  none,  being  ripe  in  years, 

And  conscious  of  the  outrage  he  commits, 

Shall  seek  it,  and  not  find  it,  in  his  turn." 

I  have  no  compassion  for  such  monsters  as  Ar- 
buthnot  and  Ambrister ;  their  own  country  is 
ashamed  to  complain  of  their  fate ;  the  British 
Minister  here  has  disavowed  their  conduct  and 
abandoned  their  cause;  and  we,  sir,  are  the 
residuary  legatees  of  all  the  grief  and  sorrow- 
felt  on  the  face  of  the  globe,  for  these  two  fallen 
murderers  and  robbers !  For  I  call  him  a 
murderer  who  incites  to  murder. 

Mr.  Chairman,  I  am  not  the  eulogist  of  any 
man ;  I  shall  not  attempt  the  panegyric  of  Gen- 
eral Jackson ;  but  if  a  grateful  country  might 
be  allowed  to  speak  of  his  merits — 

Louisiana  would  say,  "You  have  defended 
our  capital  against  the  veteran  troops  of  the 
enemy,  by  whom  it  would  have  been  sacked, 
and  our  dwellings  enveloped  in  flames  over  the 
heads  of  our  beloved  families." 

Georgia :  "  You  have  given  peace  to  our  de- 
fenceless frontier,  and  chastised  our  ferocious 
savage  foe,  and  the  perfidious  incendiaries  and 
felons  by  whom  they  were  excited  and  coun- 
selled to  the  perpetration  of  their  cruel  deeds. 
You  have  opened  additional  territory  to  our 
rich  and  growing  population,  which  they  may 
now  enjoy  in  peace  and  tranquillity." 

Alabama  and  Mississippi :  "  You  have  pro- 
tected us  in  the  time  of  our  infancy,  and  in  the 
moment  of  great  national  peril,  against  the  in- 
exorable Red  Sticks  and  their  allies ;  you  have 
compelled  them  to  relinquish  the  possession  of 
our  lands,  and  ere  long  we  shall  strengthen  into 
full  manhood,  under  the  smiles  of  a  beneficent 
Providence." 

The  whole  Western  Country :  "You  have  pre- 
served the  great  emporium  of  our  vast  com- 
merce from  the  grasp  of  a  powerful  enemy ;  you 
have  maintained  for  our  use  the  free  navigation 


318 


ABRIDGMENT  OF  THE 


H.  OF  R.] 


The  Seminole  War. 


[FEBRUARY,  1819. 


of  the  Mississippi,  at  the  hazard  of  your  life, 
health,  and  fortune." 

The  Nation  at  large :  "  You  have  given  glory 
and  renown  to  the  arms  of  your  country 
throughout  the  civilized  world,  and  have  taught 
the  tyrants  of  the  earth  the  salutary  lesson, 
that,  in  the  defence  of  their  soil  and  independ- 
ence, freemen  are  invincible." 

History  will  transmit  these  truths  to  genera- 
tions yet  unborn,  and  should  the  propositions 
on  your  table  be  adopted,  we,  the  Representa- 
tives of  the  people,  subjoin:  "Yes,  most  noble 
and  valorous  Captain,  you  have  achieved  all 
this  for  your  country ;  we  bow  down  under  the 
weight  of  the  obligations  which  we  owe  you, 
and  as  some  small  testimonial  of  your  claim  to 
the  confidence  and  consideration  of  your  fellow- 
citizens,  we,  in  their  name,  present  you  the  fol- 
lowing resolutions : 

"  Resolved,  That  you,  Major  General  Andrew 
Jackson,  have  violated  the  constitution  which 
you  have  sworn  to  support,  and  disobeyed  the 
orders  of  your  superior,  the  Commander-in- 
chief  of  the  Army  and  Navy  of  the  United 
States. 

"  Resolved,  That  you,  Major  General  Andrew 
Jackson,  have  violated  the  laws  of  your  country 
and  the  sacred  principles  of  humanity,  and 
thereby  prostrated  the  national  character,  in 
the  trial  and  execution  of  Alexander  Arbuthnot 
and  Kobert  C.  Ambrister,  for  the  trifling  and 
unimportant  crime  of  exciting  the  savages  to 
murder  the  defenceless  citizens  of  the  United 
States. 

"  Accept,  we  pray  you,  sir,  of  these  resolves; 
go  down  to  your  grave  in  sorrow,  and  congratu- 
late yourself  that  you  have  not  served  this  great 
Republic  in  vain!" 

Greece  had  her  Miltiades,  Eome  her  Bellisa- 
rius,  Carthage  her  Hannibal,  and  "  may  we, 
Mr.  Chairman,  profit  by  the  example!"  Sir,  if 
honorable  gentlemen  are  so  extremely  solicit- 
ous to  record  their  opinions  of  this  distinguished 
General,  let  us  erect  a  tablet  in  the  centre  of 
our  Capitol  square :  let  his  bust  designate  the 
purpose :  thither  let  each  man  repair,  and  en- 
grave the  feelings  of  his  heart.  And,  sir,  what- 
ever may  be  the  opinions  of  others,  for  one  I 
should  not  hesitate  to  say,  in.  the  language  of 
the  sage  of  Monticello,  "  Honor  and  gratitude 
to  him  who  has  filled  the  measure  of  his  coun- 
try"1 s  glory  /'•' 

WEDNESDAY,  February  3. 
Seminole   War. 

The  House  then  again  resolved  itself  into  a 
Committee  of  the  Whole,  (Mr.  SMITH,  of  Mary- 
land, in  the  chair,)  on  the  subject  of  the  Semi- 
nole war. 

Mr.  WALKEB,  of  Kentucky,  rose  and  said: 
Mr.  Chairman,  I  do  not  rise  to  enter  into  a  dis- 
cussion upon  a  subject  that  has  called  forth  the 
wisdom,  learning,  and  eloquence  of  this  com- 
mittee ;  I  only  wish  to  express  my  reasons  for 
the  vote  which  I  am  about  to  give  upon  this 


question,  and  to  show  that  I  have  no  fears  for 
any  future  consequences  which  may  arise  from 
that  vote  to  my  country. 

If  it  were  possible  for  me  to  be  persuaded  that 
the  friends  to  the  mode  of  prosecuting  and  ter- 
minating the  Seminolian  war  were  less  solicitous 
for  the  honor  and  dignity  of  our  country,  or  less 
anxious  for  its  future  prosperity  and  happiness, 
than  those  gentlemen  who  disapprove  of  our 
General's  conduct  in  that  war,  from  the  solemn 
dignity  of  the  manner,  from  the  deservedly  high 
standing  of  the  man,  and  the  immense  im- 
portance Mr.  Speaker  has  attached  to  the  mat- 
ter, I  might  be  persuaded  that  I  was  in  error, 
and  might  give  a  different  vote  on  the  subject ; 
I  might  be  convinced  that  I  was  as  far  beneath 
him  in  common  sense  and  mere  love  of  country, 
as  he  is  above  me  in  elevation  of  station,  or  La 
the  omnipotent  powers  of  eloquence.  But,  sir, 
there  are  some  subjects  on  which  good  common 
sense,  years  of  experience  and  observation,  may 
shed  as  clear  a  light  as  all  the  pages  of  ancient 
or  modern  history,  and  may  so  anchor  the  judg- 
ment that  learning,  eloquence,  and  acknowledged 
merit,  all  combined,  cannot  weigh  the  anchor, 
or  drag  it  from  its  moorings ;  and  this,  sir,  in 
my  poor  opinion,  is  one  of  those  deep-rooted 
subjects.  I  Avill  not  attempt  to  speak  of  Gro- 
tius,  Puffendorff,  Vattel,  Martens,  or  any  other 
writers  on  the  law  of  nations,  or  of  our  own 
constitution,  nor  yet  will  I  attempt  to  lead  this 
committee  to  believe  that  I  have  a  correct 
knowledge  .of  the  ancient  Republics  of  Greece 
or  Rome;  but,  from  the  little  light  I  have  re- 
ceived upon  the  history  of  those  republics,  I  will 
endeavor  to  show  that  we  have  no  cause  of  fear 
from  some  future  Philip,  Ca?sar,  Cromwell,  or 
Bonaparte ;  we,  to  be  sure,  resemble  them  in 
some  leading  characteristics,  and  in  name,  but 
not  in  every  thing ;  they  knew  nothing  of  a  fair 
representative  council,  such  as  ours,  which  is 
certainly  the  chain  cable  of  our  political  ship ;  a 
fair  representative  Government  they  never  had 
an  idea  of,  or  if  they  had,  like  some  of  my  un- 
fortunate friends,  too,  in  South  America,  they 
were  afraid  to  try  the  experiment.*  Their 
laws,  I  am  told,  were  enacted  by  universal  suf- 
frage, or,  more  properly  speaking,  by  that  por- 
tion of  the  people  that  casualty  or  design  might 
have  convened  at  the  time  they  were  under 
consideration;  it  is,  therefore,  reasonable  to 
suppose  that  the  citizens  who  lived  remote  from 
the  metropolitan  cities  had  but  little  share  in 
their  legislation ;  hence  one  great  cause  of  their 
decline.  In  populous  countries  and  large  cities, 
where 'the  greater  portion  of  the  people  are 
wretchedly  poor,  profoundly  ignorant,  and 
darkly  supers.titious,  where  the  sum  of  their 
knowledge  was  acquired  from  the  mouths  of 
their  public  speakers,  it  is  perfectly  rational  to 
believe  that  an  ingenious,  eloquent  orator,  could 
catch  them  by  the  ears,  and  a  successful  splen- 
did hero  could  lead  them  to  the  sacrifice  of  ah1 


*  Mr.  Clay,  upon  this  subject,  took  occasion  to  mei 
s  "  poor  friends  in  South  America." 


tis"  poor  friends  in  So 


DEBATES  OP  CONGRESS. 


319 


FEBRUARY,  1819.] 


The  Seminde  War. 


[H.  OF  R. 


that  should  be  held  most  dear  to  man ;  nor  is 
it  matter  of  astonishment  to  the  reflecting  mind, 
that  our  late  republican  sister,  now  poor  bleed- 
ing France,  should  have  followed  the  fate  of  the 
old  republics;  emerging,  as  she  did,  from  the 
darkness  of  chaos,  suddenly  into  the  bright 
blaze  of  heaven-born  liberty,  her  eyes  were 
dazzled  with  the  brilliance,  her  brain  was  in- 
toxicated with  the  multiplicity  of  novel  ideas 
that  burst  upon  it,  and  before  she  could  recover 
her  sober  senses,  before  her  legislators  could 
establish  the  plan  for  the  permanent  security  of 
her  rights,  the  demon  of  discord  erected  his 
crest  and  diffused  his  poison  among  her  coun- 
sellors, who  had  also  to  conquer  the  habits  of 
ages  before  her  people  were  capable  of  enjoying 
rational  liberty ;  the  lands  of  the  country,  too, 
from  which  true  independence  always  sprouts, 
were  in  the  hands  of  the  aristocratic  few,  to 
whom  the  great  body  of  the  people  had,  for  cen- 
turies, been  bound  by  the  iron  hand  of  necessity 
or  of  power.  Thus  situated,  it  is  not  wonderful 
that  the  successful  hero,  the  ambitious,  artful 
statesman,  should  have  prostrated  all  their 
rights.  Quite  the  reverse  from  this  situation 
was  our  happy  Republic  at  the  commencement 
of  her  existence ;  the  soil  of  the  country  was 
apportioned  among  her  numerous  hardy  sons, 
whose  arms  were  able  to  defend  it.  Religious 
and  civil  liberty  was  the  contemplation  of  our 
European  fathers  when  they  first  came  to  Amer- 
ica ;  it  was  the  darling  theme  of  their  sons  un- 
til the  day  they  unfurled  the  banner,  and  pro- 
claimed to  the  astonished  world  that  they  were 
free.  Free  we  are,  and  free  we  will  be,  until 
land  monopolies  shall  have  swallowed  up  the 
soil  as  the  banks  are  about  to  swallow  our  port- 
able treasure ;  we  must  be  ground  down  to  ex- 
treme poverty,  ignorance,  its  concomitant,  and 
to  cap  the  climax,  superstition,  too,  must  give 
her  detested  aid,  before  we  can  lose  our  liber- 
ties. In  fact,  Mr.  Chairman,  we  must  be  re- 
duced to  the  miserable,  abject  state  of  the 
poor  subjects  of  monarchs,  before  we  can  lose 
our  liberties.  If  ever  our  rights  are  lost,  mon- 
eyed aristocracies  and  land  monopolies  will  be 
the  corner  stones  on  which  the  edifice  will  be 
erected  that  will  sweep  them  all.  My  fears 
from  them  are,  in  truth,  much  greater  than  from 
the  sound  discretion  in  our  commander  in  the 
execution  of  an  order  given  him  by  our  beloved 
Chief  Magistrate,  and  which  order,  if  not  exe- 
cuted in  the  manner  it  was,  the  objects  of  the 
campaign  would  have  been  infallibly  lost.  Cer- 
tainly, it  was  our  President's  intentions,  when 
he  gave  the  orders,  to  put  our  women  and  chil- 
dren at  rest  from  the  apprehension  of  being 
scalped  and  burnt.  If  General  Jackson  had  re- 
turned from  the  Florida  line,  is  there  a  woman 
in  Georgia,  or  a  child  in  Alabama,  that  does  not 
know  that  Arbuthnot  and  Ambrister  would 
have  excited  their  myrmidons  to  the  repetition 
of  those  deeds,  at  the  thought  of  which  the  blood 
curdles  and  runs  cold  with  horror.  Much  has 
been  said,  many  dreadful  apprehensions  have 
been  suggested,  from  the  consequence  of  our 


full  approbation  of  our  General's  conduct ;  for 
my  poor  part,  I  hope  I  shall  never  be  afraid  of 
giving  to  merit  its  due  meed.  From  my  own 
reading  of  our  constitution,  as  well  as  th«  sound 
arguments  I  have  heard,  I  am  most  perfectly 
convinced  that  the  President's  orders  were 
strictly  constitutional,  and  that  their  execution 
was  perfectly  reconcilable  with  the  laws  of  na- 
tions, as  was  shown  by  the  gentleman  from 
Virginia,  and  by  my  friend  and  colleague,*  and 
produced  the  most  desirable  effects  to  our  dis- 
tressed frontier  settlers. 

If  General  Wayne,  in  1794,  had  had  force 
sufficient  when  he  defeated  the  Indians  on  the 
Miami  of  the  Lakes,  and  had  have  exercised  his 
sound  discretion,  as  General  Jackson  has  done, 
our  Owens  and  Daviess,  our  Allen  and  Simpson, 
my  friend  Captain  Lewis,  and  the  gallant,  gen- 
erous Hart,  might  this  day  have  been  living 
monuments  of  their  country's  genius,  greatness, 
and  goodness,  and  thousands  of  our  dear  discon- 
solate widowed  sisters  would  now  be  pressing 
their  new-born  babes  to  their  breasts,  and  re- 
ceiving the  benign  smiles  of  their  affectionate 
husbands,  instead  of  making  humble  application 
here,  through  their  benevolent  friend,  my  sol- 
dier colleague,  (Colonel  JOHNSON,)  for  some 
poor  pittance  wherewith  to  raise  their  father- 
less children ;  for  we  should  have  had  no  war ; 
no  soldiers  would  have  fallen.  Yes,  sir,  if 
General  Wayne  had  caught  the  British  incen- 
diaries that  were  with  the  Indian  army,  (which 
he  could  have  done  with  the  assistance  of  can- 
non,) and  given  them  to  the  tree,  demolished 
Major  Campbell's  fort,  and  in  the  ruins  buried 
every  British  officer  and  soldier,  he  would  have 
done  a  praiseworthy  deed,  without  an  infraction 
of  the  laws  of  nations ;  t  the  blood-stained  Brit- 
ish lion  would  roar,  but  he  would  not  fight ;  the 
conscious  murderers  of  our  wives  and  dear 
smiling  babes  would  have  shrunk  appalled  when 
they  saw  their  husbands,  sons,  and  brothers, 
determined  on  just  revenge. 

No  war  would  we  have  had ;  our  honest, 
generous,  and  brave  sailors  would  never  have 
been  impressed  and  ignominiously  whipped  to 
try  to  make  them  fight  against  their  country's 
friends;  nor  would  our  merchants  have  been 
despoiled  of  their  pelf;  we  would  have  had  no 
war,  no  apprehensions  of  the  necessity  of  an 
armed  force  to  guard  against  the  efforts  of  Brit- 
ish intrigue,  no  blue  lights  or  Hartford  conven- 
tions ;  the  table  of  your  Committee  of  Claims 
would  never  have  groaned  under  the  weight  of 
petitions  for  relief  of  officers  from  the  pressure 
of  heavy  judgments  given  against  them,  by 
what  is  called  courts  of  justice,  too,  for  the 
faithful  execution  of  a  legal  military  order ;  and, 
what  is  more  to  be  deplored  than  all,  the  shame- 
ful capitulation  of  Alexandria  we  never  should 


*  Colonel  Johnson,  from  Kentucky,  by  all  beloved  for  his 
Hiniane  attention  to  our  soldiers1  claims  and  their  widows' 
applications  for  pensions. 

t  Colonel  Johnson's  construction  of  Vattel,  upon  the  laws 
•f  nations,  is  In  perfect  accordance  with  the  laws  of  nature 
and  of  nature '«  God. 


320 


ABRIDGMENT  OF  THE 


H.  OF  R.] 


The  Seminole  War. 


[FEBRUARY.  1819. 


have  heard  of,  nor  the  conflagration  of  our  Cap- 
itol in  this  city,  which  hears  the  name  of  the 
illustrious  WASHINGTON.  Oh,  Genius  of  Histo- 
ry, if  from  thy  chaste  page  thou  would'st  wipe 
those  foul  blots  from  our  character,  the  laurels 
of  the  late  British  war,  like  those  of  the  Semi- 
uole  war,  would  forever  hloom  upon  thy  records 
without  an  adverse  shade  I 

Mr.  Chairman,  until  I  am  convinced  that 
sound  sense,  some  little  reading,  and  close  atten- 
tion to  the  sound,  learned,  and  eloquent  argu- 
ments I  have  heard,  will  not  qualify  me  to  give 
a  just  opinion  upon  the  subject,  I  shall  be  most 
decidedly  opposed  to  the  resolutions  under  dis- 
cussion, and  make  free  to  say  that  the  Military 
Committee  has  made  a  most  unmilitary  report. 

Sir,  until  I  am  persuaded  that  I  should  be 
reprehensible  in  hot  pursuit  to  follow  the  mur- 
derers of  wife  and  children  to  the  house  of  their 
accessories,  on  whosesoever  ground  it  might 
stand,  and  drag  them  forth  to  instant  punish- 
ment, I  shall  continue  to  thank  and  praise  the 
man  who  has  saved  their  lives  or  revenged  their 
deaths. 

Mr.  Chairman,  I  felicitate  myself,  I  congratu- 
late my  country,  that  our  people  better  under- 
stand their  rights  than  those  of  the  old  Repub- 
lics, and  have  a  more  equal  distribution  of 
property  than  they  had;  that  this  honorable 
House  is  composed  of,  if  not  brighter,  at  least 
stronger  materials  than  the  legislative  councils 
of  Greece  and  Borne  ;  if  it  was  not,  this  day  we 
might  be  led  to  record  a  vote  at  which  the 
crowned  heads  in  Europe  indeed  might  chuckle ; 
more  cause  would  they  have  to  chuckle  than 
when  they  heard  of  Jackson's  Creek  treaty.* 
Much  greater  cause  would  our  friends  in  Eu- 
rope have  of  woe  and  bitter  lamentation,  to 
fold  their  desponding  arms,  and  droop  the 
melancholy  head,  than  when  they  heard  of  our 
extinguishing  the  Indian  title  to  a  little  slip  of 
land. 

To  see  us  sacrifice  our  General,  who  shame- 
fully defeated  old  England's  chosen  glorious 
bauds,  would  make  the  Prince  Regent's  Minis- 
ters rejoice;  to  sacrifice  our  General  would 
quiet  the  manes  of  the  execrable  Ambrister, 
and  no  doubt  please  Arbuthnot's  honorable  cor- 
respondent in  this  city  ;t  to  dismiss  our  Gen- 
eral, who  pursued  the  nurtured  robbers  of  our 
people  and  murderers  of  our  innocent  children 
into  Pensacola,  would  no  doubt  excite  a  grin 
from  His  Catholic  Majesty's  Minister  near  this 
metropolis.  The  sacrifice  that  we  should  make 
to  a  mistaken  idea  of  patriotism  and  humanity, 
would  be  by  him  attributed  to  our  fears  of  for- 
eign force,  for  the  poor  soul  knows  nothing 
about  the  milk  of  human  kindness  that  so  abun- 
dantly Hows  in  every  freeman's  breast.  De- 
prived of  our  General,  (for  he  thinks  we  have 
got  but  one,)  he  will  again  renew  the  Spanish 


*  Mr.  Clay  said,  the  crowned  heads  of  Europe  chuckled 
•when  they  heard  of  Jackson's  Treaty  with  the  Creeks;  and 
our  Mends  folded  their  melancholy  arms,  hunc  the  dejected 
bead,  when  they  found  that  we  ha'd  acquired  Indian  land. 

t  The  British  Minister  in  "Washington. 


claim  to  all  the  lands  from  the  head  to  the 
mouth  of  the  Mississippi;  and  if  we  did  not 
forthwith  surrender  them,  he  would  threaten 
us  with  the  vengeance  dire  of  his  potent  royal 
master.  These,  sir,  will  be  the  valuable  results 
of  our  agreement  with  the  honorable  committee 
on  military  matters ;  this  sacrifice,  the  honora- 
ble committee  shows,  will  be  made  upon  very 
slight  presumption,  that  the  General  had,  in  the 
execution  of  a  military  order,  a  little  exceeded 
a  strictly  literal  construction.  I  think  it  con- 
ceded by  all  the  honorable  speakers  upon  this 
question,  that,  in  their  various  opinions  of  ne- 
cessity consists  alone  their  discordant  opinions 
upon  this  subject.  Then,  let  us  ask,  who  is  the 
better  judge  of  an  important  military  move- 
ment? The  gentleman  at  home,  in  peace  and 
safety,  feasting  on  all  the  luxuries  of  every 
clime,  his  children,  like  blessed  seraphs,  playing 
about  him,  his  wife,  too,  sweet,  soft,  intelligent, 
all-accomplished,  and  beautiful  too,  as  much  as 
his  fond  wishes  could  have,  whose  humane  ear 
was  never  pierced  with  the  distant  sound  of  the 
dreadful  savage  yell;  whose  charitable  heart 
never  had  occasion  to  extend  her  munificent 
hand  to  the  relief  of  woes  inflicted  by  a  barba- 
rian band  of  ruthless  sons  of  the  wood,  or  the 
hardy  weather-beaten  General  in  the  field,  com- 
bating all  the  difficulties  necessarily  accompany- 
ing savage  warfare ;  is  that  all,  sir  ?  No — sub- 
sisting himself  and  all  his  army  on  kind  nature's 
spontaneous  gifts,  an  all-important  object  to  his 
country  before  his  eye,  which  must  be  effected 
by  a  given  day,  or  himself  and  army  starves. 
Who  is  the  best  judge  in  such  a  case — the  brave, 
aged,  experienced  General,  at  the  head  of  the 
army,  or  the  young,  sweet-smelling,  powdered 
beau  of  a  drawing  room  ?  No  doubt  here.  Then 
why  not,  in  the  name  of  propriety,  leave  to 
your  General's  own  discretion  the  exercise  of 
open  orders,  and  not  attempt  to  find  fault  where 
we  cannot,  from  our  situations,  form  a  correct 
judgment  of  the  necessities  that  lead  to  certain 
acts? 

A  word  to  my  dear,  good  old  mother,  Vir- 
ginia, and  then  I  am  done.  With  heartfelt 
pleasure  did  I  see  one  of  her  favored  sons,  (Mr. 
TYLER,)  of  the  younger  brood,  exhibit  upon  this 
occasion  the  true  patriot  soul ;  from  his  firm, 
expressive  countenance,  and  bright,  intelligent 
eye,  I  read  the  triumph  of  his  soul,  I  saw  that 
his  devotion  to  his  country  had  obtained  a  con- 
quest over  his  filial  affections.  I  thought  I  saw 
his  heart  weep  blood  when  his  eye  said,  Behold, 
my  country,  here  is  your  Brutus ;  like  the  elder 
Brutus,  I  would  condemn  my  own  son  for  a 
breach  of  public  law — like  the  younger,  I  would 
stab  my  father  to  save  my  country.  I  envy 
such  feelings ;  they  are  almost  too  exalted  for 
mortal  man  ;  yet  I  am  sure  he  had  them.  But 
I  implore  my  friend  to  recollect,  that  if  there 
had  been  a  hook  on  which  to  hang  a  doubt  of 
the  guilt  of  the  son  of  the  elder  Brutus,  that  his 
act  would  have  been  thought  most  horrid.  That 
if  it  was  not  well  known  that  Gesar  was  indeed 
ambitious,  the  younger  Brutus  would  have  com- 


DEBATES  OF  CONGRESS. 


321 


FEBRUAKY,  1819.] 


The  Seminole  War. 


[H.  OF  R. 


mitted  a  most  detested  crime.  I  hope  his  re- 
flections on  the  subject  will  guard  him  against 
passing  sentence  against  his  brother,  without 
the  most  incontestable  proofs  that  his  country 
is  thereby  to  be  relieved  from  most  imminent 
danger.  Let  not  this  ardent  zeal  for  the  preser- 
vation of  our  constitution  impel  him  to  leap 
over  its  sacred  walls,  and  horribly  trespass  upon 
its  most  valuable  provisions.  Is  not  the  securi- 
ty of  our  reputation  among  the  greatest  objects 
of  the  constitution  ?  If  we  condemn  our  Gen- 
eral's conduct  because,  indeed,  we  cannot  ex- 
actly think  like  him,  will  we  not  severely  tres- 
pass on  his  feelings?  You  all  do  know  what 
Shakspeare  says  about  the  value  of  a  good  name : 
"  Eeputation  dear,  my  lord,  is  the  immediate 
jewel  of  the  soul,"  &c.  Every  member  of  this 
House,  every  lady  in  the  gallery,  and  gentleman 
too,  I  hope,  have  read  and  highly  approve  his 
sentiments. 

If  reputation  be  so  dear  to  every  one  among 
us,  how  high  indeed  must  it  be  rated  by  him, 
whose  bread,  whose  meat,  whose  life  itself, 
hangs  upon  his  fair  won  fame.  I  am  happy, 
sir,  to  tell  my  friend,  the  honorable  member 
from  Philadelphia,  that  I  shall  never  fear  that 
the  keen  prying  sense  of  squint-eyed  suspicion 
will  ever  find  a  spider's  egg  among  the  leaves, 
much  less  a  serpent,  entwined  about  the  branch- 
es of  the  full-grown  wreath  of  laurels  that 
adorns  my  General's  brow.  No,  sir ;  Jackson's 
laurels  can  never  scatter  the  seed  that  may 
hatch  some  future  Tarqurn,  to  wound  the  tender 
breast  of  some  chaste  Lucretia. 

Seminole  War. 

The  House  then  again  resolved  itself  into  a 
Committee  of  the  Whole,  (Mr.  SMITH,  of  Mary- 
land, in  the  chair,)  on  the  subject  of  the  Semi- 
nole war. 

Mr.  BALDWIN,  of  Penn.,  observed,  that,  in 
entering  into  the  investigation  of  this  subject, 
he  should  not  inquire  whether  motives  of  feel- 
ing and  compassion  should  induce  us  to  palliate 
and  excuse  the  conduct  of  General  Jackson  and 
the  President,  and  whether  it  were  right  or 
wrong.  If  innocent  blood  had  been  shed,  or  the 
laws  and  constitution  of  the  country  grossly  vio- 
lated, neither  the  exalted  character  nor  eminent 
services  of  the  persons  implicated  ought  to  ex- 
empt them  from  the  censure  of  this  House. 
But,  on  a  careful  examination  of  all  the  evi- 
dence and  documents  submitted  to  us,  he  was 
fully  of  the  opinion  expressed  by  his  friend  from 
Kentucky,  the  chairman  of  the  Military  Com- 
mittee, (Mr.  JOHNSOX,)  that  General  Jackson, 
in  the  wilds  of  Florida,  better  understood  the 
laws  of  nations,  and  the  constitution  of  his 
country,  than  gentlemen  in  this  House,  who 
had  been  so  long  discussing  the  propriety  of  his 
conduct. 

To  come  to  a  correct  conclusion  on  the  trial 

and  execution  of  Arbuthnot  and  Auibrister,  it 

would  be  well  to  inquire  who  they  were,  and 

then*  business  and  employment  in  Florida.    Ar- 

VOL.  VL— 21 


buthnot  was  the  agent  of  Nicholls  and  Wood- 
bine, to  excite  dissensions  among  the  Indians, 
to  make  them  dissatisfied  with  the  treaty  of 
Fort  Jackson,  induce  them  by  force  to  reclaim 
the  lands  ceded  to  us  by  that  treaty,  and  the 
British  and  Spanish  Governments  to  become 
parties.  By  a  special  power  of  attorney  he  be- 
came the  general  agent  of  all  the  Indians  hostile 
to  us,  and  was  the  instigator  of  all  their  inroads 
upon  our  Southern  border.  He  pretended  to  be 
there  for  trade,  but  this  was  a  mere  pretence. 
Examine  his  letter  to  Governor  Cameron,  "  I 
beg  leave  to  represent  to  your  excellency  the 
necessity  of  my  again  returning  to  the  Indian 
nation,  with  the  deputies  from  the  chiefs,  and 
as  my  trouble  and  expense  can  only  be  defray- 
ed by  permission  to  take  goods  to  dispose 
among  them,  I  pray  your  excellency  will  be 
pleased  to  grant  such  a  letter  or  license  as  pre- 
vents me  being  captured  in  case  of  meeting  any 
Spanish  cruiser  on  the  coast  of  Florida."  He 
was  not  the  advocate  for  peaceful  measures; 
his  letter  to  General  Mitchell  justifies  the  mur- 
ders of  the  frontier  inhabitants.  Speaking  of 
the  Indians,  he  says,  "  If,  in  the  height  of  their 
rage,  they  committed  any  excesses,  you  will 
overlook  them,  as  the  just  ebullitions  of  an  in- 
dignant spirit  against  an  invading  foe."  To 
further  ascertain  his  true  character,  and  that  of 
his  agency  and  trade,  I  beg  the  committee  to 
examine  his  letter  to  Mr.  Bagot  The  bill  of 
goods  that  this  humane  trader  and  innocent 
and  injured  man  ordered  to  be  sent  to  him,  was 
"  2,000  knives,  blades  from  six  to  nine  inches  in 
length,  of  a  good  quality — 1,000  tomahawks.' 
This  was  Arbuthnot;  and  these  facts  appear 
from  letters  hi  his  own  handwriting. 

Ambrister  was  a  pretended  patriot ;  the  agent 
of  McGregor  and  Woodbine.  He  came  to  Flori- 
da to  command  the  runaway  negroes  of  Geor- 
gia, slaves  who  had  absconded  from  their  mas- 
ters, and  were  organized  by  him  to  return  to 
our  country,  and  visit  it  with  all  the  horrors  of 
a  savage  negro  war.  He  came  to  Florida  on 
their  business,  and  to  see  them  righted.  Ac- 
cording to  the  testimony  of  John  J.  Arbuthnot, 
"  about  the  3d  of  March  the  prisoner  Ambrister 
came  with  a  body  of  negroes,  partly  armed,  to 
his  father's  store  on  Suwanee  Kiver,  and  told 
the  witness  that  he  had  come  to  do  justice  to 
the  country,  by  taking  the  goods,  and  distribut- 
ing them  among  the  negroes  and  Indians,  which 
the  witness  saw  the  prisoner  do ;  and  that  the 
prisoner  said  to  him,  that  he  had  come  to  the 
country  on  Woodbine's  business,  to  see  the  ne- 
groes righted.  The  witness  has  further  known 
the  prisoner  to  give  orders  to  the  negroes;  and 
that,  at  his  suggestion,  a  party  was  sent  from 
Suwanee  to  meet  the  Americans,  to  give  them 
•battle."  Peter  B.  Cook  testified,  that,  "  some 
tune  in  March,  the  prisoner  Ambrister  took 
Arbuthnot's  schooner,  and  with  an  armed  party 
of  negroes,  twenty-four  in  number,  set  out  to 
take  Arbuthnot's  goods,  &c.  The  prisoner  was 
sent  by  Woodbine  to  Tampa,  to  see  about  those 
negroes  he  had  left  there."  Ambrister,  in  a 


322 


ABRIDGMENT  OF  THE 


H.  OF  R.] 


The  Seminole  War. 


[FEBRUARY,  1819. 


letter  to  Nicholls,  says,  "  There  is  about  three 
hundred  blacks  at  this  place,  a  few  of  our  Bluff 
people,  (alluding  to  the  negro  fort  on  Prospect 
Bluff;)  they  beg  me  to  say  they  depend  on  your 
promises,  and  expect  you  all  on  the  way  out. 
They  have  stuck  to  the  cause,  and  will  always 
depend  on  the  faith  of  you,"  &c.  The  prisoner, 
Ambrister,  according  to  the  testimony  of  Jacob 
Hannon,  "took  possession  of  the  schooner 
Chance,  with  an  armed  party  of  negroes,  and 
stated  his  intention  of  taking  St.  Marks.  While 
the  prisoner  was  on  board,  he  had  complete 
command  of  the  negroes,  who  considered  him 
as  their  captain." 

He  boasts  that  three  hundred  negroes  have 
stuck  to  the  cause — the  cause  of  Indians  attack- 
ing the  defenceless  inhabitants  of  our  frontiers ; 
negroes  fighting  against  their  masters ;  and  all 
joining  in  horrid  butchery  and  murder ;  Am- 
brister leading  them  in  the  field,  Arbuthnot 
their  agent,  adviser,  commissary,  quarter-mas- 
ter, store-keeper — secure  in  a  Spanish  post,  con- 
certing all  their  plans,  and  directing  all  their 
operations. 

Gentlemen  may  differ  as  to  the  manner  in 
which  we  consider  Indians,  whether  as  a  nation, 
or  as  occupants  of  the  soil,  with  a  qualified 
right  of  ownership ;  but,  as  to  negroes,  there 
can  be  but  one  opinion.  In  Georgia  they  are 
slaves,  property  not  merely  personal  but  politi- 
cal, property  of  the  highest  description,  which 
we  are  bound  by  the  constitution  to  protect, 
and  to  restore  to  their  owners.  These  negroes 
could  acquire  no  new  right  by  absconding  into 
Florida,  and,  however  numerous  their  assem- 
blage may  be,  we  cannot  acknowledge  them  as 
thus  acquiring  any  national  character.  As  be- 
tween them  and  us  they  were  still  slaves ;  and 
their  owners,  the  Georgia  militia,  who  were 
with  General  Jackson,  had  a  right  to  consider 
and  treat  them  not  as  a  nation  entitled  to  the 
protection  of  the  rules  of  civilized  warfare. 
They  were,  in  fact,  suppressing  an  insurrection 
of  slaves,  aided  by  an  Indian  force,  all  assem- 
bled and  armed  for  purposes  hostile  to  the 
country.  One  white  man  is  found  at  their 
head,  fighting  and  leading  them  on ;  another 
exciting,  and  supplying  them  with  the  means 
of  destruction.  These  men  cannot  complain  if 
they  are  put  on  a  footing  with  those  with 
whom  they  thus  associate.  They  cannot  ex- 
pect to  raise  this  compound  mass  to  their  own 
level,  but  must  be  satisfied  to  sink  to  theirs. 
Arbuthnot's  own  opinion  of  himself  is  entitled 
to  some  weight.  In  his  letter  of  3d  March, 
1817,  he  says:  "The  Lower  Creeks  seem  to 
wish  to  live  peaceably,  and  quietly,  and  in  good 
friendship  with  the  others,  but  there  are  some 
designing  and  ill-minded  persons,  self-interested, 
who  are  endeavoring  to  create  quarrels  between 
the  Upper  and  Lower  Creek  Indians,  contrary 
to  their  interests,  their  happiness,  and  welfare. 
Such  people  belong  to  no  nation,  and  ought  not 
to  be  countenanced  by  any  government."  He 
did  excite  this  war,  and  thus,  by  his  own  ac- 
count, belongs  to  no  nation.  What  then  is  he, 


but  an  outlaw  and  a  pirate,  placed  beyond  the 
protection  of  civilized  society?  Thus  we  find 
General  Jackson  and  Arbuthnot  agree  as  to 
him,  and,  as  to  Ambrister,  I  will  willingly  leave 
it  to  be  decided  whether  he  was  less  an  outlaw 
than  the  runaway  brigands  whom  he  com- 
manded. 

The  greater  part  of  the  hostile  Indians  were 
the  Creeks,  who  had  been  outlawed  by  their 
people.  To  call  a  gregarious  collection  of  this 
kind,  composed  of  outlawed  Indians  and  run- 
away negroes  a  nation,  and  give  them  national 
attributes,  is  idle.  Neither  mass  was  so  by 
themselves,  and  their  union  for  a  common  ob- 
ject could  not  change  the  character  of  the  con- 
stituent parts.  A  better  or  more  appropriate 
name  could  not  be  given  to  them  as  a  mass,  or 
as  individuals,  than  outlaws  and  pirates.  They 
were  so  in  fact,  and,  whatever  rights  we  had 
against  any,  we  had  against  all,  whether  black, 
white,  or  red. 

Arbuthnot  was  near  the  scene  of  operations, 
aiding  and  abetting,  an  accessory  before  the 
fact.  An  attempt  is  made  to  distinguish  his 
case  from  Ambrister's,  because  he  was  a  non- 
combatant.  But  to  me  it  seems,  that  the  man 
who,  as  the  agent,  commissary,  and  quarter- 
master, directed  and  planned  the  operations 
of  this  assemblage,  and  directly  supplied  them 
with  the  means,  is  as  much  a  combatant  as  one 
who  actually  bore  arms  in  the  field.  Thus  were 
these  men  completely  identified  with  the  Indians 
and  negroes,  and,  being  found  in  this  situation 
by  General  Jackson,  he  practised  towards  them 
not  the  right  of  retaliation,  which  is  punishing 
the  innocent  for  the  guilty,  but  applied  to  them 
what  is  admitted  and  conceded  to  be  the  estab- 
lished law  of  nations ;  to  treat  those  with  whom 
we  are  at  war  as  they  treat  us.  Indians  put 
their  prisoners  to  death,  and  in  this  war  they 
did  not  spare  women  and  children ;  the  brains 
of  the  latter  were  dashed  out  on  the  sides  of 
the  boat,  after  the  massacre  of  Lieutenant  Scott 
and  party,  and  I  think  it  can  hardly  be  con- 
tended that  we  were  bound  to  extend  to  these 
savages,  to  runaway  slaves,  or  white  incendia- 
ries, the  humane  rules  of  modern  civilized  war- 
fare. Their  execution  was  only  the  exercise  of 
an  acknowledged  right  in  us. 

In  distinguishing  between  the  moral  depravity 
of  the  ignorant  Indian,  who,  in  roasting  his 
prisoner  and  murdering  the  mother  and  the  in- 
fant, follows  the  customs  of  his  fathers,  and  as 
he  thinks,  the  dictates  of  his  religion ;  and  the 
white  man,  who,  forgetting  the  mild  customs 
of  his  nation,  and  deaf  to  the  benignant  dictates 
of  the  Christian  religion,  instigates,  aids,  and 
abets  the  Indian  and  negro  to  the  horrid  butch- 
ery of  innocence,  I  think  all  must  agree  that 
the  one  who  sins  against  light  and  knowledge  is 
infinitely  more  criminal.  The  guilt  is  in  the 
heart  that  plots  and  not  the  hand  that  executes, 
as  Avas  most  forcibly  expressed  by  a  gentleman 
from  Virginia.  Not  in  the  musket,  but  in  him 

who  directs  it.  If ,  who  was  present  and 

assisted  at  the  burning  of  the  unfortunate  Colo- 


DEBATES  OF  CONGRESS. 


323 


FEBRUARY,  1819.] 


The  Seminole  War. 


[H.  OF  R. 


nel  Crawford,  had  been  taken  by  our  troops, 
and  executed ;  if,  on  that  day,  so  proud  and 
yet  so  fatal  for  Kentucky,  when,  after  the  battle 
of  the  river  Raisin,  there  was  a  barbarous  mas- 
sacre of  her  captive  soldiers,  it  had  been  true, 
as  was  alleged,  that  a  British  officer,  high 
in  command,  abetted  and  connived  at  the  mur- 
ders, and  he  had  been  taken  and  executed, 
would  his  fate  have  been  more  lamented  than 
that  of  the  poor  savage,  whom  they  encouraged  ? 
In  executing  Arbuthnot  and  Ambrister,  it  is 
not  charged  against  General  Jackson  that  he 
had  shed  innocent  blood.  The  facts  were  admit- 
ted ;  their  guilt  was  established ;  one  threw 
himself  on  the  mercy  of  the  court,  the  other 
rested  his  defence  on  the  rules  of  evidence. 
The  charge  is,  that  the  guilty  have  not  been 
punished  according  to  the  forms  of  law,  and 
that  the  constitution  and  laws  of  the  country 
have  been  violated  in  their  trial  and  execution. 
I  think  that  neither  have  any  bearing  on  the 
case  of  these  men.  They  were  found  and  ex- 
ecuted out  of  the  territorial  limits  of  the  United 
States,  where  our  laws  or  constitution  have  no 
operation,  except  as  between  us  and  our  citi- 
zens, and  where  none  other  could  claim  their 
benefit  and  protection.  If  the  rights  of  an 
American  citizen  had  been  violated  by  an 
American  officer,  he  must  answer  to  our  laws 
for  an  abuse  of  an  authority  which  he  derived 
under  them.  These  men  were  not  our  citizens, 
not  bound  by  our  laws ;  they  owed  us  no  alle- 
giance, and  were  entitled  to  no  protection. 
The  General  claimed  no  power  to  punish  them 
under  our  laws.  He  knew  that  legislation  was 
necessarily  confined  to  the  boundary  of  the 
Sovereign ;  that  on  the  ocean,  where  each  na- 
tion has  concurrent  jurisdiction,  or  in  the  terri- 
tory of  any  other  where  it  is  exclusive,  our 
laws  could  not  give  us  any  power  over  the 
citizens  of  other  Governments,  or  within  their 
boundaries.  All  that  we  could  claim  or  exer- 
cise, in  either  case,  is  by  the  laws  and  usages 
of  nations.  Our  legislation  cannot  extend  or 
annul  this  code.  We  may,  indeed,  prescribe 
the  mode  in  which  our  officers  shall  execute 
the  powers  which  the  laws  of  nations  give  us 
over  the  persons,  territory,  or  property  of 
others,  but  cannot  extend  our  jurisdiction  over 
either,  or  give  it  in  cases  where  those  laws  are 
silent.  In  advocating  the  resolution  which  re- 
quires some  legislative  rule  on  this  subject, 
gentlemen  seem  to  forget  these  principles — we 
have  no  power — we  should  encroach  on  the 
rights  of  other  nations.  As  we  cannot,  there- 
fore, give  ourselves  any  new  powers  by  any  act 
of  legislation,  I  trust  gentlemen  will  see  the  bad 
policy  and  the  injustice  we  should  do  ourselves 
by  adopting  any  rule  not  to  be  found  in  na- 
tional law.  If  we  take  from  our  officers  the 
powers  which  that  law  gives  them,  we  go  to 
war  on  unequal  terms,  with  our  hands  tied,  so 
that  we  shall  not  be  at  liberty  to  treat  our 
enemy  as  they  treat  us.  Our  officers  could 
neither  retaliate  nor  punish  for  the  most  atro- 
cious outrages  on  humanity.  Innocent  blood 


would  forever  flow.  Indian  wars  would  never 
cease.  Foreign  emissaries  would  always  hang 
on  our  borders,  and  escape  with  impunity. 
The  law  of  nations  and  of  war  gives  the  Gene- 
ral power  over  his  prisoners.  The  old  prac- 
tice was  to  put  them  to  death ;  and  that  still 
exists,  when  the  consent  of  the  belligerents  has 
not  adopted  a  different  rule.  Civilized  nations 
govern  themselves  by  the  laws  of  humanity ; 
but  our  savages  have  not  yet  learned  them. 
War,  with  them,  has  lost  none  of  its  horrors  or 
cruelties.  It  surely  cannot  be  pretended  that 
we  are  bound  by  a  rule  which  they  do  not  re- 
spect; that  we  cannot,  by  retaliation  or  by 
just  punishment,  revenge  for  past  or  prevent 
future  murders ;  or  that  where  we  take  white 
men  who  have  served  in  civilized  armies  and 
know  their  usages,  and  yet  aid  and  instigate  the 
most  dreadful  savage  war,  we  may  not  treat 
them  as  we  might  the  savages  or  negroes  whom 
they  command  and  lead  on.  By  the  laws  and 
uniform  practice  of  civilized  nations,  this  pow- 
er is  in  the  commanding  General.  In  the  case 
of  Captain  Asgill,  the  old  Congress  resolved 
that  it  was  in  every  commander  of  a  detach- 
ment. This  -was  a  strong  case.  He  was  about 
to  be  executed  for  the  crimes  of  another.  We 
have  never,  by  any  law,  prohibited  to  a  com- 
manding officer  the  exercise  of  this  power,  and 
it  therefore  remains  with  him. 


MOSTDAY,  FEBBTJAEY  8. 
Bank  of  the  United  States. 
The  SPEAKEB  laid  before  the  House  a  memo- 
rial of  William  Jones,  late  President  of  the 
Bank  of  the  United  States,  containing  an  expo- 
sition of  the  views  and  motives  which  have 
regulated  his  official  conduct,  and  submitting 
his  case  to  the  wisdom  and  justice  of  Congress, 
in  the  full  confidence  that  his  reputation  will 
not  be  subjected  to  obloquy,  by  inferences  alike 
repugnant  to  his  principles  and  to  the  whole 
tenor  of  his  private  and  public  life ;  which  was 
read  and  ordered  to  lie  on  the  table. 

Seminole  War. 

The  House  again  resolved  itself  into  a  Com- 
mittee of  the  Whole,  Mr.  BASSETT  in  the  chair, 
on  this  subject. 

Mr.  FLOYD,  of  Virginia,  rose  and  said,  that 
he  saw  the  impatience  of  the  House,  and  knew 
they  were  anxious  to  dispose  of  the  resolutions 
which  had  been  so  many  days  the  subject  of 
discussion ;  consequently,  he  would  not  detain 
them — though,  having  failed  in  several  attempts 
to  get  the  floor  at  an  earlier  period  of  the  de- 
bate, he  had  entirely  declined  making  any  re- 
marks whatever — that  he  then  rose  more  with 
a  view  of  expressing  an  opinion,  and  of  pre- 
senting a  few  facts,  which  had  escaped  the  ob- 
servation of  other  gentlemen,  than  any  desire 
or  intention  of  entering  upon  the  subject  at 


have,  said  he,  considered  the  resolutions, 
with  all  the  attention  I  was  capable  of  giving 


324 


ABRIDGMENT  OF  THE 


H.  OF  R.] 


The  Seminde  War. 


[FEBBUAKY, 1819. 


them ;  and,  if  I  had  believed  the  measures  pur- 
sued unconstitutional  in  themselves  or  barba- 
rous, or  unjust  in  their  execution,  I  should  have 
revisited  them  upon  the  perpetrators  -with  a 
heavy  vengeance ;  but,  so  far  from  this,  my  in- 
quiry has  led  me  to  believe  they  are,  and  can 
be,  maintained,  upon  every  principle  of  justice, 
and  the  long-established  usages  of  this  Govern- 
ment. And,  sir,  said  Mr.  F.,  it  is  with  not  a 
little  surprise  I  hear  the  advocates  of  these  reso- 
lutions disagreeing  among  themselves — scarce 
any  two  holding  the  same  opinion. 

The  honorable  Committee  on  Military  Affairs 
have  had  all  the  documents  relative  to  the 
Seminole  war  before  them  for  weeks,  and  at 
last  seized  upon  the  objectionable  point,  and 
reported  a  resolution  disapproving  the  trial  and 
execution  of  Alexander  Arbuthnot  and  Kobert 
C.  Ambrister.  There  was  an  end  to  answer, 
and  this  not  being  broad  enough,  other  resolu- 
tions are  offered,  as  amendments,  to  enlarge  the 
chance  of  obtaining  some  success.  One  gentle- 
man takes  strong  ground,  and  insists  that  the 
war  was  produced  by  us ;  that  it  was  an  aggres- 
sion on  our  part,  and  all  the  proceedings  result- 
ing from  it  were  unjust  and  unconstitutional. 
One  other  gentleman  does  not  quite  believe  the 
war  was  waged  by  us,  but  believes  the  whole 
of  the  resolutions  ought  to  obtain — that  Gen- 
eral Jackson  is  censurable  throughout.  One 
other  admits  the  justice  of  the  sentence  of  Ar- 
buthnot and  Ambrister,  but  vehemently  con- 
demns the  capture  of  St.  Marks  and  Pensacola. 
Again — it  is  admitted  that  the  execution  of 
these  men  was  just  and  proper,  and  so  with 
the  capture  of  St.  Marks ;  yet  there  is  no  justi- 
fication in  the  affair  of  Pensacola.  One  other 
honorable  gentleman  finds  nothing  to  ex- 
cuse but  the  execution  of  Ambrister.  Last  of 
all,  the  gentleman  from  Massachusetts,  (Mr. 
FTJLLEE,)  calls  the  war  an  aggression  on  our 
part ;  that  it  was  unconstitutional ;  that  its 
prosecution  was  unjust;  the  capture  of  St. 
Marks,  Pensacola,  and  the  Barancas,  an  infrac- 
tion of  the  constitution — a  war  with  Spain ; 
the  execution  of  these  incendiaries  a  violation 
of  the  law  of  nations ;  and  has  even  gone  so  far 
as  to  justify  the  erection  of  the  negro  fort, 
for  the  reason  that  Spain  was  too  weak  to  pre- 
vent it. 

Now,  sir,  if  the  honorable  committee,  in  their 
calm  retirement,  a  thousand  miles  from  the 
scene  of  action,  and  months  after  it  happened, 
could  have  discovered,  from  the  documents,  any 
"  absolute  necessity  "  for  the  execution  of  these 
wretched  men,  we  have  a  right  to  infer  that 
such  a  report  would  not  have  been  framed  by 
them ;  but  the  General,  who  was  there  encom- 
passed by  enemies,  death,  and  devastation, 
judged  wrong,  and  deserves  the  heavy  censures 
of  his  country.  There  has  been  so  much  said 
upon  this  subject,  such  TOrious  and  conflicting 
opinion  among  the  advocates  of  the  propositions, 
all  diverging  from  the  long-established  maxims 
and  usages  of  this  Government,  that  I  am  un- 
willing to  pursue  them,  without  first  inquiring 


what  has  been  the  course  pursued  by  preceding 
Administrations,  under  similar  circumstances. 

In  reverting  to  the  transactions  of  this  Gov- 
ernment, it  will  be  found,  that,  so  long  ago  as 
the  year  1789,  difficulties  and  war  with  the  In- 
dian tribes  took  place  ;  and  the  then  President, 
WASHINGTON,  felt  himself  authorized  in  taking 
measures  to  defend  the  people  of  the  South 
and  "West  from  their  hostile  incursions,  and  ad- 
vised Congress,  at  their  next  session,  of  the 
steps  he  had  taken.  That  Congress  thought  the 
measures  highly  commendable  and  proper. 

In  the  year  1790,  we  find  the  same  Washing- 
ton complaining  grievously  of  hostile  irruptions 
of  certain  banditti  of  Indians  northwest  of  the 
Ohio,  aided  by  some  on  the  Wabash ;  that  the 
country  was  no  longer  in  safety  on  that  whole 
frontier.  He  ordered  one  of  the  generals  to 
march  an  army  against  them,  which  army  was 
composed  of  the  troops  of  the  United  States, 
combined  with  such  draughts  of  the  militia  as 
were  deemed  sufficient.  When  this  communi- 
cation was  made,  no  murmur  was  heard. 

In  1791  difficulties  and  war  with  the  Indians 
beyond  the  Ohio  again  commenced ;  troops 
were  ordered  to  march  against  them,  and  Con- 
gress was  informed  that  some  of  the  expedi- 
tions had  been  crowned  with  success  ;  that  in 
other  instances  the  troops  were  then  in  the 
field,  the  issue  at  that  time  not  known.  Con- 
gress again  approved.  Another  proof  of  this 
sanctioned  method  of  conducting  this  species  of 
war,  is  given  us  in  the  transactions  of  the  year 
1792,  when  the  Indians  beyond  the  Ohio  were 
in  arms;  the  Chickamagas  to  the  south  had 
come  to  an  open  rupture.  Troops  were  assem- 
bled, and  put  in  training  for  a  vigorous  cam- 
paign ;  this,  too,  with  a  perfect  knowledge  of 
Congress,  who  complained  not  of  any  violation 
of  right,  or  usurpation  of  power. 

Were  I  to  mention  that  the  President  of  the 
United  States,  in  the  year  1793,  used  every  pos- 
sible means  in  his  power  to  avoid  war  with  the 
[ndians,  but,  finding  them  fruitless  and  unavail- 
ing, ordered  an  army  to  march  and  act  offen- 
sively, I  should  say  no  more  than  is  known  to 
every  gentleman  in  this  House ;  and  I  presume 
[  should  likewise  say  no  more  than  is  known 
;o  them,  were  I  to  say  when  the  communica- 
ion  was  made  to  Congress  they  approved  the 
>rocedure.  Whence,  sir,  I  may  be  authorized 
n  asserting,  that  no  other  opinions  have  ever 
>een  entertained  of  the  correctness  of  the  mode 
>f  conducting  Indian  hostilities,  from  the  origin 
of  the  constitution  to  the  present  time,  than 
those  which  directed  in  the  late  contest ;  which 
ught  at  least  to  be  some  apology  with  those 
rho  think  the  constitution  has  been  disregard- 
ed in  the  commencement  of  hostilities.  And 
how  a  different  opinion  came  now  to  be  enter- 
ained,  though  we  have  passed  through  some 
ears  of  sorrowful  experience,  is  more  than 
can  conjecture. 

That  a  doubt  on  this  subject  existed  for  a 
hort  time,  with  one  member  of  the  Govern- 
ment, is  admitted ;  but  that  doubt  was  dissi- 


DEBATES  OF  CONGRESS. 


325 


FEBRUARY,  1819.] 


The  Seminole  War. 


[H.  OP  R. 


pated  when  the  true  sitnation  of  the  Indians 
came  to  be  considered.  The  United  States, 
feeling  liberty,  and  actuated  by  principles  of 
benevolence  alone,  extended  to  these  people 
every  privilege,  and  all  the  rights  of  an  inde- 
pendent nation,  which  could  be  done  consistent 
with  their  own  safety,  and  the  condition  in 
which  themselves  were  left  by  the  long  course 
of  European  policy  under  which  they  had  suf- 
fered. And  1  presume  it  is  not  doubted  that, 
in  the  war  of  the  Revolution,  when  these  United 
States  took  np  arms  against  Great  Britain,  and 
conquered  the  country  from  her,  comprised 
within  the  limits  assigned  to  us  by  the  Treaty 
of  Peace  in  1783,  they  likewise  conquered  those 
Indians  who  were  the  allies  of  England,  bloody 
and  revengeful  then,  as  upon  a  more  recent  oc- 
casion ;  full  as  much  so  as  the  most  sanguinary 
Briton  could  desire.  I  am  much  surprised  to 
hear  gentlemen  now  talk  of  concessions — their 


now  told,  as  a  proof  of  their  independence,  that 
we  make  treaties  with  them.  This  is  the  first 
time  I  have  heard  the  doctrine,  though,  without 
doubt,  many  weighty  reasons  have  led  to  that 
conclusion.  The  United  States  have  always 
observed  that  ceremony,  and  permitted  treaties 
to  be  made  with  different  tribes,  as  one  of  the 
best  means  of  conciliating  their  favor,  and 
maintaining  our  peaceful  relations  undisturbed ; 
as  they  have  never  been  permitted  to  treat  with 
any  but  the  United  States,  or  some  Indian 
tribe.  But,  say  gentlemen,  they  declare  war, 
and  are  not  guilty  of  treason  in  doing  so.  Was 
it  not  rather  because  they  were  totally  inca- 
pable of  appreciating  the  restraints  of  civilized 
men,  that  they  were,  in  this  respect,  permitted 
to  fangle  their  own  destinies  ?  Have  not  the 
United  States  ever  claimed  jurisdiction  over 
their  country,  as  contained  within  the  limits  of 
the  Union  ?  And  when  a  proposition  was  made 
at  Ghent  to  place  it  on  a  different  footing,  some 
gentlemen  then  felt  great  indignation  at  the 
idea.  None  will  doubt,  I  imagine,  the  laws  of 
the  United  States  having  always  been  in  force 
throughout  their  country  ;  the'laws  of  the  In- 
dians only  extending  to  Indians  within  their 
assigned  territory.  If  we  go  back,  with  the 
gentleman  from  New  York,  to  the  discovery  of 
this  continent  by  Europeans,  when  it  waftSfcr- 
tered  away  by  the  monarchs  of  that  country, 
down  to  the  present  time,  we  find  they  neither 
are,  nor  ever  have  been,  independent. 

But,  sir,  granting  the  question  in  as  full  and 
as  broad  an  extent  as  gentlemen  might  desire, 
can  it  be  presumed  the  forces  of  the  Republic 
are  to  remain  idle  spectators — see  hostile  incur- 
sions take  place — men,  women,  and  children, 
put  to  death,  without  marching  to  defend  them, 
until  Congress  shall  authorize  them  to  protect 
the  helpless,  and  secure  themselves  ?  Suppose 
that  power,  with  which  we  are  doomed,  at  no 
very  iH-tant  day,  again  to  contend  with,  in  the 
bloody  field  of  death,  should  unexpectedly  as  it 


will  be  when  it  does  come,  declare  war  against 
us :  is  the  President  to  permit  the  ships  of  war 
and  the  forces  to  lie  idle,  until  Congress  can  be 
convened  from  all  parts  of  this  Union  to  declare 
war  in  turn  ?  Yet  this  is  the  effect  of  that  doc- 
trine. This  constitution  is  not  of  such  leaden 
materials;  it  never  was  intended;  it  cannot 
abridge  the  first  great  clause  of  the  constitution 
of  man  himself,  written  upon  his  heart  by  the 
hand  of  Omnipotence — "preserve  yourself." 
The  wisdom  of  this  instrument  is  acknowl- 
edged ;  the  feelings  of  the  hoary  sages  of  the 
Revolution,  blanched  in  the  field,  amid  embat- 
tled legions,  is  appreciated ;  and  the  doctrines 
of  liberty,  moulded  into  form,  in  this  instru- 
ment, will  be  preserved ;  and  to  pursue,  at  this 
day,  a  course  which  themselves  pursued,  ought 
to  screen  us  from  the  charge  of  dangerous  inno- 
vation, or  usurpation  of  power.  I  would  ask, 
who  there  is  among  us  that  does  not  recollect 
the  disasters  of  General  St.  Clair,  and  the  anx- 
iety of  every  individual  for  the  success  of  Gen- 
eral Wayne  ?  And  who  is  there  that  does  not 
recollect  the  joyous  enthusiasm  at  the  news  of 
his  victory,  which  ran,  like  an  electric  stream, 
from  one  end  of  this  continent  to  the  other  ? 
This,  I  believe,  was  about  the  year  1V94 ;  and, 
too,  at  the  instance  of  the  Executive.  I  be- 
lieve, likewise,  that  it  was  about  this  time  that 
troubles  harassed  us  at  the  South — an  Indian 
war  having  been  excited  by  De  Carondelet,  who 
was  at  that  time  Governor  of  Louisiana.  At 
all  events,  there  was  strong  grounds  to  suspect 
him  for  those  hostilities.  And  for  their  ex- 
penses in  the  prosecution  of  this  war,  I  believe  it 
is,  that  the  State  of  Georgia  yet  claims  a  debt 
due  her  from  the  United  States  of  perhaps 
$129,000.  And,  could  I  recollect  the  argu- 
ments of  the  honorable  gentleman  from  Geor- 
gia, (Mr.  COBB,)  at  the  last  session  of  Congress, 
when  he  advocated  the  Georgia  claim  with  so 
much  ability  and  zeal,  I  would  use  them  on  the 
present  occasion,  with  perfect  confidence  of 
success,  at  all  events  of  gaining  at  least  one 
proselyte.  All  was  constitutional  then — Exec- 
utive power  was  all. 

But,  Mr.  Chairman,  I  demand  if  Congress 
have  not,  or,  rather,  I  ought  to  say,  have  not 
we,  ourselves,  sanctioned  this  war,  to  as  great 
and  full  an  extent  as  ever  Congress  sanctioned 
an  Indian  war  ?  And  why  is  that  an  evil 
now,  which,  at  the  last  session,  was  encouraged, 
and  might  have  been  prevented  ?  Was  not  the 
President  harassed  the  whole  of  last  session, 
with  continual  calls  from  this  House?  Did 
they  not  call  on  him  to  know  what  General 
Jackson  was  about?  What  measures  he  had 
taken  to  put  an  end  to  the  Seminole  war  ?  Did 
they  not  require  the  orders  which  had  been 
given  to  General  Jackson  to  be  communicated 
to  them  ?  And  were  they  not  communicated  ? 
Surely  all  this  must  have  apprised  them  of  the 
nature  of  the  military  operations  on  the  Florida 
frontier  ?  Nay,  more,  did  they  not  require  in- 
formation relative  to  the  manner  in  which  that 
army  was  supplied  ?  And  the  feelings  created 


ABRIDGMENT  OF  THE 


H.  OF  R] 


The  Seminole  War. 


[FEBRUARY,  1819. 


by  the  disclosure  of  the  contractor's  conduct 
on  that  occasion  will  not,  in  a  long  time,  be  for- 
gotten. To  say  nothing  of  the  pay  of  the 
Georgia  militia  in  that  army  having  been  in- 
creased from  five  to  eight  dollars,  at  the  instance 
and  management  of  the  gentleman  from  Geor- 
gia, (Mr.  COBB.)  At  all  events,  I  recollect  his 
pressing  through  this  House  a  resolution  to  that 
effect  in  April  last. 

Now,  sir,  after  these  numerous  acts  of  ap- 
proval ;  after  granting  money,  providing  men, 
increasing  their  pay ;  inspecting  the  orders  of 
the  President  to  your  generals — with  time  to 
act,  and  a  knowledge  of  all,  a  measure  of  this 
kind,  and  a  report  of  that  nature,  was  not  to  be 
expected  from  this  House  as  the  reward  of 
fidelity  and  zeal. 

If  there  is  censure  anywhere,  it  is  due  to 
Congress  for  not  having  performed  their  duty  ; 
as  the  gentleman  from  Pennsylvania  (Mr.  HOP- 
KINSON)  admits,  that,  if  there  had  been  in  ex- 
istence such  a  law  as  the  one  contemplated  by 
these  resolutions,  he  unquestionably  believes 
General  Jackson  had  never  executed  Arbuthnot 
and  Ambrister,  or  captured  the  Spanish  for- 
tresses ;  and  yet  that  gentleman  would  censure 
this  General  for  doing  an  act  which  he  would 
not  have  done  had  such  a  law  been  in  existence, 
and  that  such  a  law  has  never  been  enacted, 
cannot  be  any  part  of  General  Jackson's  con- 
cern. Let  Congress  themselves  account  for 
this  deficiency,  which  has,  in  the  opinion  of  gen- 
tlemen, caused  such  violence  to  the  constitution. 

Mr.  Chairman,  was  it  right  to  pass  the  Flori- 
da line  ?  At  the  last  session  I  do  not  recollect 
to  have  heard  a  dissenting  voice ;  though  it  was 
manifest  then  that  the  Executive  paused  and 
reflected,  and  reflected  much,  before  the  Secre- 
tary of  War  issued  the  order  requiring  General 
Gaines  to  march  his  army  into  the  Spanish  ter- 
ritory ;  and  then  only  upon  the  recurrence  of 
new  outrages.  These  orders  were  as  well  known 
then  as  at  this  time  ;  these  outrages  did  occur ; 
and,  sir,  I  must  think,  then  was  the  time  for 
this  House  to  act ;  then  was  the  time  to  inter- 
pose, to  have  preserved  the  constitution.  But, 
at  that  time,  all  these  measures  were  pursued, 
as  the  only  efficient  mode  of  putting  an  end  to 
the  war.  All  were  then  energetically  disposed 
to  put  an  end  to  those  hostilities  which  harassed 
Georgia  and  Alabama  with  murder  and  deso- 
lation. All  were  then  disposed  to  do  them- 
selves that  justice  which,  by  the  law  of  nations 
and  nature,  they  had  a  right  to  do.  As  the 
well-known  impotence  of  Spain  almost  pre- 
cluded the  hope  of  her  maintaining  her  author- 
ity in  that  country,  much  less  fulfilling  her 
treaty  obligations,  which  was  manifest  from  her 
not  having  herself  undertaken  to  subdue  her 
Indians  making  this  war  upon  us,  some  gentle- 
men thought  the  order  to  General  Gaines  slow 
and  inefficient,  which  required  him  to  halt  his 
army,  and  not  to  attack  the  enemy  under  the 
fort  of  St.  Marks  until  he  reported  to  the  De- 
partment of  War,  and  received  orders  how  to 
proceed ;  believing,  from  the  nature  of  the  trea- 


ty of  1795,  Spain  to  be,  in  that  respect,  an  ally 
of  the  United  States. 

I  will  not  insist,  as  has  been  done  by  gentle- 
men who  advocate  the  same  side  with  myself, 
that  the  orders  of  General  Gaines  were  not 
binding  upon  General  Jackson,  believing,  as  I 
do,  that  an  order  issued  to  an  officer  is  binding 
upon  the  next  who  takes  command,  though  of 
a  higher  rank,  provided  that  order  had  been  is- 
sued by  their  common  superior.  But  it  appears, 
from  the  documents,  that  General  Jackson  re- 
ceived an  order  of  subsequent  date,  from  the 
War  Department,  to  conduct  the  war  in  Florida 
"in  the  manner  he  might  think  best."  Cer- 
tainly the  Secretary  could  not  have  meant  any 
thing  more  than  that  he  was  to  conduct  the 
war  in  the  manner  he  should  think  most  con- 
formable to  the  law  of  nations.  Considering 
the  peculiar  condition  of  all  the  parties,  they 
could  not  mean  any  thing  else.  Then  the  in- 
quiry is,  has  he  done  so  ? 

On  assuming  the  command  at  Fort  Scott,  this 
General  soon  fixed  on  a  plan  for  his  future  oper- 
ations ;  and,  in  the  course  of  his  march,  pene- 
trating into  Florida  to  find  the  enemy's  town, 
he  encamped  at  Prospect  Bluff,  on  the  old  site 
of  Negro  Fort.  Finding  it  so  entirely  conve- 
nient as  a  place  of  deposit,  he  erects  Fort 
Gadsden,  contrary  to  every  principle  of  justice, 
in  the  opinion  of  some  gentlemen,  who  justify 
the  erection  of  Negro  Fort,  because  Spain  was 
not  able  to  prevent  it,  and  call  that  an  outrage 
which  destroyed  it,  though  there  were  many 
hundred  stand  of  arms,  much  powder,  cannon, 
«fec.,  there,  manifestly  destined  to  be  used 
against  the  United  States;  and  the  burning 
alive  of  a  prisoner,  and  the  massacre  of  a  boat's 
crew,  might  be  thought  by  some  a  confirmation 
of  that  belief. 

It  was  from  this  place  General  Jackson  wrote 
to  Governor  Mazot,  with  all  that  frank  and 
open  manner  to  be  expected  from  an  American 
officer,  who  was  executing  the  orders  of  his 
Government,  in  prosecuting  a  war  which  we 
had  been  engaged  in  through  the  inability  of 
Spain  to  wage,  and  in  the  termination  of  which 
both  countries  were  equally  concerned,  inform- 
ing him,  in  the  most  explicit  terms,  of  his 
friendly  intentions,  and  only  asks  that  provi- 
sions might  be  permitted  to  ascend  the  Escam- 
bia  to  Fort  Crawford.  Was  it  the  part  of  a 
neutral  nation  to  refuse  that  passage,  when  per- 
haps the  lives  of  part  of  his  troops  depended 
upon  those  supplies?  Was  that  the  course 
Spain  ought  to  have  taken  to  fulfil  her  stipula- 
tions ?  Under  such  circumstances,  the  law  of 
nations  will  justify  force. 

Hearing  that  the  hostile  Indians  were  em- 
bodied at  a  town  called  Mickasuky,  his  march 
was  directed  that  way,  where  a  battle  ensued — 
the  issue,  success.  And  notwithstanding  my 
honorable  colleague  (Mr.  MERCER)  thinks  the 
accounts  of  those  terrible  massacres  all  vanish 
to  nothing  upon  examining  into  the  subject, 
there  was  found  in  this  village  a  war  pole, 
decorated  with  fresh  scalps,  recognized  by  the 


DEBATES  OF  CONGRESS. 


327 


FEBKCABT,  1819.] 


The  Seminole  War. 


[H.  OF  B. 


hair  as  torn  from  the  heads  of  Lieutenant  Scott 
and  his  party ;  and  in  the  house  of  Kenhajo, 
the  chief  of  that  town,  were  found  more  than 
fifty  others ! 

.  After  this  hattle,  it  is  ascertained  that  the 
enemy  had  departed,  whilst  one  party  directed 
their  march  to  Suwanee,  the  other  to  the  fort 
of  St.  Marks.  It  was  then  Captain  Call,  a  gen- 
tleman I  am  not  acquainted  with,  but  on  in- 
quiry I  learn  from  every  source  that  he  is  es- 
teemed a  man  of  honor,  and  a  brave  and  excel- 
lent officer — it  was  then  he  informed  General 
Jackson  of  the  message  of  the  Governor  of 
Pensacola,  That  the  fort  of  St.  Marks  was 
weak ;  that  demands  had  been  made  upon  it 
for  munitions  of  war  by  the  negroes  and  In- 
dians ;  that  he  entertained  strong  fears  for  the 
safety  of  the  fort,  as  they  had  threatened  to 
seize  it  in  case  of  refusal.  Moreover,  it  appears 
from  the  documents — proof,  I  think,  sufficient 
of  itself  to  justify  the  capture  of  that  post — 
that  the  Indians  did  obtain  ammunition  and 
arms  at  that  place ;  that  councils  of  war  were 
held  in  it  by  the  enemy,  and  in  the  quarters  of 
the  Spanish  commander;  that  the  property 
plundered  from  the  citizens  of  Georgia  was  sold 
there ;  that  Luengo  did  permit  the  clothes 
taken  from  Scott's  party  to  be  sold  to  the  Span- 
ish soldiery ;  and  even  contracts  were  made  for 
the  purchase  of  property  that  was  to  be  plun- 
dered from  Georgia.  Now,  I  ask,  if  prudence, 
justice,  self-defence,  did  not  demand  the  cap- 
ture of  St.  Marks?  Surely,  the  Governor  of 
Pensacola's  message,  if  it  means  any  thing,  was 
an  invitation  to  take  possession  of  it,  even  per- 
haps to  prevent  a  development  of  their  nefa- 
rious conduct. 

After  these  operations,  General  Jackson  de- 
termined to  put  an  end  to  the  war,  by  giving 
battle  to  the  negro  and  Indian  forces  concen- 
trated at  the  Suwanee  towns,  and,  after  innu- 
merable difficulties,  arrived  at  that  place,  and 
defeated  those  who  had  not  availed  themselves 
of  the  philanthropic  disinterestedness  of  Mr. 
Arbuthuot,  who,  it  seems,  had  advised  his 
friend  Bowlegs,  by  express  from  St.  Marks,  of 
the  number  and  movements  of  Jackson's  army ; 
and,  too,  with  a  knowledge  of  the  Spanish 
officer.  This  duty  performed,  he  returned  to 
St.  Marks,  through  the  wilderness,  in  fijU^ftys,. 
a  distance  of  more  than  one  hundred  imles, 
with  a  firm  persuasion  that  the  war  was  at  an 
end,  and  in  a  few  days  returned  to  Fort  Gads- 
den,  on  his  way  home.  Why  did  he  not  return 
home  ?  Here  he  was  informed  that  Fort  Craw- 
ford was  in  great  distress  for  the  want  of  pro- 
visions, which  the  Governor  of  Pensacola  had 
prevented  from  going  to  them,  by  enormous 
exactions ;  that  the  negroes  and  Indians  had 
possession  of  that  place ;  that  a  party  had  been 
pursued  within  sight  of  it  by  a  detachment 
from  Fort  Crawford,  and  defeated,  the  fugitives 
taking  refuge  in  that  town ;  that  the  place;  was 
no  longer  under  the  control  of  the  Spanish 
power  ;  that  many  murders  had  been  commit- 
ted iu  Alabama  by  bauds  who  went  from  that 


post,  and  returned  to  it,  with  their  booty  and 
scalps.  Can  it  be  supposed,  under  these  cir- 
cumstances, any  place  is  to  be  regarded  as 
neutral  ?  It  is  of  little  consequence  to  the  suf- 
ferers, whether  it  proceeds  from  inability  to 
maintain  its  authority,  or  an  unwillingness  to 
do  so.  The  effect  is  the  same.  To  take  pos- 
session of  a  post  from  which  he  has  been  an- 
noyed by  his  enemy,  is  justice,  and  is  conform- 
able to  the  law  of  nations.  Surely,  if  his  ene- 
my is  sheltered  by  a  fortress,  and  from  it  muni- 
tions of  war  obtained,  inroads  and  murders 
planned  and  executed,  and  a  return  to  that 
place  safe,  to  commence  anew  these  scenes ;  it 
is  difficult  to  conceive  why  the  opposite  party 
is  not  entitled  to  the  same  indulgence.  The 
Governor  of  Pensacola  does  not  deny  this  fee- 
bleness, though  he  refuses  positively  to  surren- 
der the  post ;  in  which  he  is  right,  as  he,  too, 
has  to  account  to  a  superior  officer  for  his  con- 
duct. The  inquiry  then  is,  why  did  General 
Jackson  take  it?  The  same  answer  may  be 
given  which  was  given  for  the  capture  of  St. 
Marks.  Are  these  things  true  ?  The  Spanish 
superior  authorities  think  so  ;  the  Spanish  King 
himself  thinks  so.  Then  it  was  no  war  on  the 
part  of  General  Jackson,  but  the  assertion  of  a 
right,  resulting  to  us  from  the  law  of  nations. 
So  it  has  been  considered  by  all  but  our  own 
constitution ;  which, -whilst  it  secures  our  liber- 
ty within,  it  would  seem  takes  away  our  rights 
from  without. 

Much  has  been  said  of  the  trial  of  Arbuthnot 
and  Ambrister ;  and,  as  I  have  already  said, 
after  weeks  of  consideration,  the  Committee  on 
Military  Affairs  could  not  find  any  thing  to 
censure  but  the  execution  of  these  two  British 
agents  and  incendiaries.  The  one,  bold  and 
hardened  in  guilt,  plead  guilty  to  the  charges  ; 
the  other  expects  escape  from  his  diplomatic 
skill.  We  are  perfectly  astonished,  on  examin- 
ing the  documents,  to  find  them  persevering 
for  a  long  time  in  maturing  their  schemes  of 
murder,  and  making  arrangements  to  effect 
their  plans,  in  procuring  arms  and  placing  them 
in  the  hands  of  the  merciless  savages,  in  stimu- 
lating them  to  commence  this  war,  in  all  its 
horrors,  and  fall  like  a  flood  of  fire  on  our 
whole  frontier,  sweeping  away  all,  both  inno- 
cence and  age.  More  arms,  of  every  descrip- 
tion, are  sought  for ;  knives,  flints,  and  toma- 
hawks, in  alarming  quantities.  To  crush  the 
lawless  banditti  of  Indians  and  rebellious  slaves, 
who  observe  no  law,  human  or  divine,  urged  to 
murder,  indiscriminately,  men,  women,  and 
children,  burn,  plunder,  and  destroy,  without 
distinction,  without  remorse,  by  these  relentless 
fiends,  General  Jackson  is  ordered  into  the  field. 
Yet,  for  the  destruction  of  these  unhappy  men, 
are  the  Representatives  of  the  people  of  this 
great  Republic  called  on,  by  that  extraordinary 
report  of  the  committee,  to  censure  their  Gen- 
eral ;  and  that,  too,  for  not  showing  mercy  to 
those  who  knew  no  mercy,  and  whose  hands 
WC-H'  -mukiiig  with  the  blood  of  hundreds  of 
their  countrymen !  This  General  who,  in  the 


328 


ABRIDGMENT  OF  THE 


H.  OF  R.] 


The  Scminole  War. 


[FEBRUARY,  1819. 


day  of  adversity,  stood  like  a  rock  of  adamant, 
and  breasted  the  tempestuous  waves  of  a  doubt- 
ful war;  a  war  which  had  shook  from  their 
base  the  massy  columns  of  the  Hall  where  it 
was  declared,  and  razed  the  Capitol  to  its  foun- 
dation stone,  whilst  frenzied  fear  bewildered  all 
it  met,  and  red-eyed  hate  rolled  with  Satanic 
smile  upon  the  Administration  of  your  country ; 
he  it  was  who  raised  a  reputation  to  your  arms 
aiid  to  your  country,  bright  and  more  bright  as 
the  storm  lulled  away. 

Even  now  again,  almost  upon  the  instant, 
that  gentlemen  defies  all,  and  challenges  histo- 
ry to  produce  one  single  example,  and  then 
adds,  there  was  none.  I  will  not,  Mr.  Chair- 
man, question  the  prowess  of  the  Kentuckians ; 
I  believe  they  are  brave,  independent,  hospita- 
ble, and  magnanimous,  and  all  things  that  gen- 
tlemen could  wish  them.  I  am  proud  at  all 
times  to  hear  of  their  deeds  of  valor.  Yet  this 
thing  called  bravery,  I  believe,  is  pretty  equally 
diffused  through  the  great  mass  of  men,  and, 
under  similar  circumstances,  there  would  be 
found  but  little  difference ;  brave  officers  will 
always  make  brave  men.  Though  what  is  said 
of  this  conspicuous  State  cannot  be  doubted,  as 
all  who  have  conversed  with  them  know  they 
are  independent ;  all  who  have  travelled  in  that 
State  doubtless  have  partaken  of  their  hospi- 
tality. And  that  they  behaved  well  at  the 
battle  of  Tippecanoe,  I  do  not  doubt ;  that  they 
behaved  bravely  at  the  battle  of  the  Eiver 
Eaisin  I  will  not  doubt;  that  they  behaved 
gallantly  at  the  battle  of  the  Thames  I  cannot 
doubt.  But,  sir,  there  was  retaliation,  and 
most  conspicuous,  in  that  State.  In  one  in- 
stance, well  known,  when  a  party  of  Indians 
had  committed  depredations  and  murders,  were 
followed  by  Colonel  Lyne,  known  to  be  a  brave 
and  active  officer,  by  some  chance  of  war  one 
of  the  warriors  fell  into  his  hands,  and  was 
hanged  upon  the  next  tree.  The  most  striking 
instance,  however,  is  one  which  my  friend  from 
Ohio  (Mr.  HAERISON)  has  just  brought  to  my 
recollection — that,  when  that  great  General  and 
best  of  men,  George  Rogers  Clark,  was  on  that 
celebrated  campaign  in  which  he  stormed  a 
whole  chain  of  British  posts  on  the  "Wabash  and 
Kaskaskias,  he  captured  the  town  of  St.  Vin- 
cennes ;  whilst  in  the  town,  the  well-known 
noise  was  heard  in  the  neighborhood,  which  in- 
formed the  inhabitants  that  a  war  party  was 
then  returned  with  scalps.  Clark  immediately 
despatched  some  of  his  soldiers  and  took  them 
prisoners.  When  the  mischief  they  had  done 
was  ascertained,  he  ordered  them  to  be  taken 
in  view  of  the  British  fort,  and  told  to  ask  pro- 
tection from  their  good  father,  George  the 
Third,  and  in  that  place  were  all  instantly  put 
to  death.  In  those  days  there  were  numerous 
instances  of  individuals  who  had  lost  a  relation 
by  the  Indians,  taking  their  rifles,  and  going  in 
search  of  the  enemy,  even  in  their  own  coun- 
try, and  killing  one.  At  that  time  they  called 
it  "  taking  satisfaction ; "  of  course  it  might 
not  be  retaliation. 


If  I  were  to  declare  an  opinion  as  to  the  hor- 
rors and  cruelty  of  all  our  Indian  wars,  I  would 
unhesitatingly  say,  to  British  agents  all  is  at- 
tributable ;  nor  can  I  now  feel  this  sickly  sor- 
row for  them.  But,  in  those  gloomy  days  ttte 
honorable  gentleman  from  Kentucky  speaks  of, 
the  machinations  of  these  agents  wrung  with 
agony  and  pain  the  bosom  of  many  a  gallant 
man  in  that  country  with  apprehensions  for  the 
consequences.  Children  at  school,  in  the  hours 
of  play,  were  butchered,  at  the  instigation  of 
those  agents ;  murder  on  every  road,  and  death 
in  every  path ;  all  went  armed  to  their  daily 
avocations.  Sir,  the  friend  of  my  boyhood,  the 
honorable  chairman  of  the  Committee  on  Mili- 
tary Affairs,  ought  to  tell  of  early  times  there, 
and  of  Indian  wars  and  British  agents,  though 
at  that  time  he  was  only  of  such  an  age  as  to 
"snow  the  danger,  and  rejoice  when  the  sun 
went  down  without  seeing  the  mangled  corse 
of  a  murdered  friend  brought  into  the  fort. 
The  melancholy  transactions  of  the  Semiuole 
war  are  but  faint  rehearsals  of  thousands  and 
thousands  of  such  acts  in  the  "West.  And,  even 
at  this  day,  the  name  of  British  agent  or  trader, 
for  they  are  synonymous,  will  create  a  sudden 
start  of  horror  in  the  widowed  mother  of  a 
family,  as  it  tears  open  all  the  sluices  of  her 
grief,  which  time  had  soothed,  but  could  not 
destroy.  The  children  were  hushed  to  silence 
by  the  terrible  names  of  Simon  Girty  and  Mc- 
Kee.  Could  those  incendiaries  have  been  taken 
n  those  days,  every  voice  would  have  pro- 
nounced their  doom.  Not  only  individuals  in 
that  country,  but  whole  families,  were  swept 
away ;  many  who  had  rendered  brilliant  services 
to  their  country,  are  now  only  known  to  those 
who  feel  a  kindred  sorrow ;  and  if  a  gallant 
deed  has  faintly  pierced  the  terrible  night  which 
overhangs  their  fame,  should  cause  a  stranger 
to  ask  where  they  are  now,  or  where  their 
children,  echo  mocks  the  inquiry,  and  retorts 
the  question. 

Unquestionably,  sir,  there  are  many  rights 
incident  to  a  state  of  war ;  that,  when  hostili- 
ties have  commenced,  and  an  enemy  every 
hour  in  view,  it  is  difficult  for  a  deliberative 
body  like  this  to  seize  upon  an  abstract  princi- 
ple, and  apply  it,  at  that  particular  place  or 
moment,  and  say  what  was  or  was  not  neces- 
sary for  their  General  to  do.  He  knows  the 
obligation  he  owes  to  the  constitution  of  his 
country  and  the  authorities  of  the  State,  and 
knows  what,  by  the  law  of  nations,  he  may  do 
when  surrounded  by  war  and  desolation,  his 
enemy  near  at  hand,  and  retiring  into  a  neutral 
country.  He  has  a  right  to  follow,  that  neutral 
power  not  prohibiting  the  entry  of  his  enemy  ; 
his  country,  to  say  the  least,  rightfully  becomes 
the  theatre  of  war.  Nor  is  it  easy  to  conceive 
this  feverish  discontent  at  the  death  of  men 
who  rightfully  died;  and,  whatever  may  be 
thought  of  it  here,  in  the  sunshine  of  peace, 
and  the  whirl  of  gay  daylight,  the  people  there 
consider  it  a  blessing,  and  no  doubt  has  already 
saved  the  lives  of  many  hundreds  of  our  citi- 


DEBATES  OF  CONGRESS. 


329 


FEBRUARY,  1819.] 


The  Seminole  War. 


[H.  OF  R. 


zens.  Nor  can  it  be  well  understood  why 
these  executions  should  be  deemed  cruel,  when 
with  .them  are  associated  the  deeds  for  which 
they  suffered.  Whilst  recollection  paints  the 
horrors  of  death  in  all  its  terrible  forms — the 
scalps,  fresh  bleeding,  torn  from  our  country- 
men, placed  upon  a  pole,  becoming  the  subject 
of  hellish  mirth  ;  the  helpless  female  butchered 
whilst  kneeling  and  suing  for  mercy ;  the  tooth- 
less little  infant  snatched  from  its  mother's 
bosom,  and  its  brains  dashed  out  against  a  tree 
— its  body  thrown  on  the  ground,  there  lies 
quivering  in  death.  Sir,  amid  scenes  like  these, 
and  the  enemy  at  hand,  to  talk  of  delays  is  to 
deride  the  mandates  of  nature  and  of  nature's 
God. 

It  has  been  further  remarked  by  an  honor- 
able gentleman  from  Pennsylvania,  (Mr.  HOP- 
KCfsox,)  that  of  all  the  genius  in  the  world 
there  is  none  dangerous  to  the  community  but 
a  military  one.  Newton's  genius  was  so  great 
that  it  seemed  to  hold  converse  with  the  stars ; 
the  erratic  comet  in  its  course  could  not  escape 
him,  and,  I  believe,  even  threw  light  upon  the 
sun — yet  this  was  harmless.  Shakspeare,  the 
great  source  of  pleasure  and  instruction  to  ages, 
past,  present,  and  to  come,  was  perfectly  inno- 
cent in  all  its  operations.  The  honorable 
Speaker  says,  too,  should  we  not  cling  to  the 
constitution,  and  preserve  it  by  passing  these 
resolutions,  that  the  day  is  close  at  hand  when 
some  daring  chieftain,  after  another  splendid 
victory,  will  strut  in  his  gaudy  costume,  casting 
a  look  of  approbation  as  he  walks  between  obe- 
dient rows  of  admiring  vassals,  and  seize  upon 
your  liberties ;  and  then  the  hills  rising  round 
your  Capitol  will  be  covered  with  the  gorgeous 
palaces  of  a  pampered  noblesse  ;  and  then  tells 
us,  in  words  which  sound  very  much  like  Pa- 
trick Henry's,  that  Rome  had  her  Caesar,  Britain 
her  Cromwell,  France  her  Napoleon,  and  may 
we  profit  by  the  example.  Napoleon!  If  I 
were  to  express  myself  with  an  enthusiasm  not 
my  own,  I  would  say  when  nature  made  the 
world,  she  next  made  the  spirit  of  that  great 
man,  and  then  she  rested.  I  saw,  or  thought  I 
saw,  the  impression  those  dangers  of  military  men 
seemed  to  make  upon  the  House,  and  believe  I 
am  about  to  hazard  an  opinion,  new  in  a  degree, 
and  very  opposite  to  that  of  both  these  honor- 
able gentlemen,  which  is,  that  no  government 
has  ever  yet  been  destroyed  by  a  successful 
military  chieftain.  I  appeal  to  history  to  sup- 
port me,  if  my  construction  be  right.  If  I  re- 
collect the  words  of  the  historian,  "Caesar, 
having  less  reputation,  like  a  wise  champion, 
retired  to  a  distance,  for  exercise,  whilst  the 
two  great  factions  preyed  upon  the  liberties  of 
Rome  ;  when  every  contest  for  place  or  power, 
was  decided  in  the  forum  by  the  sword,  and 
stained  the  Capitol  with  blood."  Then,  not  till 
then,  did  Caesar  return  to  Eome,  which,  ever 
since  the  wars  of  Marias  and  Sylla,  had  known 
no  liberty.  Nor  is  the  overthrow  of  the  Brit- 
ish Government  attributable  to  Cromwell :  the 
speeches  of  Parliament  produced  the  revolution, 


and  the  treachery  of  members.  When  all  was 
in  commotion,  by  canting  and  preaching,  Crom- 
well secured  the  stronger  party  and  became  the 
Protector.  Nor  can  the  French  revolution  be 
attributed  to  any  thing  but  to  the  insincerity  of 
the  orators  in  the  States  General,  and  to  none 
in  a  higher  degree  than  that  greatest  of  orators, 
and  worst  of  men,  Mirabeau.  If,  in  after  times, 
as  in  all  other  revolutions,  Napoleon  secured 
the  stronger  party,  and  swayed  the  Govern- 
ment, it  cannot  be  said  he  overturned  it.  Did 
not  every  distinguished  man  in  France  rule  as 
long  as  he  was  popular  with  the  stronger  party ; 
and  did  he  not  cease  to  rule  as  soon  as  he  lost 
his  popularity  ?  This  was  no  reproach  to  pro- 
fessedly politicians,  though  in  a  military  man, 
possessing  power  by  the  same  means,  it  subjects 
him  to  the  charge  of  using  his  military  power 
to  overthrow  the  Government  of  his  country ; 
and  by  none  more  than  disappointed  orators, 
who  had  contributed  to  the  downfall  of  many 
successive  administrations,  with  a  hope  of  one 
day  possessing  it  themselves.  If  I  recollect  the 
history  right,  the  only  instance  of  the  over- 
throw of  a  regular  government  was  by  an  am- 
bitious statesman,  one  of  the  Dukes  of  Venice, 
who  boldly  seized  upon  the  powers,  declared 
the  then  Senators  Senators  for  life,  and  then- 
children  after  them.  This,  I  am  inclined  to  be- 
lieve, is  the  source  of  then"  nobility,  the  only 
patent  they  have  for  rank.  Moreover,  I  believe 
it  would  be  correct  to  say  these  men,  the  most 
conspicuous  military  destroyers  of  their  coun- 
try, were  all  created  by  the  times.  No,  Mr. 
Chairman,  our  liberties  are  not  to  be  endan- 
gered by  a  successful  chieftain,  returning  to  us 
with  his  gaudy  costume,  even  after  a  hundred 
victories  of  New  Orleans.  It  is  here,  in  this 
Capitol,  on  this  floor,  that  our  liberty  is  to  be 
sacrificed,  and  that  by  the  hollow,  treacherous 
eloquence  of  some  ambitious,  proud,  aspiring 
demagogue.  And  if,  in  tunes  to  come,  we 
should  hear  a  favorite  officer,  who  has  exhaust- 
ed his  constitution  in  defence  of  his  country — 
throwing  wreaths  of  victory  at  her  feet — 
charged  with  violations  of  her  liberty,  let  us 
inquire  whether  the  sternness  of  his  virtues  is 
not  his  greatest  blemish.  If  history  gives  an 
account  of  a  military  chiefs  returning  to  his 
country,  and  overthrowing  its  settled  insti- 
tutions, it  has,  at  this  time,  escaped  my  recol- 
lection. 

Mr.  ERVIN  addressed  the  Chair  as  follows  : 
Mr.  Chairman :  I  am  sorry  it  has  fallen  to 
my  lot  to  be  so  late  in  debate  on  this  question. 
From  my  own  feelings,  I  am  persuaded  the 
committee  is  exhausted,  and  unwilling  to  be- 
stow its  attention,  anticipating  a  want  of  capa- 
city in  any  member  to  throw  any  new  light 
upon  this  interesting  subject.  A  sense  of  duty, 
however,  has  determined  me  to  express  to  you 
the  opinion  which  1  entertain  in  relation  to  it, 
in  doing  which,  I  anticipate  the  same  indulgent 
attention  which  you  have  accorded  to  other 
gentlemen.  Before  entering  upon  ite  discussion, 
I  feel  it  a  duty  which  I  owe  to  the  people  and 


330 


ABRIDGMENT  OF  THE 


H.  OF  R.] 


The  Seminole  War. 


[FEBRUARY,  1819. 


myself,  to  express  my  extreme  regret,  that  so 
much  of  our  time  has  been  appropriated  to  its 
discussion,  whilst  other  subjects  of  practical 
utility,  and  great  public  importance,  have 
awaited  our  attention.  Experience,  sir,  has 
long  since  taught  me  the  inutility  of  the  ex- 
pression of  legislative  opinion  upon  abstract 
questions ;  because,  whatever  may  be  the  re- 
sult of  their  deliberations,  and  the  opinion  ex- 
pressed, it  can  have  no  binding  efficacy  in  deter- 
mining the  discretion  of  subsequent  legislatures. 
At  the  last  session  of  Congress,  much  sensibility 
was  felt  because  the  President  of  the  United 
States  expressed  his  opinion  and  determination 
on  a  subject  which  he  anticipated  would  engage 
the  attention  of  Congress.  Although  the  cor- 
rectness of  the  motive,  in  that  case,  was  known 
and  appreciated,  fears  were  entertained,  lest,  if 
indulged  and  continued  on  the  part  of  the  Ex- 
ecutive, and  acquiesced  in  by  Congress,  a  pre- 
cedent would  be  formed  which  might  tend  to 
limit  legislative  discretion.  If  the  informal  ex- 
pression of  this  opinion,  on  a  subject  of  which 
he  had  concurrent  jurisdiction,  was  deemed  in- 
correct, what  opinion  will  be  formed  of  the 
character  of  the  expression  of  an  opinion  in 
relation  to  a  military  officer,  not  by  the  Con- 
gress of  the  United  States,  but  by  the  House  of 
Eepresentatives,  over  whom,  even  in  their  ca- 
pacity as  the  impeaching  power,  they  have  no 
jurisdiction  ?  For,  as  the  House  of  Represent- 
atives, the  only  power  given  to  it  by  the  consti- 
tution (and  without  which  it  has  no  power)  is 
a  power  to  judge  of  the  elections,  returns, 
and  qualifications  of  its  own  members,  and  to 
punish  or  expel  a  member.  In  giving  a  con- 
struction to  the  constitution,  which  I  am  sworn 
to  support,  I  cannot,  and  will  not,  suffer  my 
mind  to  be  deluded  by  the  imposing  idea  of  the 
House  of  Eepresentatives  being  "  the  grand  in- 
quest of  the  nation."  I  have  just  enumerated 
its  powers  in  its  separate  capacity,  and  contend, 
that  the  exercise  of  any  power  beyond  that 
enumeration  is  assumed,  but  not  delegated. 
Courts  of  inquiry  and  courts-martial  are  the 
proper  and  legal  correctives  of  error  or  crimi- 
nality in  the  military,  which,  if  neglected  to  be 
applied  by  the  President,  in  cases  requiring  it, 
he  is  responsible. 

Again,  sir,  the  sovereign  authority  ought 
never  to  speak,  but  when  it  can  command  ;  and 
ought  never  to  command,  but  when  it  can  com- 
pel obedience.  In  this  case,  the  officer  may  lie 
securely  intrenched  behind  Executive  protec- 
tion, your  resolves  to  the  contrary  notwith- 
standing ;  and  a  departure  from  this  principle 
ought  never  to  be  indulged,  unless  in  approba- 
tion of  splendid  achievements,  by  land  or  by 
water,  which  will  have  the  happy  effect  of  in- 
creasing the  moral  power  or  force  of  the 
nation. 

The  treaty  of  Fort  Jackson,  in  August,  1814, 
which  is  said  to  have  been  the  cause  of  the  late 
Indian  war,  has  been  adverted  to  in  terms  of 
disapprobation  and  severe  animadversion.  "  The 
United  States  demand — the  United  States  de- 


mand"— expressions  used  in  that  treaty,  are 
thought  too  dictatorial. 

Mr.  Chairman,  what  age  or  country  ever,  saw 
it  otherwise  than  that  the  conqueror  should 
dictate  terms  of  peace ;  and,  in  this  case,  cir- 
cumstances imperiously  required  it.  For,  in 
the  midst  of  peace,  whilst  we  were  endeavoring 
to  extend  to  the  Indians  the  advantages  of 
civilization,  supplying  them  with  implements  of 
husbandry,  and  paying  them  an  annual  tribute 
for  their  friendship,  and  just  at  the  time  when 
we  had  engaged  in  war  with  a  powerful  and 
warlike  nation,  forgetful  of  those  acts  of  kind- 
ness, they  joined  our  enemy,  and  commenced  a 
war  of  extermination  against  our  helpless  wo- 
men and  children.  Pity  still  drops  a  tear  at 
the  remembrance  of  the  conflagration  of  up- 
wards of  three  hundred  men,  women  and  chil- 
dren in  Fort  Mimms  in  1813,  and  the  winds 
still  sigh  over  the  fields  and  repeat  the  dying 
groans  of  our  brave  countrymen,  who  were  in- 
humanly butchered  in  cold  blood  by  the  Indians 
after  they,  had  capitulated  at  the  River  Raisin. 
The  whole  frontier  of  Tennessee  and  Georgia 
was  threatened  with  ruin  and  desolation  from 
savage  barbarity  until  the  hero  of  New  Orleans 
appeared  upon  the  theatre  of  action,  and,  by 
triumphing  at  Talladega,  Tullushatcha,  Emuck- 
faw,  and  Tohopeka,  taught  that  unhappy  de- 
luded people,  that,  although  we  were  engaged 
in  a  foreign  war,  we  were  still  able  to  avenge 
savage  insults,  and  repel  savage  injuries.  And 
will  any  one,  after  these  facts  and  atrocities 
being  presented  to  him,  pretend  to  say,  that  it 
was  unjust  or  unwise  for  the  conqueror  to  cause 
them  to  bo  removed  from  the  proximity  of  a 
neighboring  nation,  from  whence  they  were 
continually  goaded  on  to  acts  of  violence  and 
deeds  of  murder ;  or  to  dictate  such  terms  of 
peace  as  were  best  calculated  to  prevent  the 
repetition  of  similar  scenes,  and  give  security  to 
our  southern  frontier?  I  hope  not.  Your 
General,  as  one  of  the  commissioners  on  the 
part  of  the  United  States  to  make  that  treaty, 
acted  correctly.  The  laws  of  nations  declare, 
"  that  an  equitable  conqueror,  deaf  to  the  sug- 
gestions of  ambition  and  avarice,  will  make  a 
just  estimate  of  what  is  due  to  him,  and  will 
retain  no  more  of  the  enemy's  property  than 
what  is  precisely  sufficient  to  furnish  the  equiv- 
alent. But,  if  he  has  to  do  with  a  perfidious, 
restless,  and  dangerous  enemy,  he  will,  by  way 
of  punishment,  deprive  him  of  some  of  his 
towns  or  provinces,  and  keep  them  to  serve  as 
a  barrier  to  his  own  dominions."  Notwith 
standing  the  treaty  of  August,  1814,  which  was 
depended  on  as  effecting  peace  between  us  and 
those  savages ;  notwithstanding  the  treaty  of 
peace  between  this  country  and  Great  Britain, 
which  also  was  expected  to  have  produced  the 
same  happy  effect,  they  remained  still  hostile ; 
notwithstanding  all  your  triumphs  over  them, 
they  were  beaten,  but  not  conquered;  they 
were  scattered,  but  not  annihilated ;  they  ral- 
lied again,  and  were  afforded  shelter  and  pro- 
tection in  East  and  West  Florida,  Spanish 


DEBATES  OF  CONGRESS. 


331 


FEBRUARY,  1819.] 


The  Seminole  War. 


[H.  OF  R. 


neutral — neutral,  did  I  say? — Spanish  hostile 
territory. 

Mr.  Chairman :  I  care  not  for  professions  of 
neutrality ;  they  shall  not  impose  upon  my  cre- 
dulity ;  give  me  the  evidence  of  facts  which 
are  not  to  be  biassed  by  fear,  or  influenced  by 
hope ;  and,  if  we  are  to  be  determined,  or  to 
judge  by  them,  Spain  was  not  neutral.  I  said, 
sir,  that  the  Indians  were  suffered  to  settle  in 
the  Spanish  territory,  in  the  neighborhood  of 
Pensacola,  in  West  Florida,  and  on  the  river 
Appalachicola,  and  on  a  creek  called  Yellow 
Water,  in  East  Florida,  and  there  in  silence 
brooded  over  imaginary  evils,  and  meditated 
bloody  vengeance.  Two  civilized  barbarians, 
Ambrister  and  Arbuthnot,  foreign  emissaries, 
once  more  lighted  up  the  torch  of  war,  and  let 
loose  upon  us  those  infuriated  barbarians.  In 

1816,  a  boat's  crew  was  murdered,   and  an 
American  citizen  was  tarred,  feathered,  and 
burnt  to  death.     On  the  30th  of  November, 

1817,  Lieutenant  Scott  and  fifty  persons,  con- 
sisting of  men,  women,  and  children,  were  in- 
humanly murdered,  except  a  very  few  who 
were  wounded,  but  effected  their  escape.     On 
the  13th  or  14th  of  March,  1818,  two  whole 
families  on  the  Federal  road,  in  the  Alabama 
Territory,  were  put  to  death.     The  next  day, 
five  men,  riding  along  a  road,  were  fired  upon, 
three  killed  and  two  wounded.     Terror  and 
dismay  pervaded  the  whole  country. 

Mr.  Chairman :  War  in  its  mildest  form  is 
dreadful ;  but  what  force  of  eloquence — what 
power  of  description,  can  give  an  adequate  idea 
of  Indian  warfare  ?  It  is  a  war  of  extermi- 
nation :  like  the  lava  of  Etna,  fear  marches  be- 
fore it.  Like  the  storm  of  the  desert,  ruin  and 
desolation  lead  up  its  dreadful  rear.  Did  you 
ever,  sir,  meet  a  man  returning  alone  from  your 
southern  frontier,  who  had  moved  there  with  a 
large  family?  With  sorrow  in  his  face,  and 
tears  in  his  eyes,  he  begins  the  mournful  tale, 
but  is  unable  to  proceed — his  feelings  deny  him 
utterance.  Mr.  Chairman :  Have  you  not  a 
family  ?  Do  you  not  love  them  ?  Is  it  not  for 
them  that  you  wish  to  live  ?  Is  it  not  for  them 
that  you  would  dare  to  die  ?  The  glad  day,  sir, 
will  soon  arrive,  when  you  will  return  home, 
aud  behold  again  the  wife  of  your  youth,  and 
your  children,  the  objects  of  your  affection. 
He  too  once  had  a  family,  but  now  they  are 
gone  ;  he  will  never  see  them  more.  The  night 
was  gloomy ;  her  husband,  her  protector,  was 
far  away ;  the  pale  moon  hid  her  face  be- 
hind the  clouds ;  the  winds  blew  ;  the  tempest 
howled;  trembling  she  pressed  to  her  bosom 
the  tender  objects  of  their  mutual  love.  At 
length  destruction  came :  the  yell  of  the  savage 
awoke  the  sleep  of  the  cradle ;  fire  and  the 
tomahawk  without,  horror  and  dismay  within  ; 
the  tender  infant  lifts  up  its  arms  for  protec- 
tion, and  receives  the  stroke  of  death,  and  the 
shrieks  of  the  distracted  mother  are  hushed  in 
everlasting  silence.  0  1  sir,  suspect  no  decep- 
tion ;  it  is  not  the  pencilling  of  fancy ;  it  is 
history,  faithful  history,  written  in  charac- 


ters of  blood  along  your  whole  southern  fron- 
tier. 

But,  sir,  it  is  said  that  General  Jackson,  in 
causing  Arbuthnot  and  Ambrister  to  be  exe- 
cuted, acted  incorrectly,  and  even  his  reasoning 
has  been  considered  wrong.  I  disclaim,  Mr. 
Chairman,  having  any  thing  to  do  with  his  rea- 
soning, and  if,  upon  investigation,  I  find  his 
conduct  correct,  I  shall  be  satisfied.  I  would 
do  great  injustice  to  my  feelings,  sir,  notwith- 
standing the  criminality  of  the  conduct  of  those 
men,  did  I  not  express  my  extreme  regret  that 
they  were  executed.  Thinking,  however,  as  I 
do,  that  General  Jackson  had  the  power,  as 
commander,  to  put  them  to  death,  and  having 
exerted  that  power,  no  doubt  as  he  thought  for 
the  good  of  his  country,  I  acquiesce.  There  is 
no  evidence  that  they  were  spies,  in  which 
case  they  ought  to  have  been  tried  by  a  court- 
martial,  furnished  with  the  grounds  of  their  ac- 
cusation, and  confronted  with  the  witnesses. 
They  were  foreigners,  without  our  territory, 
owed  this  Government  no  allegiance,  either 
local  or  general,  and  could  therefore  not  be  put 
to  death  for  high  treason.  And  our  courts  for 
the  punishment  of  crimes  on  land  could  not 
take  cognizance  of  their  acts,  however  criminal, 
because  they  were  perpetrated  in  a  foreign 
country  and  out  of  their  jurisdiction.  Nor  were 
they  put  to  death  to  satiate  cruelty  or  gratify 
a  malignant  spirit  of  revenge,  but  as  subjects 
of  retaliation,  and,  in  terrorem,  to  prevent  other 
foreigners  from  identifying  themselves  with  the 
Indians  and  exciting  them  to  murder  and  ra- 
pine. This  power,  in  every  age,  has  belonged 
and  appertained  to  the  commanding  General ; 
he  commands  the  commencement  of  destruc- 
tion, and,  in  modern  warfare,  stays  the  carnage 
at  the  cessation  of  resistance ;  but,  in  ancient 
times,  if  he  pleased,  not  until  there  was  no  one 
left  to  resist.  When  war  became  less  san- 
guinary, the  vanquished  were  made  prisoners 
and  led  into  slavery : — chained,  they  followed 
in  the  train,  to  swell  the  pomp  and  triumph  of 
the  victor ;  and  their  lives,  although  spared, 
were  always  supposed  to  be  forfeited,  and  at 
the  mercy  of  the  commanding  officer,  under 
circumstances  of  imperious  necessity.  Upon 
this  principle  was  the  bloody  massacre  of  the 
prisoners  justified,  who,  upon  the  false  alarm 
after  the  battle  of  Agincourt  were  ordered  to 
be  executed  by  Henry  the  Fifth,  the  pink  of 
courtesy  and  delight  of  chivalry  ;  and  from  this 
principle,  disguise  it  as  you  may,  is  derived  the 
power  to  put  an  innocent  prisoner  to  death  by 
way  of  retaliation.  The  law  of  nations  con- 
siders your  enemies  in  your  power,  not  merely 
as  prisoners,  but  as  hostages  for  the  correct 
treatment  of  your  countrymen  in  the  power  of 
your  enemies.  By  the  laws  of  civilized  modern 
warfare,  women  and  children  are  exempt  from 
destruction,  which,  if  denied  to  them,  you  are 
perfectly  justifiable  to  retaliate  upon  the  In- 
dians, or  those  who  identify  themselves  with 
them,  so  as  to  prevent  its  repetition.  This 
power  of  retaliation  was  assumed  by  General 


332 


ABRIDGMENT  OF  THE 


H.  OP  R.] 


The  Seminole  Wa 


[FEBRUARY,  1819. 


"Washington,  in  the  Revolutionary  war,  in  the 
case  of  Captain  Asgill ;  and  when  the  same 
power  was  assumed  by  General  Greene,  to  the 
south,  on  account  of  the  execution  of  the  gal- 
lant Hayne,  the  then  Congress  acquiesced  in 
the  assumption  of  such  power,  by  each  of  those 
great  men.  But  the  honorable  Speaker  says, 
"the  right  of  retaliation  is  an  attribute  of 
sovereignty,  and  comprehended  in  the  war- 
making  power,"  and  that  because  Congress  has, 
in  the  rules  and  articles  of  war,  provided  a  tri- 
bunal for  the  trial  of  spies,  they  have  the  power 
to  prescribe  the  rule  or  mode  of  trial  in  cases 
of  retaliation.  Again,  that  no  man  could  be 
executed  in  this  free  country,  without  two 
things  being  shown:  first,  that  the  law  con- 
demns him  to  death ;  secondly,  that  his  death 
is  pronounced  by  that  tribunal  which  is  au- 
thorized by  law  to  try  him. 

After  Mr.  EBVIN  had  concluded  his  speech, 
the  House  yet  being  in  Committee  of  the 
Whole— 

The  question  was  taken  on  the  adoption  of 
the  following  resolution,  reported  by  the  Com- 
mittee on  Military  Affairs : 

"  Resolved,  That  the  House  of  [Representatives  of 
the  United  States  disapproves  the  proceedings  in  the 
trial  and  execution  of  Alexander  Arbuthnot  and 
Robert  C.  Ambrister." 

And  decided  in  the  negative — ayes  54,  noes 
90. 

The  question  was  then  put  on  agreeing  to 
the  first  resolution  proposed  by  Mr.  COBB,  as 
follows: 

"  Resolved,  That  the  Committee  on  Military  Affairs 
be  instructed  to  prepare  and  report  a  bill  to  this 
House,  prohibiting,  in  time  of  peace,  or  in  time  of 
war,  with  any  Indian  tribe  or  tribes  only,  the  exe- 
cution of  any  captive,  taken  by  the  Army  of  the 
United  States,  without  the  approbation  of  such  exe- 
cution by  the  President." 

And  decided  in  the  negative — ayes  57,  noes 
98. 

The  question  was  then  taken  on  the  second 
resolution  offered  by  Mr.  COBB,  which  he  modi- 
fied to  read  as  follows : 

"  Resolved,  That  the  late  seizure  of  the  Spanish 
posts  of  Pensacola  and  St.  Carlos  de  Barancas,  in 
West  Florida,  by  the  Army  of  the  United  States, 
was  contrary  to  the  Constitution  of  the  United 
States." 

And  decided  in  the  negative,  also — ayes  65, 
noes  91. 

The  question  was  then  taken  on  the  third 
and  last  resolution  proposed  by  Mr.  COBB,  as 
follows : 

"  Resolved,  That  the  same  committee  be  also  in- 
structed to  prepare  and  report  a  bill  prohibiting  the 
march  of  the  Army  of  the  United  States,  or  any 
corps  thereof,  into  any  foreign  territory,  without  the 
previous  authorization  of  Congress,  except  it  be  in 
the  case  of  fresh  pursuit  of  a  defeated  enemy  of  the 
United  States,  taking  refuge  within  such  foreign 
territory." 

And  decided  in  the  negative  —ayes  42. 


The  Committee  of  the  Whole  then  rose  and 
reported  their  proceedings  to  the  House,  and 
the  question  being  stated  on  concurring  with 
the  Committee  of  the  Whole  in  their  disagree- 
ment to  the  resolution  reported  by  the  Military 
Committee — 

Mr.  POINDEXTEE,  with  the  view,  and  with 
that  view  alone,  of  obtaining  a  vote  directly 
on  concurrence  with  the  Committee  of  the 
Whole  in  their  report,  called  for  the  previous 
question. 

The  House  agreed  to  take  the  previous  ques- 
tion— ayes  95  ;  and. 

The  question  being  pronounced  from  the 
Chair,  "  Shall  the  main  question  be  now  put  ?  " 

Mr.  SPENCER,  upon  this  question,  called  for 
the  yeas  and  nays,  which  were  refused  ;  and 

The  House  having  agreed  to  take  the  main 
question,  of  concurring  with  the  Committee  of 
the  Whole  in  their  disagreement  to  the  resolu- 
tion reported  by  the  Military  Committee, 

Mr.  HARBISON  called  for  a  division  of  the 
question — conceiving  the  cases  of  Arbuthnot 
and  Ambrister  to  be  very  distinct,  and  marked 
by  circumstances  so  different,  as  to  permit  the 
approval  of  one  and  censure  of  the  other. 

The  trial,  sentence,  and  execution  of  Arbuth- 
not were,  he  said,  in  his  opinion,  perfectly  cor- 
rect ;  and,  although  he  would  not  agree  to  cen- 
sure any  one  concerned,  when  their  motives 
were  as  pure  as  he  was  certain  they  were  on 
this  occasion,  especially  when  he  had  no  doubt 
but  both  men  deserved  death ;  yet,  being  called 
upon  to  say  whether  the  execution  of  Ainbris- 
ter  was  right  or  wrong,  as  he  differed  in  opin- 
ion from  General  Jackson  as  to  his  powers  over 
the  court,  he  was  obliged  to  say  that  it  was 
wrong.  It  was  an  honest  difference  of  opinion, 
he  said,  and  was  not  intended  to  convey  any 
censure  upon  that  officer. 

The  question  was  then  taken  on  concurring 
with  the  Committee  of  the  Whole  in  their  dis- 
agreement to  the  first  branch  of  the  resolution, 
viz :  "  That  this  House  disapproves  of  the  trial 
and  execution  of  Alexander  Arbuthnot,"  and 
decided  in  the  affirmative,  by  yeas  and  nays, 
108 — 62. 

The  question  was  then  taken  on  concurring 
with  the  Committee  of  the  Whole,  in  its  disa- 
greement to  the  second  part  of  the  resolution, 
viz :  "  That  this  House  disapproves  of  the  trial 
and  execution  of  Robert  C.  Ambrister,"  and  de- 
cided also  in  the  affirmative,  by  yeas  and  nays, 
107—63. 

So  the  House  concurred  with  the  Committee 
of  the  Whole  in  rejecting  the  resolution  of  cen- 
sure reported  by  the  Military  Committee. 

Mr.  COBB  then  moved  the  adoption  of  the 
second  resolution,  offered  by  him  in  Committee 
of  the  Whole,  as  modified,  in  the  following 
words : 

Resolved,  That  the  late  seizure  of  the  Spanish  posts 
of  Pensacola,  and  St.  Carlos  de  Barancas,  in  West 
Florida,  by  the  Army  of  the  United  States,  was  con- 
trary to  the  Constitution  of  the  United  States. 

The  question  was  then  taken  on  the  resolu- 


DEBATES  OF  CONGRESS. 


FEBRUARY,  1819.] 


Missouri  State  Government — Restriction  on  the  State. 


[H.  OF  R 


tion  proposed  by  Mr.  COBB,  and  decided  in  the 
negative  as  follows : 

YEAS. — Messrs.  Abbot,  Adams,  Allen,  Austin,  Ball, 
Bayley,  Beecher,  Bloomfield,  Burwell,  Cobb,  Colston, 
Cook,  Crawford,  Culbreth,  Cushman,  Edwards,  Elli- 
cott,  Fuller,  Gilbert,  Harrison,  Herbert,  Hopkinson, 
Huntington,  Irving  of  N.  Y.,  Johnson  of  Va.,  Lewis, 
Lincoln,.  Lowndes,  W.  Maclay,  W.  P.  Maclay,  Mason 
of  Rhode  Island,  Mercer,  Mills,  Robert  Moore,  Mosely, 
J.  Nelson,  T.  M.  Nelson,  Ogden,  Pawling,  Pegram, 
Piiidall,  Pitkin,  Pleasants,  Reed,  Rice,  Robertson, 
Rug-rles,  Schuyler,  Sherwood,  Silsbee,  Simkins,  Slo- 
cumb,  J.  S.  Smith,  Speed,  Spencer,  Stewart  of  North 
Carolina,  Storrs,  Strong,  Stuart  of  Maryland,  Terrell, 
Terry,  Trimble,  Tucker  of  Virginia,  Tyler,  Westerlo, 
Whitman,  Williams  of  Connecticut,  Williams  of  North 
Carolina,  Wilson  of  Massachusetts,  and  Wilson  of 
Pennsylvania — 70. 

NAYS. — Messrs.  Anderson  of  Kentucky,  Baldwin, 
Barbour  of  Virginia,  Barber  of  Ohio,  Bassett,  Bate- 
man,  Bennett  Blount,  Boden,  Bryan,  Butler  of  Lou- 
isiana, Campbell.  Clngett,  Comstock,  Crafts,  Cruger, 
Davidson,  Desha,  Drake,  Ervin  of  South  Carolina, 
Floyd,  Folger,  Gage,  Garnett,  Hale,  HaU  of  Dela- 
ware, Hall  of  North  Carolina,  Hasbrouck,  Hend- 
ricks,  Herkimer,  Herrick,  Heister,  Hitchcock,  Hogg, 
Holmes,  Hostetter,  Hubbard,  Hunter,  Johnson  of 
Kentucky,  Jones,  Kinsey,  Kirtland,  Lawyer,  Linn, 
Little,  Livermore,  McLane  of  Delaware,  McLean  of 
Illinois,  McCoy,  Marchand,  Marr,  Mason  of  Massa- 
chusetts, Merrill,  Middleton,  Samuel  Moore,  Morton, 
Murray,  H.  Nelson,  Nesbitt,  New,  Newton,  Ogle, 
Orr,  Owen,  Palmer,  Parrot,  Patterson,  Peter,  Poin- 
dexter,  Porter,  Quarles,  Rhea,  Rich,  Richards,  Ring- 
gold,  Rogers,  Sampson,  Savage,  Scudder,  Sergeant, 
Settle,  Seybert,  Shaw,  S.  Smith,  BaL  Smith,  Alexan- 
der Smyth,  Southard,  Strother,  Tarr,  Taylor,  Tomp- 
kins,  Tucker  of  South  Carolina,  Upham,  Walker  of 
North  Carolina,  Walker  of  Kentucky,  Wallace,  Wen- 
dover,  Whiteside,  Wilkin,  and  Williams  of  New 
York— 100. 

And  then  the  House  adjourned. 


THURSDAY,  February  11. 
A  new  member,  to  wit,  from  North  Carolina, 
CHARLES  FISHER,  elected  to  supply  the  vacancy 
occasioned  by  the  death  of  George  Mumford, 
appeared,  produced  his  credentials,  was  quali- 
fied, and  took  his  seat. 


SATURDAY,  February  13. 

Missouri    State    Government — Restriction  of 

Slavery. 

The  House  then,  on  motion  of  Mr.  SCOTT,  re- 
solved itself  into  a  Committee  of  the  Whole, 
(Mr.  SMITH,  of  Maryland  in  the  chair,)  on  the 
bills  to  enable  the  people  of  the  Territories  of 
Missouri  and  Alabama  to  form  State  Govern- 
ments. 

The  bill  relating  to  the  Missouri  Territory 
was  the  first  in  order,  and  the  first  taken  up. 

The  committee  were  busily  occupied  until 
half  past  4  o'clock,  in  maturing  the  details  of 
this  bill,  and  discussing  propositions  for  its 
amendment ;  in  which  Messrs.  SCOTT,  ROBERT- 
SON, MILLS,  HARRISON,  ANDERSON  of  Kentucky, 


DESHA,  TALLMADGE,  CLAY,  and  BARBOUR,  par- 
ticipated. 

In  the  course  of  the  consideration,  Mr  TALL- 
MADGE  moved  an  amendment,  substantially  to 
limit  the  existence  of  slavery  in  the  new  State, 
by  declaring  all  free  who  should  be  born  hi  the 
Territory  after  its  admission  into  the  Union, 
and  providing  for  the  gradual  emancipation  of 
those  now  held  in  bondage. 

This  motion  gave  rise  to  an  interesting  and 
pretty  wide  debate,  in  which  the  proposition 
was  supported  by  the  mover,  and  by  Messrs. 
LIVERMORE  and  MILLS,  and  was  opposed  by 
Messrs.  CLAY,  (Speaker,)  BARBOUR,  and  Pnr- 
DALL  ;  but  before  any  question  was  taken,  the 
committee  rose,  and  the  House  adjourned.* 


MONDAY,  February  15. 

Missouri  State  Government — Restriction  on  the 
State. 

The  House  having  again  resolved  itself  into  a 
Committee  of  the  Whole,  (Mr.  SMITH  of  Mary- 
land in  the  chair,)  on  the  bill  to  authorize  the 
people  of  the  Missouri  Territory  to  form  a  con- 
stitution and  State  government,  and  for  the  ad- 
mission of  the  same  into  the  Union — 

The  question  being  on  the  proposition  of  Mr. 
TALLMADGE  to  amend  the  bill  by  adding  to  it 
the  following  proviso : 


*  This  was  the  commencement  of  the  great  Missouri  agi- 
tation which  was  settled  by  the  compromise.  No  two 
words  have  been  more  confounded  of  late  than  these  of  the 
restriction  and  compromise— BO  much  so  that  some  of  the 
eminent  speakers  of  the  time  have  had  their  speeches  against 
the  restriction  quoted  as  being  against  the  compromise— of 
which  they  were  zealous  advocates.  Though  often  con- 
founded, no  two  measures  could  be  more  opposite  in  the 
nature  and  effects.  The  restriction  was  to  operate  upon  a 
State— the  compromise  on  territory.  The  restriction  was 
to  prevent  the  State  of  Missouri  from  admitting  slavery— 
the  compromise  was  to  admit  slavery  there,  and  to  divide 
the  rest  of  Louisiana  about  equally  between  free  and  slave 
soil.  The  restriction  came  from  the  North — the  compro- 
mise from  the  South.  The  restriction  raised  the  storm— 
the  compromise  allayed  it.  And  all  this  may  be  seen  in  the 
debates  on  the  subject,  now  made  accessible  to  the  commu- 
nity by  this  abridgment.  Since  it  has  come  into  vogue  to 
decry  the  compromise,  much  inapplicable  testimony  has 
been  brought  against  it ;  among  the  rest  a  letter  from  Mr 
Madison  to  Mr.  Robert  Walsh,  of  Philadelphia,  of  date  No- 
vember 27th,  1819.  That  letter  has  been  published  in  a 
handsome  quarto  volume  (of  Mr.  Madison's  letters)  by  Mr. 
James  C.  McGuire,  of  Washington  City— a  publication  not 
made  for  sale,  or  to  subserve  a  purpose,  but  for  presents  to 
friends.  It  is  a  great  mistake  in  the  understanding  of  that 
letter,  and  a  wide  misapplication  of  its  close  and  masterly 
reasoning,  to  understand  it  as  applying  to  the  compromise. 
On  looking  at  it,  it  will  bo  seen  that  its  whole  tenor  applies 
to  the  restriction  on  the  State ;  that  the  word  compromise 
is  not  in  it ;  that  it  was  written  the  year  before  the  compro- 
mise, and  at  the  very  moment— the  eve  of  the  meeting  of 
Congress,  the  session  of  1819-'20— when  the  attempted  re- 
striction had  occasioned  the  loss  of  the  State  bill  the  session 
before,  ami  when  the  restriction  question  was  wearing  its 
direst  aspect. 


334 


ABKIDGMENT  OF  THE 


H.  OP  R.] 


Missouri  State  Government — Restriction  on  the  State. 


[FEBRUARY,  1819. 


"  And  provided,  That  the  further  introduction  of 
slavery  or  involuntary  servitude  be  prohibited,  except 
for  the  punishment  of  crimes,  whereof  the  party  shall 
have  been  fully  convicted  ;  and  that  all  children  born 
within  the  said  State,  after  the  admission  thereof  into 
the  Union,  shall  be  free  at  the  age  of  twenty-five 
years :" 

The  debate  which  commenced  on  Saturday 
was  to-day  resumed  on  this  proposition ;  which 
was  supported  by  Mr.  TAYLOR,  Mr.  MILLS,  Mr. 
LIVEKMOEE,  and  Mr.  FULLER;  and  opposed  by 
Mr.  BARBOUR,  Mr.  PINDALL,  Mr.  CLAY,  and  Mr. 
HOLMES. 

This  debate  (which  was  quite  interesting)  in- 
volved two  questions ;  one  of  right,  the  other  of 
expediency.  Both  were  supported  by  the  advo- 
cates of  the  amendment,  and  generally  opposed 
by  its  opponents.  On  the  one  hand,  it  was  con- 
tended that  Congress  had  no  right  to  prescribe 
to  any  State  the  details  of  its  government,  any 
further  than  that  it  should  be  republican  in  its 
form ;  that  such  a  power  would  be  nugatory,  if 
exercised,  since,  once  admitted  into  the  Union, 
the  people  of  any  State  have  the  unquestioned 
right  to  amend  their  constitution  of  govern- 
ment, &c. 

On  the  other  hand,  it  was  as  strongly  con- 
tended .that  Congress  had  the  right  to  annex 
conditions  to  the  admission  of  any  new  State 
into  the  Union  ;  that  slavery  was  incompatible 
with  our  Republican  institutions,  &c. 

Besides  the  above  gentlemen,  Mr.  HARRISON 
and  Mr.  HENDRIOKS  spoke  on  points  incidentally 
introduced  into  the  debate. 

Mr.  TAYLOR,  of  New  York,  spoke  as  follows : 

Mr.  Chairman,  if  the  few  citizens  who  now 
inhabit  the  territory  of  Missouri  were  alone  in- 
terested in  the  decision  of  this  question,  I  should 
content  myself  with  voting  in  favor  of  the 
amendment,  without  occupying  for  a  moment 
the  attention  of  the  committee.  But  the  fact 
is  far  otherwise :  those  whom  we  shall  authorize 
to  set  in  motion  the  machine  of  free  government 
beyond  the  Mississippi,  will,  in  many  respects, 
decide  the  destiny  of  millions.  Cast  your  eye 
on  that  majestic  river  which  gives  name  to  the 
Territory,  for  the  admission  of  which  into  the 
Union  we  are  about  to  provide  ;  trace  its 
meanderings  through  fertile  regions  for  more 
than  two  thousand  miles ;  cross  the  Stony  Moun- 
tains, and  descend  the  navigable  waters  which 
empty  into  the  Western  ocean;  contemplate 
the  States  hereafter  to  unfurl  their  banners 
over  this  fair  portion  of  America,  the  successive 
generations  of  freemen  who  there  shall  adorn 
the  arts,  enlarge  the  circle  of  science,  and  im- 
prove the  condition  of  our  species.  Having 
taken  this  survey,  you  will  be  able,  in  some 
measure,  to  appreciate  the  importance  of  the 
subject  before  us.  Our  votes  this  day  will  de- 
termine whether  the  high  destinies  of  this 
region,  and  of  these  generations,  shall  be  fulfilled, 
or  whether  we  shall  defeat  them  by  permitting 
slavery,  with  all  its  baleful  consequences,  to  in- 
herit the  land.  Let  the  magnitude  of  this  ques- 
tion plead  my  apology,  while  I  briefly  address 


a  few  considerations  to  the  sober  judgment  of 
patriots  and  statesmen. 

I  will  not  now  stop  to  examine  the  policy  of 
extending  our  settlements  into  the  wilderness, 
with  the  astonishing  rapidity  which  has  marked 
their  progress,  leaving  within  our  ancient 
borders  an  extensire  country,  unsubdued  by  the 
hand  of  man.  This  inquiry,  although  intimately 
connected  with  the  subject,  would  too  much 
extend  the  range  of  discussion  at  this  late  period 
of  the  session.  I,  however,  cannot  forbear  re- 
minding gentlemen,  that  but  few  years  have 
elapsed  since  the  opinion  was  often  expressed, 
and  earnestly  inculcated  by  our  wisest  and  best 
men,  that  no  locations  ought  to  be  made  beyond 
the  Mississippi,  until  the  original  States  and 
Territories  should  acquire  a  population  of  con- 
siderable compactness  and  strength ;  and  that 
our  military  posts  should  not  be  pushed  forward 
faster  than  was  necessary  to  protect  the  frontier 
settlements.  A  policy  embracing  more  en- 
larged ideas,  and  more  magnificent  projects, 
appears  to  have  succeeded.  We  now  talk  of 
forts  at  the  mouth  of  the  Yellow  Stone,  and 
military  establishments  some  fifteen  or  twenty 
hundred  miles  in  the  Indian  country,  as  objects 
of  reasonable  and  easy  achievement.  An  hon- 
orable member  from  Virginia  has  this  morning 
presented  a  petition  from  sundry  inhabitants  of 
that  State,  praying  of  Congress  permission  to 
settle  on  Columbia  River,  between  the  Rocky 
Mountains  and  the  Pacific  Ocean,  probably  in- 
tending to  introduce  slavery  into  the  remotest 
verge  of  republican  territory.  I  pass  over  these 
subjects,  however  momentous,  and  well  deserv- 
ing the  attention  of  Congress,  and  come  directly 
to  the  points  in  issue. 

First.  Has  Congress  power  to  require  of  Mis- 
souri a  constitutional  prohibition  against  the 
further  introduction  of  slavery,  as  a  condition  of 
her  admission  into  the  Union  ? 

Second.  If  the  power  exist,  is  it  wise  to  exer- 
cise it? 

Congress  has  no  power  unless  it  be  expressly 
granted  by  the  constitution,  or  necessary  to  the 
execution  of  some  power  clearly  delegated. 
What,  then,  ar%  the  grants  made  to  Congress  in 
relation  to  the  Territories  ?  The  third  section 
of  the  fourth  article  declares,  that  "  the  Con- 
gress shall  have  power  to  dispose  of  and  make 
all  needful  rules  and  regulations  respecting  the 
territory,  or  other  property,  belonging  to  the 
United  States."  It  would  be  difficult  to  devise 
a  more  comprehensive  grant  of  power.  The 
whole  subject  is  put  at  the  disposal  of  Congress, 
as  well  as  the  right  of  judging  what  regulations 
are  proper  to  be  made,  as  the  power  of  making 
them  is  clearly  granted.  Until  admitted  into 
the  Union,  this  political  society  is  a  territory  ; 
all  the  preliminary  steps  relating  to  its  admis- 
sion are  territorial  regulations.  Hence,  in  all 
such  cases,  Congress  has  exercised  the  power  of 
determining  by  whom  the  constitution  should 
be  made,  how  its  framers  should  be  elected, 
when  and  where  they  should  meet,  and  what 
propositions  should  be  submitted  to  their  deci- 


DEBATES  OF  CONGRESS. 


335 


FEBRUARY,  1819.] 


Missouri  State  Government — Restriction  on   the  State. 


[H.  OF  R. 


sion.  After  its  formation,  the  Congress  examine 
its  provisions,  and,  if  approved,  admit  the  State 
into  the  Union,  in  pursuance  of  a  power  dele- 
gated by  the  same  section  of  the  constitution, 
in  the  following  words  :  "  New  States  may  be 
admitted  by  the  Congress  into  the  Union." 
This  grant  of  power  is  evidently  alternative ; 
its  exercise  is  committed  to  the  sound  discretion 
of  Congress ;  no  injustice  is  done  by  declining  it. 
But  if  Congress  has  the  power  of  altogether  re- 
fusing to  admit  new  States,  much  more  has  it 
the  power  of  prescribing  such  conditions  of  ad- 
mission as  may  be  judged  reasonable.  The  exer- 
cise of  this  power,  until  now,  has  never  been 
questioned.  The  act  of  1802,  under  which  Ohio 
was  admitted  into  the  Union,  prescribed  the 
condition  that  its  constitution  should  not  be  re- 
pugnant to  the  ordinance  of  1787.  The  sixth 
article  of  that  ordinance  declares,  "  there  shall 
be  neither  slavery  nor  involuntary  servitude  in 
the  said  territory,  otherwise  than  in  the  punish- 
ment of  crimes  whereof  the  party  shall  have  been 
duly  convicted."  The  same  condition  was  im- 
posed by  Congress  on  the  people  of  Indiana  and 
Illinois.  These  States  have  all  complied  with 
it,  and  framed  constitutions  excluding  slavery. 
Missouri  lies  in  the  same  latitude.  Its  soil,  pro- 
ductions, and  climate  are  the  same,  and  the  same 
principles  of  government  should  be  applied 
to  it. 

But  it  is  said  that,  by  the  treaty  of  1803,  with 
the  French  Republic,  Congress  is  restrained  from 
imposing  this  condition.  The  third  article  is 
quoted  as  containing  the  prohibition.  It  is  in 
the  following  words :  "  The  inhabitants  of  the 
ceded  territory  shall  be  incorporated  in  the 
Union  of  the  United  States,  and  admitted  as 
soon  as  possible,  according  to  the  principles  of 
the  Federal  Constitution,  to  the  enjoyment  of  all 
the  rights,  advantages,  and  immunities  of  citi- 
zens of  the  United  States,  and,  in  the  mean  time, 
they  shall  be  maintained  and  protected  in  the 
free  enjoyment  of  their  liberty,  property,  and 
the  religion  which  they  profess."  The  inhab- 
itants of  the  ceded  territory,  when  transferred 
from  the  protection  of  the  French  Republic,  in 
regard  to  the  United  States,  would  have  stood 
in  the  relation  of  aliens.  The  object  of  the 
article  doubtless  was  to  provide  for  their  admis- 
sion to  the  rights  of  citizens,  and  their  in- 
corporation into  the  American  family.  The 
treaty  made  no  provision  for  the  erection  of 
new  States  in  the  ceded  territory.  That  was  a 
question  of  national  policy,  properly  reserved 
for  the  decision  of  those  to  whom  the  constitu- 
tion had  committed  the  power.  The  framers  of 
the  treaty  well  knew  that  the  President  and  Sen- 
ate could  not  bind  Congress  to  admit  new  States 
into  the  Union.  The  unconstitutional  doctrine 
had  not  then  been  broached,  that  the  President 
and  Senate  could  not  only  purchase  a  West  In- 
dia island  or  an  African  principality,  but  also 
impose  upon  Congress  an  obligation  to  make  it 
an  independent  State,  and  admit  it  into  the 
Union.  If  the  President  and  Senate  can,  by 
treaty,  change  the  Constitution  of  the  United 


States,  and  rob  Congress  of  a  power  clearly  del- 
egated, the  doctrine  may  be  true,  but  other- 
wise, it  is  false.  The  treaty,  therefore,  has  no 
operation  on  the  question  in  debate.  Its  re- 
quirements, however,  have  been  faithfully  ful- 
filled. In  1804,  the  laws  of  the  United  States 
were  extended  to  that  territory.  The  protec- 
tion afforded  by  the  Federal  Constitution  was 
guaranteed  to  its  inhabitants.  They  were  thus 
"incorporated  in  the  Union,"  and  secured  in 
the  enjoyment  of  their  rights.  The  treaty  stipu- 
lation being  thus  executed,  "  as  soon  as  possible," 
it  remained  a  question  for  the  future  determi- 
nation of  Congress,  whether  the  Government 
should  remain  territorial  or  become  that  of  an 
independent  State.  In  1811,  this  question  was 
decided  in  relation  to  that  part  of  the  territory 
which  then  embraced  nearly  all  the  population, 
and  to  acquire  which,  alone,  the  treaty  had  been 
made.  A  law  was  passed  to  enable  the  people 
of  the  Territory  of  Orleans  to  form  a  constitu- 
tion and  State  government,  and  to  provide  for 
its  admission  into  the  Union.  Did  Congress 
then  doubt  its  power  to  annex  conditions  to 
such  admission?  No,  sir,  far  from  it.  The 
government  of  Orleans  had  always  been  admin-  • 
istered  according  to  the  principles  of  the  civil 
law.  The  common  law,  so  highly  valued  in 
other  parts  of  our  country,  was  not  recognized 
there.  Trial  by  jury  was  unknown  to  the  in- 
habitants. Instead  of  a  privilege,  they  con- 
sidered its  introduction  an  odious  departure 
from  their  ancient  administration  of  justice. 
Left  to  themselves,  they  never  would  have  in- 
troduced it.  Congress,  however,  knowing  these 
things,  made  it  a  condition  of  their  admission 
into  the  Union,  that  trial  by  jury  should  be 
secured  to  the  citizen  by  a  constitutional  pro- 
vision. 

Even  the  language  of  the  Territory  was  re- 
quired to  be  changed,  as  a  condition  of  its  ad- 
mission. The  inhabitants  were  wholly  French 
and  Spanish.  Theirs  were  the  only  languages 
generally  spoken,  or  even  understood.  But 
Congress  required  from  them  a  constitutional 
provision,  that  their  legislative  and  judicial  pro- 
ceedings should  be  conducted  in  the  English 
language.  They  were  not  left  at  liberty  to  de- 
termine this  point  for  themselves.  From  these 
facts,  it  appears  that  Congress,  at  that  day,  acted 
from  a  conviction  that  it  possessed  the  power 
of  prescribing  the  conditions  of  their  admission 
into  the  Union. 

Gentlemen  have  said  the  amendment  is  in 
violation  of  the  treaty,  because  it  impairs  the 
property  of  a  master  in  his  slave.  Is  it  then 
pretended,  that,  notwithstanding  the  declaration 
in  our  bill  of  rights,  "  that  all  men  are  created 
equal,"  one  individual  can  have  a  vested  prop- 
erty not  only  in  the  flesh  and  blood  of  his  fel- 
low man,  but  also  in  generations  not  yet  called 
into  existence?  Can  it  bo  believed  that  the 
supreme  Legislature  has  no  power  to  provide 
rules  and  regulations  for  ameliorating  the  con- 
dition of  future  ages  ?  And  this,  too,  when  the 
constitution  itself  has  vested  in  Congress  full 


336 


ABRIDGMENT  OF  THE 


H.  OF  R.] 


Missouri  State  Government — Restriction  on  the  State. 


[FEBKUAKT,  1819. 


sovereignty,  by  authorizing  the  enactment  of 
whatever  law  it  may  deem  conducive  to  the 
welfare  of  the  country.  The  sovereignty  of 
Congress  in  relation  to  the  States,  is  limited  by 
specific  grants — but,  in  regard  to  the  Territories, 
it  is  unlimited.  Missouri  was  purchased  with 
our  money,  and,  until  incorporated  into  the 
family  of  States,  it  may  be  sold  for  money. 
Can  it  then  be  maintained,  that  although  we 
have  the  power  to  dispose  of  the  whole  Terri- 
tory, we  have  no  right  to  provide  against  the 
further  increase  of  slavery  within  its  limits? 
That,  although  we  may  change  the  political  re- 
lations of  its  free  citizens  by  transferring  their 
country  to  a  foreign  power,  we  cannot  provide 
for  the  gradual  abolition  of  slavery  within  its 
limits,  nor  establish  those  civil  regulations  which 
naturally  flow  from  self-evident  truth?  No, 
sir,  it  cannot ;  the  practice  of  nations  and  the 
common  sense  of  mankind  have  long  since  de- 
cided these  questions. 

Having  proved,  as  I  apprehend,  our  right  to 
legislate  in  the  manner  proposed,  I  proceed  to 
illustrate  the  propriety  of  exercising  it.  And 
here  I  might  rest  satisfied  with  reminding  my 
>  opponents  of  their  own  declarations  on  the  sub- 
ject of  slavery.  How  often,  and  how  eloquently, 
have  they  deplored  its  existence  among  them  ? 
What  willingness,  nay,  what  solicitude  have 
they  not  manifested  to  be  relieved  from  this 
burden  ?  How  have  they  wept  over  the  unfor- 
tunate policy  that  first  introduced  slaves  into 
this  country !  How  have  they  disclaimed  the 
guilt  and  shame  of  that  original  sin,  and  thrown 
it  back  upon  their  ancestors!  I  have  with 
pleasure  heard  these  avowals  of  regret,  and  con- 
fided in  their  sincerity ;  I  have  hoped  to  see  its 
effects  in  the  advancement  of  the  cause  of  hu- 
manity. Gentlemen  have  now  an  opportunity 
of  putting  their  principles  into  practice ;  if  they 
have  tried  slavery  and  found  it  a  curse ;  if  they 
desire  to  dissipate  the  gloom  with  which  it 
covers  their  land ;  I  call  upon  them  to  exclude 
it  from  the  Territory  in  question ;  plant  not  its 
seeds  in  this  uncorrupt  soil ;  let  not  our  chil- 
dren, looking  back  to  the  proceedings  of  this 
day,  say  of  them,  as  they  have  been  constrained 
to  speak  of  their  fathers,  "  we  wish  their  decision 
had  been  different ;  we  regret  the  existence  of 
this  unfortunate  population  among  us ;  but  we 
found  them  here :  we  know  not  what  to  do 
with  them ;  it  is  our  misfortune,  we  must  bear 
it  with  patience." 

History  will  record  the  decision  of  this  day  as 
exerting  its  influence  for  centuries  to  come  over 
the  population  of  half  our  continent.  If  we  re- 
ject the  amendment,  and  suffer  this  evil,  now 
easily  eradicated,  to  strike  its  roots  so  deep  in 
the  soil  that  it  can  never  be  removed,  shall  we 
not  furnish  some  apology  for  doubting  our  sin- 
cerity, when  we  deplore  its  existence — shall  we 
not  expose  ourselves  to  the  same  kind  of  censure 
which  was  pronounced  by  the  Saviour  of  man- 
kind upon  the  Scribes  and  Pharisees,  who  build- 
ed  the  tombs  of  the  prophets  and  garnished  the 
sepulchres  of  the  righteous,  and  said,  if  they 


had  lived  in  the  days  of  their  fathers,  they  would 
not  have  been  partakers  with  them  in  the  blood  . 
of  the  prophets,  while  they  manifested  a  spirit 
which  clearly  proved  them  the  legitimate  de- 
scendants of  those  who  killed  the  prophets,  and 
thus  filled  up  the  measure  of  their  fathers' 
iniquity  ? 

Mr.  Chairman,  one  of  the  gentlemen  from 
Kentucky  (Mr.  CLAY)  has  pressed  into  his  ser- 
vice the  cause  of  humanity.  He  has  pathetically 
urged  us  to  withdraw  our  amendment  and  suffer 
this  unfortunate  population  to  be  dispersed  over 
the  country.  He  says  they  will  be  better  fed, 
clothed,  and  sheltered,  and  their  whole  condi- 
tion will  be  greatly  improved.  Sir,  true  hu- 
manity disowns  his  invocation.  The  humanity 
to  which  he  appeals  is  base  coin ;  it  is  counter- 
feit, it  is  that  humanity  which  seeks  to  palliate 
disease  by  the  application  of  nostrums,  which 
scatter  its  seeds  through  the  whole  system — 
which  saves  a  finger  to  day,  but  amputates  the 
arm  to-morrow.  Sir,  my  heart  responds  to  the 
call  of  humanity ;  I  will  zealously  unite  in  any 
practicable  means  of  bettering  the  condition  of 
this  oppressed  people.  I  am  ready  to  appro- 
priate a  territory  to  their  use,  and  to  aid  them 
in  settling  it — but  I  am  not  willing,  I  never  will 
consent  to  declare  the  whole  country  west  of 
the  Mississippi  a  market  overt  for  human  flesh. 
In  vain  will  you  enact  severe  laws  against  the 
importation  of  slaves,  if  you  create  for  them  an 
additional  demand,  by  opening  the  western  world 
to  their  employment.  While  a  negro  man  is 
bought  in  Africa  for  a  few  gewgaws  or  a  bottle 
of  whiskey,  and  sold  at  New  Orleans  for  twelve 
or  fifteen  hundred  dollars,  avarice  will  stimulate 
to  the  violation  of  your  laws.  Notwithstanding 
the  penalties  and  confiscations  denounced  in 
your  statutes  and  actually  enforced  on  all  de- 
tected offenders,  the  slave  trade  continues — a 
vigilant  execution  of  the  laws  may  diminish  it, 
but,  while  you  increase  the  demand  and  offer  so 
great  temptation  to  the  cupidity  of  unprincipled 
men,  they  will  encounter  every  peril  in  the 
prosecution  of  this  unhallowed  traffic.  The 
gentleman  from  Kentucky  has  intimated  his 
willingness,  in  addition  to  the  existing  penalties 
upon  transgression,  to  discourage  this  inhuman 
commerce  by  declaring  the  imported  slave  to  be 
free.  This  provision,  if  established,  would  in 
theory  provide  some  remedy  for  the  evil,  but  in 
practice  it  would  be  found  altogether  inopera- 
tive. A  slave  is  smuggled  into  the  country  and 
by  law  becomes  free ;  but  the  fact  of  importa- 
tion must  be  established  by  witnesses  in  a  court 
of  justice.  In  non-slaveholding  States,  all  men 
are  presumed  free,  until  the  contrary  be  proved ; 
but,  where  slavery  is  established,  all  black  men 
are  presumed  slaves,  until  they  are  proved  free. 
This  presumption  alone  would  generally  present 
to  the  slave  an  insuperable  obstacle  to  the  suc- 
cessful prosecution  of  his  claim — he  moreover 
would  be  poor,  unfriended,  ignorant  of  our  lan- 
guage, and  under  the  watchful  eye  of  those 
whose  interest  it  would  be  to  allow  no  commu- 
nication of  his  wrongs  .where  redress  could  be 


DEBATES  OF  CONGRESS. 


337 


FEBRUARY,  1819.] 


Missouri  State  Government — Restriction  on  the  State. 


[H.  OF  R. 


obtained.  The  right  of  freedom  might  exist, 
but  he  would  find  it  impracticable  to  enforce  it, 
and  he  probably  would  have  occasion  to  feel 
that  every  effort  to  break  his  chains  only  in- 
crease their  weight  and  render  his  condition  the 
more  intolerable. 

To  the  objection  that  this  amendment  will,  if 
adopted,,  diminish  the  value  of  a  species  of  prop- 
erty in  one  portion  of  the  Union,  and  thereby 
operate  unequally,  I  reply,  that  if,  by  depriving 
slaveholders  of  the  Missouri  market,  the  business 
of  raising  slaves  should  become  less  profitable,  it 
would  be  an  effect  incidentally  produced,  but 
is  not  the  object  of  the  measure.  The  law  pro- 
hibiting the  importation  of  foreign  slaves  was 
not  passed  for  the  purpose  of  enhancing  the 
value  of  those  then  in  the  country,  but  that 
effect  has  been  incidentally  produced  in  a  very 
great  degree.  So  now  the  exclusion  of  slavery 
from  Missouri  may  operate,  in  some  measure,  to 
retard  a  further  advance  of  prices ;  but,  surely, 
when  gentlemen  consider  the  present  demand 
for  their  labor,  and  the  extent  of  country  in 
Louisiana,  Mississippi,  and  Alabama,  requiring  a 
supply,  they  ought  not  to  oppose  their  exclusion 
from  the  territory  in  question.  It  is  further 
objected,  that  the  amendment  is  calculated  to 
disfranchise  our  brethren  of  the  South,  by  dis- 
couraging their  emigration  to  the  country  west 
of  the  Mississippi.  If  it  were  proposed  to  dis- 
criminate between  citizens  of  the  different  sec- 
tions of  our  Union,  and  allow  a  Pennsylvanian 
to  hold  slaves  there  while  the  power  was  denied 
to  a  Virginian,  the  objection  might  very  properly 
be  made ;  but,  when  we  place  all  on  an  equal 
footing,  denying  to  all  what  we  deny  to  one,  I 
am  unable  to  discover  the  injustice  or  inequality 
of  which  honorable  gentlemen  have  thought 
proper  to  complain.  The  description  of  emi- 
grants may  be  affected  in  some  measure,  by  the 
amendment  in  question.  If  slavery  shall  be 
tolerated,  the  country  will  be  settled  by  rich 
planters,  with  their  slaves ;  if  it  shall  be  rejected, 
the  emigrants  will  chiefly  consist  of  the  poorer 
and  more  laborious  classes  of  society.  If  it  be 
true  that  the  prosperity  and  happiness  of  a  coun- 
try ought  to  constitute  the  grand  object  of  its 
legislators,  I  cannot  hesitate  for  a  moment  which 
species  of  population  deserves  most  to  be  en- 
couraged by  the  laws  we  may  pass.  Gentlemen, 
in  their  zeal  to  oppose  the  amendment,  appear 
to  have  considered  but  one  side  of  the  case.  If 
the  rejection  of  slavery  will  tend  to  discourage 
emigration  from  the  South,  will  not  its  admis- 
sion have  the  same  effect  in  relation  to  the  North 
and  East  ?  Whence  came  the  people  who,  with 
a  rapidity  never  before  witnessed,  have  changed 

into  fruitful  fields ;  who  have  erected  there,  in 
a  period  almost  too  short  for  the  credibility  of 
future  ages,  three  of  the  freest  and  most  flour- 
ishing States,  in  our  Union  ?  They  came  from 
the  eastern  hive ;  from  that  source  of  popula- 
tion which,  in  the  same  time,  has  added  more 
than  one  hundred  thousand  inhabitants  to  my 
native  State,  and  furnished  seamen  for  a  large 
VOL.  VL— 22 


portion  of  the  navigation  of  the  world ;  seamen 
who  have  unfurled  your  banner  in  every  port 
to  which  the  enterprise  of  man  has  gained  ad- 
mittance, and  who,  though  poor  themselves, 
have  drawn  rich  treasures  for  the  nation  from 
the  bosom  of  the  deep.  Do  you  believe  that 
these  people  will  settle  in  a  country  where  they 
must  take  rank  with  negro  slaves?  Having 
neither  the  ability  nor  will  to  hold  slaves  them- 
selves, they  labor  cheerfully  while  labor  is  hon- 
orable ;  make  it  disgraceful,  they  will  despise 
it.  You  cannot  degrade  it  more  effectually  than 
by  establishing  a  system  whereby  it  shall  be 
performed  principally  by  slaves.  The  business 
in  which  they  are  generally  engaged,  be  it  what 
it  may,  soon  becomes  debased  in  public  estima- 
tion. It  is  considered  low,  and  unfit  for  free- 
men. I  cannot  better  illustrate  this  truth  than 
by  referring  to  a  remark  of  the  honorable  gen- 
tleman from  Kentucky,  (Mr.  CLAY.)  I  have 
often  admired  the  liberality  of  his  sentiments. 
He  is  governed  by  no  vulgar  prejudices ;  yet 
with  what  abhorrence  did  he  speak  of  the  per- 
formance, by  your  wives  and  daughters,  of  those 
domestic  offices  which  he  was  pleased  to  call 
servile!  What  comparison  did  he  make  be- 
tween the  "black  slaves"  of  Kentucky  and  the 
"white  slaves"  of  the  North;  and  how  in- 
stantly did  he  strike  a  balance  in  favor  of  the 
condition  of  the  former !  If  such  opinions  and 
expressions,  even  in  the  ardor  of  debate,  can 
fall  from  that  honorable  gentleman,  what  ideas 
do  you  suppose  are  entertained  of  laboring  men 
by  the  majority  of  slaveholders  ?  A  gentleman 
from  Virginia  (Mr.  BAEBOTJE)  replies  they  are 
treated  with  confidence  and  esteem,  and  their 
rights  are  respected.  Sir,  I  did  not  imagine  they 
were  put  out  of  the  protection  of  law.  Their 
persons  and  property  are  doubtless  secure  from 
violence,  or,  if  injured,  the  courts  of  justice  are 
open  for  their  redress.  But,  in  a  country  like 
this,  where  the  people  are  sovereign,  and  every 
citizen  is  entitled  to  equal  rights,  the  mere  ex- 
emption from  flagrant  wrong  is  no  great  privi- 
lege. In  this  country,  no  class  of  freemen  should 
be  excluded,  either  by  law,  or  by  the  ostracism 
of  public  opinion,  more  powerful  than  law,  from 
competing  for  offices  and  political  distinctions. 
Sir,  a  humane  master  will  respect  the  rights  of 
his  slave,  and,  if  worthy,  will  honor  him  with 
confidence  and  esteem.  And  this  same  measure, 
I  apprehend,  is  dealt  out,  in  slaveholding  States, 
to  the  laboring  class  of  their  white  population. 
But  whom  of  that  class  have  they  ever  called 
to  fill  stations  of  any  considerable  responsibility  ? 
When  have  we  seen  a  Representative  on  this 
floor,  from  that  section  of  our  Union,  who  was 
not  a  slaveholder  ?  Who  but  slaveholders  are 
elected  to  their  State  Legislatures  ?  Who  but 
they  are  appointed  to  fill  their  executive  and 
judicial  offices  ?  I  appeal  to  gentlemen,  whether 
the  selection  of  a  laboring  man,  however  well 
educated,  would  not  be  considered  an  extraor- 
dinary event  ?  For  this  I  do  not  reproach  my 
brethren  of  the  South.  They  doubtless  choose 
those  to  represent  them  in  whom  they  most 


338 


ABRIDGMENT  OF  THE 


H.  OF  R.] 


Missouri  State  Government — Restriction  on  the  State. 


[FEBRUARY,  1819. 


confide ;  and  far  be  it  from  me  to  intimate  that 
their  confidence  is  ever  misplaced.  But  my 
objection  is  to  the  introduction  of  a  system 
which  cannot  but  produce  the  effect  of  render- 
ing labor  disgraceful. 

An  argument  has  been  urged  by  a  gentleman 
from  Virginia  (Mr.  BARBOTJB)  against  the  pro- 
posed amendment,  connected  with  our  revenues. 
He  said  that  by  prohibiting  the  further  intro- 
duction of  slaves  into  the  proposed  State,  we 
should  reduce  the  price  and  diminish  the  sales 
of  our  public  lands.  In  my  opinion,  the  effect 
would  be  precisely  the  reverse.  True,  it  is, 
that  lands  for  cultivation  have  sold  higher 
in  Alabama  than  in  Illinois,  but  this  is  owing 
not  to  the  rejection  of  slavery  in  the  one  and 
its  admission  into  the  other,  but  to  the  different 
staples  they  are  capable  of  producing.  The  ad- 
vanced price  of  cotton  has  created  in  market 
a  demand  for  lands  suited  to  its  cultivation,  and 
enhanced  their  value  far  beyond  any  former 
precedent.  But,  to  test  the  truth  of  the  posi- 
tion, we  must  ascertain  the  relative  value  of 
land  in  adjoining  States,  the  one  allowing  and 
the  other  rejecting  slavery,  where  the  climate, 
soil,  productions,  and  advantages  of  market  are 
similar.  Pennsylvania  and  Maryland  furnish 
fair  specimens  of  comparison  in  all  these  re- 
spects. But  here  the  result  is  in  direct  opposi- 
tion to  the  conjecture  of  the  gentleman  from 
Virginia.  Land  on  the  Pennsylvania  side  of 
the  line,  where  the  powerof  holding  slaves  does 
not  exist,  uniformly  sells  at  a  higher  price  than 
lands  of  equal  quality  on  the  Maryland  side, 
where  the  power  is  in  full  exercise.  It,  there- 
fore, is  probable,  that  the  further  introduction 
of  slavery  into  Missouri,  far  from  increasing, 
would  actually  diminish  the  value  of  our  pub- 
lic lands.  But,  should  the  fact  be  otherwise,  I 
entreat  gentlemen  to  consider  whether  it  be- 
come the  high  character  of  an  American  Con- 
gress to  barter  the  present  happiness  and  future 
safety  of  unborn  millions  for  a  few  pieces  of 
pelf,  for  a  few  cents  on  an  acre  of  land.  For 
myself,  I  would  no  sooner  contaminate  the 
national  Treasury  with  such  ill-gotten  gold, 
than  I  would  tarnish  the  fame  of  our  national 
ships  by  directing  their  employment  in  the 
African  slave  trade.  But,  whatever  may  be 
the  influence  of  the  subject  in  controversy  upon 
the  original  price  of  land,  it  must  be  evident  to 
all  men  of  observation  that  its  ultimate  and  per- 
manent effects  are  very  prejudicial  to  agricul- 
tural improvement.  Farms  in  Maryland,  not- 
withstanding the  mildness  of  its  climate  com- 
pared with  New  York,  I  am  informed,  may  be 
Eurchased  at  five  or  six  dollars  an  acre,  while 
mds  by  nature  not  more  fertile  nor  more  ad- 
vantageously situated,  in  the  last-mentioned 
State,  sell  at  a  rate  ten  times  higher.  Had 
not  slavery  been  introduced  into  Maryland,  her 
numerous  and  extensive  old  fields,  which  now 
appear  to  be  worse  than  useless,  would  long 
since  have  supported  a  dense  population  of  in- 
dustrious freemen,  and  contributed  largely  to 
the  strength  and  resources  of  the  State.  Who 


has  travelled  along  the  line  which  divides  that 
State  from  Pennsylvania,  and  has  not  observed 
that  no  monuments  are  necessary  to  mark  the 
boundary ;  that  it  is  easily  traced  by  following 
the  dividing  lines  between  farms  highly  culti- 
vated and  plantations  laying  open  to  the  com- 
mon and  overrun  with  weeds ;  between  stone 
barns  and  stone  bridges  on  one  side,  and  stalk 
cribs  and  no  bridges  on  the  other ;  between  a 
neat,  blooming,  animated,  rosy-cheeked  peasant- 
ry on  the  one  side,  and  a  squalid,  slow-motioned, 
black  population  on  the  other  ?  Our  vote  this 
day  will  determine  which  of  these  descriptions 
will  hereafter  best  suit  the  inhabitants  of  the  new 
world  beyond  the  Mississippi.  I  entreat  gen- 
tlemen to  pause,  and  solemnly  consider  how 
deeply  are  involved  the  destinies  of  future  gen- 
erations in  the  decision  now  to  be  made.  If  I 
agreed  in  opinion  with  the  gentleman  from 
Georgia,  (Mr.  COBB,)  that  this  amendment  does 
not  present  an  insurmountable  barrier  against 
the  further  introduction  of  slavery  ;  that  Mis- 
souri, after  becoming  a  State,  may  call  a  con- 
vention, and  change  this  feature  of  her  consti- 
tution— even  then  I  should  consider  the  amend- 
ment scarcely  less  important  than  if  it  were 
a  fundamental  and  unalterable  compact.  On 
this  subject  we  have  experience,  and  the  result 
has  justified  the  best  hopes  of  our  country; 
while  under  the  government  of  Congress,  slavery 
was  excluded  from  the  Territories,  now  the 
States,  north  of  the  Ohio.  Our  power  over 
their  municipal  regulations  has  since  been  with- 
drawn ;  they  have  taken  the  government  into 
their  own  hands.  But  who  has  not  seen  the 
moral  effect  produced  on  the  inhabitants  by  the 
ordinance  of  178V  ?  It  is  as  permanent  as  the 
soil  over  which  it  was  established.  The  exclu- 
sion of  slavery  from  all  these  States  is  now  more 
effectually  insured  by  public  sentiment  than  by 
their  constitutional  prohibitions.  Eequire  the 
government  of  Missouri  to  commence  right,  and 
the  same  moral  effect  will  then  be  produced. 
No  convention  of  the  people  will  ever  permit 
the  future  introduction  of  slaves.  Let  their 
political  institutions  be  established  in  wisdom, 
and  I  shall  confidently  trust  in  the  good  sense 
of  the  people  to  direct  them  hereafter.  But,  be 
the  event  as  it  may,  I  at  least  shall  have  the 
satisfaction  of  reflecting  that,  if  the  misfortune 
of  slavery  shall  be  entailed  upon  this  country, 
every  thing  in  my  power  will  have  been  done  to 
prevent  it. 

Mr.  Chairman,  it  was  my  intention  to  say 
something  of  the  moral  and  political  interests 
involved  in  this  question.  But,  having  already 
occupied  more  of  your  time  than  was  my  pur- 
pose when  I  rose  to  address  you,  and  being  ad- 
monished by  the  multiplicity  of  important  bills 
which,  during  the  few  remaining  days  of  the 
session,  demand  our  attention,  I  forbear  to  dis- 
cuss or  even  touch  upon  those  parts  of  the  sub- 
ject. It,  moreover,  is  the  less  necessary,  be- 
cause those  views  have  often  been  presented  to 
the  public,  and  have  doubtless  been  seriously 
considered  by  every  member  of  this  committee. 


DEBATES  OF  CONGRESS. 


339 


FEBBUABY,  1819.] 


Missouri  State  Government— Restriction  on  the  State. 


[H.  OF  R. 


The  facts  and  arguments  to  which  I  have  drawn 
your  attention,  more  particularly  relate  to  our 
condition  as  a  Federal  Kepublic,  and  our  duties 
to  Missouri,  arising  from  the  relation  in  which 
she  stands  to  the  Union.  While  regretting  that 
it  has  not  been  in  my  power  to  do  more  ample 
justice  to  this  important  subject,  owing  in  part 
to  the  unexpected  manner  in  which  it  was  taken 
up,  I  cannot  sit  down  without  expressing  an 
earnest  hope  that  our  present  decision  may  be 
such  as  will  promote  the  permanent  union,  sta- 
bility, and  security  of  our  country. 

Mr.  FULLER,  of  Massachusetts,  said,  that,  in 
the  admission  of  new  States  into  the  Union,  he 
considered  that  Congress  had  a  discretionary 
power.  By  the  4th  article  and  3d  section  of 
the  constitution,  Congress  are  authorized  to  ad- 
mit them  ;  but  nothing  in  that  section,  or  in  any 
part  of  the  constitution,  enjoins  the  admission 
as  imperative  under  any  circumstances.  If  it 
were  otherwise,  he  would  request  gentlemen  to 
point  out  what  were  the  circumstances  or  con- 
ditions precedent,  which  being  found  to  exist, 
Congress  must  admit  the  new  State.  All  dis- 
cretion would  in  such  case  be  taken  from  Con- 
gress, Mr.  F.  said,  and  deliberation  would  be 
useless.  The  honorable  Speaker  (Mr.  CLAY) 
has  said,  that  Congress  has  no  right  to  prescribe 
any  condition  whatever  to  the  newly  organized 
States,  but  must  admit  them  by  a  simple  act, 
leaving  their  sovereignty  unrestricted.  [Here 
the  SPEAKER  explained — he  did  not  intend  to 
be  understood  in  so  broad  a  sense  as  Mr.  F. 
stated.]  With  the  explanation  of  the  honorable 
gentleman,  Mr.  F.  said,  I  still  think  his  ground 
as  untenable  as  before.  We  certainly  have  a 
right,  and  our  duty  to  the  nation  requires,  that 
we  should  examine  the  actual  state  of  things  in 
the  proposed  State ;  and,  above  all,  the  consti- 
tution expressly  makes  a  republican  form  of 
government  in  the  several  States,  a  fundamental 
principle,  to  be  preserved  under  the  sacred 
guarantee  of  the  National  Legislature.  [Art.  4, 
sec.  4.]  It  clearly,  therefore,  is  the  duty  of 
Congress,  before  admitting  a  new  sister  into  the 
Union,  to  ascertain  that  her  constitution  or  form 
of  government  is  republican.  Now,  sir,  the 
amendment  proposed  by  the  gentleman  from 
New  York,  (Mr.  TALLMADGE,)  merely  requires 
that  slavery  shall  be  prohibited  in  Missouri. 
Does  this  imply  any  thing  more  than  that  its 
constitution  shah1  be  republican  ?  The  existence 
of  slavery  in  any  State,  is  so  far  a  departure 
from  republican  principles.  The  Declaration 
of  Independence,  penned  by  the  illustrious 
statesman  then  and  at  this  time  a  citizen  of  a 
State  which  admits  slavery,  defines  the  princi- 
ple on  which  our  National  and  State  constitu- 
tions are  all  professedly  founded.  The  second 
paragraph  of  that  instrument  begins  thus :  "  "We 
hold  these  truths  to  be  self-evident — that  all 
men  are  created  equal — that  they  are  endowed 
by  their  Creator  with  certain  inalienable  rights 
— that  among  these  are  life,  liberty,  and  the 
pursuit  of  happiness."  Since,  then,  it  cannot 
bo  denied  that  slaves  are  men,  it  follows  that 


they  are  in  a  purely  republican  government 
born  free,  and  are  entitled  to  liberty  and  the 
pursuit  of  happiness.  [Mr.  F.  was  here  inter- 
rupted by  several  gentlemen,  who  thought  it 
improper  to  question  in  debate  the  republican 
character  of  the  slaveholding  States,  which  had 
also  a  tendency,  as  one  gentleman  (Mr.  COLSTON 
of  Virginia)  said,  to  deprive  those  States  of 
the  right  to  hold  slaves  as  property,  and  he  ad- 
verted to  the  probability  that  there  might  be 
slaves  in  the  gallery  listening  to  the  debate.] 
Mr.  F.  assured  the  gentleman  that  nothing  was 
further  from  his  thoughts  than  to  question  on 
that  floor  the  right  of  Virginia  and  other  States 
which  held  slaves  when  the  constitution  was 
established,  to  continue  to  hold  them.  With 
that  subject  the  National  Legislature  could  not 
interfere,  and  ought  not  to  attempt  it.  But, 
Mr.  F.  continued,  if  gentlemen  will  be  patient, 
they  will  see  that  my  remarks  will  neither 
derogate  from  the  constitutional  rights  of  the 
States,  nor  from  a  due  respect  to  their  several 
forms  of  government.  Sir,  it  is  my  wish  to 
allay  not  to  excite  local  animosities ;  but  I  shall 
never  refrain  from  advancing  such  arguments 
in  debate  as  my  duty  requires,  nor  do  I  believe 
that  the  reading  of  our  Declaration  of  Independ- 
ence, or  a  discussion  of  republican  principles 
on  any  occasion,  can  endanger  the  rights,  or 
merit  the  disapprobation  of  any  portion  of  the 
Union. 

My  reason,  Mr.  Chairman,  for  recurring  to 
the  Declaration  of  our  Independence,  was  to 
draw  from  authority  admitted  in  all  parts  of 
the  Union  a  definition  of  the  basis  of  republican 
government.  If  then,'  all  men  have  equal  rights, 
it  can  no  more  comport  with  the  principles  of 
a  free  Government  to  exclude  men  of  a  certain 
color  from  the  enjoyment  of  "  liberty  and  the 
pursuit  of  happiness,"  than  to  exclude  those 
who  have  not  attained  a  certain  portion  of 
wealth,  or  a  certain  stature  of  body ;  or  to  found 
the  exclusion  on  any  other  capricious  or  acci- 
dental circumstance.  Suppose  Missouri,  before 
her  admission  as  a  State,  were  to  submit  to  us 
her  constitution,  by  which  no  person  could 
elect,  or  be  elected  to  any  office,  unless  he  pos- 
sessed a  clear  annual  income  of  twenty  thou- 
sand dollars ;  and  suppose  we  had  ascertained 
that  only  five,  or  a  very  small  number  of  per- 
sons, had  such  an  estate ;  would  this  be  any 
thing  more  or  less  than  a  reaL  aristocracy,  un- 
der a  form  nominally  republican?  Election 
and  representation,  which  some  contend  are 
the  only  essential  principles  of  republics,  would 
exist  only  in  name — a  shadow  without  sub- 
stance, a  body  without  a  souL  Bat  if  all  the 
other  inhabitants  were  to  be  made  slaves,  and 
mere  property  of  the  favored  few,  the  outrage 
on  principle  would  be  still  more  palpable.  Yet, 
sir,  it  is  demonstrable  that  the  exclusion  of  the 
black  population  from  ah1  political  freedom,  and 
making  them  the  property  of  the  whites,  is  an 
equally  palpable  invasion  of  right  and  abandon- 
ment of  principle.  If  wo  do  this  in  the  admis- 
sion of  new  States,  we  violate  the  constitution, 


340 


ABRIDGMENT  OF  THE 


H.  OF  R] 


ItiMMpri  State  Government — Restriction  on  the  State. 


[FEBRUARY,  1819. 


arid  we  have  not  now  the  excuse  which  existed 
when  our  national  constitution  was  established. 
Then,  to  effect  a  concert  of  interests,  it  was 
proper  to  make  concessions.  The  States  where 
slavery  existed  not  only  claimed  the  right  to 
continue  it,  but  it  was  manifest  that  a  general 
emancipation  of  slaves  could  not  be  asked  of 
them.  Their  political  existence  would  have 
been  in  jeopardy ;  both  masters  and  slaves  must 
have  been  involved  in  the  most  fatal  conse- 
quences. 

To  guard  against  such  intolerable  evils,  it  is 
provided  in  the  constitution  "  that  the  migration 
or  importation  of  such  persons,  as  any  of  the 
existing  States  think  proper  to  admit,  shall  not 
be  prohibited  till  1808."  Art.  1,  sec.  9.  And 
it  is  provided  elsewhere,  that  persons  held  to 
service  by  the  laws  of  any  State,  shall  be  given 
up  by  other  States  to  which  they  may  have  es- 
caped, &c.  Art.  4,  sec.  2. 

These  provisions  effectually  recognized  the 
right  in  the  States,  which,  at  the  time  of  fram- 
ing the  constitution,  held  the  blacks  in  slavery, 
to  continue  so  to  hold  them,  until  they  should 
think  proper  to  meliorate  their  condition.  The 
constitution  is  a  compact  among  all  the  States 
then  existing,  by  which  certain  principles  of 
government  are  established  for  the  whole  and 
for  each  individual  State.  The  predominant 
principle,  in  both  respects,  is,  that  all  men  are 
free,  and  have  an  equal  right  to  liberty,  and  all 
other*  privileges ;  or,  in  other  words,  the  pre- 
dominant principle  is  republicanism,  in  its 
largest  sense.  But,  then,  the  same  compact 
contains  certain  exceptions.  The  States  then 
holding  slaves  are  permitted,  from  the  necessity 
of  the  case,  and  for  the  sake  of  union,  to  ex- 
clude the  republican  principle  so  far,  and  only 
so  far,  as  to  retain  their  slaves  in  servitude,  and 
also  their  progeny,  as  had  been  the  usage,  until 
they  should  think  it  proper  or  safe  to  conform 
to  the  pure  principle  by  abolishing  slavery. 
The  compact  contains  on  its  face  the  general 
principle  and  the  exceptions.  But  the  attempt 
to  extend  slavery  to  the  new  States  is  in  direct 
violation  of  the  clause  which  guarantees  a  re- 
publican form  of  government  to  all  the  States. 
This  clause,  indeed,  must  be  construed  in  con- 
nection with  the  exceptions  before  mentioned  ; 
but  it  cannot,  without  violence,  be  applied  to 
any  other  States  than  those  in  which  slavery 
was  allowed  at  the  formation  of  the  consti- 
tution. 

The  honorable  Speaker  cites  the  first  clause 
in  the  second  section  of  the  fourth  article: 
"  The  citizens  of  each  State  shall  be  entitled  to 
all  the  privileges  and  immunities  of  citizens  of 
the  several  States,"  which  he  thinks  would  be 
violated  by  the  condition  proposed  in  the  con- 
stitution of  Missouri.  To  keep  slaves— to  make 
one  portion  of  the  population  the  property  of 
another,  hardly  deserves  to  be  called  a  privilege, 
since  what  is  gained  by  the  masters  must  be 
lost  by  the  slaves.  But,  independently  of  this 
consideration,  I  think  the  observations  already 
offered  to  the  committee,  showing  that  holding 


the  black  population  in  servitude  is  an  excep- 
tion to  the  general  principles  of  the  constitu- 
tion, and  cannot  be  allowed  to  extend  beyond 
the  lair  import  of  the  terms  by  which  that  ex- 
ception is  provided,  are  a  sufficient  answer  to 
the  objection.  The  gentleman  proceeds  in  the 
same  train  of  reasoning,  and  asks,  if  Congress 
can  require  one  condition,  how  many  more  can 
be  required,  and  where  these  conditions  will 
end  ?  With  regard  to  a  republican  constitution, 
Congress  are  obliged  to  require  that  condition, 
and  that  is  enough  for  the  present  question ; 
but  I  contend,  further,  that  Congress  has  a 
right,  at  their  discretion,  to  require  any  other 
reasonable  condition.  Several  others  were  re- 
quired of  Ohio,  Indiana,  Illinois,  and  Mississippi. 
The  State  of  Louisiana,  which  was  a  part  of 
the  territory  ceded  to  us  at  the  same  time  with 
Missouri,  was  required  to  provide  in  her  con- 
stitution for  trials  by  jury,  the  writ  of  habeas 
corpus,  the  principles  of  civil  and  religious  lib- 
erty, with  several  others  peculiar  to  that  State. 
These  certainly  are,  none  of  them,  more  indis- 
pensable ingredients  in  a  republican  form  of 
government,  than  the  equality  of  privileges  of 
all  the  population ;  yet  these  have  not  been  de- 
nied to  be  reasonable,  and  warranted  by  the 
national  constitution  in  the  admission  of  new 
States.  Nor  need  gentlemen  apprehend  that 
Congress  will  set  no  reasonable  limits  to  the 
conditions  of  admission.  In  the  exercise  of 
their  constitutional  discretion  on  this  subject, 
they  are,  as  in  all  other  cases,  responsible  to  the 
people.  Their  power  to  levy  direct  taxes  is  not 
limited  by  the  constitution.  They  may  lay  a 
tax  of  one  million  of  dollars,  or  of  a  hundred 
millions,  without  violating  the  letter  of  the  con- 
stitution ;  but  if  the  latter  enormous  and  un- 
reasonable sum  were  levied,  or  even  the  former, 
without  evident  necessity,  the  people  have  the 
power  in  their  own  hands— a  speedy  corrective 
is  found  in  the  return  of  the  elections.  This 
remedy  is  so  certain,  that  the  representatives  of 
the  people  can  never  lose  sight  of  it ;  and  con- 
sequently an  abuse  of  their  powers,  to  any  con- 
siderable extent,  can  never  be  apprehended. 
The  same  reasoning  applies  to  the  exercise  of 
all  the  powers  intrusted  to  Congress,  and  the 
admission  of  new  States  into  the  Union  is  in  no 
respect  an  exception. 

One  gentleman,  however,  has  contended 
against  the  amendment,  because  it  abridges  the 
rights  of  the  slaveholding  States  to  transport 
their  slaves  to  the  new  States  for  sale  or  other- 
wise. This  argument  is  attempted  to  be  en- 
forced in  various  ways,  and  particularly  by  the 
clause  in  the  constitution  last  cited.  It  admits, 
however,  of  a  very  clear  answer,  by  recurring 
to  the  ninth  section  of  article  first,  which  pro- 
vides, that  "the  migration  or  importation  of 
such  persons  as  any  of  the  States  then  existing 
shall  admit,  shall  not  be  prohibited  by  Con- 
gress till  1808."  This  clearly  implies  that_the 
migration  and  importation  may  be  prohibited 
after  that  year.  The  importation  has  been  pro- 
hibited, but  the  migration  has  not  hitherto  been 


DEBATES  OF  CONGRESS. 


341 


FEBRUARY,  1819.] 


Missouri  State  Government — Restriction  on  the  State, 


[H.  OF  R. 


restrained ;  Congress,  however,  may  restrain  it 
•when  it  may  be  judged  expedient.  It  is,  in- 
deed, contended  by  some  gentlemen,  that  mi- 
gration is  cither  synonymous  with  importation, 
or  that  it  means  something  different  from  the 
transportation  of  slaves  from  one  State  to  an- 
other. It  certainly  is  not  synonymous  with 
importation,  and  would  not  have  been  used  if 
it  had  been  so.  It  cannot  mean  exportation, 
which  is  also  a  definite  and  precise  term.  It 
cannot  mean  the  reception  of  free  blacks  from 
foreign  countries,  as  is  alleged  by  some,  because 
no  possible  reason  existed  for  regulating  their 
admission  by  the  constitution ;  no  free  blacks 
ever  came  from  Africa,  or  any  other  country, 
to  this ;  and  to  introduce  the  provision  by  the 
side  of  that  for  the  importation  of  slaves  would 
have  been  absurd  in  the  highest  degree.  What 
alternative  remains  but  to  apply  the  term  "  mi- 
gration" to  the  transportation  of  slaves  from 
those  States  where  they  are  admitted  to  be 
held,  to  other  States  ?  Such  a  provision  might 
have  in  view  a  very  natural  object.  The  price 
of  slaves  might  be  affected  so  far  by  a  sudden 
prohibition  to  transport  slaves  from  State  to 
State,  that  it  was  as  reasonable  to  guard  against 
that  inconvenience,  as  against  the  sudden  inter- 
diction of  the  importation.  Hitherto  it  has  not 
been  found  necessary  for  Congress  to  prohibit 
migration  or  transportation  from  State  to  State. 
But  now  it  becomes  the  right  and  duty  of  Con- 
gress to  guard  against  the  further  extension  of 
the  intolerable  evil  and  the  crying  enormity  of 
slavery. 

The  expediency  of  this  measure  is  very  appa- 
rent. The  opening  of  an  extensive  slave  mar- 
ket will  tempt  the  cupidity  of  those  who  other- 
wise perhaps  might  gradually  emancipate  their 
slaves.  "We  have  heard  much,  Mr.  Chairman, 
of  the  Colonization  Society;  an  institution 
which  is  the  favorite  of  the  humane  gentlemen 
in  the  slaveholding  States.  They  have  long 
been  lamenting  the  miseries  of  slavery,  and  ear- 
nestly seeking  for  a  remedy  compatible  with  their 
own  safety  and  the  happiness  of  their  slaves. 
At  last  the  great  desideratum  is  found — a  colony 
in  Africa  for  the  emancipated  blacks.  How 
will  the  generous  intentions  of  these  humane 
persons  be  frustrated,  if  the  price  of  slaves  is  to 
be  doubled  by  a  new  and  boundless  market ! 
Instead  of  emancipation  of  the  slaves,  it  is  much 
to  be  feared  that  unprincipled  wretches  will  be 
found  kidnapping  those  who  are  already  free, 
and  transporting  and  selling  the  hapless  victims 
into  hopeless  bondage.  Sir,  I  really  hope  that 
Congress  will  not  contribute  to  discountenance 
and  render  abortive  the  generous  and  philan- 
thropic views  of  this  most  worthy  and  laudable 
society.  Rather  let  us  hope  that  the  time  is 
not  very  remote  when  the  shores  of  Africa, 
which  have  so  long  been  a  scene  of  barbarous 
rapacity  and  savage  cruelty,  shall  exhibit  a  race 
of  free  and  enlightened  people,  the  offspring  in- 
deed of  cannibals  or  of  slaves,  but  displaying 
the  virtues  of  civilization  and  the  energies  of 
independent  freemen.  America  may  then  hope 


to  see  the  development  of  a  germ,  now  scarcely 
visible,  cherished  and  matured  under  the  genial 
warmth  of  our  country's  protection,  till  the 
fruit  shall  appear  in  the  regeneration  and  hap- 
piness of  a  boundless  continent. 

One  argument  still  remains  to  be  noticed.  It 
is  said  that  we  are  bound  by  the  treaty  of  ces- 
sion with  France  to  admit  the  ceded  territory 
into  the  Union,  "  as  soon  as  possible."  It  is  ob- 
vious that  the  President  and  Senate,  the  treaty- 
making  power,  cannot  make  a  stipulation  with 
any  foreign  nation  in  derogation  of  the  consti- 
tutional powers  and  duties  of  this  House,  by 
making  it  imperative  on  us  .to  admit  the  new 
territory  according  to  the  literal  tenor  of  the 
phrase ;  but  the  additional  words  hi  the  treaty, 
"  according  to  the  principles  of  the  constitu- 
tion," put  it  beyond  all  doubt  that  no  such 
compulsory  admission  was  intended,  and  that 
the  republican  principles  of  our  constitution  are 
to  govern  us  in  the  admission  of  this,  as  well  as 
all  the  new  States,  in  the  national  family. 

Mr.  P.  P.  BAEBOTJE,  of  Virginia,  said  that,  as 
he  was  decidedly  opposed  to  the  amendment 
which  had  been  offered,  he  asked  the  indul- 
gence of  the  House  whilst  he  made  some  re- 
marks in  addition  to  those  which  had  fallen 
from  the  Speaker,  for  the  purpose  of  showing 
the  impropriety  of  its  adoption. 

The  effect  of  the  proposed  amendment  is  to 
prohibit  the  further  introduction  of  slaves  into 
the  new  State  of  Missouri,  and  to  emancipate,  at 
the  age  of  twenty-five  years,  the  children  of  all 
those  slaves  who  are  now  within  its  limits.  The 
first  objection,  said  he,  which  meets  us  at  the 
very  threshold  of  the  discussion,  is  this,  that  we 
have  no  constitutional  right  to  enact  the  pro- 
posed provision.  Our  power,  in  relation  to  this 
subject,  is  derived  from  the  first  clause  of  the 
third  section  of  the  fourth  article  of  the  consti- 
tution, which  is  in  these  words :  "  New  States 
may  be  admitted,  by  the  Congress,  into  this 
Union."  Now,  sir,  although,  by  the  next  suc- 
ceeding clause  of  the  same  section,  "  Congress 
has  the  power  to  make  all  needful  rules  and 
regulations  respecting  the  territory  of  the  Unit- 
ed States ;"  and  although,  therefore,  whilst  the 
proposed  State  continued  a  part  of  our  territory, 
upon  the  footing  of  a  Territorial  government,  it 
would  have  been  competent  for  us,  under  the 
power  expressly  given,  to  make  needful  rules 
and  regulations — to  have  established  the  princi- 
ple now  proposed ;  yet,  the  question  assumes  a 
totally  different  aspect  when  that  principle  is 
intended  to  apply  to  a  State.  This  term  State 
has  a  fixed  and  determinate  meaning;  in  itself 
it  imports  the  existence  of  a  political  communi- 
ty, free  and  independent,  and  entitled  to  exer- 
cise all  the  rights  of  sovereignty,  of  every 
description  whatever.  As  it  stands  hi  the  con- 
stitution, it  is  to  be  defined  with  some  limitation 
upon  that  principle  of  construction  which  has 
reference  to  the  subject-matter.  The  extent  of 
the  limitation,  according  to  this  rule,  is  obviously 
this,  that  it  shall  enjoy  all  those  rights  of  sov- 
ereignty which  belong  to  the  original  States 


342 


ABRIDGMENT  OF  THE 


H.  OF  R.] 


Missouri  State  Government — Restriction  on  (he  State. 


[FEBRUARY,  1819. 


which  composed  the  Federal  family,  and  into 
a  union  with  which  it  is  to  be  admitted.  Now, 
sir,  although  the  original  States  are  shorn  of 
many  of  their  beams  of  sovereignty — such,  for 
example,  as  that  of  declaring  war,  of  regulating 
commerce,  &c. ;  yet  we  know  that,  even  by  an 
express  amendment  to  the  constitution,  all  pow- 
ers not  expressly  delegated  are  reserved  to  the 
States  respectively ;  and  of  course  the  power  in 
question,  of  deciding  whether  slavery  shall  or 
shall  not  exist.  Gentlemen  had  said  that  sla- 
very was  prohibited  in  many  of  the  original 
States.  Does  not  the  House,  said  Mr.  B.,  at  the 
first  glance,  perceive  the  answer  to  this  remark? 
It  is  an  argument  from  fact  to  principle,  and  in 
this  its  utter  fallacy  consists.  It  is  true  that 
slavery  does  not  exist  in  many  of  the  original 
States ;  but  why  does  it  not  ?  Because  they 
themselves,  in  the  exercise  of  their  legislative 
power,  have  willed  that  it  shall  be  so.  But, 
though  it  does  not  now  exist,  it  is  competent 
for  them,  by  a  law  of  their  own  enactment,  to 
authorize  it- — to  call  it  into  existence  whenever 
they  shall  think  fit.  Sir,  how  different  would 
be  the  situation  of  Missouri,  if  the  proposed 
amendment  be  adopted.  We  undertake  to  say 
that  slavery  never  shall  be  introduced  into  that 
State.  The  State  of  Missouri,  then,  would  ob- 
viously labor  under  this  disadvantage  in  rela- 
tion to  the  other  States;  that,  though  for  the 
time  being  the  fact  might  be  the  same  in  it  as 
in  them — that  is  to  say,  slavery  might  be  alike 
prohibited,  and  not  at  all  exist,  yet,  as  the  pro- 
hibition of  it  in  other  States  was  repealable  at 
their  own  will,  it  might  be  altered  whensoever 
they  chose ;  whereas,  if  this  prohibition  were 
enacted  by  Congress,  and  were  required  as  a 
sine  qua  non  to  their  admission  into  the  Union, 
that  State  could  not  repeal  it,  unless,  indeed, 
another  opinion  was  correct,  which  had  been 
advanced,  that,  though  we  did  require  this  pro- 
vision in  their  constitution,  as  indispensable  to 
their  admission,  yet  they  might  forthwith 
change  their  constitution,  and  get  rid  of  the 
difficulty.  If  that  be  the  case,  sir,  as  has  been 
justly  remarked,  we  were  doing  worse  than 
nothing  to  legislate  upon  the  subject.  But,  sir, 
this  provision  would  be  in  violation  of  another 
principle  of  the  constitution,  to  be  found  in  the 
first  clause  of  the  second  section  of  the  fourth 
article ;  by  which  it  is  declared  that  "  the  citi- 
zens of  each  State  shall  be  entitled  to  all  privi- 
leges and  immunities  of  citizens  in  the  several 
States."  Now,  he  would  ask,  whether  a  citizen 
of  the  State  of  Missouri,  who  (if  this  amendment 
prevail)  cannot  hold  a  slave,  could,  in  the  lan- 
guage of  the  section  which  he  had  just  quoted, 
be  said  to  enjoy  the  same  privileges  with  a  citi- 
zen of  Virginia  who  now  may  hold  a  slave,  or 
even  with  a  citizen  of  Pennsylvania,  who, 
though  he  cannot  now  hold  one,  yet  may  be 
permitted  by  the  Legislature  of  his  own  State. 
Sir,  it  would  be  a  solecism  in  language,  a  con- 
tradiction in  terms.  This  part  of  the  constitu- 
tion, then,  also  forbids  the  adoption  of  the 
amendment  under  discussion. 


But,  said  he,  if  we  pursue  this  reasoning  still 
further,  and  follow  it  up  to  all  the  consequences 
to  which  it  will  lead,  we  shall  be  more  forcibly 
struck  with  its  impropriety.  If  we  have  a  ri<rht 
to  go  one  step  in  relation  to  a  new  State,  be- 
yond the  footing  upon  which  the  original  States 
stand;  if  we  have  a  right  to  shear  them  of  one 
beam  more  of  sovereignty,  we  have  the  same 
right  to  take  from  them  any  other  attribute  of 
sovereign  power.  Thus,  sir,  we  should  equally 
possess  the  power  to  require  as  an  indispensable 
condition  of  their  admission,  that  the  depart- 
ments of  their  Government  should  be  organized 
in  a  particular  way;  for  example,  that  their 
Chief  Executive  Magistrate  should  or  should 
not  have  either  a  complete  or  a  qualified  veto 
upon  the  acts  of  their  Legislature;  that  their 
Legislature  should  consist  either  of  one  or  two 
chambers,  as  in  our  discretion  we  thought  right. 
Would  gentlemen  advocate  this  doctrine?  If 
they  did  not,  they  must  abandon  this  amend- 
ment. Again,  if  we  had  the  power  to  say  that 
their  constitution  should  provide  that  there 
should  not  be  slavery,  we  had  the  same  power 
over  the  converse  of  the  proposition,  and  to  re- 
quire them  to  provide  that  there  should  be  sla- 
very; he  believed  this  latter  principle  would 
not  be  contended  for. 

Gentlemen  had,  on  this  occasion,  as  on  many 
others,  quoted  precedents  of  former  Congresses 
upon  this  subject.  He  would  enter  his  most 
solemn  protest  now,  and  at  all  times,  against 
the  force  of  legislative  precedent.  But  let  us 
examine  them.  It  is  said  that  the  like  prohibi- 
tion has  been  enacted  as  it  respects  Ohio  and 
the  other  States  northwest  of  the  river  Ohio. 
In  the  first  place,  the  House  would  recollect 
that  an  ordinance  was  passed  by  the  old  Con- 
gress, at  a  period  anterior  to  the  present  consti- 
tution, ordaining  that  as  a  fundamental  article 
in  relation  to  all  the  northwest  territory,  and 
therefore  the  precedent,  if  it  would  otherwise 
have  any  weight,  failed  in  its  application.  But, 
he  said,  he  did  not  hesitate  to  express  it  as  his 
decided  opinion,  that  the  ordinance  which  he 
had  just  mentioned  was  utterly  void,  and,  con- 
sequently, that  those  States  might  introduce 
slavery  amongst  them,  if  they  so  willed,  because 
the  territory  which  composes  them  originally 
belonged  to  Virginia.  She  had  conquered  it  by 
her  arms;  she  ceded  it  to  the  United  States 
upon  the  express  condition  that  it  should  be 
formed  into  States  as  free,  sovereign,  and  inde- 
pendent as  the  other  States.  The  prohibition 
of  slavery  was  ordained  by  the  Continental 
Congress,  after  the  cession  had  been  made, 
which  would  unquestionably  render  those  States 
less  sovereign  than  the  original  States  of  the 
Federal  Union.  But  it  has  been  said  that  we 
imposed  conditions  on  the  admission  of  the 
State  of  Louisiana  into  the  Union.  What  were 
those  conditions  ?  That  civil  and  religious  lib- 
erty should  be  established,  and  the  trial  by  jury 
secured.  It  cannot  be  necessary  to  remind  the 
House,  that  these  several  provisions  attached 
also  to  the  original  States,  by  the  most  explicit 


DEBATES  OF  CONGRESS. 


343 


FEBRUARY,  1819.] 


Missouri  State  Government — Restriction  on  the  State. 


[H.  OF  R. 


declaration  to  that  effect,  in  the  first,  fifth,  and 
seventh  amendments  to  the  Constitution  of  the 
United  States.  These  requisitions,  then,  were 
in  perfect  consistency  with  his  principle.  All 
that  he  contended  for  was,  that  we  could  im- 
pose no  condition  upon  the  new  States  which 
the  constitution  had  not  imposed  upon  the  old 
ones ;  as  those  which  were  imposed  upon  Lou- 
isiana were  clearly  of  that  description,  they  were 
within  our  power ;  but,  as  the  prohibition  of 
slavery  was  not  of  that  description,  he  thought 
it  was  as  clearly  beyond  our  power.  The  gen- 
tleman from  Massachusetts  had  said  that  it  was 
competent  to  the  State  Legislatures  to  declare 
that  the  progeny  of  all  slaves  should  be  free 
when  they  attained  a  given  age ;  and  hence  he 
inferred  that  Congress  might  do  the  same  in 
relation  to  the  proposed  State.  Sir,  said  Mr. 
B.,  there  is  no  sort  of  analogy  between  the 
cases ;  the  State  Legislatures  can  do  it,  because 
to  them  appertains  the  whole  business  of  mu- 
nicipal legislation,  and  this  regulation  would  be 
embraced  within  it ;  and  Congress  could  do  the 
same,  in  relation  to  its  Territorial  governments, 
because  over  them  we  possess  the  whole  power 
of  municipal  legislation ;  not  so  in  the  present 
case;  for  the  question  now  before  us,  is  not 
what  regulation  we  shall  prescribe  for  a  terri- 
tory which  is  to  continue  as  such,  but  upon 
what  forms  and  conditions  we  will  admit  a 
State  into  the  Union.  Our  business  is,  then,  to 
create  a  political  community  of  a  particular 
character,  as  prescribed  by  the  constitution; 
to  itself  it  will  belong  to  regulate  its  interior 
concerns,  and,  amongst  others,  to  decide 
whether  it  will  or  .will  not  admit  involuntary 
servitude. 

Mr.  B.  said  he  had  endeavored  to  show  that 
we  had  no  power  to  require  the  condition  em- 
braced in  this  amendment ;  he  would  now  beg 
leave  to  present  to  the  House  some  other  views 
of  the  subject,  for  the  purpose  of  showing  that, 
if  it  were  within  our  power,  we  were  forbidden 
from  exercising  it,  by  every  consideration  of 
humanity,  of  justice,  and  sound  policy.  Upon 
the  subject  of  humanity,  he  had  scarcely  any 
thing  to  add  to  what  had  been  said  by  the 
Speaker ;  he  had  shown,  in  the  most  satisfac- 
tory manner,  that  the  condition  of  the  slaves 
would  be  greatly  improved  by  their  being  spread 
over  a  greater  surface,  and  by  being  carried  to 
a  country  whose  fertility  was  such  as  to  furnish 
food  and  every  thing  necessary  for  their  main- 
tenance in  a  much  more  abundant,  and,  conse- 
quently, cheaper  degree,  than  could  be  produced 
in  the  Atlantic  States. 

But,  as  it  respected  the  justice  of  the  measure, 
he  would  beg  leave  to  submit  some  remarks  to 
the  House.  Throughout  all  the  Southern 
States,  it  was  well  known  a  very  large  portion 
of  the  population  consisted  of  slaves,  who,  at 
the  same  tune,  stood  towards  the  white  popu- 
lation of  the  same  States  in  the  relation  of 
property  ;  although  they  were  held  as  property, 
yet  they  were  considered  and  treated  as  the 
most  valuable,  as  the  most  favored  property; 


their  masters  remembered  that  they  were  men, 
and  although  certainly  degraded  in  the  scale  of 
society,  by  reason  of  their  servitude,  we  felt  for 
them  those  sympathies  which  bind  one  man  to 
another,  though  that  other  may  be  our  inferior. 
We  were  attached  to  them,  too,  by  our  preju- 
dices, by  our  education  and  habits ;  in  short, 
such  were  the  feelings  of  the  Southern  people 
towards  their  slaves,  that  nothing  scarcely  but 
the  necessity  of  the  master,  or  the  crime  of  the 
slave,  would  induce  him  to  sell  his  slave.  If 
the  master  emigrated,  he  would  carry  his  slaves 
with  him,  not  only  for  the  various  reasons 
which  he  had  already  stated,  but  because,  going 
into  a  wilderness,  where  much  labor  was  neces- 
sary to  clear  the  country,  they  were,  on  that 
account,  peculiarly  necessary.  Under  these 
circumstances,  a  prohibition  of  the  importation 
of  slaves  would,  in  almost  every  instance,  be 
tantamount  to  a  prohibition  of  the  emigration 
of  the  Southern  people  to  the  State  of  Missouri. 
He  asked  whether  it  could  be  just  to  adopt  such 
a  regulation  as  would  open  an  illimitable  tract 
of  the  most  fertile  land  to  the  northern  part  of 
the  United  States,  and,  in  effect,  entirely  shut 
out  the  whole  Southern  people?  If  it  were 
correct  in  relation  to  Missouri,  it  would  be 
equally  so  as  to  the  whole  tract  of  country  lying 
west  of  the  Mississippi.  He  hoped,  from  this 
view  of  the  subject,  the  House  would  be  struck 
with  its  monstrous  injustice. 

But  he  came  now  to  the  question  of  policy, 
and  he  thought  he  should  be  able  to  show  that, 
in  this  respect,  the  amendment  would  meet  as 
decided  reprobation  as  in  any  other  aspect  in 
which  he  had  presented  it. 

Let  it  be  remembered  that  we  are  not  now 
called  upon  to  decide  whether  slavery  shall  be 
introduced  into  this  country  ;  it  existed  at  the 
formation  of  the  constitution,  and  was  recog- 
nized by  that  instrument,  in  reference  both  to 
representation  and  taxation.  Nor,  sir,  are  we 
called  upon  to  decide  whether  there  shall  be  an 
increase  of  the  number  of  our  slaves  by  importa- 
tion from  abroad.  The  constitution  authorized 
Congress  to  prohibit  the  importation  of  them 
after  the  year  1808,  and  Congress,  accordingly, 
have  actually  passed  a  law  to  that  effect.  But 
the  real  question  is,  what  disposition  shall  we 
make  of  those  slaves  who  are  already  in  the 
country?  Shall  they  be  perpetually  confined 
on  this  side  of  the  Mississippi,  or  shall  we  spread 
them  over  a  much  larger  surface  by  permitting 
them  to  be  carried  beyond  that  river?  The 
consequences  which  would  flow  from  the  differ- 
ent systems  would  furnish  a  satisfactory  answer 
to  these  inquiries.  The  slaves,  in  the  Southern 
States,  bear  a  very  considerable  proportion  to 
the  whole  population.  He  believed  that  by  the 
last  census,  they  were,  in  Virginia,  as  about 
three  hundred  and  ninety  thousand  to  about  five 
hundred  thousand.  He  did  not  mean  to  be 
arithmetically  correct,  but  ho  was  sufficiently 
so,  for  the  conclusion  which  he  meant  to  draw. 
Now,  sir,  in  relation  to  the  physical  force  of  the 
country,  if  ever  the  time  shall  come  when  we 


344 


ABKIDGMENT  OF  THE 


H.  OF  R] 


Missouri  State  Government — Restriction  on  the  State. 


[FEBRUARY,  1819. 


shall  bo  engaged  in  war,  and  they  should  be  ex 
cited  to  insurrection,  it  is  obvious  that  there 
must  be  an  immense  subduction  from  the  effi- 
ciency of  the  slaveholding  section  of  our  coun- 
try ;  its  actual  efficiency  would  consist  only,  or 
nearly  so,  in  the  excess  of  the  white  beyond  the 
black  population;  by  spreading  them  over  a 
more  extended  surface,  you  secure  these  advan- 
tages ;  first,  by  diminishing  the  proportion 
which  the  slaves  bear  in  point  of  numbers  to 
the  whites,  you  diminish  their  motives  to  in- 
surrection; secondly,  that  if  that  event  ever 
should  occur,  it  would  obviously  be  much  more 
easily  and  certainly  suppressed,  because,  upon 
the  supposition  which  he  had  made,  they  would 
have  a  much  smaller  relative  proportion  of 
physical  force.  He  thanked  God  he  felt  no 
alarm  upon  that  subject  at  present ;  and  that  he 
slept  quietly  in  his  bed,  notwithstanding  the 
apprehension  which  some  gentlemen  seemed  to 
entertain.  But,  in  making  the  remarks  which 
he  did,  he  looked  along  the  line  of  time,  and 
wished  that  our  measures  should  be  adapted  to 
the  future  circumstances  of  our  country.  Again, 
he  would  ask  if  it  can  be  good  policy  to  perpet- 
uate fixed  boundaries,  either  natural  or  artifi- 
cial, between  the  slaveholding  and  non-slave- 
holding  States  ?  He  had  thought  that  the  great 
object  of  our  Federal  compact  was  union.  The 
surest  possible  mode  of  securing  our  political 
union,  next  to  promoting  the  common  defence 
and  general  welfare,  is  to  give,  as  far  as  possi- 
ble, every  facility  to  the  intercourse  between 
the  different  sections  of  this  extensive  Eepublic ; 
that,  by  the  attrition  which  will  be  the  result 
of  that  intercourse,  the  asperities  of  our  mutual 
prejudices  and  jealousies  may  be  rubbed  off; 
that  the  face  of  our  society  may  present  the 
smooth  surface  of  harmony  and  good  will ;  and, 
in  short,  that  we  may  be  knit  together  by  a 
sympathy  of  feelings,  by  a  community  of  habits 
and  manners  which  ought  to  bind  us  together 
as  brothers  of  the  same  great  political  family. 
Already  is  the  northern  part  of  our  country,  to- 
gether with  that  northwest  of  the  river  Ohio, 
divided  from  us  by  those  distinguishing  names 
of  slaveholding  and  nou-slaveholding.  Let  us 
not  make  the  Mississippi  another  great  natural 
boundary,  for  the  purpose  of  perpetuating  the 
same  distinctions,  and  dividing  our  country  into 
castes.  Gentlemen  mistake  when  they  suppose 
that,  if  slaves  be  permitted  to  be  carried  to  Mis- 
souri, the  Northern  people  will  not  emigrate  to 
that  State.  Look  at  the  fact  in  the  Southern 
States ;  the  Northern  hive  is  continually  pour- 
ing forth  its  swarms  of  emigrants,  and  many  of 
them,  especially  of  the  mercantile  class,  alight 
and  settle  amongst  us ;  they  soon  become  fa- 
miliar with  our  habits  and  modes  of  life,  pros- 
per in  an  eminent  degree,  far  beyond  our  own 
people,  and.  indeed,  he  hesitated  not  to  say, 
were  entirely  satisfied  and  happy,  although 
they  were  in  a  slaveholding  State.  Gentlemen 
equally  mistake,  when  they  suppose  that  their 
countrymen  of  the  North,  who  are  obliged  to 
labor,  would  be  degraded  to  a  level  with  the 


slaves.  Sir,  our  experience  proves  the  contrary. 
We,  too,  have  some  of  our  citizens  who  are  un- 
able to  purchase  slaves,  and  who,  therefore,  till 
the  ground  with  their  own  hands.  But,  sir, 
notwithstanding  this,  they  have  all  that  erect- 
ness  of  character  which  belongs  to  them  as  free- 
men, conscious  of  their  political  and  civil  rights ; 
and  he  who  should  dare  to  treat  them  with  dis- 
respect, because  fortune  had  not  poured  as 
much  wealth  into  their  laps  as  into  his,  would 
draw  down  upon  him  the  execration  of  all  good 
men. 

Another  effect  of  this  amendment  would  be, 
in  an  essential  degree,  to  affect  the  value  of  the 
countless  millions  of  public  lands  beyond  the 
Mississippi.  He  said  he  had  already  endeav- 
ored to  show  that  it  would  obstruct  the  emigra- 
tion from  the  Southern  States.  Precisely  in 
proportion  as  it  produced  this  effect,  it  would, 
of  course,  lessen  the  number  of  purchasers,  and 
diminish  the  competition.  Now,  if  the  quan- 
tity of  land  in  the  market  be  the  same,  and  the 
number  of  purchasers  be  diminished,  the  conse- 
quence must  certainly  be  a  reduction  of  the 
price  of  the  public  lands  below  what  would 
otherwise  be  their  natural  level ;  and  to  place 
this  in  a  more  striking  point  of  view,  he  would 
further  remark,  that  the  loss  which  the  whole 
people  of  the  United  States  would  sustain  by 
the  reduction  in  the  price  of  the  public  lands, 
would  be  profit  to  that  portion  of  the  people 
who  should  emigrate  there,  and  who,  by  the 
operation  of  the  proposed  amendment,  if  it 
should  prevail,  would  have  monopoly  in  the 
purchase.  A  gentleman  from  Massachusetts 
had  objected,  that,  if  slaves,  were  permitted  to 
be  carried  into  this  country,  there  would  be  a 
much,  greater  increase  than  if  they  were  re- 
tained in  the  States  In  which  they  now  are. 
Does  the  gentleman,  said  Mr.  B.,  perceive  to 
what  point  this  objection  will  carry  him?  The 
only  reason  why  they  will  multiply  more  on 
the  western  than  on  the  eastern  side  of  the 
Mississippi  is,  that  food  is  more  abundant. 
Surely  it  cannot  be  the  object  of  the  gentleman, 
who  is  one  of  the  most  zealous  advocates  of  hu- 
manity towards  this  unhappy  class  of  people,  to 
prevent  their  increase,  even  by  shutting  them 
out  from  food.  If  this  cannot  be  the  gentle- 
man's intention,  and  he  was  sure  it  could  not, 
then  he  must  abandon  his  objection.  Mr.  B. 
said  there  was  one  other  objection  which  he 
would  urge  against  the  proposed  amendment — 
either  it  would  be  an  act  of  supererogation  or 
of  downright  injustice,  to  the  people  of  Missou- 
ri ;  if  they  were  themselves  opposed  to  slavery, 
then  it  would  be  an  act  of  supererogation,  be- 
cause they  would  prohibit  it  by  their  own  legis- 
ation ;  if  they  were  disposed  to  establish 
slavery,  then  it  would  be  an  act  of  injustice, 
Because  we  should  be  legislating  directly  against 
;he  wishes  of  a  people  who  were  competent  to 
.egislate  for  themselves ;  and  who  must  better 
understand  their  own  happiness  and  welfare 
han  we  can  possibly  do.  Upon  the  whole,  said 
Mi\  B.,  I  believe,  that  we  have  no  power  to 


DEBATES  OF  CONGRESS. 


345 


FEBRUARY, 


Missouri  State  Government— Restriction  on  the  State. 


[H.  OF  R. 


enact  the  proposed  amendment;  and  that,  if 
we  had,  it  would  be  highly  impolitic  and  unjust. 
I  am,  therefore,  decidedly  opposed  to  its  adop- 
tion. 

Mr.  LIVERMOKE  spoke  as  follows  :  Mr.  Chair- 
man, I  am  in  favor  of  the  proposed  amendment. 
The  object  of  it  is  to  prevent  the  extension  of 
slavery  over  the  territory  ceded  to  the  United 
States  by  France.  It  accords  with  the  dictates 
of  reason,  and  the  best  feelings  of  the  human 
heart,  and  is  not  calculated  to  interrupt  any 
legitimate  right  arising  either  from  the  consti- 
tution or  any  other  compact.  I  propose  to 
show  what  slavery  is,  and  to  mention  a  few  of 
the  many  evils  which  follow  in  its  train ;  and  I 
hope  to  evince  that  we  are  not  bound  to  toler- 
ate the  existence  of  so  disgraceful  a  state  of 
things  beyond  its  present  extent,  and  that  it 
would  be  impolitic  and  very  unjust  to  let  it 
spread  over  the  whole  face  of  our  Western  ter- 
ritory. Slavery  in  the  United  States  is  the  con- 
dition of  man  subjected  to  the  will  of  a  master, 
who  can  make  any  disposition  of  him  short  of 
taking  away  his  life.  In  those  States  where  it 
is  tolerated,  laws  are  enacted,  making  it  penal 
to  instruct  slaves  in  the  art  of  reading,  and  they 
are  not  permitted  to  attend  public  worship,  or 
to  hear  the  Gospel  preached.  Thus  the  light 
of  science  and  of  religion  is  utterly  excluded 
from  the  mind,  that  the  body  may  be  more 
easily  bowed  down  to  servitude.  The  bodies 
of  slaves  may,  with  impunity,  be  prostituted  to 
any  purpose,  and  deformed  in  any  manner  by 
their  owners.  The  sympathies  of  nature  in 
slaves  are  disregarded;  mothers  and  children 
are  sold  and  separated ;  the  children  wring 
their  little  hands  and  expire  hi  agonies  of  grief, 
while  the  bereft  mothers  commit  suicide  in  de- 
spair. How  long  will  the  desire  of  wealth  ren- 
der us  blind  to  the  ski  of  holding  both  the  bod- 
ies and  souls  of  our  fellow-men  in  chains!  But, 
sir,  I  am  admonished  of  the  constitution,  and 
told  that  we  cannot  emancipate  slaves.  I  know 
we  may  not  infringe  that  instrument,  and  there- 
fore do  not  propose  to  emancipate  slaves.  The 
proposition  before  us  goes  only  to  prevent  our 
citizens  from  making  slaves  of  such  as  have  a 
right  to  freedom.  In  the  present  slaveholding 
States  let  slavery  continue,  for  our  boasted  con- 
stitution connives  at  it;  but  do  not,  for  the 
sake  of  cotton  and  tobacco,  let  it  be  told  to  fu- 
ture ages  that,  while  pretending  to  love  liberty, 
we  have  purchased  an  extensive  country  to  dis- 
grace it  with  the  foulest  reproach  of  nations. 
Our  constitution  requires  no  such  thing  of  us. 
The  ends  for  which  that  supreme  law  was  made 
are  succinctly  stated  in  its  preface.  They  are, 
first,  to  form  a  more  perfect  union,  and  insure 
domestic  tranquillity.  Will  slavery  efiect  this  ? 
Can  we,  sir,  by  mingling  bond  with  free,  black 
spirits  with  white,  like  Shakspeare's  witelns  in 
Macbeth,  form  a  more  perfect  union,  and  insure 
doiiK-.-tic  tranquillity?  Secondly,  to  establish 
justice.  Is  justice  to  be  established  by  subject- 
ing half  mankind  to  the  will  of  the  other  half? 
Justice,  sir,  is  blind  to  coloj-s,  and  weighs  in 


equal  scales  the  rights  of  all  men,  whether 
white  or  black.  Thirdly,  to  provide  for  the 
common  defence,  and  secure  the  blessings  of 
liberty.  Does  slavery  add  any  thing  to  the 
common  defence  ?  Sir,  the  strength  of  a  Re- 
public is  in  the  arm  of  freedom.  But,  above  all 
things,  do  the  blessings  of  liberty  consist  in 
slavery  ?  If  there  is  any  sincerity  in  our  pro- 
fession, that  slavery  is  an  ill,  tolerated  only 
from  necessity,  let  us  not,  while  we  feel  that  ill, 
shun  the  cure  which  consists  only  in  an  honest 
avowal  that  liberty  and  equal  rights  are  the  end 
and  aim  of  all  our  institutions,  and  that  to  tol- 
erate slavery  beyond  the  narrowest  limits  pre- 
scribed for  it  by  the  constitution,  is  a  perversion 
of  them  all. 

Slavery,  sir,  I  repeat,  is  not  established  by 
our  constitution ;  but  a  part  of  the  States  are 
indulged  in  the  commission  of  a  sin  from  which 
they  could  not  at  once  be  restrained,  and  which 
they  would  not  consent  to  abandon.  But,  sir, 
if  we  could,  by  any  process  of  reasoning,  be 
brought  to  believe  it  justifiable  to  hold  others 
to  involuntary  servitude,  policy  forbids  that  we 
should  increase  it.  Even  the  present  slavehold- 
ing States  have  an  interest,  I  think,  in  limiting 
the  extent  of  involuntary  servitude ;  for,  should 
slaves  become  much  more  numerous,  and,  con- 
scious of  their  strength,  draw  the  sword  against 
their  masters,  it  will  be  to  the  free  States  that 
the  masters  must  resort  for  an  efficient  power 
to  suppress  servile  insurrection.  But  we  have 
made  a  treaty  with  France,  which,  we  are  told, 
can  only  be  preserved  by  the  charms  of  slavery. 

Sir,  said  Mr.  L.,  until  the  ceded  territory 
shall  have  been  made  into  States,  and  the  new 
States  admitted  into  the  Union,  we  can  do  what 
we  will  with  it.  We  can  govern  it  as  a  prov- 
ince, or  sell  it  to  any  other  nation.  A  part  of 
it  is  probably  at  this  time  sold  to  Spain,  and 
the  inhabitants  of  it  may  soon  not  only  enjoy 
the  comforts  of  slavery,  but  the  blessings  of  the 
holy  inquisition  along  with  them.  The  question 
is  on  the  admission  of  Missouri  as  a  State  into 
the  Union.  Surely  it  will  not  be  contended 
that  we  are  bound  by  the  treaty  to  admit  it. 
The  treaty-making  power  does  not  extend  so 
far.  Can  the  President  and  Senate,  by  a  treaty 
with  Great  Britain,  make  the  province  of  Lower 
Canada  a  State  of  this  Union?  To  be  received 
as  a  State  into  this  Union,  is  a  privilege  which 
no  country  can  claim  as  a  right.  It  is  a  favor 
to  be  granted  or  not,  as  the  United  States  may 
choose.  When  the  United  States  think  proper 
to  grant  a  favor,  they  may  annex  just  and  rea- 
sonable terms ;  and  what  can  be  more  reasona- 
ble than  for  these  States  to  insist  that  a  new 
Territory,  wishing  to  have  the  benefits  of  free- 
dom extended  to  it  should  renounce  a  principle 
that  militates  with  justice,  morality,  religion, 
and  every  essential  right  of  mankind  ?  Louisi- 
ana was  admitted  into  the  Union  on  terms. 
The  conditions,  I  admit,  were  not  very  impor- 
tant, but  still  they  recognize  the  principles  for 
which  I  contend. 

An  opportunity  is  now  presented,  if  not  to 


346 


ABRIDGMENT  OF  THE 


H.  OF  R.] 


Admission  of  Missouri — Restriction  on  the  State. 


[FDBTJABT,  1819. 


diminish,  at  least  to  prevent,  the  growth  of  a 
sin  which  sits  heavy  on  the  soul  of  every  one 
of  us.  By  embracing  this  opportunity,  we  may 
retrieve  the  national  character,  and,  in  some 
degree,  our  own.  But  if  we  suffer  it  to  pass 
unimproved,  let  us  at  least  be  consistent,  and 
declare  that  our  constitution  was  made  to  im- 
pose slavery,  and  not  to  establish  liberty.  Let 
us  no  longer  tell  idle  tales  about  the  gradual 
abolition  of  slavery;  away  with  colonization 
societies,  if  their  design  is  only  to  rid  us  of  free 
blacks  and  turbulent  slaves;  have  done  also 
with  Bible  societies,  whose  views  are  extended 
to  Africa  and  the  East  Indies,  while  they  over- 
look the  deplorable  condition  of  their  sable 
brethren  within  our  own  borders;  make  no 
more  laws  to  prohibit  the  importation  of  slaves, 
for  the  world  must  see  that  the  object  of  such 
laws  is  alone  to  prevent  the  glutting  of  a  pro- 
digious market  for  the  flesh  and  blood  of  man, 
which  we  are  about  to  establish  in  the  West, 
and  to  enhance  the  price  of  sturdy  wretches, 
reared  like  black  cattle  and  horses  for  sale  on 
our  own  plantations. 

The  question  being  put  on  the  motion  of  Mr. 
TALLMADGE  to  amend  the  bill,  the  vote  was — 
for  the  amendment  79,  against  it  67. 

So  the  amendment  was  agreed  to. 


TUESDAY,  February  16. 

Admission  of  Missouri — Restriction  on   the 
State. 

The  House  proceeded  to  the  consideration 
of  the  amendments  reported  by  the  Committee 
of  the  Whole,  to  the  bill  authorizing  the  people 
of  the  Territory  of  Missouri  to  form  a  constitu- 
tion and  State  government,  and  for  the  admis- 
sion of  the  same  into  the  Union. 

The  whole  of  the  amendments  made  in  Com- 
mittee of  the  Whole  were  agreed  to,  with  the 
exception  of  that  which  prohibits  slavery  or  in- 
voluntary servitude  in  the  proposed  State. 

On  this  question,  the  debate  which  com- 
menced yesterday  was  renewed,  and  prosecu- 
ted with  considerable  spirit — Mr.  SCOTT,  Mr. 
COLSTON,  Mr.  TALLMADGE,  Mr.  STORES,  Mr. 
TATLOE,  Mr.  SIMPKTKS,  Mr.  MILLS,  Mr.  SPEN- 
CER, Mr.  HOLMES,  Mr.  BABBOUR,  Mr.  CAMPBELL 
of  Ohio,  Mr.  BUTLER  of  Louisiana,  Mr.  TEEET, 
and  Mr.  BEECHER,  taking  part  in  it. 

Mr.  SCOTT,  of  Missouri,  said,  he  trusted  that 
his  conduct,  during  the  whole  of  the  time  in 
which  he  had  the  honor  of  a  seat  in  the  House, 
had  convinced  gentlemen  of  his  disposition  not 
to  obtrude  his  sentiments  on  any  other  subjects 
than  those  in  which  the  interest  of  his  constitu- 
ents, and  of  the  Territory  he  represented,  were 
immediately  concerned.  But  when  a  question, 
such  as  the  amendments  proposed  by  the  gen- 
tlemen from  New  York,  (Messrs.  TALLMADGE 
and  TAYLOR,)  was  presented  for  consideration, 
involving  constitutional  principles  to  a  vast 
amount,  pregnant  with  the  future  fate  of  the 
Territory,  portending  destruction  to  the  liber- 
ties of  that  people,  directly  bearing  on  their 


rights  of  property,  their  State  rights,  their  all, 
he  should  consider  it  as  a  dereliction  of  his 
duty,  as  a  retreating  from  his  post,  nay,  double 
criminality,  did  he  not  raise  his  voice  against 
their  adoption.  After  the  many  able  and  lu- 
minous views  that  had  been  taken  of  this  sub- 
ject, by  the  Speaker  of  the  House  and  other 
honorable  gentlemen,  he  had  not  the  vanity  to 
suppose  that  any  additional  views  which  he 
could  offer,  or  any  new  dress  in  which  he  could 
clothe  those  already  advanced,  would  have  the 
happy  tendency  of  inducing  any  gentleman  to 
change  his  vote.  But,  if  he  stood  single  on  the 
question,  and  there  was  no  man  to  help  him, 
yet,  while  the  laws  of  the  land  and  the  rules  of 
the  House  guaranteed  to  him  the  privilege  of 
speech,  he  would  redeem  his  conscience  from 
the  imputation  of  having  silently  witnessed  a 
violation  of  the  constitution  of  his  country,  and 
an  infringement  on  the  liberties  of  the  people 
who  had  intrusted  to  his  feeble  abilities  the 
advocation  of  their  rights.  He  desired,  at  this 
early  stage  of  his  remarks,  in  the  name  of  the 
citizens  of  Missouri  Territory,  whose  rights  on 
other  subjects  had  been  too  long  neglected  and 
shamefully  disregarded,  to  enter  his  solemn 
protest  against  the  introduction,  under  the  in- 
sidious form  of  amendment,  of  any  principle  in 
this  bill,  the  obvious  tendency  of  which  would 
be  to  sow  the  seeds  of  discord  in,  and  perhaps 
eventually  endanger,  the  Union. 

Mr.  S.  entertained  the  opinion  that,  under 
the  constitution,  Congress  had  not  the  power 
to  impose  this  or  any  other  restriction,  or  to 
require  of  the  people  of  Missouri  their  assent  to 
this  condition,  as  a  prerequisite  to  their  admis- 
sion into  the  Union.  He  contended  this  from 
the  language  of  the  constitution  itself;  from  the 
practice  in  the  admission  of  new  States  under 
that  instrument;  and  from  the  express  terms 
of  the  treaty  of  cession.  The  short  view  he  in- 
tended to  take  of  those  points,  would,  he  trust- 
ed, be  satisfactory  to  all  those  who  were  not 
so  anxious  to  usurp  power  as  to  sacrifice  to  its 
attainment  the  principles  of  our  Government, 
or  who  were  not  desirous  of  prostrating  the 
rights  and  independence  of  a  State  to  chimeri- 
cal views  of  policy  or  expediency.  The  au- 
thority to  admit  new  States  into  the  Union, 
was  granted  in  the  third  section  of  the  fourth 
article  of  the  constitution,  which  declared  that 
"  new  States  may  be  admitted  by  the  Congress 
into  the  Union."  The  only  power  given  to  the 
Congress  by  this  section,  appeared  to  him  to  be 
that  of  passing  a  law  for  the  admission  of  the 
new  State,  leaving  it  in  possession  of  all  the 
rights,  privileges,  and  immunities,  enjoyed  by 
the  other  States ;  the  most  valuable  and  prom- 
inent of  which  was  that  of  forming  and  modi- 
fying their  own  State  constitution,  and  over 
which  Congress  had  no  superintending  control, 
other  than  that  expressly  given  in  the  fourth 
section  of  the  same  article,  which  read,  "  the 
United  States  shall  guarantee  to  every  State  in 
this  Union,  a  republican  form  of  government.7" 
This  end  accomplished,  the  guardianship  of  the 


DEBATES  OF  CONGRESS. 


347 


FEBRUARY,  1819.] 


Admission  of  Missouri — Restriction  on  the  State. 


[H.  OF  R. 


United  States  over  the  constitution  of  the  sev- 
eral States  was  fulfilled;  and  all  restrictions, 
limitations,  and  conditions,  beyond  this,  was  so 
much  power  unwarrantably  assumed.  In  illus- 
tration of  this  position,  he  would  read  an  ex- 
tract from  one  of  the  essays,  written  by  the 
late  President  Madison,  contemporaneously 
with  the  Constitution  of  the  United  States, 
and  from  a  very  celebrated  work  : 

"  In  a  confederacy  founded  on  republican  princi- 
ples, and  composed  of  republican  members,  the  su- 
perintending government  ought  clearly  to  possess 
authority  to  defend  the  system  against  aristocratic  or 
monarchical  innovations.  The  more  intimate  the 
nature  of  such  a  union  may  be,  the  greater  interest 
have  the  members  hi  the  political  institutions  of  each 
other,  and  the  greater  right  to  insist  that  the  forms 
of  government,  under  which  the  compact  was  entered 
into,  should  be  substantially  maintained.  But  this 
authority  extends  no  farther  than  to  a  guarantee  of 
a  republican  form  of  government,  which  supposes  a 
pre-existing  government  of  the  form  which  is  to  be 
guaranteed.  As  long,  therefore,  as  the  existing  re- 
publican forms  are  continued  by  the  States,  they  are 
guaranteed  by  the  Federal  Constitution.  Whenever 
the  States  may  choose  to  substitute  other  republican 
forms,  they  have  a  right  to  do  so,  and  to  claim  the 
federal  guarantee  for  the  latter.  The  only  restriction 
imposed  on  them  is,  that  they  shall  not  exchange  re- 
publican for  anti-republican  constitutions ;  a  restric- 
tion which,  it  is  presumed,  will  hardly  be  considered 
as  a  grievance." 

Mr.  S.  thought  that  those  two  clauses,  when 
supported  by  such  high  authority,  had  they 
been  the  only  ones  in  the  constitution  which 
related  to  the  powers  of  the  General  Govern- 
ment over  the  States,  and  particularly  at  their 
formation  and  adoption  into  the  Union,  could 
not  but  be  deemed  satisfactory  to  a  reasonable 
extent ;  but  there  were  other  provisions  in  the 
constitution,  to  which  he  would  refer,  that  be- 
yond all  doubt,  to  his  mind,  settled  the  ques- 
tion. One  of  those  was  the  tenth  article  in  the 
amendments,  which  said  that  "  the  powers  not 
delegated  to  the  United  States  by  the  constitu- 
tion, nor  prohibited  by  it  to  the  States,  are  re- 
served to  the  States,  respectively,  or  to  the 
people."  He  believed  that,  by  common  law 
and  common  usage,  all  grants  giving  certain 
defined  and  specific  privileges  or  powers,  were 
to  be  so  construed  as  that  no  others  should  be 
intended  to  be  given  but  such  as  were  particu- 
larly enumerated  in  the  instruments  themselves, 
or  indispensably  necessary  to  carry  into  effect 
those  designated.  In  no  part  of  the  constitu- 
tion was  the  power  proposed  to  be  exercised, 
of  imposing  conditions  on  a  new  State,  given, 
either  in  so  many  words,  or  by  any  justifiable 
or  fair  inference;  nor  in  any  portion  of  the 
constitution  was  the  right  prohibited  to  the  re- 
spective States,  to  regulate  their  own  internal 
police,  of  admitting  such  citizens  as  they  pleased, 
or  of  introducing  any  description  of  property 
that  they  should  consider  as  essential  or  neces- 
sary to  their  prosperity ;  and  the  framers  of 
that  instrument  seem  to  have  been  zealous  lest, 
by  implication  or  by  inference,  powers  might 


be  assumed  by  the  General  Government  over 
the  States  and  people,  other  than  those  express- 
ly given ;  hence  they  reserve,  in  so  many  terms, 
to  the  States  and  the  people,  all  powers  not 
delegated  to  the  Federal  Government.  The 
ninth  article  of  the  amendments  to  the  consti- 
tution, still  further  illustrated  the  position  he 
had  taken ;  it  read,  that  "  the  enumeration  in 
the  constitution  of  certain  rights  shall  not  be 
construed  to  deny  or  disparage  others  retained 
by  the  people."  Mr.  S.  believed  it  to  be  a  just 
rule  of  interpretation,  that  the  enumeration  of 
powers  delegated  to  Congress  weakened  their 
authority  in  all  cases  not  enumerated;  and 
that-  beyond  those  powers  enumerated,  they 
had  none,  except  they  were  essentially  neces- 
sary to  carry  into  effect  those  that  were  given. 
The  second  section  of  the  fourth  article  of  the 
constitution,  which  declared  that  u  the  citizens 
of  each  State  shall  be  entitled  to  all  the  privi- 
leges and  immunities  of  citizens  in  the  several 
States,"  was  satisfactory,  to  his  judgment,  that 
it  was  intended  the  citizens  of  each  State,  form- 
ing a  part  of  one  harmonious  whole,  should 
have,  in  all  things,  equal  privileges ;  the  neces- 
sary consequence  of  which  was,  that  every 
man,  in  his  own  State,  should  have  the  same 
rights,  privileges,  and  powers,  that  any  other 
citizen  of  the  United  States  had  in  his  own 
State;  otherwise,  discontent  and  murmurings 
would  prevail  against  the  General  Government, 
who  had  deprived  him  of  this  equality. 

For  example,  if  the  citizens  of  Pennsylvania 
or  Virginia  enjoyed  the  right,  in  their  own 
State,  to  decide  the  question  whether  they 
would  have  slavery  or  not,  the  citizens  of  Mis- 
souri, to  give  them  the  same  privileges,  must 
have  the  same  right  to  decide  whether  they 
would  or  would  not  tolerate  slavery  in  their 
State ;  if  it  were  otherwise,  then  the  citizens  of 
Pennsylvania  and  Virginia  would  have  more 
rights,  privileges,  and  powers,  in  their  respec- 
tive States,  than  the  citizens  of  Missouri  would 
have  in  theirs.  Mr.  S.  said  he  would  make 
another  quotation  from  the  same  work  he  had 
before  been  indebted  to,  which  he  believed  had 
considerable  bearing  on  this  question :  "  The 
powers  delegated  by  the  proposed  constitution 
to  the  Federal  Government  are  few  and  defined ; 
those  which  are  to  remain  in  the  State  govern- 
ments are  numerous  and  indefinite ;  the  former 
will  be  exercised  principally  on  external  objects, 
as  war,  peace,  negotiation,  and  foreign  com- 
merce— with  which  last  the  powers  of  taxation 
will*  for  the  most  part,  be  connected.  The 
powers  reserved  to  the  several  States,  will  ex- 
tend to  all  the  objects  which,  in  the  ordinary 
course  of  affairs,  concern  the  lives,  liberties, 
and  properties  of  the  people,  and  the  internal 
order,  improvement,  and  prosperity  of  the 
State."  The  applicability  of  this  doctrine  to 
the  question  under  consideration  was  so  obvi- 
ous, that  he  would  not  detain  the  House  to 
give  examples,  but  leave  it  for  gentlemen  to 
make  the  application.  He  would,  however, 
make  one  other  reference  to  the  constitution 


348 


ABRIDGMENT  OF  THE 


H.  OP  R.] 


Admission  of  Missouri — Restriction  on  the  State. 


[FEBRUARY,  1819. 


before  he  proceeded  to  speak  of  the  practice 
under  it ;  in  the  second  section  of  that  instru- 
ment, it  was  provided  that  "representatives 
and  direct  taxes  shall  be  apportioned  among 
the  several  States,  which  may  be  included  with- 
in this  Union,  according  to  their  respective 
numbers,  which  shall  be  determined  by  adding 


those  bound  to  service  for  a  term  of  years,  an 
excluding  Indians  not  taxed,  three-fifths  of  all 
other  persons."  This  provision  was  not  re- 
stricted to  the  States  then  formed,  and  about 
to  adopt  the  constitution,  but  to  all  those  States 
which  might  be  included  within  this  Union, 
clearly  contemplating  the  admission  of  new 
States  thereafter,  and  providing  that  to  them 
also  should  this  principle  of  representation  and 
taxation  equally  apply.  Nor  could  he  subscribe 
to  the  construction,  that,  as  this  part  of  the 
constitution  was  matter  of  compromise,  it  was 
to  be  limited,  in  its  application,  to  the  original 
States  only,  and  not  to  be  extended  to  all  those 
States  that  might,  after  its  adoption,  become 
members  of  the  Federal  Union  ;  and  a  practical 
exposition  had  been  made  by  Congress  of  this 
part  of  the  constitution,  in  the  admission  of 
Kentucky,  Louisiana,  and  Mississippi,  as  States, 
all  of  whom  were  slaveholding  States,  and  to 
each  of  them  this  principle  had  been  extended. 
Mr.  S.  believed  that  the  practice  under  the 
constitution  had  been  different  from  that  now 
contended  for  by  gentlemen;  he  was  unap- 
prised  of  any  similar  provision  having  ever 
been  made,  or  attempted  to  be  made,  in  relation 
to  any  other  new  State  heretofore  admitted. 
The  argument  drawn  from  the  States  formed 
out  of  the  territory  northwest  of  the  Ohio  Eiver 
he  did  not  consider  as  analogous ;  that  restric- 
tion, if  any,  was  imposed  in  pursuance  of  a 
compact,  and  only,  so  far  as  Congress  could  do, 
carried  into  effect  the  disposition  of  Virginia  in 
reference  to  a  part  of  her  own  original  terri- 
tory, and  was,  in  every  respect  more  just,  be- 
cause that  provision  was  made  and  published 
to  the  world  at  a  time  when  but  few,  if  any, 
settlements  were  formed  within  that  tract  of 
country ;  and  the  children  of  those  people  of 
color  belonging  to  the  inhabitants  then  there 
have  been,  and  still  were,  held  in  bondage,  and 
were  not  free  at  a  given  age,  as  was  contem- 
plated by  the  amendment  under  consideration ; 
nor  did  he  doubt  but  that  it  was  competent  for 
any  of  those  States,  admitted  in  pursuance  of 
the  ordinance  of  1787,  to  caU  a  convention,,  and 
so  alter  their  constitution  as  to  allow  of  the  in- 
troduction of  slaves,  if  they  thought  proper  to 
do  so.  To  those  gentlemen  who  had  in  their 
arguments,  in  support  of  the  amendments,  ad- 
verted to  the  instance  where  Congress  had,  by 
the  law  authorizing  the  people  of  Louisiana,  to 
form  a  constitution  and  State  government,  ex- 
ercised the  power  of  imposing  the  terms  and 
conditions  on  which  they  should  be  permitted 
to  do  so,  he  would  recommend  the  careful  ex- 
amination and  comparison  of  those  terms  with 
the  Constitution  of  the  United  States,  when,  he 


doubted  not,  they  would  be  convinced  that 
these  restrictions  were  only  such  as  were  in 
express  and  positive  language  defined  in  the 
latter  instrument,  and  would  have  been  equally 
binding  on  the  people  of  Louisiana,  had  they 
not  have  been  enumerated  in  the  law  giving 
them  authority  to  form  a  constitution  for  them- 


Mr.  S.  said  he  considered  the  contemplated 
conditions  and  restrictions,  contained  in  the 
proposed  amendments,  to  be  unconstitutional 
and  unwarrantable,  from  the  provisions  of  the 
treaty  of  cession,  by  the  third  article  of  which 
it  was  stipulated,  that  "  the  inhabitants  of  the 
ceded  territory  shall  be  incorporated  in  the 
union  of  the  United  States,  and  admitted,  as 
soon  as  possible,  according  to  the  -principles  of 
the  Federal  Constitution,  to  the  enjoyment  of 
all  the  rights,  advantages,  and  immunities, 
of  citizens  of  the  United  States,  and,  in  the 
mean  time,  they  shall  be  maintained  and  pro- 
tected in  the  free  enjoyment  of  their  liberty, 
property,  and  the  religion  which  they  profess." 

This  treaty  having  been  made  by  the  com- 
petent authority  of  Government,  ratified  by  the 
Senate,  and  emphatically  sanctioned  by  Con- 
gress in  the  acts  making  appropriations  to  carry 
it  into  effect,  became  a  part  of  the  supreme  law 
of  the  land,  and  its  bearings  on  the  rights  of 
the  people  had  received  a  practical  exposition 
by  the  admission  of  the  State  of  Louisiana,  part 
of  the  same  territory,  and  acquired  by  the  same 
treaty  of  cession,  into  the  Union.  It  was  in 
vain  for  gentlemen  to  tell  him  that,  by  the 
terms  of  the  treaty  of  cession,  the  United  States 
were  not  bound  to  admit  any  part  of  the  ceded 
territory  into  the  Union  as  a  State;  the  evi- 
dence of  the  obligation  Congress  considered 
they  were  under,  to  adopt  States  formed  out 
of  that  territory,  is  clearly  deducible  from  the 
fact,  that  they  had  done  so  in  the  instance  of 
Louisiana.  But  had  no  State  been  admitted, 
formed  of  a  part  of  the  territory  acquired  by 
that  treaty,  the  obligation  of  the  Government 
to  do  so  would  not  be  the  less  apparent  to  him. 
•*•  The  inhabitants  of  the  ceded  territory  shall 
be  incorporated  in  the  Union  of  the  United 
States."  The  people  were  not  left  to  the  way- 
ward discretion  of  this,  or  any  other  Govern- 
ment, by  saying  that  they  may  be  incorporated 
in  the  Union.  The  language  was  different  and 
imperative :  "they  shall  be  incorporated."  Mr. 
S.  understood  by  the  term  incorporated,  that 
they  were  to  form  a  constituent  part  of  this 
Republic ;  that  they  were  to  become  joint  part- 
ners in  the  character  and  councils  of  the  country, 
and  in  the  national  losses  and  national  gains ; 
as  a  territory,  they  were  not  an  essential  part 
of  the  Government ;  they  were  a  mere  prov- 
ince, subject  to  the  acts  and  regulations  of  the 
General  Government  in  all  cases  whatsoever. 
As  a  territory,  they  had  not  all  the  rights,  ad- 
vantages, and  immunities,  of  citizens  of  the 
United  States.  Mr.  S.  himself  furnished  an  ex- 
ample, that,  in  their  present  condition,  they 
had  not  all  the  rights  of  the  other  citizens  of 


DEBATES  OF  CONGRESS. 


349 


FEBKCAKY,  1819.] 


Admission  of  Missouri — Restriction  on  the  State. 


[H.  OF  R. 


the  Union.  Had  he  a  vote  in  this  House? 
and  yet  these  people  were,  during  the  war, 
subject  to  certain  taxes  imposed  by  Congress. 
Had  those  people  any  voice  to  give  in  the  im- 
position of  taxes  to  which  they  were  subject,  or 
in  the  disposition  of  the  funds  of  the  nation, 
and  particularly  those  arising  from  the  sales  of 
the  public  lands  to  which  they  already  had, 
and  still  would  largely  contribute?  Had  they 
a  voice  to  give  in  selecting  the  officers  of  this 
Government,  or  many  of  their  own?  In  short 
in  what  had  they  equal  rights,  advantages,  and 
immunities  with  the  other  citizens  of  the  United 
States,  but  in  the  privilege  to  submit  to  a  pro- 
crastination of  their  rights,  and  in  the  advan- 
tage to  subscribe  to  your  laws,  your  rules,  your 
taxes,  and  your  powers,  even  without  a  hear- 
ing ?  Those  people  were  also  "  to  be  admitted 
into  the  Union  as  soon  as  possible." 

Mr.  S.  would  infer  from  this  expression,  that 
it  was  the  understanding  of  the  parties,  that  so 
soon  as  any  portion  of  the  territory,  of  sufficient 
extent  to  form  a  State,  should  contain  the  num- 
ber of  inhabitants  required  by  law  to  entitle 
them  to  a  Representative  on  the  floor  of  this 
House,  that  they  then  had  the  right  to  make 
the  call  for  admission,  and  this  admission,  when 
made,  was  to  be,  not  on  conditions  that  gentle- 
men might  deem  expedient — not  on  conditions 
referable  to  future  political  views,  not  on  con- 
ditions that  the  constitution'  the  people  should 
form,  should  contain  a  clause  that  would  par- 
ticularly open  the  door  for  emigration  from  the 
North  or  from  the  South,  not  on  condition  that 
the  future  population  of  the  State  should  come 
from  a  slaveholding  or  non-slaveholding  State — 
"but  according  to  the  principles  of  the  Fed- 
eral Constitution,"  and  none  other.  The  people 
of  Missouri  were,  by  solemn  treaty  stipulation, 
when  admitted,  to  enjoy  all  the  rights,  advan- 
tages, and  immunities,  of  citizens  of  the  United 
States.  Can  any  gentleman  contend,  that, 
laboring  under  the  proposed  restriction,  the 
citizens  of  Missouri  would  have  all  the  rights, 
advantages,  and  immunities,  of  other  citizens 
of  the  Union  ?  Have  not  other  new  States,  in 
their  admission,  and  have  not  all  the  States  in 
the  Union,  now,  privileges  and  rights  beyond 
what  was  contemplated  to  be  allowed  to  the 
citizens  of  Missouri  ?  Have  not  all  other  States 
in  this  Government  the  right  to  alter,  modify, 
amend,  and  change  their  State  constitution, 
having  regard  alone  to  a  republican  form? 
And  was  there  any  existing  law,  or  any  clause 
in  the  Federal  Constitution,  that  prohibited  a 
total  change  from  a  slaveholding  to  a  non- 
slaveholding  State,  or  from  a  non-slaveholding 
to  a  slaveholding  State  ?  Mr.  S.  thought,  that, 
if  this  provision  was  proper,  or  -within  the 
powers  of  Congress,  they  also  had  the  correla- 
tive right  to  say,  that  the  people  of  Missouri 
should  not  be  admitted  as  a  State,  unless  they 
provided,  in  the  formation  of  their  State  con- 
stitution, that  slavery  should  be  tolerated. 
Would  not  those  conscientious  gentlemen  startle 
at  this,  and  exclaim,  What,  impose  on  those 


people  slaves,  when  they  do  not  want  them ! 
This  would  be  said  to  be  a  direct  attack  on  the 
State  independence.  Was  it  in  the  power  of 
Congress  to  annex  the  present  condition,  Mr. 
S.  deemed  it  equally  within  the  scope  of  their 
authority  to  say,  what  color  the  inhabitants  of 
the  proposed  State  should  be,  what  description 
of  property,  other  than  slaves,  those  people 
should  or  should  not  possess,  and  the  quantity 
of  property  each  man  should  retain,  going  upon 
the  Agrarian  principle.  He  would  even  go  fur- 
ther, and  say,  that  Congress  had  an  equal  pow- 
er to  enact  to  what  religion  the  people  should 
subscribe ;  that  none  other  should  be  professed, 
and  to  provide  for  the  excommunication  of  all 
those  who  did  not  submit. 

The  people  of  Missouri  were,  if  admitted  into 
the  Union,  to  come  in  on  an  equal  footing  with 
the  original  States.  That  the  people  of  the 
other  States  had  the  right  to  regulate  their  own 
internal  police,  to  prescribe  the  rules  of  their 
own  conduct,  and,  in  the  formation  of  their 
constitutions,  to  say  whether  slavery  was  or 
was  not  admissible,  he  believed  was  a  point 
conceded  by  all.  How,  then,  were  the  citizens 
of  Missouri  placed  on  an  equal  footing  with  the 
other  members  of  the  Union?  Equal  in  some 
respects — a  shameful  discrimination  in  others. 
A  discrimination  not  warranted  by  the  consti- 
tution, or  justified  by  the  treaty  of  cession,  but 
founded  on  mistaken  zeal,  or  erroneous  policy. 
They  were  to  be  bound  down  by  onerous  con- 
ditions, limitations,  and  restrictions,  to  which 
he  knew  they  would  not  submit.  That  people 
were  brave  and  independent  in  spirit,  they  were 
intelligent,  and  knew  their  own  rights;  they 
were  competent  of  self-government,  and  willing 
to  risk  their  own  happiness  and  future  prosper- 
ity on  the  legitimate  exercise  of  then-  own  judg- 
ment and  free  will.  Mr.  S.  protested  against 
such  a  guardianship  as  was  contemplated  now 
to  be  assumed  over  his  constituents.  The  spirit 
of  freedom  burned  La  the  bosoms  of  the  freemen 
of  Missouri,  and  if  admitted  into  the  national 
family,  they  would  be  equal,  or  not  come  in  at 
all.  With  what  an  anxious  eye  have  they  look- 
ed to  the  East,  since  the  commencement  of  this 
session  of  Congress,  for  the  good  tidings,  that  on 
them  you  had  conferred  the  glorious  privilege 
of  self-government  and  independence.  What 
seeds  of  discord  will  you  sow,  when  they  read 
this  suspicious,  shameful,  unconstitutional  inhi- 
bition in  their  charter  ?  Will  they  not  compare 
it  with  the  terms  of  the  treaty  of  cession — that 
bill  of  their  rights,  emphatically  their  magnet 
chcvrta  ?  And  will  not  the  result  of  that  com- 
parison be  a  stigma  on  the  faith  of  this  Govern- 
ment? It  had  been  admitted  by  some  gentle- 
men in  debate,  that,  were  the  people  of  Missouri 
to  form  a  constitution  conforming  to  this  pro- 
vision, so  soon  as  they  were  adopted  into  the 
Union  it  would  be  competent  for  them  to  call  a 
convention  and  alter  their  constitution  on  this 
subject.  Why,  then,  he  would  ask  gentlemen, 
would  they  legislate,  when  they  could  produce 
no  permanent  practical  effect?  Why  expose 


350 


ABRIDGMENT  OF  THE 


H.  OF  R.] 


Admission  of  Missouri — Restriction  on  the  State. 


[FEBRUARY,  1819. 


the  imbecility  of  the  General  Government,  to 
tie  up  the  hands  of  the  State,  and  induce  the 
people  to  an  act  of  chicanery,  which  he  knew 
from  principle  they  abhorred,  to  get  clear  of  an 
odious  restriction  on  their  rights?  Mr.  S.  had 
trusted  that  gentlemen  who  professed  to  be  ac- 
tuated by  motives  of  humanity  and  principle 
would  not  encourage  a  course  of  dissimulation, 
or,  by  any  vote  of  theirs,  render  it  necessary 
for  the  citizens  of  Missouri  to  act  equivocally  to 
obtain  their  right.  He  was  unwilling  to  be- 
lieve, that  political  views  alone  led  gentlemen 
on  this  or  any  other  occasion ;  but,  from  the  lan- 
guage of  the  member  from  New  York,  (Mr. 
TAYLOB,)  he  was  compelled  to  suspect  that  they 
had  their  influence  upon  him.  That  gentleman 
has  told  us,  that  if  ever  he  left  his  present  resi- 
dence, it  would  be  for  Illinois  or  Missouri ;  at 
all  events,  he  wished  to  send  out  his  brothers 
and  his  sons.  Mr.  S.  begged  that  gentleman  to 
relieve  him  from  the  awful  apprehension  ex- 
cited by  the  prospect  of  this  accession  of  popu- 
lation. He  hoped  the  House  would  excuse  him 
while  he  stated,  that  he  did  not  desire  that 
gentleman,  his  sons,  or  his  brothers,  in  that 
land  of  brave,  noble,  and  independent  freemen. 
The  member  says  that  the  latitude  is  too  far 
north  to  admit  of  slavery  there.  "Would  the 
gentleman  cast  his  eye  on  the  map  before  him, 
he  would  there  see,  that  a  part  of  Kentucky, 
Virginia,  and  Maryland,  were  as  far  north  as 
the  northern  boundary  of  the  proposed  State  of 
Missouri.  Mr.  S.  would  thank  the  gentleman 
if  he  would  condescend  to  tell  him  what  precise 
line  of  latitude  suited  his  conscience,  his  hu- 
manity, or  his  political  views,  on  this  subject 
Could  that  member  be  serious  when  he  made 
the  parallel  of  latitude  the  measure  of  his  good 
will  to  those  unfortunate  blacks  ?  Or  was  he 
trying  how  far  he  could  go  in  fallacious  argu- 
ment and  absurdity  without  creating  one  blush, 
even  on  his  own  cheek,  for  inconsistency? 
What,  starve  the  negroes,  pen  them  up  in  the 
swamps  and  morasses,  confine  them  to  southern 
latitudes,  to  long  scorching  days  of  labor  and 
fatigue,  until  the  race  becomes  extinct,  that  the 
feu-  land  of  Missouri  may  be  tenanted  by  that 
gentleman,  his  brothers,  and  his  sons?  He  ex- 
pected from  a  majority  of  the  House  a  more 
liberal  policy,  and  better  evidence  that  they 
really  were  actuated  by  humane  motives. 

Mr.  S.  said  he  would  trouble  the  House  no 
longer ;  he  thanked  them  for  the  attention  and 
indulgence  already  bestowed ;  but  he  desired  to 
apprise  gentlemen,  before  he  sat  down,  that 
they  were  sowing  the  seeds  of  discord  in  this 
Union,  by  attempting  to  admit  States  with  un- 
equal privileges  and  unequal  rights ;  that  they 
were  signing,  sealing,  and  delivering  their  own 
death  warrant;  that  the  weapon  they  were  so 
unjustly  wielding  against  the  people  of  Missouri, 
was  a  two-edged  sword.  From  the  cumulative 
nature  of  power,  the  day  might  come  when  the 
General  Government  might,  in  turn,  undertake 
to  dictate  to  them  on  questions  of  internal 
policy ;  Missouri,  now  weak  and  feeble,  whose 


fate  and  murmurs  would  excite  but  little  alarm 
or  sensibility,  might  become  an  easy  victim  to 
motives  of  policy,  party  zeal,  or  mistaken  ideas 
of  power;  but  other  times  and  other  men 
would  succeed ;  a  future  Congress  might  come, 
who,  under  the  sanctified  forms  of  constitution- 
al power,  would  dictate  tp  them  odious  condi- 
tions; nay,  inflict  on  their  internal  independ- 
ence a  wound  more  deep  and  dreadful  than 
even  this  to  Missouri.  The  House  had  seen  the 
force  of  the  precedent,  in  the  mistaken  appli- 
cation of  the  conditions  imposed  on  the  people 
of  Louisiana  anterior  to  their  admission  into 
the  Union.  And,  whatever  might  be  the  ulti- 
mate determination  of  the  House,  Mr.  S.  con- 
sidered this  question  big  with  the  fate  of  Caesar 
and  of  Rome. 

Mr.  TALLMADGE,  of  New  York,  rose. — Sir, 
said  he,  it  has  been  my  desire  and  my  intention 
to  avoid  any  debate  on  the  present  painful  and 
unpleasant  subject.  When  I  had  the  honor  to 
submit  to  this  House  the  amendment  now  un- 
der consideration,  I  accompanied  it  with  a  de- 
claration, that  it  was  intended  to  confine  its 
operation  to  the  newly  acquired  territory  across 
the  Mississippi ;  and  I  then  expressly  declared 
that  I  would  in  no  manner  intermeddle  with 
the  slaveholding  States,  nor  attempt  manumis- 
sion in  any  one  of  the  original  States  in  the 
Union.  Sir,  I  even  went  further,  and  stated 
that  I  was  aware  of  the  delicacy  of  the  subject, 
and  that  I  had  learned  from  Southern  gentle- 
men the  difficulties  and  the  dangers  of  having 
free  blacks  intermingling  with  slaves ;  and,  on 
that  account,  and  with  a  view  to  the  safety  of 
the  white  population  of  the  adjoining  States,  I 
would  not  even  advocate  the  prohibition  of 
slavery  in  the  Alabama  Territory;  because, 
surrounded  as  it  was  by  slaveholding  States, 
and  with  only  imaginary  lines  of  division,  the 
intercourse  between  slaves  and  free  blacks  could 
not  be  prevented,  and  a  senile  war  might  be 
the  result.  While  we  deprecate  and  mourn 
over  the  evil  of  slavery,  humanity  and  good 
morals  require  us  to  wish  its  abolition,  under 
circumstances  consistent  with  the  safety  of  the 
white  population.  Willingly,  therefore,  will  I 
submit  to  an  evil  which  we  cannot  safely  rem- 
edy. I  admitted  all  that  had  been  said  of  the 
danger  of  having  free  blacks  visible  to  slaves, 
and  therefore  did  not  hesitate  to  pledge  myself 
that  I  would  neither  advise  nor  attempt  coer- 
cive manumission.  But,  sir,  all  these  reasons 
cease  when  we  cross  the  banks  of  the  Missis- 
sippi, a  newly  acquired  territory,  never  con- 
templated in  the  formation  of  our  Government, 
not  included  within  the  compromise  or  mutual 
pledge  in  the  adoption  of  our  constitution,  a 
new  territory  acquired  by  our  common  fund, 
and  ought  justly  to  be  subject  to  our  common 
legislation. 

Sir,  when  I  submitted  the  amendment  now 
under  consideration,  accompanied  with  these 
explanations,  and  with  these  avowals  of  my  in- 
tentions and  of  my  motives,  I  did  expect  that 
gentlemen  who  might  differ  from  me  in  opin- 


DEBATES  OF  CONGRESS. 


351 


FEBRUARY,  1819.] 


Admission  of  Missouri — Restriction  on  the  State. 


[H.  OF  R. 


ion  would  appreciate  the  liberality  of  my  views, 
and  would  meet  me  with  moderation,  as  upon 
a  fair  subject  for  general  legislation.  Sir,  I  did 
expect  at  least  that  the  frank  declaration  of  my 
views  would  protect  me  from  harsh  expressions, 
and  from  the  unfriendly  imputations  which  have 
been  cast  out  on  this  occasion.  But,  sir,  such 
has  been  the  character  and  the  violence  of  this 
debate,  and  expressions  of  so  much  intemper- 
ance, and  of  an  aspect  so  threatening  have  been 
used,  that  continued  silence  on  my  part  would 
ill  become  me,  who  had  submitted  to  this  House 
the  original  proposition.  While  this  subject  was 
under  debate  before  the  Committee  of  the 
Whole,  I  did  not  take  the  floor,  and  I  avail  my- 
self of  this  occasion  to  acknowledge  my  obliga- 
tions to  my  friends,  (Messrs.  TAYLOR  and  MILLS,) 
for  the  manner  in  which  they  supported  my 
amendment,  at  a  time  when  I  was  unable  to 
partake  in  the  debate.  I  had  only  on  that  day 
returned  from  a  journey  long  in  its  extent,  and 
painful  in  its  occasion ;  and,  from  an  affection 
of  my  breast,  I  could  not  then  speak ;  I  cannot 
yet  hope  to  do  justice  to  the  subject,  but  I  do 
hope  to  say  enough  to  assure  my  friends  that  I 
have  not  left  them  in  the  controversy,  and  to 
convince  the  opponents  of  the  measure,  that 
their  violence  has  not  driven  me  from  the  de- 
bate. 

Sir,  the  honorable  gentleman  from  Missouri, 
(Mr.  SCOTT,}  who  has  just  resumed  his  seat,  has 
told  us  of  the  ides  of  March,  and  has  cautioned 
us  to  "  beware  of  the  fate  of  Caesar  and  of  Rome." 
Another  gentleman,  (Mr.  COBB,)  from  Georgia, 
in  addition  to  other  expressions  of  great  warmth, 
has  said,  "  that,  if  we  persist,  the  Union  will 
be  dissolved ; "  and,  with  a  look  fixed  on  me, 
has  told  us,  "  we  had  kindled  a  fire  which  all 
the  waters  of  the  ocean  cannot  put  out,  which 
seas  of  blood  can  only  extinguish." 

Sir,  language  of  this  sort  has  no  effect  on  me ; 
my  purpose  is  fixed,  it  is  interwoven  with  my 
existence,  its  durability  is  limited  with  my  life, 
it  is  a  great  and  glorious  cause,  setting  bounds 
to  a  slavery  the  most  cruel  and  debasing  the 
world  ever  witnessed;  it  is  the  freedom  of 
man ;  it  is  the  cause  of  unredeemed  and  unre- 
generated  human  beings. 

Sir,  if  a  dissolution  of  the  Union  must  take 
place,  let  it  be  so !  If  civil  war,  which  gentle- 
men so  much  threaten,  must  come,  I  can  only 
say,  let  it  come  1  My  hold  on  life  is  probably 
as  frail  as  that  of  any  man  who  now  hears  me ; 
but,  while  that  hold  lasts,  it  shah1  be  devoted  to 
the  service  of  my  country — to  the  freedom  of 
man.  If  blood  is  necessary  to  extinguish  any 
fire  which  I  have  assisted  to  kindle,  I  can  assure 
gentlemen,  while  I  regret  the  necessity,  I  shall 
not  forbear  to  contribute  my  mite.  Sir,  the 
violence  to  which  gentlemen  have  resorted 
on  this  subject  will  not  move  my  purpose,  nor 
drive  me  from  my  place.  I  have  the  fortune 
and  the  honor  to  stand  Hero  as  the  representa- 
tive of  freemen,  who  possess  intelligence  to 
know  their  rights,  who  have  the  spirit  to  main- 
tain them.  Whatever  might  be  my  own  pri- 


vate sentiments  on  this  subject,  standing  here 
as  the  representative  of  others,  no  choice  is  left 
me.  I  know  the  will  of  my  constituents,  and, 
regardless  of  consequences,  I  will  avow  it ;  as 
their  representative,  I  will  proclaim  their  hatred 
to  slavery  in  every  shape ;  as  their  representa- 
tive, here  will  I  hold  my  stand,  until  this  floor, 
with  the  constitution  of  my  country  which 
supports  it,  shall  sink  beneath  me.  If  I  am 
doomed  to  fall,  I  shall  at  least  have  the  painful 
consolation  to  believe  that  I  fall,  as  a  fragment, 
in  the  ruins  of  my  country. 

Sir,  the  gentleman  from  Virginia  (Mr.  COL- 
STON) has  accused  my  honorable  friend,  from 
New  Hampshire,  (Mr.  LIVERMOBE,)  of  "  speak- 
ing to  the  galleries,  and,  by  his  language,  en- 
deavoring to  excite  a  servile  war ; "  and  has 
ended  by  saying,  "he  is  no  better  than  Arbuth- 
not  or  Ambrister ;  and  deserves  no  better  fate." 
Sir,  when  I  hear  such  language  uttered  upon 
this  floor,  and  within  this  House,  I  am  con- 
strained to  consider  it  as  hasty  and  unintended 
language,  resulting  from  the  vehemence  of  de- 
bate, and  not  really  intending  the  personal  in- 
decorum the  expressions  would  seem  to  indi- 
cate. [Mr.  COLSTON  asked  to  explain,  and  said 
he  had  not  distinctly  understood  Mr.  T.  Mr. 
LrvEKMOBE  called  on  Mr.  C.  to  state  the  expres- 
sions he  had  used.  Mr.  0.  then  said  he  had  no 
explanation  to  give.]  Mr.  TALLMADGE  said  he 
had  none  to  ask ;  he  continued  to  say,  he  would 
not  believe  any  gentleman  on  this  floor  would 
commit  so  great  an  indecorum  against  any  mem- 
ber, or  against  the  dignfty  of  the  House,  as  to 
use  such  expressions,  really  intending  the  mean- 
ing which  the  words  seemed  to  import,  and 
which  had  been  uttered  against  the  gentleman 
from  New  Hampshire.  [Mr.  NELSON,  of  Vir- 
ginia, in  the  chair,  called  to  order,  and  said  no 
personal  remarks  would  be  allowed.]  Mr.  T. 
said  he  rejoiced  that  the  Chair  was  at  length 
aroused  to  a  sense  of  its  duties.  The  debate 
had,  for  several  days,  progressed  with  unequal- 
led violence,  and  all  was  in  order;  but  now, 
when  at  length  this  violence  on  one  side  is  to  be 
resisted,  the  Chair  discovered  it  is  out  of  order. 
I  rejoice,  said  Mr.  T.,  at  the  discovery,  approve 
of  the  admonition,  while  I  am  proud  to  say,  it 
has  no  relevancy  to  me.  It  is  my  boast  that  I 
never  uttered  an  unfriendly  personal  remark  on 
this  floor,  but  I  wish  it  distinctly  understood 
that  the  immutable  laws  of  self-defence  will 
justify  going  to  great  lengths,  and  that,  in  the 
future  progress  of  this  debate,  the  rights  of  de- 
fence would  be  regarded. 

Sir.  has  it  already  come  to  this,  that  in  the 
Congress  of  the  United  States — that,  in  the 
legislative  councils  of  republican  America,  the 
subject  of  slavery  has  become  a  subject  of  so 
much  feeling — of  such  delicacy— of  such  danger, 
that  it  cannot  safely  be  discussed?  Are  mem- 
bers who  venture  to  express  their  sentiments 
on  this  subject  to  be  accused  of  talking  to  the 
galleries,  with  intent  to  excite  a  servile  war; 
and  of  meriting  the  fate  of  Arbuthnot  and  Am- 
brister ?  Are  we  to  be  told  of  the  dissolution 


352 


ABRIDGMENT  OF  THE 


H.  OF  R.] 


Admission  of  Missouri — Restriction  on  the  State. 


[FEBRUARY,  1819. 


of  the  Union ;  of  civil  war,  and  of  seas  of  blood  ? 
And  yet,  with  such  awful  threatenings  before 
us,  do  gentlemen,  in  the  same  breath,  insist 
upon  the  encouragement  of  this  evil ;  upon  the 
extension  of  this  monstrous  scourge  of  the  hu- 
man race  ?  An  evil  so  fraught  with  such  dire 
calamities  to  us  as  individuals,  and  to  our  na- 
tion, and  threatening,  in  its  progress,  to  over- 
whelm the  civil  and  religious  institutions  of 
the  country,  with  the  liberties  of  the  nation, 
ought  at  once  to  be  met,  and  to  be  controlled. 
If  its  power,  its  influence,  and  its  impending 
dangers  have  already  arrived  at  such  a  point 
that  it  is  not  safe  to  discuss  it  on  this  floor,  and 
it  cannot  now  pass  under  consideration  as  a 
proper  subject  for  general  legislation,  what  will 
be  the  result  when  it  is  spread  through  your 
widely  extended  domain  ?  Its  present  threat- 
ening aspect,  and  the  violence  of  its  supporter^ 
so  far  from  inducing  me  to  yield  to  its  progress, 
prompts  me  to  resist  its  march.  Now  is  the 
time.  It  must  now  be  met,  and  the  extension 
of  the  evil  must  now  be  prevented,  or  the  occa- 
sion is  irrecoverably  lost,  and  the  evil  can  never 
be  contracted. 

Sir,  extend  your  view  across  the  Mississippi, 
over  your  newly  acquired  territory ;  a  territory 
so  far  surpassing  in  extent  the  limits  of  your 
present  country,  that  that  country  which  gave 
birth  to  your  nation,  which  achieved  your 
Revolution,  consolidated  your  Union,  formed 
your  constitution,  and  has  subsequently  acquir- 
ed so  much  glory,  hangs  but  as  an  appendage  to 
the  extended  empire  over  which  your  republi- 
can Government  is  now  called  to  bear  sway. 
Look  down  the  long  vista  of  futurity.  See 
your  empire,  in  extent  unequalled;  in  advan- 
tageous situation  without  a  parallel ;  and  occu- 
pying all  the  valuable  part  of  our  continent. 
Behold  this  extended  empire,  inhabited  by  the 
hardy  sons  of  American  freemen — knowing 
their  rights,  and  inheriting  the  will  to  protect 
them — owners  of  the  soil  on  which  they  live, 
and  interested  in  the  institutions  which  they 
labor  to  defend — with  two  oceans  laving  your 
shores,  and  tributary  to  your  purposes,  bearing 
on  their  bosoms  the  commerce  of  your  people. 
Compared  to  yours,  the  Governments  of  Eu- 
rope dwindle  into  insignificance,  and  the  whole 
world  is  without  a  parallel.  But,  sir,  reverse 
this  scene ;  people  this  fair  dominion  with  the 
slaves  of  your  planters ;  extend  slavery — this 
bane  of  man,  this  abomination  of  heaven — over 
your  extended  empire,  and  you  prepare  its  dis- 
solution ;  you  turn  its  accumulated  strength 
into  positive  weakness;  you  cherish  a  canker 
in  your  breast ;  you  put  poison  in  your  bosom ; 
you  place  a  vulture  on  your  heart — nay,  you 
whet  the  dagger  and  place  it  in  the  hands  of  a 
portion  of  your  population,  stimulated  to  use  it, 
by  every  tie,  human  and  divine.  The  envious 
contrast  between  your  happiness  and  their 
misery,  between  your  liberty  and  their  slavery, 
must  constantly  prompt  them  to  accomplish 
your  destruction..  Your  enemies  will  learn  the 
source  and  the  cause  of  your  weakness.  As 


often  as  internal  dangers  shall  threaten,  or  in- 
ternal commotions  await  you,  you  will  then 
realize,  that,  by  your  own  procurement,  you 
have  placed  amidst  your  families,  and  in  the 
bosom  of  your  country,  a  population  producing 
at  once  the  greatest  cause  of  individual  danger 
and  of  national  weakness.  With  this  defect, 
your  Government  must  crumble  to  pieces,  and 
your  people  become  the  scoff  of  the  world. 

Sir,  we  have  been  told,  with  apparent  confi- 
dence, that  we  have  no  right  to  annex  condi- 
tions to  a  State  on  its  admission  into  the  Union; 
and  it  has  been  urged  that  the  proposed  amend- 
ment, prohibiting  the  further  introduction  of 
slavery,  is  unconstitutional.  This  position,  as- 
serted with  so  much  confidence,  remains  un- 
supported by  any  argument,  or  by  any  authori- 
ty derived  from  the  constitution  itself.  The 
constitution  strongly  indicates  an  opposite  con- 
clusion, and  seems  to  contemplate  a  difference 
between  the  old  and  the  new  States.  The 
practice  of  the  Government  has  sanctioned  this 
difference  in  many  respects. 

The  third  section  of  the  fourth  article  of  the 
constitution  says,  "  new  States  may  be  admit- 
ted by  the  Congress  into  this  Union,"  and  it  is 
silent  as  to  the  terms  and  conditions  upon 
which  the  new  States  may  be  so  admitted. 
The  fair  inference  from  this  silence  is,  that  the 
Congress  which  might  admit  should  prescribe 
the  time  and  the  terms  of  such  admission.  The 
tenth  section  of  the  first  article  of  the  constitu- 
tion says,  "  the  migration  or  importation  of  such 
persons  as  any  of  the  States  now  existing  shah1 
think  proper  to  admit,  shall  not  be  prohibited 
by  the  Congress  prior  to  the  year  1808."  The 
words  "now  existing"  clearly  show  the  dis- 
tinction for  which  we  contend.  The  word 
slave  is  nowhere  mentioned  in  the  constitution, 
but  this  section  has  always  been  considered  as 
applicable  to  them,  and  unquestionably  reserved 
the  right  to  prohibit  their  importation  into  any 
new  State  before  the  year  1808. 

Congress,  therefore,  have  power  over  the 
subject,  probably  as  a  matter  of  legislation,  but 
more  certainly  has  a  right,  to  prescribe  the 
time  and  the  condition  upon  which  any  new 
State  may  be  admitted  into  the  family  of  the 
Union,  Sir,  the  bill  now  before  us  proves  the 
correctness  of  my  argument.  It  is  filled  with 
conditions  and  limitations.  The  territory  is  re- 
quired to  take  a  census,  and  is  to  be  admitted 
only  on  condition  that  it  have  forty  thousand 
inhabitants.  I  have  already  submitted  amend- 
ments preventing  the  State  from  taxing  the 
lands  of  the  United  States,  and  declaring  all 
navigable  waters  shall  remain  open  to  the 
other  States,  and  be  exempt  from  any  tolls  or 
duties.  And  my  friend  (Mr.  TATLOE)  has  sub- 
mitted amendments  prohibiting  the  State  from 
taxing  soldiers'  lands  for  the  period  of  five 
years.  And  to  all  these  amendments  we  have 
heard  no  objection;  they  have  passed  unani- 
mously. But  now,  when  an  amendment  pro- 
hibiting the  further  introduction  of  slavery  is 
proposed,  the  whole  House  is  put  in  agitation, 


DEBATES  OF  CONGRESS. 


353 


FEBRUARY,  1819.] 


Admission  of  Missouri — Restriction  on  the  State. 


[H.  OF  R. 


and  we  are  confidently  told  that  it  is  unconsti- 
tutional to  annex  conditions  on  the  admission 
of  a  new  State  into  the  Union.  The  result  of 
all  this  is,  that  all  amendments  and  conditions 
are  proper,  which  suit  a  certain  class  of  gentle- 
men, but  whatever  amendment  is  proposed, 
which  does  not  comport  Avith  their  interest  or 
their  views,  is  unconstitutional,  and  a  flagrant 
violation  of  this  sacred  charter  of  our  rights. 
In  order  to  he  consistent,  gentlemen  must  go 
back  and  strike  out  the  various  amendments  to 
which  they  have  already  agreed.  The  constitu- 
tion applies  equally  to  all,  or  to  none. 

Sir,  we  have  been  told  that  this  is  a  new 
principle  for  which  we  contend,  never  before 
adopted,  or  thought  of.  So  far  from  this  being 
correct,  it  is  due  to  the  memory  of  our  ances- 
tors to  say,  it  is  an  old  principle,  adopted  by 
them,  as  the  policy  of  our  country.  Whenever 
the  United  States  have  had  the  right  and  the 
power,  they  have  heretofore  prevented  the 
extension  of  slavery.  The  States  of  Kentucky 
and  Tennessee  were  taken  off  from  other  States, 
and  were  admitted  into  the  Union  without  con- 
dition, because  their  lands  were  never  owned 
by  the  United  States.  The  Territory  north- 
west of  the  Ohio  is  all  the  land  which  ever  be- 
longed to  them.  Shortly  after  the  cession  of 
those  lands  to  the  Union,  Congress  passed,  in 
1Y87,  a  compact  which  was  declared  to  be  un- 
alterable, the  sixth  article  of  which  provides 
that  "  there  shall  be  neither  slavery  nor  invol- 
untary servitude  in  the  said  territory,  otherwise 
than  in  the  punishment  of  crimes,  whereof  the 
party  shall  have  been  duly  convicted."  In  pur- 
suance of  this  compact,  all  the  States  formed 
from  that  territory  have  been  admitted  into  the 
Union  upon  various  considerations,  and  among 
which  the  sixth  article  of  this  compact  is  in- 
cluded as  one. 

Let  gentlemen  also  advert  to  the  law  for  the 
admission  of  the  State  of  Louisiana  into  the 
Union :  they  will  find  it  filled  with  conditions. 
It  was  required  not  only  to  form  a  constitution 
upon  the  principles  of  a  republican  government, 
but  it  was  required  to  contain  the  "fundamental 
principles  of  civil  and  religious  liberty."  It 
was  even  required,  as  a  condition  of  its  admis- 
sion, to  keep  its  records  and  its  judicial  and 
legislative  proceedings  in  the  English  language; 
and  also  to  secure  the  trial  by  jury,  and  to  sur- 
render all  claim  to  unappropriated  lands  in  the 
territory,  with  the  prohibition  to  tax  any  of 
the  United  States  lands. 

After  this  long  practice  and  constant  usage  to 
annex  conditions  to  the  admission  of  a  State 
into  the  Union,  will  gentlemen  yet  tell  us  it  is 
unconstitutional,  and  talk  of  our  principles  be- 
ing novel  and  extraordinary?  It  has  been  said 
that,  if  this  amendment  prevails,  we  shall  have 
a  union  of  States  possessing  unequal  rights. 
And  we  have  been  asked,  whether  we  wished 
to  see  such  a  "  chequered  union  ?  "  Sir,  we  have 
already  such  a  Union.  If  the  prohibition  of 
slavery  is  the  denial  of  a  right,  and  constitutes 
a  chequered  union,  gladly  would  I  behold  such 
VOL.  VI.— 23 


rights  denied,  and  such  a  chequer  spread  over 
every  State  in  the  Union.  It  is  now  spread 
over  the  States  northwest  of  the  Ohio,  and 
forms  the  glory  and  the  strength  .of  those 
States.  I  hope  it  will  be  extended  from  the 
Mississippi  Kiver  to  the  Pacific  Ocean. 

Sir,  we  have  been  told  that  the  proposed 
amendment  cannot  be  received,  because  it  is 
contrary  to  the  treaty  and  cession  of  Louisiana. 
"  Article  3.  The  inhabitants  of  the  ceded  terri- 
tory shall  be  incorporated  in  the  union  of  the 
United  States,  and  admitted  as  soon  as  possible, 
according  to  the  principles  of  the  Federal  Con- 
stitution, to  the  enjoyment  of  all  the  rights, 
advantages,  and  immunities  of  citizens  of  the 
United  States ;  and,  in  the  mean  time,  they 
shall  be  maintained  and  protected  in  the  free 
enjoyment  of  then-  liberty,  property,  and  the 
religion  which  they  profess."  I  find  nothing, 
said  Mr.  T.,  in  this  article  of  the  treaty,  incom- 
patible with  the  proposed  amendment.  The 
rights,  advantages,  and  immunities  of  citizens 
of  the  United  States  are  guaranteed  to  the  in- 
habitants of  Louisiana.  If  one  of  them  should 
choose  to  remove  into  Virginia,  he  conld  take 
his  slaves  with  him ;  but  if  he  removes  to  In- 
diana, or  any  of  the  States  northwest  of  the 
Ohio,  he  cannot  take  his  slaves  with  him.  If 
the  proposed  amendment  prevails,  the  inhab- 
itants of  Louisiana  or  the  citizens  of  the  United 
States  can  neither  of  them  take  slaves  into  the 
State  of  Missouri.  All,  therefore,  may  enjoy 
equal  privileges.  It  is  a  disability,  or  what  I 
cah1  a  blessing,  annexed  to  the  particular  dis- 
trict of  country,  and  in  no  manner  attached  to 
the  individual.  But,  said  Mr.  T.,  while  I  have 
no  doubt  that  the  treaty  contains  no  solid  ob- 
jection against  the  proposed  amendment,  yet  if 
it  did,  it  would  not  alter  my  determination 
on  the  subject.  The  Senate,  or  the  treaty- 
making  power  of  our  Government,  have  neither 
the  right  nor  the  power  to  stipulate,  by  a  treaty, 
the  terms  upon  which  a  people  shall  be  admitted 
into  the  Union.  This  House  have  a  right  to  be 
heard  on  the  subject.  The  admission  of  a  State 
into  the  Union  is  a  legislative  act,  which  re- 
quires the  concurrence  of  all  the  departmenta 
of  legislative  power.  It  is  an  important  pre- 
rogative of  this  House,  which  I  hope  will  never 
be  surrendered.  The  zeal  and  the  ardor  of 
gentlemen,  in  the  course  of  this  debate,  has  in- 
duced them  to  announce  to  this  House,  that,  if 
we  persist  and  force  the  State  of  Missouri  to  ac- 
cede to  the  proposed  amendment,  as  the  condi- 
tion of  her  admission  into  the  Union,  she  will 
disregard  it,  and,  as  soon  as  admitted,  will  alter 
her  constitution,  and  introduce  shivery  into 
her  territory.  Sir,  I  am  not  now  prepared,  nor 
is  it  necessary  to  determine  what  would  be  the 
consequence  of  such  a  violation  of  faith — of 
such  a  departure  from  the  fundamental  condi- 
tion of  her  admission  into  the  Union.  I  would 
not  cast  upon  a  people  so  foul  an  imputation  as  to  * 
believe  they  would  be  guilty  of  such  fraudulent 
duplicity.  The  States  northwest  of  the  Ohio 
have  all  regarded  the  faith  and  the  condition 


354 


ABRIDGMENT  OF  THE 


H.  OF  R.] 


Admission  of  Missouri — Restriction. on  the  State. 


[FEBRI 


1819. 


of  their  admission ;  and  there  is  no  reason  to 
believe  the  people  of  Missouri  will  not  also  re- 
gard theirs.  But,  sir,  whenever  a  State,  ad- 
mitted into  the  Union,  shall  disregard  and  set 
at  naught  the  fundamental  condition  of  its  ad- 
mission, and  shall,  in  violation  of  all  faith,  under- 
take to  levy  a  tax  upon  the  lands  of  the  United 
States,  or  a  toll  upon  their  navigable  waters,  or 
introduce  slavery,  where  Congress  have  pro- 
hibited it,  then  it  will  be  in  time  to  determine 
the  consequence.  But,  sir,  if  the  threatened 
consequences  were  known  to  be  the  certain  re- 
sult, yet  would  I  insist  upon  the  proposed 
amendment.  The  declaration  of  this  House, 
the  declared  will  of  the  nation,  to  prohibit 
slavery,  would  produce  its  moral  effect,  and 
stand  as  one  of  the  brightest  ornaments  of  our 
country.  Sir,  it  has  been  urged,  with  great 
plausibility,  that  we  should  spread  the  slaves 
now  in  our  country,  and  thus  spread  the  evil, 
rather  than  confine  it  to  its  present  districts. 
It  has  been  said,  we  should  thereby  diminish 
the  dangers  from  them,  while  we  increase  the 
means  of  their  living,  and  augment  their  com- 
forts. But,  sir,  you  may  rest  assured  that  this 
reasoning  is  fallacious,  and  that,  while  slavery 
is  admitted,  the  market  will  be  supplied.  Our 
coast,  and  its  contiguity  to  the  West  Indies  and 
the  Spanish  possessions,  render  easy  the  intro- 
duction of  slaves  into  our  country.  Our  laws 
are  already  highly  penal  against  their  introduc- 
tion, and  yet  it  is  a  well-known  fact,  that  about 
fourteen  thousand  slaves  have  been  brought 
into  our  country  this  last  year. 

Sir,  since  we  have  been  engaged  in  this  de- 
bate, we  have  witnessed  an  elucidation  of  this 
argument,  of  bettering  the  condition  of  slaves 
by  spreading  them  over  the  country.  A  slave 
driver,  a  trafficker  in  human  flesh,  as  if  sent  by 
Providence,  has  passed  the  door  of  your  Capi- 
tol, on  his  way  to  the  "West,  driving  before  him 
about  fifteen  of  these  wretched  victims  of  his 
power.  The  males,  who  might  raise  the  arm 
of  vengeance,  and  retaliate  for  their  wrongs, 
were  handcuffed,  and  chained  to  each  other, 
while  the  females  and  children  were  marched 
in  their  rear,  under  the  guidance  of  the  dri- 
ver's whip !  Yes,  sir,  such  has  been  the 
scene  witnessed  from  the  windows  of  Con- 
gress Hall,  and  viewed  by  members  who  com- 
pose the  legislative  councils  of  Republican 
America! 

Sir,  in  the  course  of  the  debate  on  this  sub- 
ject, we  have  been  told  that,  from  the  long 
habit  of  the  Southern  and  Western  people,  the 
possession  of  slaves  has  become  necessary  to 
them,  and  an  essential  requisite  in  their  living. 
It  has  been  urged,  from  the  nature  of  the  cli- 
mate and  soil  of  the  Southern  countries,  that 
the  lands  cannot  be  occupied  or  cultivated  with- 
out slaves.  It  has  been  said  that  the  slaves 
prosper  in  those  places,  and  that  they  are  much 
-better  off  there  than  in  their  own  native  coun- 
try. We  have  even  been  told  that,  if  we  suc- 
ceed, and  prevent  slavery  across  the  Mississippi, 
we  shall  greatly  lessen  the  value  of  property 


there,  and  shall  retard,  for  a  long  series  of  years, 
the  settlement  of  that  country. 

Sir,  said  Mr.  T.,  if  the  Western  country  can- 
not be  settled  without  slaves,  gladly  would  I 
prevent  its  settlement  till  time  shall  be  no  more. 
If  this  class  of  arguments  is  to  prevail,  it  sets 
all  morals  at  defiance,  and  we  are  called  to  leg- 
islate on  the  subject,  as  a  matter  of  mere  per- 
sonal interest.  If  this  is  to  be  the  case,  repeal 
all  your  laws  prohibiting  the  slave  trade ;  throw 
open  this  traffic  to  the  commercial  States  of  the 
East;  and. if  it  better  the  condition  of  these 
wretched  beings,  invite  the  dark  population  of 
benighted  Africa  to  be  translated  to  the  shores 
of  Republican  America,  But,  sir,  I  will  not 
cast  upon  this,  or  upon  that  gentleman  an  im- 
putation so  ungracious  as  the  conclusion  to 
which  their  arguments  would  necessarily  tend. 
I  do  not  believe  any  gentleman  on  this  floor 
could  here  advocate  the  slave  trade,  or  main- 
tain, in  the  abstract,  the  principles  of  slavery. 
I  will  not  outrage  the  decorum,  nor  insult  the 
dignity  of  this  House,  by  attempting  to  argue 
in  this  place,  as  an  abstract  proposition,  the 
moral  right  of  slavery.  How  gladly  would  the 
"  legitimates  of  Europe  chuckle  "  to  find  an 
American  Congress  in  debate  on  such  a  ques- 
tion! 

As  an  evil  brought  upon  us  without  our  own 
fault,  before  the  formation  of  our  Government, 
and  as  one  of  the  sins  of  that  nation  from  which 
we  have  revolted,  we  must  of  necessity  legislate 
upon  this  subject.  It  is  our  business  so  to  legis- 
late, as  never  to  encourage,  but  always  to  con- 
trol this  evil ;  and,  while  we  strive  to  eradicate 
it,  we  ought  to  fix  its  limits,  and  render  it  sub- 
ordinate to  the  safety  of  the  white  population, 
and  the  good  order  of  civil  society.  / 

Sir,  on  this  subject  the  eyes  of  Europe  are 
turned  upon  you.  You  boast  of  the  freedom  of 
your  constitution  and  your  laws ;  you  have  pro- 
claimed, in  the  Declaration  of  Independence, 
"  That  all  men  are  created  equal ;  that  they  are 
endowed  by  their  Creator  with  certain  inalien- 
able rights ;  that  amongst  these  are  life,  liberty, 
and  the  pursuit  of  happiness ;"  and  yet  you  have 
slaves  in  your  country.  The  enemies  of  your 
Government,  and  the  legitimates  of  Europe, 
point  to  your  inconsistencies,  and  blazon  your 
supposed  defects.  If  you  allow  slavery  to  pass 
into  Territories  where  you  have  the  lawful  power 
to  exclude  it,  you  will  justly  take  upon  yourself 
all  the  charges  of  inconsistency  ;  but,  confine  it 
to  the  original  slaveholding  States,  where  you 
found  it  at  the  formation  of  your  Government, 
and  you  stand  acquitted  of  all  imputation. 

Sir,  this  is  a  subject  upon  which  I  have  great 
feeling  for  the  honor  of  my  country.  In  a  former 
debate  upon  the  Illinois  constitution,  I  men- 
tioned that  our  enemies  had  drawn  a  picture  of 
our  country,  as  holding  in  one  hand  the  Declara- 
tion of  Independence,  and  with  the  other  bran- 
dishing a  whip  over  our  affrighted  slaves.  I 
then  made  it  my  boast  that  we  could  cast  back 
upon  England  the  accusation,  and  that  she  had 
committed  the  original  sin  of  bringing  slaves 


DEBATES  OF  CONGRESS. 


355 


FEBRUAKT,  1819.] 


Admission  of  Missouri— Restriction  on  the  State. 


[H.  OF  K. 


into  our  country.  Sir,  I  have  since  received, 
through  the  post  office,  a  letter,  post  marked  in 
South  Carolina,  and  signed  "A  native  of  Eng- 
land" desiring  that,  when  I  again  had  occasion 
to  repeat  my  boast  against  England,  I  would 
also  state  that  she  had  atoned  for  her  original 
sin,  by  establishing  in  her  slave  colonies  a  sys- 
tem of 'humane  laws,  ameliorating  their  con- 
dition, and  providing  for  their  safety,  while 
America  had  committed  the  secondary  sin  of 
,  and  had  even  pro- 
it  was  not  murder  to  kill 
a  slave.  Sir, "I  felt  the  severity  of  the  reproof; 
I  felt  for  my  country.  I  have  inquired  on  the 
subject,  and  I  find  such  were  formerly  the  laws 
in  some  of  the  slaveholding  States;  and  that 
even  now,  in  the  State  of  South  Carolina,  by 
law,  the  penalty  of  death  is  provided  for  steal- 
ing a  slave,  while  the  murder  of  a  slave  is  pun- 


disregarding  their  condition 
vided  laws  by  which  it  was 


suits  the  object  of  my  present  argument,  I  will, 
on  this  occasion,  admit  them  to  the  fullest  ex- 
tent. And  what  is  the  result  ?  Southern  gen- 
tlemen, by  their  superior  liberality  in  contribu- 
tions to  moral  institutions,  justly  stand  in  the 
first  rank,  and  hold  the  first  place  in  the  brightest 
page  of  the  history  of  the  country.  But,  turn 
over  this  page,  and  what  do  you  behold  ?  You 
behold  them  contributing  to  teach  the  doctrines 
of  Christianity  in  every  quarter  of  the  globe. 
You  behold  them  legislating  to  secure  the  igno- 
rance and  stupidity  of  their  own  slaves  I  You 
behold  them  prescribing,  by  law,  penalties 
against  the  man  that  dares  teach  a  negro  to 
read.  Such,  sir,  is  the  statute  law  of  the  State 
of  Virginia.  [Mr.  BASSETT  and  Mr.  TYLEB  said 
that  there  was  no  such  law  in  Virginia.]  No, 
sir,  said  Mr.  T.,  I  have  mis-spoken  myself;  I 
ought  to  have  said,  such  is  the  statute  law  of  the 


ished  by  a  trivial  fine.  Such,  sir,  is  the  contrast !  State  of  Georgia.  Yes,  sir,  while  we  hear  of  a 
and  the  relative  value  which  is  placed,  in  the  liberality  which  civilizes  the  savages  of  all  conn- 
opinion  of  a  slaveholding  State,  between  the  tries,  and  carries  the  Gospel  alike  to  the  Hot- 
property  of  the  master  and  the  life  of  a  slave.  tentot  and  the  Hindoo,  it  has  been  reserved  for 
Sir,  gentlemen  have  undertaken  to  criminate  the  Republican  State  of  Georgia,  not  content 
and  to  draw  odious  contrasts  between  different  |  with  the  care  of  its  overseers,  to  legislate  to  se- 
sections  of  our  country ;  I  shall  not  combat  such  \  cure  the  oppression  and  the  ignorance  of  their 
arguments ;  I  have  made  no  pretence  to  exclu- 1  slaves.  The  man  who  there  teaches  a  negro  to 
sive  morality  on  this  subject,  either  for  myself  I  read  is  liable  to  a  criminal  prosecution.  The 
or  my  constituents ;  nor  have  I  cast  any  irnpu-  j  dark  benighted  beings  of  all  creation  profit  by 


tations  on  others.  On  the  contrary,  I  hold,  that 
mankind  under  like  circumstances  are  alike,  the 
world  over.  The  vicious  and  the  unprincipled 
are  confined  to  no  district  of  country ;  and  it  is 
for  this  portion  of  the  community  we  are  bound 
to  legislate.  When  honorable  gentlemen  inform 
us  we  overrate  the  cruelty  and  the  dangers  of 
slavery,  and  tell  us  that  their  slaves  are  happy 


our  liberality — save  those  on  our  own  planta- 
tions. Where  is  the  missionary  who  possesses 
sufficient  hardihood  to  venture  a  residence  to 
teach  the  slaves  of  a  plantation  ?  Here  is  the 
stain!  Here  is  the  stigma !  Which  fastens  upon 
the  character  of  our  country ;  and  which,  in 
the  appropriate  language  of  the  gentleman  from 
Georgia,  (Mr.  COBB,)  all  the  waters  of  the  ocean 


and  contented,  and  would  even  contribute  to  |  cannot  wash  out ;  which  seas  of  blood  can  only 
their  safety,  they  tell  us  but  very  little ;  they  take  away. 

do  not  tell  us,  that  while  their  slaves  are  happy,  Sir,  there  is  yet  another  and  an  important 
the  slaves  of  some  depraved  and  cruel  wretch,  |  point  of  view  in  which  this  subject  ought  to  bo 
in  their  neighborhood,  may  not  be  stimulated  to  j  considered.  We  have  been  told  by  those  who 


revenge,  and  thus  involve  the  country  in  ruin. 
If  we  had  to  legislate  only  for  such  gentlemen 
as  are  now  embraced  within  my  view,  a  law 
against  robbing  the  mail  would  be  a  disgrace 
upon  the  nation ;  and,  as  useless,  I  would  tear  it 
from  the  pages  of  your  statute  book ;  yet  sad 
experience  has  taught  us  the  necessity  of  such 
laws ;  and  honor,  justice,  and  policy  teach  us 
the  wisdom  of  legislating  to  limit  the  extension 
of  slavery. 

Sir,  in  the  zeal  to  draw  sectional  contrasts,  we 
have  been  told  by  one  gentleman,  that  gentle- 
men from  one  district  of  country  talk  of  their 
religion  and  their  morality,  while  those  of  an- 
other practise  it.  And  the  superior  liberality 
has  been  asserted  of  Southern  gentlemen  over 
those  of  the  North,  in  all  contributions  to  moral 
institutions,  for  Bible  and  missionary  societies. 
Sir,  I  understand  too  well  the  pursuit  of  my 
purpose  to  be  decoyed  and  drawn  off  into  the 


advocate  the  extension  of  slavery  into  the  Mis- 
souri, that  any  attempt  to  control  this  subject  by 
legislation  is  a  violation  of  that  faith  and  mutual 
confidence  upon  which  our  Union  was  formed 
and  our  constitution  adopted.  This  argument 
might  be  considered  plausible,  if  the  restriction 
was  attempted  to  be  enforced  against  any  of  the 
slaveholding  States,  which  had  been  a  party 
in  the  adoption  of  the  constitution.  But  it  can 
have  no  reference  or  application  to  a  new  dis- 
trict of  country  recently  acquired,  and  never 
contemplated  in  the  formation  of  the  Govern- 
ment, and  not  embraced  in  the  mutual  conces- 
sions and  declared  faith  upon  which  the  consti- 
tution was  adopted.  The  constitution  provides 
that  the  Representatives  of  the  several  States 
to  this  House  shall  be  according  to  their  num- 
bers, including  three-fifths  of  the  slaves  in  the 
respective  States.  This  is  an  important  benefit 
yielded  to  the  slaveholding  States,  as  one  of  the 


discussion  of  a  collateral  subject.  I  have  no  in-  I  mutual  sacrifices  for  the  Union.  On  this  subject, 
clination  to  controvert  these  assertions  of  com-  1 1  consider  the  faith  of  the  Union  pledged,  and  I 
parativo  liberality.  Although  I  have  no  idea  :  never  would  attempt  coercive  manumission  in 
they  are  founded  in  fact,  yet,  because  it  better  I  a  slaveholding  State. 


356 


ABRIDGMENT  OF  THE 


H.  OF  R.] 


Arkansas  Territory — Restriction  of  Slavery. 


[FEBRUABY,  1819. 


But  none  of  the  causes  which  induced  the 
sacrifice  of  this  principle,  and  which  now  pro- 
duce such  an  unequal  representation  of  the  free 
population  of  the  country,  exist  as  between  us 
and  the  newly  acquired  territory  across  the 
Mississippi.  That  portion  of  country  has  no 
claims  to  such  an  unequal  representation,  unjust 
in  its  results  upon  the  other  States.  Are  the 
numerous  slaves  in  extensive  countries,  which 
we  may  acquire  by  purchase,  and  admit  as  States 
into  the  Union,  at  once  to  be  represented  on 
this  floor,  under  a  clause  of  the  constitution, 
granted  as  a  compromise  and  a  benefit  to  the 
Southern  States  which  had  borne  part  in  the 
Kevolution  ?  Such  an  extension  of  that  clause 
in  the  constitution  would  be  unjust  in  its  opera- 
tions, unequal  in  its  results,  and  a  violation  of 
its  original  intention.  Abstract  from  the  moral 
effects  of  slavery,  its  political  consequences  in 
the  representation  under  this  clause  of  the  con- 
stitution demonstrate  the  importance  of  the 
proposed  amendment. 

Sir,  I  shall  bow  in  silence  to  the  will  of  the 
majority,  on  whichever  side  it  shall  be  ex- 
pressed; yet  I  confidently  hope  that  majority 
will  be  found  on  the  side  of  an  amendment,  so 
replete  with  moral  consequences,  so  pregnant 
with  important  political  results. 

After  a  long  debate  on  the  subject,  the  ques- 
tion was  taken  on  agreeing  to  the  first  member 
of  the  proposed  amendment,  in  the  following 
words : 

"  That  the  further  introduction  of  slavery  or  invol- 
untary servitude  be  prohibited,  except  for  the  punish- 
ment of  crimes,  whereof  the  party  shall  have  been 
duly  convicted." 

Which  question  was  determined  in  the  affirm- 
ative— yeas  87,  nays  76,  as  follows : 

YEAS. — Messrs.  Adams,  Allen,  Anderson  of  Penn- 
sylvania, Barber  of  Ohio,  Bateman,  Beecher,  Bennett, 
Boden,  Campbell,  Clagett,  Comstock,  Crafts,  Cash- 
man,  Darlington,  Drake,  Ellicott,  Folger,  Fuller, 
Gage,  Gilbert,  Hale,  Hall  of  Delaware,  Hasbrouck, 
Hendricks,  Herkimer,  Herrick,  Heister,  Hitchcock, 
Hopkinson,  Hostetter,  Hubbard,  Hunter,  Huntington, 
Irving  of  New  York,  Kinsey,  Kirtland,  Lawyer,  Lin- 
coln, Linn,  Livermore,  W.  Maclay,  W.  P.  Maclay, 
Marchand,  Mason  of  R.  Island,  Merrill,  Mills,  Robert 
Moore,  Samuel  Moore,  Morton,  Mosely,  Murray, 
Jeremiah  Nelson,  Ogle,  Orr,  Palmer,  Patterson,  Paw- 
ling, Pitkin,  .Rice,  Rich,  Richards,  Rogers,  Ruggles, 
Sampson,  Savage,  Schuyler,  Scudder,  Sergeant,  Sher- 
wood, Silsbee,  Southard,  Spencer,  Talltnadge,  Taylor, 
Terry,  Tompkins,  Townsend,  Upham,  Wallace,  Wend- 
over,  Westerlo,  Whiteside,  Wilkin,  Williams  of  Con- 
necticut, Williams  of  New  York,  Wilson  of  Massa- 
chusetts, and  Wilson  of  Pennsylvania — 87. 

NAYS.— Messrs.  Abbott,  Anderson  of  Kentucky, 
Austin,  Ball,  Barbour  of  Virginia,  Bassett,  Bayley, 
Bloomfield,  Blount,  Bryan,  Burwell,  Butler  of  Louis- 
iana, Cobb,  Colston,  Cook,  Cruger,  Culbreth,  David- 
son, Desha,  Edwards,  Ervin  of  South  Carolina,  Fisher, 
Garnett,  Hall  of  North  Carolina,  Harrison,  Holmes, 
Johnson  of  Virginia,  Johnson  of  Kentucky,  Jones, 
Lewis,  Little,  Lowndes,  McLane  of  Delaware,  McLean 
of  Illinois,  McCoy,  Marr,  Mason  of  Massachusetts, 
Middleton,  H.  Nelson,  T.  M.  Nelson,  Nesbitt,  New, 


Newton,  Ogden,  Owen,  Parrott,  Pegram,  Peter,  Pin- 
dall,  Pleasants,  Poindexter,  Reed,  Rhea,  Ringgold, 
Robertson,  Sawyer,  Settle,  Shaw,  Simians,  Slocumb, 
S.  Smith,  Bal.  Smith,  Alex.  Smyth,  J.  S.  Smith, 
Speed,  Stewart  of  N.  Carolina,  Stewart  of  Maryland, 
Storrs,  Terrell,  Trimble,  Tucker  of  Virginia,  Tucker 
of  South  Carolina,  Tyler,  Walker  of  North  Carolina, 
Walker  of  Kentucky,  and  Williams  of  North  Caro- 
lina—76. 

The  question  was  then  taken  on  agreeing  to 
the  second  member  of  the  said  amendment, 
which  is  in  the  following  words : 

"And  that  all  children  born  within  the  said  State, 
after  the  admission  thereof  into  the  Union,  shall  be 
free  at  the  age  of  twenty-five  years." 

On  which  question  the  vote  was,  by  yeas  and 
nays — for  the  second  part  82  ;  against  it  78. 

So  the  whole  of  the  amendments,  as  proposed 
by  Mr.  TALLMADGE,  were  agreed  to. 

Some  other  amendments  having  been  made 
to  the  bill- 
Mr.  STOKES  moved  to  strike  out  so  much  of 
the  bill  as  says  that  the  new  State  shall  be  ad- 
mitted into  the  Union  "  on  an  equal  footing  with 
the  original  States."  After  the  vote  just  taken, 
Mr.  S.  said,  there  was  a  manifest  inconsistency 
in  retaining  this  provision. 

The  motion  was  negatived. 

The  question  on  ordering  the  bill  to  be  en- 
grossed for  a  third  reading  was  then  decided  in 
the  affirmative — yeas  97,  nays  56. 

The  bill  was  then  ordered  to  be  read  a  third 
time  to-morrow. 


WEDNESDAY,  February  17. 

Arkansas  Territory — Restriction  of  Slavery. 

The  House  then  resolved  itself  into  a  Com- 
mittee of  the  Whole,  on  the  bill  to  provide  a 
Territorial  government  for  the  southern  part 
(the  Arkansas  country)  of  the  Missouri  Terri- 
tory.* 

Mr.  TAYLOR,  of  N/ew  York,  moved  to  amend 
the  bill  by  inserting  a  clause  (similar  to  that  in- 
corporated, on  the  motion  of  Mr.  TALLMADGE, 
in  the  Missouri  bill)  to  prohibit  the  existence  of 
slavery  in  the  new  Territory. 

This  motion  gave  rise  to  a  wide  and  long- 
continued  debate,  covering  part  of  the  ground 
previously  occupied  on  this  subject,  but  differ- 
ing in  part,  as  the  present  proposition  was  to 
impose"  a  condition  on  a  Territorial  government, 
instead  of,  as  in  the  former  case,  to  enjoin  the 


*  The  territory  of  Missouri  had  included  the  Arkansas 
country,  besides  extending  north  and  west  to  the  E«cky 
Mountains  and  the  British  line.  In  erecting  a  State  govern- 
ment for  Missouri,  it  was  necessary  to  curtail  these  great 
boundaries,  and  Arkansas  having  some  population,  and  re- 
quiring some  government,  was  to  bo  formed  into  a  separate 
Territory.  For  this  purpose  the  Arkansas  bill  was  brought 
in  at  the  same  time  with  the  Missouri  State  bill,  and  that 
bill  being  lost  between  the  two  Houses  on  account  of  the 
proposed  restriction  on  the  State,  the  same  was  now  attempt- 
ed on  the  Arkansas  territorial  bill. 


DEBATES  OF  CONGRESS. 


357 


FEBRCAKT,  1819.] 


Arkansas  Territory — Restriction  of  Slavery. 


[H.  OF  R. 


adoption  of  the  principle  in  the  constitution  of 
a  State,  and  as  it  applied  to  a  more  southern 
Territory. 

Mr.  TAYLOR,  of  New  York,  in  rising,  said  he 
regretted  being  obliged  to  vote  on  this  bill  with 
so  scanty  information.  The  select  committee 
which  reported  it,  had  laid  on  our  table  no 
statement  of  facts — no  census  showing  the  dif- 
ferent kinds  of  population  in  the  territory,  nor 
even  the  aggregate  of  all  descriptions.  The 
situation  and  condition  of  existing  settlements 
are  as  little  known.  It,  however,  is  generally 
understood  that  the  climate  and  soil  are  suited 
to  the  culture  of  wheat,  corn,  cotton,  and  to- 
bacco. The  delegate  from  Missouri  now  informs 
me  that  the  number  of  inhabitants,  exclusive 
of  Indians,  may  be  estimated  at  20,000,  of  which 
one-tenth  are  probably  slaves.  Mr.  T.  said  he 
was  unwilling  to  allow  the  introduction  of  any 
more  slaves :  it  could  not  be  necessary  for  agri- 
cultural purposes.  All  the  productions  before 
mentioned,  could  be  brought  to  perfection,  and 
raised  in  abundance,  by  freemen.  Cotton,  and 
tobacco,  for  exportation,  had  been  chiefly  pro- 
duced by  the  slaveholding  States.  But  is  it  not 
reasonable,  asked  Mr.  T.,  that  at  least  one  small 
portion  of  our  country,  capable  of  growing  these 
staples,  should  be  left  open  to  the  enterprise 
and  industry  of  the  North  and  East.  He  saw 
no  good  reason  why  that  portion  of  the  Union 
which  he  had  the  honor,  in  part,  to  represent, 
should  be  excluded  from  participating  in  this 
valuable  species  of  agriculture.  That  such  would 
be  the  effect  of  allowing  a  free  introduction  of 
slaves,  he  had  fully  demonstated  to  the  commit- 
tee when  the  bill  for  the  admission  of  Missouri 
into  the  Union  was  under  consideration.  Mr. 
T.  said  it  must  be  evident  from  the  present 
ratio  of  population,  as  stated  by  the  delegate 
from  Missouri,  that  the  labor  of  the  territory 
was  now  performed  chiefly  by  freemen.  He 
hoped  this  state  of  things  might  not  only  con- 
tinue, but  improve.  He,  therefore,  could  not 
consent  to  render  labor  disgraceful — to  connect 
it  in  public  sentiment,  with  servility,  and  there- 
by degrade  the  condition  of  laboring  men. 

The  gentleman  from  Kentucky  (Mr.  CLAY) 
has  asked,  said  Mr.  T.,  what  the  people  of  the 
South  have  done,  that  they  are  to  be  proscribed, 
and  had  expressed  his  deep  regret  at  the  intro- 
duction of  this  amendment.  We,  sir,  said  Mr. 
T.,  do  not  proscribe  them  ;  we  leave  them  in  the 
full  enjoyment  of  all  their  rights ;  we  only  for- 
bid them  to  practise  wrongs :  we  invite  them  to 
the  territory  in  question,  but  we  forbid  their 
bringing  into  it  a  population  which  cannot  but 
prove  its  misfortune  and  curse;  a  population 
which,  if  once  introduced,  will  fasten  like  an 
incubus  upon  all  its  energies,  and  from  which  it 
can  never  be  relieved. 

I  regret,  said  Mr.  T.,  the  pertinacity  with 
which  gentlemen  maintain  their  opposition.  To 
my  mind  the  amendment  is  both  reasonable  and 
necessary ;  and,  if  the  welfare  of  the  territory 
were  alone  consulted,  I  should  entertain  no 
doubt  of  its  adoption  by  an  almost  universal 


vote.  But  other  interests  are  to  be  protected ; 
and  it  is  said  that,  as  the  country  was  purchased 
with  our  common  fund,  it  ought  to  inure  to  the 
common  benefit.  This,  said  Mr.  T.,  may  be 
considered  a  truism ;  but,  unfortunately  for  the 
argument  of  the  gentleman  who  adduced  it,  it 
has  no  application  to  the  case  before  us.  If  it 
were  proposed  that  the  proceeds  of  the  public 
lands  in  Arkansas  should  be  appropriated  to  the 
use  of  the  commonwealth  of  Massachusetts,  the 
objection  would  have  weight.  But,  said  Mr. 
T.,  nothing  like  it  is  contemplated.  The  money 
to  arise  from  the  sale  of  lands  in  that  territory, 
as  in  all  others,  will  go  into  the  National  Treas- 
ury, and  be  expended  on  national  objects. 

The  gentleman  from  Kentucky  (Mr.  CLAY) 
has  charged  us,  said  Mr.  T.,  with  being  under 
the  influence  of  negrophobia.  Sir,  he  mistook 
his  mark.  I  thank  God  that  the  disease  men- 
tioned by  that  gentleman,  is  unknown  to  my 
constituents ;  and  it  is  because  I  wish  to  exclude 
it  from  Arkansas,  that  I  have  moved  this  amend- 
ment. But,  sir,  the  excitement  which  this  mo- 
tion has  produced,  too  clearly  shows  that  the 
negrophobia  does  unhappily  prevail  in  another 
section  of  this  country ;  that  it  haunts  its  sub- 
jects in  their  dreams,  and  disturbs  their  waking 
hours.  You,  sir,  have  lately  seen  its  influence 
on  one  honorable  gentleman,  (Mr.  COLSTON,) 
who  considered  the  appearance  of  a  black  face 
in  the  gallery,  pending  yesterday's  discussion, 
of  sufficient  importance  to  justify  a  grave  ad- 
dress to  the  committee,  and  an  animated  philip- 
pic upon  the  impropriety  of  this  debate.  To 
such  gentlemen  it  maybe  "  a  delicate  subject;" 
but  to  me  I  confess  it  is  not.  In  my  estimation, 
said  Mr.  T.,  the  delicacy  of  the  subject  is  lost, 
and  ought  to  be  forgotten  in  its  immense  im- 
portance. "A  delicate  subject! "in  which  is 
involved  the  security  and  happiness  of  unborn 
millions ;  a  subject  too  delicate  for  discussion ! 
— because  our  debate  may  be  overheard  by  a 
negro  in  the  gallery.  Sir,  it  is  a  subject  vastly 
important  to  my  children,  and  the  children  of 
my  constituents,  who  shall  hereafter  emigrate 
to  Arkansas  ;  and,  while  I  have  the  honor  of  a 
seat  on  this  floor,  I  will  discuss  it  freely  when- 
ever public  duty,  in  my  judgment,  requires  it 

The  honorable  Speaker,  said  Mr.  TAYLOB,  has 
asked,  if  we  wish  to  coop  up  our  brethren  of 
the  slaveholding  States,  and  prevent  the  exten- 
sion of  their  population  and  wealth.  Mr.  Chair- 
man, cast  your  eye  on  that  map;  survey  the 
immense  and  fertile  regions  which  stretch  from 
the  Sabine  to  Georgia ;  count,  if  you  can,  the 
millions  of  rich  acres  in  Louisiana,  Mississippi, 
and  Alabama,  lying  uncultivated  and  waste.  If 
gentlemen  wish  to  disperse  their  slaves,  here  is 
an  abundant  opening.  In  all  these  States,  new 
as  they  are,  slavery  has  already  planted  its  roots 
too  deep,  I  fear,  to  be  ever  eradicated.  With 
this  opening  I  hope  gentlemen  will  be  content. 
Let  them  not  carry  the  pestilence  beyond  the 
Mississippi,  into  a  country  where  its  existence, 
as  yet,  is  but  little  known.  Let  them  agree  to 
the  amendment,  and  every  vestige  of  slavery 


358 


ABRIDGMENT  OF  THE 


H.  OF  R.] 


Arkansas  Territory — Restriction  of  Slavery. 


[FEBRUARY,  1819 


will  soon  disappear  from  the  territory  in  ques- 
tion. 

A  gentleman  from  Virginia  (Mr.  TYLEE)  has 
added  his  lamentations  on  the  existence  of  sla- 
very in  this  country  to  those  of  his  colleagues 
who  preceded  him.  He  informed  us,  too,  that 
the  Legislature  of  that  State  had  passed  resolu- 
tions, now  in  this  House,  requesting  the  aid  of 
Congress  to  mitigate  its  evils.  He  nevertheless 
took  care  to  give  notice  that  he  too  should  vote 
against  the  exclusion  of  slavery  from  Arkansas. 
It  is  not  my  province,  said  Mr.  T.,  to  question 
the  consistency  of  any  honorable  member  of 
this  committee,  but  certainly,  Mr.  Chairman,  I 
should  not  have  anticipated  such  a  conclusion, 
from  the  evidence  before  him.  If  Virginia  has 
found  slavery  an  intolerable  burden ;  if  she  seek 
the  aid  of  Congress  to  alleviate  its  evils,  con- 
fessedly too  great,  and  too  inveterate  for  cure ; 
if  she  deplore  the  policy  by  which  it  was  intro- 
duced, I  should  not  have  expected  to  find  a  rep- 
resentative from  Virginia  legislating  for  the 
prosperity  of  Arkansas,  and  unwilling  to  ex- 
clude it  from  that  territory. 

Another  gentleman  from  Virginia  (Mr.  HUGH 
NELSON)  has  charged  us  with  fighting  behind  a 
masked  battery.  He  considers  this  amendment 
as  an  entering  wedge  to  prepare  the  way  for  an 
attack  by  Congress  on  the  property  of  masters 
in  their  slaves,  in  the  several  States.  The  charge 
is  unfounded.  We  know  too  well  the  constitu- 
tional powers  of  this  House,  and  the  constitu- 
tional rights  of  the  States,  to  entertain  an  idea 
of  such  flagrant  usurpation.  Nay,  sir,  said  Mr. 
T.,  we  do  not  propose,  even  in  this  territory, 
over  which  we  have  full  and  undisputed  sover- 
eignty, to  take  from  the  master  his  property  in 
a  slave — so  far  from  it,  that  if  it  be  fact  that  the 
labor  of  slaves  is  there  in  demand,  by  prohibit- 
ing their  further  introduction  into  the  territory, 
that  demand  will  be  increased,  and  the  value  of 
such  property  now  there,  will  be  greatly  en- 
hanced. The  same  gentleman,  said  Mr.  T.,  has 
expressed  an  opinion  that  if  our  ancestors  had 
maintained  the  doctrince  embraced  in  the  amend- 
ment, the  Federal  Constitution  would  never 
have  been  formed,  and  he  has  thought  proper 
to  warn  us  that,  if  it  be  persisted  in,  the  confed- 
eration will  be  dissolved.  Has  it  then  come  to 
this  ?  Is  the  preservation  of  our  Union  made  to 
depend  on  the  admission  of  slavery  into  a  terri- 
tory not  belonging  to  the  States  when  the  con- 
stitution was  adopted?  A  territory  purchased 
by  Congress,  and  for  which  Congress  are  bound 
to  legislate,  with  a  faithful  regard  to  the  public 
welfare.  Are  we  to  be  terrified  from  doing  our 
duty,  by  threats  of  disunion  and  dismemberment  ? 
If  the  day  ever  arrive  when  the  Representatives 
of  one  section  of  the  country  shall  legislate  in 
this  hall  under  the  influence  of  threats  from 
another,  it  will  be  high  time  for  a  dissolution 
of  the  Union.  No,  sir,  said  Mr.  T.,  that  honor- 
able gentleman  greatly  mistakes  the  people  of 
this  country,  if  he  supposes  this  Union — cement- 
ed by  so  strong  interests,  necessary  to  all,  and 
especially  to  the  slaveholding  States— consecra- 


ted by  so  much  glorious  achievement — sanctified 
by  the  blood  of  so  many  heroes — endeared  by 
victories  won  with  the  exertions  and  treasures 
of  all — that  this  Union,  the  preservation  of 
which  is  the  first  lesson  of  lisping  infancy,  and 
the  last  prayer  of  expiring  age — that  this  Union 
can  ever  be  destroyed  or  in  the  least  impaired 
by  promoting  the  cause  of  humanity  and  free- 
dom in  America. 

But,  sir,  said  Mr.  T.,  the  honorable  gentle- 
man has  mentioned  a  fact  which  shows  how 
Virginia  herself  felt  and  acted  on  the  subject  of 
slavery,  in  the  Convention  of  1787.  It  was,  he 
informs  us,  a  Representative  from  Virginia  who 
drew  the  ordinance  excluding  slavery  from  the 
Northwest  Territory.  This,  said  Mr.  T.,  was  a 
noble  act — worthy  to  immortalize  the  name  of 
Grayson.  But  alas !  His  zeal  for  the  rights  of 
man,  his  love  for  future  generations,  his  active 
philanthropy  and  manly  eloquence  no  longer 
animate  this  assembly.  Would  to  God  his  man- 
tle had  fallen  on  some  one  of  his  successors. 
Then  that  successor,  and  not  the  humble  indi- 
vidual who  now  addresses  you,  would  have  intro- 
duced this  amendment  to  the  consideration  of 
the  committee.  He  would  have  supported  it  by 
eloquence  so  powerful,  by  argument  so  unan- 
swerable, by  pathos  so  irresistible,  that  instead 
of  the  meagre  majority  for  which  I  hope,  it  would 
be  carried  by  the  united  voice  of  every  member. 

Mr.  Chairman,  said  Mr.  T.,  I  too  sensibly  feel 
the  value  of  your  time,  to  proceed  in  this  discus- 
sion. I  have  touched,  but  with  the  utmost  brev- 
ity, the  most  prominent  objections  which  have 
been  urged  against  the  amendment :  less  I  could 
not  say  in  justice  to  myself — much  more  I  ought 
to  say  in  justice  to  the  subject.  The  general 
considerations  which  I  had  the  honor  to  sug- 
gest, when  in  committee  on  the  Missouri  bill, 
are  equally  applicable  on  the  present  occasion. 
I  will  not  repeat  them — they  are  fresh  in  your 
recollection.  May  the  future  inhabitants  of 
Arkansas  approve  the  decision  we  now  shall 
make — I  ask  no  more.  Let  their  interests  be 
our  guide,  and  the  further  introduction  of  sla- 
very will  not  contaminate  their  borders. 

Mr.  WALKER,  of  North  Carolina,  spoke  as  fol- 
lows :  Mr.  Chairman,  in  taking  a  view  of  this 
subject,  let  it  not  be  forgotten,  that  we  are 
legislating  in  a  free  country,  and  for  a  free  peo- 
ple ;  the  importance  of  the  principle  now  con- 
tested, demands  our  utmost  attention  and  vigi- 
lance to  the  great  principles  of  the  constitution, 
and  particularly  to  that  friendly  compromise 
entered  into  by  the  worthy  framers  of  that  in- 
strument. It  was  then  conceded  that  the  slave- 
holding  States  were  to  hold  an  equal  portion  of 
policy,  and  to  be  entitled  to  the  same  advan- 
tages as  other  States  in  the  Union.  But  it  ap- 
pears by  the  prohibition  and  restriction  attempt- 
ed to  be  made  as  a  condition  of  admitting  new 
States  into  the  Union,  a  direct  violation  of  that 
sacred  compact  is  attempted.  The  amendment 
proposed  by  the  gentleman  from  New  York, 
(Mr.  TAYLOB,)  which  prohibits  slaves  from  be- 
ing taken  into  the  territory  of  the  Arkansas, 


DEBATES  OF  CONGRESS. 


359 


FEBRTJAHY,  1819.] 


Arkansas  Territory — Restriction  of  Slavery. 


[H.  OF  R. 


completely  deprives  the  citizens  of  the  Southern 
section  of  the  Union  from  any  advantages  aris- 
ing in  the  Government,  or  from  having  either 
part  or  lot,  or  any  inheritance,  on  the  west  side 
of  the  Mississippi.  Sir,  was  it  not  purchased 
by  the  whole  United  States  ?  Did  not  the  South- 
ern States  contribute  their  full  share  for  that 
purchase  ?  And  are  they  not  morally  and  polit- 
ically entitled  to  equal  advantages  of  the  soil  ? 
It  is  to  be  presumed  that  a  great  portion  of  the 
population  of  that  territory  will  be  emigrants 
from  the  Southern  States ;  they  will  be  disposed 
to  remove  to  that  climate  suited  to  their  consti- 
tution and  habits,  or  the  culture  of  rice  and 
cotton.  Shall  they  be  proscribed,  and  prohib- 
ited from  taking  their  slaves  ?  Sir,  if  so,  your 
land  will  be  an  uncultivated  waste — a  fruitless 
soil ;  it  is  further  south  than  the  35th  degree  of 
latitude,  a  low  and  warm  country,  that  will  not 
support  a  laboring  white  population. 

But,  sir,  I  contend  that  we  have  no  legitimate 
power  to  legislate  on  the  property  of  the  citi- 
zens, only  to  levy  taxes.  We  might,  with  the 
same  right,  prohibit  other  species  of  property 
from  crossing  the  Mississippi.  Have  not  the 
Southern  States  yielded  to  the  Eastern  States 
so  much  of  their  favorite  system  of  free  white 
population,  as  to  give  up,  and  relinquish  the 
new  States  of  Ohio,  Indiana,  Illinois,  and  all  the 
vast  territory  north  of  the  river  Ohio?  and 
shall  the  slaveholding  States  be  withheld  from 
a  small  share  of  the  prospective  advantages 
arising  in  the  settlement  of  this  new  territory  ? 
Gentlemen  seem  to  think  that  they  are  serving 
the  cause  of  humanity  effectively,  in  prohibiting 
slaves  to  cross  the  Mississippi,  'in  this  they  are 
mistaken  ;  they  are  withholding  from  them  the 
means  of  all  the  comfort  and  happiness  their 
condition  affords ;  that  is,  food  and  raiment.  It 
is  well  known  that  in  the  frontier  country  the 
servant  feeds  as  his  master,  and  is  sufficiently 
clothed ;  while  in  the  interior  of  the  old  States 
the  means  of  subsistence  is  scanty  and  improvi- 
dent. 

But,  sir,  the  great  and  radical  objection  to 
the  amendment  proposed,  is  taking  away  from 
the  people  of  this  territory  the  natural  and  con- 
stitutional right  of  legislating  for  themselves, 
and  imposing  on  them  a  condition  which  they 
may  not  willingly  accept.  In  organizing  a 
territorial  government,  and  forming  a  constitu- 
tion, they,  and  they  alone,  have  the  right,  and 
are  the  proper  judges  of  that  policy  best  adapted 
to  their  genius  and  interest,  and  it  ought  to  be 
exclusively  left  to  them.  If  they  wish  to  ex- 
clude slaves  from  being  taken  into  their  terri- 
tory, they  cun  prohibit  them  by  their  own  act. 
If  they  think  proper  to  admit  the  emigration  of 
slaves,  they  can  say  so.  Let  them  be  their  own 
judges,  and  not  force  upon  them  a  yoke  they 
may  not  bo  willing  to  bear.  The  people  of  the 
Arkansas  and  of  the  West  are  competent  judges 
of  their  constitutional  rights,  and  well  know 
how  to  appreciate  their  privileges  as  freemen ; 
and  be  assured,  the  further  from  your  metro- 
polis, the  greater  the  enthusiasm  for  liberty. 


Slavery  is  an  evil  we  have  long  deplored,  but 
cannot  cure ;  it  was  entailed  upon  us  by  our  an- 
cestors ;  it  was  not  our  original  sin,  and  we  can- 
not, hi  our  present  situation,  release  ourselves 
from  the  embarrassment ;  and,  as  it  is  an  evil, 
the  more  diffusive,  the  lighter  it  will  be  felt,  and 
the  wider  it  is  extended  the  more  eqpal  the 
proportion  of  inconvenience.  We  know,  we 
felt  yesterday  on  the  Missouri  bill,  you  have  the 
power ;  you  are  the  majority ;  but  do  not  bear 
us  down  on  this  question.  I  trust  that  gentle- 
men will  exercise  on  this  vote  a  spirit  of  concil- 
iation, and  give  the  Southern  States  an  inher- 
itance among  their  brethren,  by  suffering  such 
of  us  as  are  disposed  to  become  citizens  of  the 
Arkansas  to  take  our  slave  property  with  us. 
Then  your  lands  will  be  sold ;  your  soil  will  be 
cultivated ;  and  your  country  will  flourish. 

Mr.  MOLANE,  of  Delaware,  said  he  regretted 
very  much  the  discussion  of  this  subject  in  its 
present  form,  with  regard  to  these  territories, 
calculated  as  it  was  to  arouse  feelings  which  had 
long  slumbered,  and  which  could  never  be  re- 
suscitated without  great  danger  to  that  humane 
object  we  all  had  in  view.  He  regretted  it  the 
more,  because  it  never  was  without  pain  that 
he  found  himself  compelled  to  assume  even  the 
appearance  of  opposition  to  the  most  enthusias- 
tic notion  for  the  abolition  of  slavery.  With 
such  impressions,  he  should  not  have  taken  any 
part  in  the  discussion,  if  the  question  had  not 
been  treated  by  the  gentleman  who  has  just 
resumed  his  seat,  (Mr.  CUSHMAN,)  as  one  of  lib- 
erty and  slavery,  an  idea  he  utterly  disclaimed ; 
and,  with  a  view  of  preventing  any  misconcep- 
tion of  the  course  he  felt  it  his  duty  to  take,  he 
would  detain  the  committee  a  short  time  while 
he  explained  the  reasons  by  which  he  was  in- 
fluenced. Mr.  McL.  said  he  would  yield  to  no 
gentleman  in  the  House,  in  his  love  of  freedom, 
or  in  his  abhorrence  of  slavery  in  its  mildest 
form.  His  earliest  education,  and  the  habits  of 
his  life,  were  opposed  to  the  holding  of  slaves, 
and  the  encouragement  of  slavery.  At  the  same 
time,  he  would  yield  to  no  gentleman  in  the 
House  in  his  regard  for  the  constitution  of  his 
country,  and  for  the  peace,  safety,  and  preserva- 
tion of  the  Union  of  these  States.  To  these 
great  objects  all  minor  considerations  should 
give  way.  He  would  unite  with  gentlemen  in 
any  course  within  the  pale  of  the  constitution, 
for  the  gradual  abolition  of  slavery  in  the  Unit- 
ed States.  Beyond  this,  the  oath  he  had  taken 
as  a  member  of  the  House,  forbade  him  to  go. 
The  fixing  of  a  line  on  the  west  of  the  Missis- 
sippi,* north  of  which  slavery  should  not  be 


This  is  the  first  suggestion  of  the  policy  which  led  to 
the  adoption  of  the  Missouri  compromise.  In  the  conclud- 
ing part  of  his  speech  Mr.  McLane  returns  to  this  idea — en- 
forces it — embodies  it ;  and,  in  fact,  foreshadows  the  meas- 
ure which  allayed  the  portentous  storm  of  1819,  '20,  '21. 
He  was  firmly  against  the  restriction  on  the  State  of  Mis- 
souri as  being  unconstitutional  and  impolitic :  ho  was  against 
the  restriction  on  the  Territory  of  Arkansas  as  being  Im- 
politic, unjust  to  the  Southern  States,  and  against  the  treaty 
with  France,  lie  was  for  a  division  of  Louisiana  between  the 


360 


ABRIDGMENT  OF  THE 


H.  OF  R.] 


Arkansas  Territory — Restriction  of  Slavery. 


[FEBRUARY,  1819. 


tolerated,  had  always  been  with  him  a  favorite 
policy,  and  he  hoped  the  day  was  not  distant 
when,  upon  principles  of  fair  compromise,  it 
might  constitutionally  be  effected.  He  was 
apprehensive,  however,  that  the  present  pre- 
mature attempt,  and  the  feelings  it  had  elicited, 
would  interpose  new  and  almost  insuperable  ob- 
stacles to  the  attainment  of  the  end. 

Mr.  McL.  said,  that  gentlemen  had  lost  sight 
of  the  real  questions  under  consideration.  They 
had  treated  the  subject  as  if  we  were  now  delib- 
erating upon  the  expediency  of  increasing  the 
slavery  in  the  United  States  from  abroad ;  or,  as 
if  we  were  to  decide  whether  there  should  or 
should  not  be  slavery  among  us.  Sir,  if  this 
were  the  question,  there  is  no  gentleman  on 
this  floor  from  the  North  or  South  who  would 
hesitate  in  his  opinion.  He  believed  there  was 
no  quarter  of  the  country  in  which  slavery  is 
more  seriously  deplored  than  in  the  South. 
But,  it  was  an  evil  which  existed — it  had  been 
unfortunately  entailed  upon  us,  and  it  required 
the  united  and  dispassionate  wisdom  of  the  na- 
tion to  mitigate  its  horrors  and  soften  its  cala- 
mities. The  farther  increase  of  slavery  from 
abroad  had  been  prohibited  by  very  severe  laws, 
and  we  were  at  this  session  about  to  pass  others, 
enforcing  their  provisions,  and  repairing  their 
defects.  The  present  question  regarded  merely 
the  disposition  of  the  slaves  among  us,  and  that 
only  in  a  limited  extent.  Sir,  said  Mr.  McL., 
what  is  the  question  now  before  the  committee  ? 

France,  by  the  treaty  of  April,  1803,  ceded  to 
the  United  States  the  territory  of  Louisiana — 
by  certain  limits,  within  which  are  contained 
the  territories  of  Missouri  and  Arkansas,  and 
upon  the  terms  therein  specified.  At  the  time 
of  this  cession  there  were  a  number  of  slaves 
in  both  places,  belonging  to  the  people  inhabit- 
ing those  territories,  and  from  that  time  until 
now,  there  has  been  no  inhibition  of  the  trans- 
portation of  slaves  to  these  territories  from  those 
States  whose  municipal  regulations  permitted 
their  exportation.  From  these  causes,  the  num- 
ber has  been  increasing  daily  to  the  present  tune, 
and  it  is  admitted  that  there  is  at  present  a 
very  considerable  slave  population. 

The  restrictions  which  are  now  proposed, 
amount,  in  fact,  first,  to  the  emancipation  of 
the  present  slaves  and  their  issue ;  and,  sec- 
ondly, to  a  condition  precedent  to  the  admis- 
sion of  these  Territories  into  the  Union,  as 
States,  that  they  shall  prohibit  the  introduction 
of  slavery  in  future  from  any  part  of  the  United 
States.  Under  these  provisions,  persons  re- 
moving thither  with  their  families,  and  with 
the  bona  fide  intention  of  residing  permanently 
therein,  are  prohibited  from  carrying  with,  them 
this  species  of  property,  should  they  be  the 
owners  of  any. 


free  and  the  slave  States,  by  an  equitable  compromise  line 
in  the  spirit  in  which  the  territory  east  of  the  Mississippi 
was  divided  by  the  ordinance  of  '87,  and  which  harmonized 
the  States  and  enabled  the  constitution  to  be  made.  And 
these  views  prevailed,  and  enabled  the  Union  to  be  saved. 


I  have  no  doubt  that  these  propositions  pro- 
ceed from  the  most  humane,  philanthropic  mo- 
tives, and  nothing  can  more  gladden  the  heart 
than  the  contemplation  of  a  portion  of  territory 
consecrated  to  freedom,  whose  soil  should  never 
be  moistened  by  the  tear  of  the  slave,  or  de- 
graded by  the  step  of  the  oppressor  or  the  op- 
pressed. It  is  a  theory  which  we  should  be 
very  apt  to  reduce  to  practice,  without  even 
consulting  the  condition  of  the  present  miser- 
able race  of  slaves  in  many  parts  of  the  United 
States,  if  we  had  the  power  to  do  so.  But, 
although  Mr.  McL.  desired  the  result  as  sin- 
cerely as  any  man,  he  was  bound  to  say,  that, 
after  a  deliberate  investigation  of  the  subject, 
he  did  not  believe  that  Congress  possessed  the 
power  to  impose  the  restriction.  As  it  regarded 
the  unfortunate  beings  now  held  in  slavery  in 
those  Territories,  he  said,  he  had  no  more  right 
to  provide  for  their  liberation  than  he  had  to 
invade  any  other  species  of  property  whatso- 
ever. Their  owners  had  acquired  the  legal 
title  to  their  labor  and  services,  it  had  become 
a  vested  right,  and  we  had  no  power  to  dis- 
turb it.  "VVe  had  no  greater  power  to  take 
from  them  their  property  in  these  slaves,  than 
we  had  to  deprive  them  of  any  chattel  or  other 
object  of  ownership.  He  did  not  mean  to  con- 
sider the  slave  as  a  mere  chattcjl ;  he  viewed 
him  as  an  ill-fated  member  of  the  human  race, 
doomed  by  a  hard  and  cruel  fortune  to  devote 
his  labor  and  services  to  another  ;  he  was  the 
subject  of  the  protecting  arm  of  the  law,  and 
his  life  and  person  were  sacred  from  those  out- 
rages which  might  be  committed  with  impunity 
upon  other  articles  of  property.  But,  after  all, 
his  services  and  his  person  belonged  to  his 
owner;  he  was  the  property  of  his  owner. 
The  man  who  steals  a  slave  is  guilty  of  felony — 
this  shows  him  to  be  property.  But,  the  con- 
stitutions of  the  States  in  which  slavery  is 
tolerated,  and  the  Constitution  of  the  United 
States  recognize  the  interest  of  the  owner  in  his 
slave  as  property.  The  union  of  the  States  is 
founded  upon  this  principle ;  and  the  owner  is 
authorized  to  reclaim  his  slave  on  the  ground 
of  property,  when  he  shall  have  absconded  from 
his  service.  In  many  of  the  States  they  are 
liable  to  be  taken  in  execution  and  sold  for  debt, 
considering  them  as  property.  This  is  the  law 
in  the  State  which  I  have  the  honor  in  part  to 
represent.  If  we  treat  them,  therefore,  as  prop- 
erty, and  if  we  even  consider  it  in  a  limited 
sense,  that  the  owner  has  property  in,  or  right 
to,  the  service  merely,  it  is,  nevertheless,  a 
right,  and  we  cannot  interfere  with  that  right 
by  a  mere  act  of  legislation. 

"What  would  be  said  of  the  Legislature  of  the 
State  of  Delaware,  or  Maryland,  if,  by  law, 
they  were  to  declare  all  the  slaves  within  their 
territory  to  be  free?  Could  it  be  pretended 
for  a  moment  that  they  would  have  any  right 
to  do  so  ?  The  utmost  any  State  has  done,  has 
been  to  say,  that,  after  a  certain  day,  some  time 
in  prospective,  the  issue  of  all  persons  held  to 
slavery  shall  be  free.  He  would  not  now  dis- 


DEBATES  OF  CONGRESS. 


361 


FEBRUARY,  1819.] 


Arkansas  Territory — Restriction  of  Slavery. 


[H.  OP  R. 


cuss  this  right,  though  he  could  not  discern 
how  the  right  to  the  usufruct  of  this  property 
could  be  at  all  impaired,  and,  at  any  rate,  in  the 
case  alluded  to,  the  owner  would  be  allowed 
the  privilege  of  removing  his  slave  before  the 
day  arrived  when  the  law  was  to  take  effect. 
As  it  regarded  the  slaves,  at  present  existing, 
therefore,  we  certainly  had  no  power  to  inter- 
fere ;  and  the  question  was  of  consequence  nar- 
rowed down  to  the  simple  propositions  to  pro- 
hibit the  introduction  of  slaves  in  future,  and 
to  denying  to  the  inhabitants  of  those  Terri- 
tories about  to  become  States,  the  right  and 
privilege  of  deciding  for  themselves  in  this  par- 
ticular. It  by  no  means  follows  that  they  will 
not  decide  to  exclude  slavery  in  future ;  it  is 
quite  probable  they  will  find  it^heir  interest  to 
do  so ;  but  have  we  the  right  of  taking  from 
them  the  privilege  of  judging  of  their  own  in- 
terest and  policy  in  this  respect  ?  To  our  power 
to  do  this,  either  as  regarded  the  State  now  to 
be  admitted,  or  the  territory  hereafter  to  be- 
come a  State,  he  conscientiously  believed  the 
constitution,  and  the  national  compact,  to  which 
he  would  hereafter  refer  more  particularly,  op- 
posed an  insuperable  barrier. 

Mr.  McL.  said  he  denied  that  Congress  had 
power  to  impose  any  condition  upon  the  admis- 
sion of  a  State  into  the  Union  impairing  its 
sovereignty.  "We  had  a  right  to  require  the 
form  and  spirit  of  its  constitution  to  be  Kepnb- 
lican,  and  we  had  the  right  to  say  that  we 
would  or  would  not  admit,  but  we  could  go  no 
further.  We  could  impose  no  terms  in  abridg- 
ment of  its  rights  of  sovereignty  whatsoever, 
and  he  protested  against  the  opposite  doctrine 
as  leading  to  the  most  pernicious  consequences. 
"  New  States  may  be  admitted  by  the  Congress 
into  this  Union."  When  so  admitted  they  be- 
come members  of  the  Union,  as  the  others  who 
have  been  admitted  before  them ;  it  is  but  an 
addition  of  another  link  to  the  old  chain ;  in- 
curring the  same  obligations  to  contribute  to 
the  common  defence  and  general  welfare,  and 
therefore  entitled  to  the  same  rights  and  privi- 
leges with  the  other  Confederates.  The  term 
"State"  imports  sovereignty,  and  the  term 
"  State,"  in  relation  to  the  federative  system  of 
the  United  States,  imports  the  same  degree  of 
sovereignty  as  is  enjoyed  by  the  States  of  that 
Union.  It  is  of  the  very  essence  of  our  Gov- 
ernment^ that  all  the  States  composing  the 
Union  should  have  equal  sovereignty.  It  is  the 
great  principle  on  which  the  Union  reposes — 
the  germ  of  its  duration.  How  long  would  this 
empire  be  held  together,  composed  as  it  is  of 
many  parts  united  together  for  a  common  in- 
terest, if  all  these  parts  were  unequal  in  their 
privileges,  unequal  in  their  rights,  but  com- 
pelled to  make  an  equal  contribution  to  the 
support  of  the  others  ?  It  would  be  a  motley 
tribe  of  sovereign  and  demi-sovereign  States — 
a  congregated  mass  of  incoherent  particles — 
disorder  and  dismemberment  would  be  the  in- 
evitable consequence.  Besides,  sir,  a  consti- 
tution is  the  charter  containing  the  principles 


by  which  men  are  to  be  governed  in  then*  per- 
sons and  property — it  is  the  charter  of  rights  of 
a  free  people — in  its  formation,  deliberation  and 
freedom  of  deliberation  are  necessary  ingre- 
dients ;  but,  if  we  are  to  make  their  constitu- 
tion, or  prescribe  the  terms  of  it,  what  becomes 
of  the  right  of  deliberation  ?  We  dictate  the 
terms  ourselves  to  suit  our  views,  without 
regard  to  their  interests  or  condition.  In  effect, 
we  agree  to  admit  them  to  be  a  State  if  they 
will  consent  to  be  less  than  a  State — to  consti- 
tute them  a  member  of  the  Union,  if  they  will 
agree  to  give  up  the  right  of  judging  of  the 
form  of  government  best  adapted  to  their  con- 
dition. But,  sir,  what  are  the  limits  of  this 
power  ?  If  we  have  the  right  to  impose  this 
condition,  what  condition  have  we  not  a  right 
to  impose  ?  The  power  must  be  general,  or  it 
does  not  exist.  If  we  have  the  right  to  insist 
upon  a  stipulation  on  the  part  of  the  new  State, 
not  to  admit  slaves,  because  it  is  humane  and 
politic  to  do  so,  we  would  have  an  equal  right 
to  insist  upon  a  stipulation  of  another  kind,  if 
it  should  also  appear  to  us  to  be  wise  and  pol- 
itic ;  we  might  prescribe,  as  a  condition,  that 
their  right  of  suffrage  should  be  regulated 
as  we  should  direct ;  that  their  representation 
should  not  be  as  large,  in  proportion  to  their 
population,  as  other  States ;  that  they  should 
not  have  the  benefit  of  the  equality  of  taxation ; 
that  they  should  surrender  to  the  General  Gov- 
ernment greater  powers,  and  retain  fewer  rights 
.than  the  other  States  of  the  Union  had  done  ;• 
or  that  they  should  encourage  this  or  that  reli- 
gion, or  no  religion  at  all.  And,  sir,  at  some 
future  day,  when  the  slaveholding  interest,  as 
it  has  been  called,  predominates  in  this  body,  it 
might  be  made  a  condition,  upon  the  admission 
of  a  new  State,  that  slavery  should  not  only  be 
tolerated,  but  that  it  should  never  afterwards 
be  interdicted.  Let  gentlemen  remember,  too. 
that  the  predominance  of  this  interest  is  by  no 
means  improbable,  and  that  there  yet  remains 
avast,  unsettled  region,  which  the  future  growth 
of  this  mighty  empire  is  destined  to  people  and 
improve.  Sir,  it  is  the  undoubted  right  of 
every  people,  when  admitted  to  be  a  State,  to 
become  free,  sovereign,  and  independent — free 
to  make  their  own  constitution  and  laws — to  be 
the  judges  of  their  own  policy,  and  free  to 
alter  or  amend  them  at  pleasure.  The  moment 
they  are  constituted  a  State,  they  would  have 
these  rights,  notwithstanding  the  condition  im- 
posed ;  and,  if  they  were  to  present  you  with 
a  constitution,  containing  this  provision,  it 
would  be  matter  of  form  only;  they  could 
change  it  immediately  afterwards,  and  abolish 
the  very  feature  you  would  desire  to  retain. 
The  condition,  therefore,  would  not  only  be  un- 
constitutional, but  useless.  We  do  not  possess 
the  political  power  to  enforce  it ;  an  attempt  to 
do  so,  would,  no  doubt,  prove  abortive  as  to  its 
object ;  but  it  might  leave  behind  it  a  deep  and 
lasting  wound,  rankling  in  the  bosom  of  the 
State,  and  finally  alienate  all  their  respect  for 
your  authority. 


362 


ABKIDGMENT  OF  THE 


H.  OF  R.] 


Arkansas  Territory — Restriction  of  Slavery. 


[FEBRUARY,  1819. 


But,  Mr.  Chairman,  said  Mr.  McL.,  besides 
the  general  principles  already  adverted  to,  we 
are  not  at  liberty,  as  respects  this  Territory,  to 
consult  our  power,  if  we  possessed  it.  We  are 
bound  to  these  people  by  a  compact  which  for- 
bids us  to  impose  the  condition,  and  we  cannot, 
without  a  breach  of  faith,  violate  that  compact. 
The  third  article  of  the  treaty  of  cession  pro- 
vides, that,  "  The  inhabitants  of  the  ceded  ter- 
ritory shall  be  incorporated  in  the  union  of  the 
United  States,  and  admitted  as  soon  as  possible, 
according  to  the  principles  of  the  Federal  Con- 
stitution, to  the  enjoyment  of  all  the  rights,  ad- 
vantages, and  immunities  of  citizens  of  the 
United  States — and,  in  the  mean  time,  they  snail 
be  maintained  and  protected  in  the  free  enjoy- 
ment of  their  liberty,  property,  and  the  re- 
ligion they  profess." 

This  article  applies  both  to  Missouri  and  Ar- 
kansas ;  and,  in  fact,  so  do  all  the  arguments 
already  used ;  for,  though  the  law  now  to  be 
passed  refers  to  Arkansas  as  a  Territory,  yet  it 
will  shortly  become  a  State,  and  the  principles 
derivable  from  its  sovereignty  would  then  apply 
with  equal  force.  By  this  treaty,  then,  we 
have  stipulated  to  protect  the  inhabitants  of 
this  Territory  in  the  enjoyment  of  their  proper- 
ty, of  which  their  slaves  unquestionably  formed 
a  part,  until  they  can  be  incorporated  in  the 
union  of  the  United  States,  that  is,  until  their 
population  shall  amount  to  the  number  always 
required  to  authorize  the  admission  of  a  State, 
"or  until  Congress  shall  pass  a  law  authorizing 
them  to  form  a  constitution.  As  soon  as  this 
is  the  case,  they  are  to  be  "  incorporated  in  the 
union  of  the  United  States,"  and  admitted, 
"according  to  the  principles  of  the  Federal 
Constitution,"  to  the  enjoyment  of  all  the  rights, 
advantages,  and  immunities  of  "  citizens  of  the 
United  States."  What  are  these  "rights,  ad- 
vantages, and  immunities,"  "according  to  the 
principles  of  the  Federal  Constitution  ?  "  That 
they  shall  have  the  right  of  holding  slaves  if 
they  please  to  do  so ;  that  they  shall  form  State 
governments,  with  the  same  rights  and  immu- 
nities of  all  other  State  governments;  that 
they  shall  have  the  same  power  to  make  their 
municipal  laws  as  any  other  States,  and  the 
same  advantages  as  citizens  of  the  United  States. 
As  such,  as  citizens  of  the  United  States,  the 
right  to  possess  slaves  is  unquestionable.  It 
cannot  be  doubted  that  all  the  States  possess 
this  right  of  admitting  or  excluding  slavery 
within  their  jurisdiction,  as  they  may  think  fit.  ( 
Pennsylvania  and  New  York  possess  this  right ; 
and,  though  it  is  their  present  policy  to  exclude 
slavery,  no  one  can  doubt  that  they  would  have 
the  right  to-morrow,  if  they  thought  proper  to 
do  so,  to  alter  their  policy,  and  permit  the  in- 
troduction of  slavery.  The  right  to  hold  slaves, 
and,  which  is  more  important  as  it  respects 
their  freedom  and  sovereignty,  the  right  to  de- 
cide whether  they  will  or  will  not  hold  them, 
is  as  much  an  immunity  and  advantage,  under 
our  constitution,  as  the  right  to  be  represented 
in  Congress,  or  the  right  to  a  freedom  of  re- 


ligious opinion,  or  the  right  to  have  the  slaves 
accounted  a  part  of  their  population,  in  the 
manner  prescribed  by  the  constitution.  We 
have  no  more  power  to  impair  one  than  an- 
other of  these  rights. 

Sir,  we  cannot  attach  too  much  importance 
to  this  treaty,  and  the  rights  secured  by  it.  It 
was  the  condition'of  the  transfer  of  the  original 
inhabitants  of  this  Territory,  and  their  posses- 
sions, from  their  former  Government  to  ours. 
They  enjoyed  these  rights  under  their  old  Gov- 
ernment, and  in  the  exchange  of  allegiance  they 
were  assured  that  it  should  not  be  lost ;  that 
the  United  States  would  guarantee  them  these 
rights,  and  protect  them  in  their  enjoyment. 
Strangers  as  these  people  were  to  us  and  to 
our  institutions,  the  solemn  obligations  of  the 
treaty  should,  oil  this  account,  be  sacredly  ob- 
served. We  are  to  win  their  affections  for  our 
Government  and  constitution,  which  can  only 
be  done  by  a  sacred  regard  for  their  rights  and 
our  own  obligations.  The  inhabitants'  who 
have  since  emigrated  to  this  Territory,  have 
gone  under  the  faith  of  this  treaty,  relying 
upon  the  known  good  faith  of  the  American 
Government,  for  the  strict  fulfilment  of  its  stip- 
ulations. Sir,  the  prosperity  and  union  of  the 
United  States  depend  upon  the  honest  perform- 
ance of  all  the  engagements  on  the  part  of  the 
Government.  The  protection  to  all  its  mem- 
bers— of  the  people,  of  the  country — in  the  en- 
joyment of  their  rights,  of  every  description,  is 
the  object  of  the  Union.  When  the  disposition 
to  do  this  effectually  ceases,  the  great  chain  by 
which  we  are  connected  will  cease  to  bind  us. 
And,  sir,  if  any  one  or  more  of  the  States  have 
a  deeper  interest  in  the  faithful  execution  of  the 
principles  of  our  compact,  it  is  the  small  States, 
who  should  be  the  last  to  relax  the  most  rigid 
enforcement  of  their  true  spirit  and  intention. 

It  does  therefore  appear  to  me,  Mr.  Chair- 
man, said  Mr.  McL.,  that  we  are  prevented, 
both  by  the  principles  of  our  constitution  and 
the  terms  of  our  solemn  compact,  from  impos- 
ing this  restriction ;  that,  without  considering 
the  expediency  of  the  measure,  it  becomes  a 
conscientious  duty  (though  to  some,  and  to  me 
among  others,  a  painful  one)  to  resist  it.  And 
yet,  sir,  a  view  of  the  question  of  expediency 
would  go  very  far  to  mitigate  the  pain  which 
we  might  otherwise  feel  at  being  unable  to 
gratify  our  wishes.  We  have  now  in  the  Unit- 
ed States  a  large  slave  population.  It  is  cer- 
tain that  it  cannot  be  increased  by  importations 
from  abroad.  Their  sudden  emancipation  is 
utterly  impracticable.  In  their  present  situa- 
tion, even  a  gradual  one  is  almost  hopeless.  To 
meliorate  their  sufferings,  and  soften  the  rigors 
of  their  servitude,  is  the  most  that  can  be  done 
in  many  parts  of  the  country.  But  while  they 
are  confined  exclusively  to  the  Southern^  States, 
owned  in  large  numbers  by  a  single  individual, 
and  limited  to  a  single  farm,  even  this  change  is 
scarcely  to  be  expected.  If,  however,  they 
were  permitted  to  be  carried  by  the  children 
of  the  Southern  planter,  when  emigrating  to  the 


DEBATES  OF  CONGRESS. 


FEBRUARY,  1819.] 


Arkansas  Territory — Restriction  of  Slavery. 


[H.  OF  R. 


Western  country  in  pursuit  of  the  riches  which 
that  fruitful  territory  holds  out  to  an  indus- 
trious enterprise — and  I  would  not  permit  them 
to  be  sold  by  traders,  or  become  the  objects  of 
profit — they  would  by  this  means  become  dis- 
persed over  a  wider  field ;  their  condition 
would  necessarily  be  improved,  (for  they  al- 
ways thrive  and  do  better  when  held  in  small 
numbers;)  and  the  chances  of  emancipation 
would  certainly  be  multiplied  in  both  countries ; 
the  number  would  be  less  in  the  South  and  the 
West;  they  would  be  less  formidable  to  the 
white  population ;  and  in  the  course  of  tune 
gradually  acquire  ease  and  freedom.  In  the 
State  from  which  I  have  the  honor  to  come, 
the  work  of  emancipation  is  rapidly  progress- 
ing, and,  I  believe,  principally  owing  to  the 
sparseness  of  this  description  of  population. 
Their  condition  is  also  better  than  those  further 
South,  from  the  same  cause.  There  is,  how- 
ever, one  view  of  this  part  of  the  subject  so 
nearly  allied  to  the  right  of  Congress  to  impose 
the  contemplated  restriction,  that  I  cannot 
avoid  adverting  to  it.  It  is  said  by  the  gentle- 
men from  the  South,  that  this  Territory  was 
purchased  with  the  common  fund  of  the  nation, 
to  whose  benefits  all  have  an  equal  right ;  and 
that,  by  preventing  the  Southern  planter  from 
carrying  his  slaves  with  him  when  he  goes  to 
settle  in  this  Territory,  you  interdict  the  emi- 
gration from  that  quarter  altogether.  Although 
it  is  clear  that  any  one  State  might  frame  its 
municipal  regulations  so  as  to  exclude  the  in- 
troduction of  slaves,  even  by  persons  removing 
into  it,  yet  it  can  scarcely  be  doubted  that  the 
exercise  of  this  right  ought  to  be  left  to  the 
sound  discretion  of  each  State  ;  and  we  know 
the  policy  of  different  States  varies  in  this  par- 
ticular. In  Delaware,  persons  removing  from 
or  into  the  State  are  permitted  to  carry  their 
slaves  with  them :  their  introduction  and  ex- 
portation is  prohibited  only  for  the  purposes  of 
sale.  In  Pennsylvania  it  is  otherwise.  Con- 
gress would  certainly  have  no  power  to  inter- 
dict the  emigration  from  one  State  to  another ; 
and  it  is  worthy  of  consideration  how  far  they 
can  do  the  same  by  indirect  means.  I  cannot 
admit  the  construction  of  the  honorable  gentle- 
man from  New  York,  (Mr.  SPENCER,)  of  the 
clause  of  the  constitution  which  provides  that 
the  emigration  or  importation  of  such  persons 
as  any  of  the  States  now  existing  shall  think 
proper  to  admit  shall  not  be  prohibited  prior  to 
the  year  1808.  This  clause  was  designed  to 
embrace  all  classes  of  people — freemen  as  well 
as  slaves — coming  from  abroad.  It  could  not 
mean  to  authorize  Congress  to  prohibit  the  mi- 
gration from  one  State  to  another,  because  it 
would  conflict  with  another  provision,  that  cit- 
izens of  one  State  shall  be  entitled  to  all  the 
privileges  of  free  citizens  in  another,  which  se- 
cures the  right  of  emigration ;  and  because,  if 
it  wore  designed  to  vest  the  power  in  Congress, 
it  would  of  necessity,  to  be  available  at  all,  be 
an  exclusive  power ;  but  we  all  see  the  States 
constantly  exercising  it,  and  they  have  been  in 


the  habit  of  exercising  it  ever  since  the  adop- 
tion of  the  constitution. 

On  the  whole,  Mr.  Chairman,  said  Mr.  McL., 
it  seems  to  me  that  we  have  no  right  to  impose 
this  restriction ;  and  that,  if  we  had,  it  would 
be  useless,  impracticable,  and  unavailing.  At 
the  same  time,  I  do  not  mean  to  abandon  the 
policy  to  which  I  alluded  in  the  commencement 
of  my  remarks.  I  think  it  but  fair  that  both 
sections  of  the  Union  should  be  accommodated 
on  this  subject,  with  regard  to  which  so  much 
feeling  has  been  manifested.  The  same  great 
motives  of  policy  which  reconciled  and  harmo- 
nized the  jarring  and  discordant  elements  of  our 
system,  originally,  and  which  enabled  the  fram- 
ers  of  our  happy  constitution  to  compromise 
the  different  interests  which  then  prevailed 
upon  this  and  other  subjects,  if  properly  cherish- 
ed by  ns,  will  enable  us  to  achieve  similar  ob- 
jects. If  we  meet  upon  principles  of  recipro- 
city, we  cannot  fail  to  do  justice  to  all.  It  has 
already  been  avowed  by  gentlemen  on  this 
floor,  from  the  South  and  the  West,  that  they 
will  agree  upon  a  line  which  shall  divide  the 
slaveholding  from  the  non-slaveholding  States. 
It  is  this  proposition  I  am  anxious  to  effect; 
but  I  wish  to  effect  it  by  some  compact  which 
shall  be  binding  upon  all  parties,  and  all  subse- 
quent Legislatures  ;  which  cannot  be  changed, 
and  will  not  fluctuate  with  the  diversity  of  feel- 
ing and  of  sentiment  to  which  this  Empire  in 
its  march  must  be  destined.  There  is  a  vast 
and  immense  tract  of  country  west  of  the  Mis- 
sissippi yet  to  be  settled,  and  intimately  con- 
nected with  the  northern  section  of  the  Union, 
upon  which  this  compromise  can  be  effected. 
Believing  as  I  do  that  the  constitution  and  the 
compact  before  mentioned  will  not  permit  us  to 
extend  pur  policy  over  the  whole,  I  will  be  very 
willing  to  take  as  great  a  part  as  I  can  obtain: 
and  in  so  doing — though  I  may  lament  that  the 
humane  policy  of  those  who  are  so  anxious  to 
effect  this  end  cannot  be  more  widely  diffused — 
I  shah1  at  least  enjoy  the  consciousness  of  hav- 
ing conformed  to  the  constitution  of  the  coun- 
try, and  executed  the  national  compacts  in  good 
faith. 

The  motion  was  advocated  by  Messrs.  TALL- 
MADGE,  LIVEEMORE,  SPEXOEB,  and  CUSHMAN; 
and  was  opposed  by  Messrs.  CLAY*,  ROBERTSON, 
TYLEB,  Hron  NELSON,  STORKS,  JOHNSON,  of 
Virginia,  BARBOUR,  of  Virginia,  and  KIXSEY. 
Several  of  the  gentlemen  spoke  more  than  once, 
and  the  debate  was  maintained,  with  much  ani- 
mation, until  near  4  o'clock. 

The  question  was  finally  taken  on  the  first 
part  of  the  motion  (it  having  been  divided)  in 
the  following  words: 

"  That  the  further  introduction  of  slavery  or  invol- 
untary servitude  be  prohibited,  except  for  the  punish- 
ment of  crimes,  of  which  the  party  shall  have  been 
convicted." 

And  it  was  decided  in  the  negative :  For  the 
motion  68  ;  against  it  80. 
The  remaining  part  of  the  proposition,  to  de- 


364 


ABRIDGMENT  OF  THE 


H.  OF  R.] 


Arkansas  Territory — Restriction  of  Slavery. 


[FEBRUARY,  1819. 


claro  all  the  children  free  after  twenty-five 
years  of  age,  who  shall  be  hereafter  born  in  the 
Territory,  was  negatived  without  a  division. 

The  committee  then  proceeded  with  the  bill, 
and  having  gone  through  it,  next  took  up  the 

Alabama  State  Government  Bill, 
for  enabling  the  people  of  that  Territory  to 
form  a  constitution  and  State  government,  and 
for  the  admission  of  the  same  into  the  Union  on 
an  equal  footing  with  the  original  States. 

Much  time  was  busily  employed  by  the  com- 
mittee in  receiving  and  disposing  of  various 
amendments  proposed  to  the  details  of  this  bill, 
and  in  considering  and  deciding  on  its  provi- 
sions. Messrs.  CEOWELL,  POINDEXTEB,  COBB, 
arid  others,  entered  into  the  discussion.  The 
committee  negatived  one  or  two  motions  to  rise, 
and  persevered  through  the  bill;  when  the 
committee  rose,  and  reported  both  bills  to  the 
House,  with  the  amendments  made  thereto; 
and  at  near  five  o'clock  the  House  adjourned. 


THUBSDAY,  February  18. 
A  new  member,  to  wit,  EGBERT  RAYMOND 
REED,  from  Georgia,  elected  to  supply  the  va- 
cancy occasioned  by  the  resignation  of  John 
Forsyth,  appeared,  produced  his  credentials,  was 
qualified,  and  took  his  seat. 

Arkansas  Territory — Restriction  of  Slavery. 

The  House  then  proceeded  to  the  considera- 
tion of  the  report  of  the  committee  on  the  bill 
to  establish  a  separate  Territorial  government 
in  the  southern  part  of  the  present  Missouri 
Territory. 

Mr.  TAYLOE  moved  to  amend  the  same  by  in- 
serting the  following  proviso  in  the  bill: 

"  That  the  further  introduction  of  slavery,  or  in- 
voluntary servitude,  be  prohibited,  except  for  the 
punishment  of  crimes,  whereof  the  party  shall  have 
been  fully  convicted. 

"  And  that  all  children  born  within  the  said  State, 
after  the  admission  thereof  into  the  Union,  shall  be 
free  at  the  age  of  twenty-five  years." 

The  question  on  this  motion  being  divided, 
was  first  taken  on  agreeing  to  the  first  clause 
thereof,  in  the  following  words : 

"  That  the  further  introduction  of  slavery,  or  in- 
voluntary servitude,  be  prohibited,  except  for  the 
punishment  of  crimes,  whereof  the  party  shall  have 
been  fully  convicted." 

And  decided  in  the  negative — yeas  70,  nays 
71,  as  follows: 

YEAS.— Messrs.  Adams,  Allen  of  Massachusetts, 
Anderson  of  Pennsylvania,  Barber  of  Ohio,  Bateman, 
Bennett,  Boden,  Boss,  Comstock,  Crafts,  Cushman, 
Darlington,  Drake,  Folger,  Fuller,  Hall  of  Delaware, 
Hasbrouck,  Hendricks,  Herrick,  Heister,  Hitchcock, 
Hostetter,  Hnbbard,  Hunter,  Huntington,  Irving  of 
New  York,  Lawyer,  Lincoln,  Linn,  Livermore,  W. 
Maclay,  W.  P.  Maclay,  Marchand,  Mason  of  Rhode 
Island,  Merrill,  Robert  Moore,  Samuel  Moore,  Mor- 
ton, Mosely,  Murray,  Jeremiah  Nelson,  Ogle,  Orr, 
Palmer,  Patterson,  Pawling,  Rice,  Rich,  Richards, 
Rogers,  Ruggles,  Sampson,  Savage,  Scudder,  Seybert, 


Sherwood,  Spencer,  Southard,  Tallmadge,  Tarr,  Tay- 
lor, Terry,  Tompkins,  Townsend,  Wallace,  Wendover, 
Whiteside,  Williams  of  Connecticut,  Williams  of  New 
York,  and  Wilson  of  Pennsylvania. 

NAYS. — Messrs.  Anderson  of  Kentucky,  Austin, 
Ball,  Barbour  of  Virginia,  Bassett,  Bayley,  Beecher, 
Bloomfield,  Blount,  Bryan,  Burwell,  Butler  of  Louisi- 
ana, Cobb,  Cook,  Crawford,  Cnlbreth,  Desha,  Earle, 
Edwards,  Garnett,  Hall  of  North  Carolina,  Harrison, 
Hogg,  Holmes,  Johnson  of  Virginia,  Johnson  of  Ken- 
tucky, Jones,  Kinsey,  Lewis,  Little,  Lowndes,  Mc- 
Lane  of  Delaware,  McLean  of  Illinois,  McCoy,  Marr, 
Mason  of  Massachusetts,  H.  Nelson,  T.  M.  Nelson, 
New,  Newton,  Ogden,  Owen,  Parrott,  Pegram,  Pe- 
ter, Pindall,  Pleasants,  Porter,  Quarles,  Reed  of 
Georgia,  Rhea,  Robertson,  Sawyer,  Settle,  Shaw, 
Simkins,  Slocumb,  S.  Smith,  Alex.  Smyth,  J.  S. 
Smith,  Speed,  Stewart  of  North  Carolina,  Storrs, 
Stuart  of  Maryland,  Terrell,  Trimble,  Tucker  of 
Virginia,  Tucker  of  South  Carolina,  Tyler,  Walker  of 
North  Carolina,  and  Williams  of  North  Carolina. 

So  that  part  of  Mr.  TAYLOB'S  motion  was  de- 
cided in  the  negative. 

The  question  was  then  taken  on  the  remain- 
ing clause  of  said  proposed  amendment,  in  the 
following  words : 

"  And  all  children  born  of  slaves  within  the  said 
Territory,  shall  be  free,  but  may  be  held  to  service 
until  the  age  of  twenty-five  years." 

And  decided  in  the  affirmative — yeas  75,  nays 
73,  as  follows : 

YEAS. — Messrs.  Adams,  Anderson  of  Pennsylvania, 
Barber  of  Ohio,  Bateman,  Bennett,  Boden,  Boss, 
Comstock,  Crafts,  Cushman,  Darlington,  Drake,  El- 
licott,  Folger,  Fuller,  Gilbert,  Hall  of  Delaware, 
Hasbrouck,  Hendricks,  Herrick,  Heister,  Hitchcock, 
Hostetter,  Hubbard,  Hunter,  Huntington,  Irving  of 
New'York,  Kirtland,  Lawyer,  Lincoln,  Linn,  Liver- 
more,  W.  Maclay,  W.  P.  Maclay,  Marchand,  Merrill, 
Mills,  Robert  Moore,  Samuel  Moore,  Morton,  Mose- 
ly, Murray,  J.  Nelson,  Ogle,  Orr,  Palmer,  Patter- 
son, Pawling,  Rice,  Rich,  Richards,  Rogers,  Ruggles, 
Sampson,  Savage,  Schuyler,  Scudder,  Seybert,  Sher- 
wood, Southard,  Spencer,  Tallmadge,  Tarr,  Taylor, 
Terry,  Tompkins,  Townsend,  Wallace,  Wendover, 
Westerlo,  Whiteside,  Williams  of  Connecticut,  Wil- 
liams of  North  Carolina,  Williams  of  New  York, 
and  Wilson  of  Pennsylvania. 

NAYS. — Messrs.  Abbott,  Anderson  of  Kentucky, 
Austin,  Ball,  Barbour  of  Virginia,  Bassett,  Bayley, 
Beecher,  Bloomfield,  Blount,  Bryan,  Burwell,  But- 
ler of  Louisiana,  Cobb,  Cook,  Crawford,  Cruger, 
Culbreth,  Desha,  Earle,  Edwards,  Garnett,  Hall  of 
North  Carolina,  Harrison,  Hogg,  Holmes,  Johnson 
of  Virginia,  Johnson  of  Kentucky,  Jones,  Kinsey, 
Lewis,  Little,  Lowndes,  McLane  of  Delaware,  McLean 
of  Illinois,  McCoy,  Marr,  Mason  of  Massachusetts, 
Middleton,  H.  Nelson,  T.  M.  Ntlson,  Nesbitt,  New, 
Ogden,  Owen,  Parrott,  Pegram,  Peter,  Pindall, 
Pleasants,  Quarles,  Reed  of  Maryland,  Reed  of 
Georgia,  Rhea,  Robertson,  Sawyer,  Settle,  Shaw, 
Simkins,  Slocumb,  S.  Smith,  Alexander  Smyth,  J.  S. 
Smith,  Speed,  Stewart  of  North  Carolina,  Storrs, 
Stuart  of  Maryland,  Terrell,  Trimble,  Tucker  of 
Virginia,  Tucker  of  South  Carolina,  Tyler,  and 
Walker  of  North  Carolina. 

So  that  part  of  Mr.  TAYLOB'S  motion  was 
agree  to. 


DEBATES  OF  CONGRESS. 


365 


FEBRUARY,  1819.] 


Arkansas  Territory — Restriction  of  Slavery. 


[H.  OF  R. 


Mr.  WILLIAMS,  of  North  Carolina,  then  moved 
to  reconsider  the  vote  just  taken.  He  had 
voted  with  the  majority,  for  the  purpose  of  ob- 
taining for  himself  the  privilege  of  moving  a 
reconsideration,  wishing  for  a  full  expression  of 
the  opinion  of  the  House  on  this  important 
question,  which  could  not  now  be  obtained,  as 
many  members  were  out  of  the  House. 

The  question  was  taken  on  reconsidering  the 
vote,  and  decided  in  the  negative — yeas  77, 
nays  79. 

The  question  being  then  stated  on  ordering 
the  bill  to  be  engrossed  for  a  third  reading — 

Mr.  BASSETT,  deeming  every  effort  called  for 
on  the  part  of  the  minority  on  this  subject,  to 
sustain  their  constitutional  rights,  which  he  con- 
sidered to  be  assailed  in  the  amendment  just 
adopted,  moved  that  the  bill  be  recommitted  to 
a  select  committee. 

Some  conversation  took  place  between  Messrs. 
PINDALL,  COLSTON,  EDWABDS,  SOOTT,  LOWNDES, 
and  MILLS,  as  to  the  course  now  most  expedient 
to  give  the  bill ;  in  the  course  of  which, 

Mr.  LOWNDES  moved  that  the  bill  be  laid  on 
the  table,  stating  at  the  same  time  that,  to  pre- 
vent its  being  called  up,  and  decided  by  surprise, 
he  should,  at  12  o'clock  to-morrow,  move  for  a 
call  of  the  House,  and  take  up  the  bill  for  a  de- 
cision. This  motion  prevailed,  and 

The  bill  was  laid  on  the  table. 

Alabama  State  Government. 

The  House  next  took  up  the  amendments  re- 
ported by  the  Committee  of  the  Whole  to  the 
bill  from  the  Senate,  to  authorize  a  State  gov- 
ernment in  the  Territory  of  Alabama,  and  for 
its  admission  into  the  Union. 

The  amendments  were  concurred  in  by  the 
House,  and,  after  an  ineffectual  attempt  by  Mr. 
CEO  WELL  further  to  amend  one  of  the  sections, 
were  ordered  to  be  engrossed,  and,  with  the  bill, 
read  a  third  time. 


FRIDAY,  February  19. 

Arkansas  Territory — Restriction  of  Slavery. 

The  House  then  proceeded  to  the  considera- 
tion of  the  bill  to  establish  a  separate  Territorial 
government  in  the  southern  part  of  the  Missouri 
Territory. 

A  motion  was  made  by  Mr.  ROBEBTSON,  of 
Kentucky,  with  the  view  of  obtaining  the 
erasure  of  the  amendment  yesterday  adopted,  to 
recommit  the  bill  to  a  select  committee,  with 
instructions  to  strike  out  these  words :  "  And 
all  children  born  of  slaves  within  the  said  Ter- 
ritory, shall  be  free,  but  may  be  held  to  service 
until  the  age  of  twenty-five  years." 

And  the  question  being  taken  thereon,  was 
decided  as  follows :  For  the  recommitment  88, 
against  it  88. 

YEAS. — Messrs.  Abbott,  Anderson  of  Kentucky, 
Austin,  Baldwin,  Ball,  Barbour  of  Virginia,  Bassett, 
Bayley,  Beecber,  Bloomfield,  Blount,  Bryan,  Bnr- 
well,  Butler  of  Louisiana,  Campbell,  Cobb,  Colston, 
Cook,  Craw-ford,  Cruger,  Davidson,  Desha,  Earle, 


Edwards,  Ervin  of  South  Carolina,  Fisher,  Floyd, 
Garnett,  Hall  of  North  Carolina,  Harrison,  Hogg, 
Holmes,  Johnson  of  Virginia,  Johnson  of  Kentucky, 
Jones,  Kinsey,  Lewis,  Little,  Lowndes,  McLane  of 
Delaware,  McLean  of  Illinois,  McCoy,  Marr,  Mason 
of  Massachusetts,  Mercer,  Middleton,  H.  Nelson,  T. 
M.  Nelson,  Nesbitt,  New.  Newton,  Ogden,  Owen, 
Parrott,  Pegram,  Peter,  Pindall,  Pleasants,  Poindex- 
ter,  Quarles,  Eeed  of  Md.,  Reed  of  Georgia,  Rhea, 
Ringgold,  Robertson,  Sawyer,  Settle,  Shaw,  Simkins, 
Slocumb,  S.  Smith,  Ballard  Smith,  Alexander  Smyth, 
J.  S.  Smith,  Speed,  Stewart  of  North  Carolina, 
Storrs,  Strother,  Stuart  of  Maryland,  Terrell,  Trim- 
ble, Tucker  of  Virginia,  Tucker  of  South  Carolina, 
Tyler,  Walker  of  North  Carolina,  Walker  of  Ken- 
tucky, Whitman,  and  Williams  of  North  Carolina. 

NAYS. — Messrs.  Adams,  Allen  of  Massachusetts, 
Anderson  of  Pennsylvania,  Barber  of  Ohio,  Bateman, 
Bennett,  Boden,  Boss,  Clagett,  Comstock,  Crafts, 
Cushman,  Darlington,  Drake,  Ellicott,  Folger,  Fuller, 
Gage,  Gilbert,  Hale,  Hall  of  Delaware,  Hasbrouck, 
Hendricks,  Herkimer,  Herrick,  Heister,  Hitchcock, 
Hopkinson,  Hostetter,  Hubbard,  Hunter,  Huntington, 
Irving  of  New  York,  Kirtland,  Lawyer,  Lincoln,  Linn, 
Livermore,  W.  Maclay,  W.  P.  Maclay,  Marchand,  Ma- 
son of  Rhode  Island,  Merrill,  Mills,  Robert  Moore, 
Samuel  Moore,  Morton,  Mosely,  Murray,  Jeremiah 
Nelson,  Ogle,  Orr,  Palmer,  Patterson,  Pawling,  Pit- 
kin,  Porter,  Rice,  Rich,  Richards,  Rogers,  Ruggles, 
Sampson,  Savage,  Schuyler,  Scudder,  Sergeant,  Sey- 
bert,  Sherwood,  Silsbee,  Southard,  Spencer,  Tall- 
madge,  Tarr,  Taylor,  Terry,  Tompkins,  Townsend, 
Upham,  Wallace,  Wendover,  Westerlo,  Whiteside, 
Wilkins,  Williams  of  Con.,  Williams  of  New  York, 
Wilson  of  Massachusetts,  and  Wilson  of  Pennsylvania. 

There  being  an  equal  division,  the  SPEAKEB 
declared  himself  in  the  affirmative ;  and  so  the 
said  motion  was  carried ;  and  Messrs.  ROBEBT- 
son,  SILSBEE,  BTJRWELL,  MILLS,  and  LOWNDES, 
were  appointed  the  said  committee. 

Mr.  ROBERTSON,  from  the  committee  to  whom 
was  this  day  referred  the  bill  establishing  a 
separate  Territorial  government  for  the  south- 
ern part  of  the  Territory  of  Missouri,  with  in- 
structions to  amend  the  same  by  striking  out 
these  words :  "  And  all  children  born  of  slaves 
within  the  said  Territory,  shall  be  free,  but  may 
be  held  to  service  until  the  age  of  twenty-five 
years,"  reported  the  same,  amended  agreeably 
to  the  said  instructions. 

Mr.  MEEOEE  expressed  his  views  of  this  ques- 
tion in  a  short  speech. 

The  question  was  then  taken  to  concur  with 
the  select  committee  in  striking  out  the  said 
words,  and  passed  in  the  affirmative — yeas  89, 
nays  87,  as  follows : 

YEAS. — Messrs.  Abbott,  Anderson  of  Kentucky, 
Austin,  Baldwin,  Ball,  Barbour  of  Virginia,  Bassett, 
Bayley,  Beecher,  Bloomfield,  Blount,  Bryan,  Burwell, 
Butler  of  Louisiana,  Campbell,  Cobb,  Colston,  Cook, 
Crawford,  Crnger,  Culbreth,  Davidson,  Desha,  Earle, 
Edwards,  Ervin  of  South  Carolina,  Fisher,  Floyd, 
Garnett,  Hall  of  North  Carolina,  Harrison,  Hogg, 
Holmes,  Johnson  of  Virginia,  Johnson  of  Kentucky, 
Jones,  Kinsey,  Lewis,  Little,  Lowndes,  McLane  of 
Delaware,  McLean  of  Illinois,  McCoy,  Marr,  Ma- 
son of  Miissai'lin-ftK  Mercer,  Middleton,  H.  Nelson, 
T.  M.  Nel.-un.  Nesbitt,  New,  Newton,  Ogden,  Owen, 


366 


ABKIDGMENT  OF  THE 


H.  OF  R.] 


Arkansas  Territory — Restriction  of  Slavery. 


[FEBRUARY,  1819. 


Parrott,  Pegram,  Peter,  Pindall,  Pleasants,  Poindex- 
ter,  Quarles,  Reed  of  Maryland,  Reed  of  Georgia, 
Rhea,  Ringgold  Robertson,  Sawyer,  Settle,  Shaw, 
Simkins,  Slocumb,  S.  Smith,  Ballard  Smith,  Alex. 
Smyth,  J.  S.  Smith,  Speed,  Stewart  of  North  Caro- 
lina, Storrs,  Strother,  Stuart  of  Maryland,  Terrell, 
Trimble,  Tucker  of  Virginia,  Tucker  of  South  Caro- 
lina, Tyler,  Walker  of  North  Carolina,  Walker  of 
Kentucky,  Whitman,  and  Williams  of  North  Caro- 
lina. 

NAYS.— Messrs.  Adams,  Allen  of  Massachusetts, 
Anderson  of  Pennsylvania,  Barber  of  Ohio,  Bateman, 
Bennett,  Boden,  Boss,  Clagett,  Comstock,  Crafts, 
Cushman,  Darlington,  Drake,  Ellicott,  Folger, 
Fuller,  Gage,  Gilbert,  Hale,  Hasbrouck,  Hen- 
dricks,  Herkimer,  Herrick,  Heister,  Hitchcock, 
Hopkinson,  Hostetter,  Hubbard,  Hunter,  Hunt- 
ington,  Irving  of  New  York,  Kirtland,  Lawyer,  Lin- 
coln, Linn,  Livermore,  W.  Maclay,  W.  P.  Maclay, 
Marchand,  Mason  of  Rhode  Island,  Merrill,  Mills, 
Robert  Moore,  Samuel  Moore,  Morton,  Mosely,  Mur- 
ray, Jeremiah  Nelson,  Ogle,  Orr,  Palmer,  Patterson, 
Pawling,  Pitkin,  Porter,  Rice,  Rich,  Richards, 
Rogers,  Ruggles,  Savage,  Schuyler,  Scudder,  Ser- 
geant, Seybert,  Sherwood,  Silsbee,  Southard,  Spencer, 
Tallmadge,  Tarr,  Taylor,  Terry,  Tompkins,  Town- 
send,  Upham,  Wallace,  Wendover,  Westerlo,  White- 
side,  Wilkin,  Williams  of  Connecticut,  Williams  of 
New  York,  Wilson  of  Massachusetts,  and  Wilson  of 
Pennsylvania. 

So  the  House  determined,  by  a  majority  of 
two  votes,  to  strike  out  the  clause  imposing  a 
restriction  on  slavery  in  the  proposed  new  Ter- 
ritory of  Arkansas. 

Mr.  TAYLOR  then  moved  to  amend  the  bill  by 
inserting  a  provision  "  that,  during  the  existence 
of  the  Territorial  government  of  Arkansas,  no 
slaves  shall  be  brought  into  the  said  Territory, 
to  remain  therein  for  a  longer  time  than  nine 
months  from  the  date  of  their  arrival." 

Mr.  PITKIN  supported,  at  some  length,  the 
amendment. 

Mr.  WHITMAN,  of  Massachusetts,  spoke  at 
some  length,  to  explain  the  reason  why  he 
should  vote  against  imposing  the  slavery  re- 
striction on  the  Territory  of  Arkansas,  while  in 
favor  of  imposing  it  on  the  State  of  Missouri. 
The  more  southern  position  of  Arkansas  was 
the  reason. 

Mr.  TAYLOR,  then,  for  reasons  which  he 
stated,  modified  the  amendment,  to  read  as  fol- 
lows : 

"  That  neither  slavery  nor  involuntary  servitude 
shall  hereafter  be  introduced  into  the  said  Territory, 
otherwise  than  for  the  punishment  of  crimes,  whereof 
the  party  shall  have  been  duly  convicted." 

Mr.  MERCER,  after  earnestly,  and  at  some 
length,  supporting  his  views  on  this  subject, 
moved  to  amend  the  proposed  amendment,  by 
adding  thereto  the  following  proviso : 

"Provided,  That  nothing  herein  shall  divest  the 
inhabitants  of  Arkansas  of  their  rights  of  property  in 
the  slaves  which  they  now  hold,  or  the  natural  in- 
crease thereof;  nor  to  entitle  to  his  freedom  any 
slave  carried  therein,  and  held  there  for  a  period  not 
exceeding  nine  months." 


This  motion  was  negatived  without  a  divi- 
sion; and, 

The  question  being  then  taken  on  Mr.  TAY- 
LOR'S amendment,  was  determined  in  the  nega 
tive — yeas  86,  nays  90,  as  follows : 

YEAS. — Messrs.  Adams,  Allen,  Anderson  of  Penn- 
sylvania, Barber  of  Ohio,  Bateman,  Bennett,  Boden, 
Boss,  Clagett,  Comstock,  Crafts,  Cushman,  Darling- 
ton, Drake,  Ellicott,  Folger,  Fuller,  Gage.  Gilbert, 
Hale,  Hall  of  Delaware,  Hasbrouck,  Hendricks, 
Herkimer,  Herrick,  Heister,  Hitchcock,  Hopkinson. 
Hostetter,  Hubbard,  Hunter,  Huntington,  Irving  of 
New  York,  Kirtland,  Lawyer,  Lincoln,  Linn,  Liver- 
more,  W.  Maclay,  W.  P.  Maclay,  Marchand,  Ma- 
son of  Rhode  Island,  Merrill,  Mills,  Robert  Moore, 
Samuel  Moore,  Morton,  Mosely,  Murray,  Jer.  Nel- 
son, Ogle,  Orr,  Palmer,  Patterson,  Pawling,  Pitkin, 
Rice,  Rich,  Richards,  Rogers,  Ruggles,  Sampson, 
Savage,  Schuyler,  Scudder,  Sergeant,  Seybert,  Sher- 
wood, Silsbee,  Southard,  Spencer,  Tallmadge,  Tarr, 
Taylor,  Terry,  Tompkins,  Townsend,  Upham,  Wal- 
lace, Wendover,  Westerlo,  Whiteside,  Wilkin,  Wil- 
liams of  Connecticut,  Williams  of  New  York,  and 
Wilson  of  Pennsylvania. 

NAYS. — Messrs.  Abbott,  Anderson  of  Kentucky, 
Austin,  Baldwin,  Ball,  Barbour  of  Virginia,  Bassett, 
Bayley,  Beecher,  Bloomfield,  Blount,  Bryan,  Bur- 
well,  Butler  of  Louisiana,  Campbell,  Cobb,  Colston, 
Cook,  Crawford,  Cruger,  Culbreth,  Davidson,  Desha, 
Earle,  Edwards,  Ervin  of  South  Carolina,  Fisher, 
Floyd,  Garnett,  Hall  of  North  Carolina,  Harrison, 
Hogg,  Holmes,  Johnson  of  Virginia,  Johnson  of  Ken- 
tucky, Jones,  Kinsey,  Lewis,  Little,  Lowndes,  Mc- 
Lane  of  Delaware,  McLean  of  Illinois,  McCoy,  Marr, 
Mason  of  Massachusetts,  Mercer,  Middleton,  Hugh 
Nelson,  Thomas  N.  Nelson,  Nesbitt,  New,  Newton, 
Ogden,  Owen,  Parrott,  Pegram,  Peter,  Pindall,  Pleas- 
ants,  Poindexter,  Porter,  Quarles,  Reed  of  Maryland, 
Reed  of  Georgia,  Rhea,  Ringgold,  Robertson,  Sawyer, 
Settle,  Shaw,  Simkins,  Slocumb,  Samuel  Smith,  BaL 
Smith,  Alexander  Smyth,  J.  S.  Smith,  Speed,  Stew- 
art of  North  Carolina,  Storrs,  Strother,  Stuart  of 
Maryland,  Terrell,  Trimble,  Tucker  of  Virginia, 
Tucker  of  South  Carolina,  Tyler,  Walker  of  North 
Carolina,  Walker  of  Kentucky,  Whitman,  and  Wil- 
liams of  North  Carolina. 

Mr.  TAYLOR,  then,  after  stating  that  he 
thought  it  important  that  some  line  shoxild  be 
designated  beyond  which  slavery  should  not  be 
permitted,  &c.,  moved  the  following  amend- 
ment as  an  additional  section  to  the  bill : 

"  That  neither  slavery  nor  involuntary  servitude 
shall  hereafter  be  introduced  into  any  part  of  the 
Territories  of  the  United  States,  lying  north  of  36 
degrees  and  30  minutes  of  north  latitude."* 

Mr.  LIVERMORE  conceived  this  proposition  to 
be  made  in  the  true  spirit  of  compromise,  which 
ought  to  be  met,  but  suggested  a  different  line. 

Mr.  RHEA  opposed  this  amendment,  and 
spoke  against  any  amendment  or  restriction  of 
the  sort,  as  unconstitutional,  and  inconsistent 
with  the  treaty  with  France,  which  transferred 
to  us  the  territory  west  of  the  Mississippi. 


*  TMs  proposed  line,  while  exempting  Arkansas  from  th« 
restriction,  would  haye  included  the  State  of  Missouri  in  it, 
as  it  followed  the  latitude  of  86°  80  through  its  whole  course 
in  Louisiana. 


DEBATES  OF  CONGRESS. 


367 


FEBRUARY,  1819.] 


Deaf  and  Dumb  Asylum. 


[H.  OP  R. 


Mr.  OGLE  was  against  the  amendment,  because 
opposed  to  any  compromise  by  which  slavery  in 
any  of  the  Territories  should  be  recognized  or 
sanctioned  by  Congress. 

Mr.  STEOTHER  thought  it  would  be  better  to 
withdraw  the  amendment,  and  bring  forward 
the  principle  in  a  separate  bill,  and  argued  in 
support  of  his  view  of  the  question. 

Mr.  HARRISON'  assented  to  the  expediency  of 
establishing  some  such  line  of  discrimination ; 
but,  for  reasons  which  he  explained  at  large, 
proposed  a  different  one,  by  way  of  amendment 
to  the  amendment,  as  follows : 

"  That  all  that  part  of  the  present  Territory  of  Mis- 
souri, lying  north  of  a  line  to  he  run  due  west  from 
the  mouth  of  the  river  Des  Moines  to  the  territorial 
boundary  of  the  United  States,  shall  form  a  part  of 
the  Territory  of  Michigan ;  and  the  laws  now  in 
force  in  the  said  Territory  as  well  as  the  ordinance  of 
Congress  prohibiting  slavery  or  involuntary  servitude 
in  said  Territory  of  Michigan,  shall  be  in  force  in  that 
part  of  the  Missouri  Territory  lying  north  of  the  said 
east  and  west  line." 

Mr.  BARBOUR,  of  Virginia,  was  opposed  to 
Mr.  TAYLOR'S  amendment,  and  to  all  others  of  a 
similar  character ;  and  spoke  with  much  ear- 
nestness against  the  proposition  at  some  length, 
as  partial  and  inexpedient ;  arguing  that,  if  the 
principle  was  wrong  in  itself,  (and  the  question 
had  been  discussed  on  principle  alone,)  it  ought 
not  to  be  withheld  from  one  part  of  the  Terri- 
tory and  applied  to  another ;  that  it  was  legis- 
lating partially,  by  applying  a  rule  to  one  por- 
tion and  a  different  rule  to  another  portion  of 
citizens,  having  equal  rights,  and  placed  under 
similar  circumstances.  If  the  rule  was  wrong 
at  the  25th  degree  of  latitude,  it  was  equally  so 
at  the  40th.  He  argued  that  it  was  as  impolitic 
as  it  was  unjust  to  draw  this  line ;  it  was  proper 
to  let  a  future  Congress  act  on  it,  as  should  then 
appear  expedient ;  and  this  opinion,  as  well  as 
others  which  he  advanced,  he  maintained  at 
some  length. 

Mr.  ANDEBSOX,  of  Kentucky,  gave  the  amend- 
ment his  unqualified  disapprobation.  It  was  no 
compromise — its  friends  asked  every  thing  and 
gave  nothing — what  they  got  now  was  insured 
to  them,  and  what  they  conceded  now  would 
not  be  binding  on  a  future  Congress,  and  the 
same  principle  might  be  extended,  by  hereafter 
inserting  it  in  the  constitution  of  Arkansas, 
when  it  should  become  a  State.  Furthermore, 
the  principle  was  contrary  to  the  Treaty  of 
Cession  with  France,  and  he  could  not  agree  to 
any  compromise,  even  if  it  were  fairly  proposed ; 
all  of  which  views  he  strenuously  enforced. 

Mr.  LIVERMORE  replied,  and  argued  at  length 
to  show  that  the  compromise  was  fair  and  liber- 
al ;  also  that  the  Treaty  of  Cession  could  not 
bind  Congress  in  this  case,  as  it  was  out  of  the 
power  of  the  Government  to  admit  States  into 
the  Union  by  treaty ;  that  the  Territory  was 
purchased,  and  it  was  now  competent  for  the 
Government  to  dispose  of  ft  in  any  manner 
whatsoever,  either  to  sell  it,  recede,  &c. 

Mr.  BEECHER  followed  in  a  speech  of  near  an 


hour  in  length,  entering  into  an  inquiry  into 
the  whole  subject  presented  by  the  various  pro- 
positions brought  forward. 

Mr.  COBB  rose  to  put  an  end  at  once  to  a  de- 
bate, which  he  said  was  disagreeable  to  one 
part  of  the  House,  however  agreeable  it  might 
be  to  the  other ;  and  the  end  of  which,  if  un- 
checked, could  not  be  seen,  as  it  was  impossible 
to  foretell  what  number  of  amendments  might 
be  presented.  He  therefore  called  for  the  pre- 
vious question,  to  obtain  at  once  a  decision  on 
the  engrossment  of  the  bill. 

The  previous  question  was  refused  by  the 
House — ayes  67,  noes  74 ;  when 

Mr.  TAYLOR,  having  stated  that  he  perceived 
from  the  debate,  as  well  as  from  conversation, 
that  it  was  not  probable  any  line  would  be 
agreed  on  by  the  House,  or  any  compromise  of 
opinion  be  effected,  withdrew  his  amendment 

The  bill  was  then  ordered  to  be  engrossed, 
and  read  a  third  time.* 


MONDAY,  February  22.  " 
Deaf  and  Dumb  Asylum. 

Mr.  TERRY,  from  the  committee  to  which 
was  referred  the  petition  of  the  Connecticut 
Asylum,  for  the  education  and  instruction  of 
deaf  and  dumb  persons,  made  a  report,  which 
was  read ;  when  Mr.  T.  reported  a  bill  in  be- 
half of  the  Connecticut  Asylum  for  teaching 
the  deaf  and  dumb ;  which  was  twice  read,  and 
ordered  to  lie  on  the  table.  The  report  is  as 
follows : 

That  an  association  of  a  number  of  citizens  of  the 
State  of  Connecticut  was  formed  in  the  year  1815,  for 
the  purpose  of  estahb'shing  a  school  for  the  instruc- 
tion of  the  deaf  and  dumb.  Finding  great  numbers 
of  this  unfortunate  description  of  persons  in  our 
country  without  education,  and  without  any  attempts 
being  made  to  give  them  the  education  which  they 
are  capable  of  receiving,  and  actuated  by  a  benevo- 


*  This  was  the  first  debate  in  Congress  on  the  subject  of 
prohibiting  slavery  in  a  territory,  and  was  brought  on  in  a 
way  to  excite  the  highest  feeling  and  to  provoke  the  strong- 
est opposition.  The  Missouri  State  bill  had  just  been  lost 
under  the  attempt  to  prevent  it  in  that  State.  Passing 
further  south,  here  was  an  attempt  to  prohibit  in  a  territory 
which  extended  to  the  State  of  Louisiana  and  to  Texas— 
that  is  to  say,  to  the  whole  of  the  province  of  Louisiana 
south  of  Missouri— equivalent  to  an  attempt  to  exclude  it 
from  the  whole  province :  for,  if  excluded  from  the  southern 
half  of  the  province,  the  exclusion  would  follow  of  itself  in 
the  northern  half.  It  was  a  settled  territory— settled  under 
the  French  Government— had  an  actual  slave  population- 
and  was  in  the  latitude  of  Southern  products :  cotton,  to- 
bacco. It  was  the  most  obnoxious  case  in  which  the  at- 
tempt could  be  made,  and  calculated  to  bring  forward  the 
strongest  objections  to  it  The  strongest  objection  would 
have  been  constitutional  inability  to  impose  the  prohibi- 
tion ;  yet  such  an  inability  was  not  even  hinted  at  by  any 
member.  Able  men  from  the  slave  States  were  there,  and 
jealous  of  the  rights  of  their  section ;  but  no  one  raised  a 
constitutional  question.  Expedient  objections  only  were 
used,  and  the  treaty  obligation  to  protect  the  inhabitants  in 
their  property. 


368 


ABKIDGMENT  OF  THE 


H.  OF  R.] 


Bank  of  the  United  States. 


[FEBRUARY,  1819. 


lent  desire  to  rescne  them,  as  far  as  was  practicable, 
from  their  state  of  ignorance  and  degradation,  and 
to  fit  them  for  social  intercourse  and  happiness,  the 
associates,  by  voluntary  contribution,  raised  a  sum  of 
money  sufficient  to  defray  the  expense  of  sending  the 
reverend  Thomas  H.  Gallaudet  to  Europe,  for  the 
purpose  of  learning  the  modes  of  instruction  practised 
there.  Mr.  Gallaudet  went  to  England,  to  Scotland, 
and  to  France.  In  London,  he  did  not  find  a  dispo- 
sition in  the  teachers  to  communicate  instruction  so 
readily  as  the  benevolence  of  his  mission  seemed  to 
entitle  him  to  expect ;  but  he  had  the  good  fortune 
to  meet  there  the  Abbe  Sicard,  the  principal  of  the 
institution  for  the  instruction  of  the  deaf  and  dumb 
at  Paris,  a  gentleman  distinguished  for  talents,  bene- 
volence, and  devotion  to  the  interests  of  these  unfor- 
tunate persons.  The  Abbe  assured  him  that,  if  he 
would  go  to  Paris,  every  facility  should  be  afforded 
him  of  acquiring  a  knowledge  of  their  modes  of  in- 
struction ;  which  assurances  he  found  fully  realized 
upon  going  there.  The  Abbe  kindly  took  him  into 
the  school,  and  explained  to  him  every  thing  relating 
to  their  modes  of  instruction  and  management ;  but 
Mr.  Gallaudet  found  that  the  time  which  his  arrange- 
ments would  permit  him  to  spend  in  Paris  would  be 
much  too  short  to  enable  him  to  acquire  the  knowl- 
edge necessary  for  an  accomplished  instructor ;  and 
having  become  acquainted  with  Laurent  Clerc,  a 
pupil  of  the  Abbe,  and  for  eight  years  an  assistant 
instructor,  he  engaged  him  to  come  to  this  country 
as  an  instructor  in  the  school  about  to  be  established 
in  Connecticut.  They  arrived  here  in  August,  1816, 
and  Mr.  Clerc  is  still  an  assistant  to  Mr.  Gallaudet  in 
the  Connecticut  Asylum.  The  Legislature  of  Con- 
necticut, in  May,  1816,  incorporated  the  said  associ- 
ates by  their  aforesaid  name.  There  are  at  present 
in  the  school  more  than  fifty  pupils,  from  the  States 
of  New  Hampshire,  Massachusetts,  Vermont,  Rhode 
Island,  Connecticut,  New  York,  Pennsylvania,  Mary- 
land, Virginia,  and  Kentucky,  who  are  taught  by  five 
instructors,  and  who  pay  $200  per  annum,  each,  for 
tuition,  board,  washing,  and  lodging.  The  institu- 
tion is  open  for  the  reception  of  pupils  from  every 
part  of  the  Union ;  but  its  funds  (which  have  arisen 
almost  entirely  from  voluntary  contribution)  are  too 
small  to  admit  of  its  becoming  extensively  useful ; 
they  are  not  sufficient  even  to  erect  the  buildings  ne- 
cessary for  the  accommodation  of  the  present  number 
of  pupils. 

Considering  that  this  institution  is  calculated  not 
only  to  afford  instruction  to  the  deaf  and  dumb,  who 
are  to  be  found  in  all  parts  of  our  country,  but  also 
to  qualify  teachers  for  other  schools  which  may  be 
established  in  other  parts  of  the  Union,  and  consider- 
ing that  it  is  the  first  attempt  of  the  kind  in  the 
United  States,  and  that  it  has  been  raised  to  its  pres- 
ent condition  by  the  care  and  at  the  expense  of  chari- 
table individuals,  most  of  whom  had  no  particular 
interest  in  its  success,  the  committee  are  of  opinion 
that  it  is  worthy  of  the  patronage  of  Congress,  and 
that  the  prayer  of  the  petition  ought  to  be  granted ; 
and  for  that  purpose  they  report  a  bilL 

THURSDAY,  February  25. 
Bank  of  the  United  States. 
The  House  took  up  and  proceeded  to  consider 
the  report  of  the  Committee  of  the  Whole  on 
the  state  of  the  Union,  made  yesterday,  on  sev- 
eral subjects  referred  to  it  in  relation  to  the 
Bank  of  the  United  States ;  when 


Mr.  SPENCEE  withdrew  his  motion  to  lay  the 
said  report  upon  the  table. 

The  question  was  then  taken  to  concur  with 
the  Committee  of  the  Whole  in  their  disagree- 
ment to  the  resolution  submitted  by  Mr.  Joiix- 
SON,  of  Virginia,  in  the  following  words,  to  wit : 

"  Resolved,  That  the  Committee  on  the  Judiciary 
be  instructed  to  report  a  bill  to  repeal  the  act,  en- 
titled '  An  act  to  incorporate  the  subscribers  to  the 
Bank  of  the  United  States,'  approved  April  10,  1816." 

And  passed  in  the  affirmative — yeas  121,  nays 
30.' 

The  question  was  then  taken,  also,  to  concur 
with  the  Committee  of  the  Whole,  in  their  dis- 
agreement to  the  resolution  submitted  by  Mr. 
TEIMBLE,  in  the  following  words,  to  wit : 

"  Resolved,  by  the  Senate  and  House  of  Representa- 
tives of  the  United  States  of  America  in  Congress  as- 
sembled, That  the  Attorney-General  of  the  United 
States,  in  conjunction  with  the  District  Attorney  of 
the  State  of  Pennsylvania,  shall  immediately  cause  a 
scire  facias  to  be  issued,  according  to  the  23d  section 
of  the  '  Act  to  incorporate  the  subscribers  to  the  Bank 
of  the  United  States ;'  calling  on  the  corporation  cre- 
ated by  the  said  act  to  show  cause  wherefore  the 
charter  thereby  granted  shall  not  be  declared  for- 
feited, and  that  it  shall  be  the  duty  of  the  said  officers 
to  cause  such  proceedings  to  be  had  in  the  premises 
as  shall  be  necessary  to  obtain  a  final  judgment  there- 
on ;  for  the  expenses  of  which  Congress  will  here- 
after provide :" 

And  passed  in  the  affirmative— yeas  116,  nays 
39,  as  follows : 

YEAS.— Messrs.  Abbott,  Adams,  Allen,  Anderson  of 
Pennsylvania,  Anderson  of  Kentucky,  Baldwin,  Bate- 
man,  Bayley,  Bennett,  Bloomfield,  Boss,  Bryan,  Cla- 
get,  Cobb,  Colston,  Comstock,  Crafts,  Cruger,  Gush- 
man,  Darlington,  Davidson,  Earle,  Edwards,  Fisher, 
Folger,  Fuller,  Gage,  Garnett,  Gilbert,  Hale,  Herki- 
mer,  Holmes,  Hopkinson,  Hubbard,  Hunter,  Hunt- 
ington,  Jones,  Kinsey,  Kirtland,  Lawyer,  Lewis,  Lin- 
coln, Linn,  Little,  Lowndes,  McLane  of  Del,  W, 
Maclay,  W.  P.  Maclay,  McCoy,  Mason  of  Massachu- 
setts, Mason  of  Rhode  Island,  Mercer,  Merrill,  Mid- 
dleton,  Mills,  Samuel  Moore,  Morton,  Mosely,  Mur- 
ray, Jeremiah  Nelson,  H.  Nelson,  Newton,  Ogden, 
Orr,  Owen,  Parrott,  Pawling,  Peter,  Pitkin,  Pleas- 
ants,  Poindexter,  Porter,  Quarles,  Reed  of  Maryland, 
Reed  of  Georgia,  Rice,  Rich,  Ringgold,  Robertson, 
Ruggles,  Sampson,  Savage,  Sawyer,  Scudder,  Ser- 
geant, Settle,  Shaw,  Sherwood,  Silsbee,  Simkins, 
Slocumb,  S.  Smith,  Ballard  Smith,  Alexander  Smyth, 
J.  S.  Smith,  Southard,  Storrs,  Strother,  Stuart  of 
Maryland,  Tallmadge,  Taylor,  Terrell,  Terry,  Tomp- 
kins,  Townsend,  Tucker  of  Virginia,  Tucker  of  South 
Carolina,  Upham,  Walker  of  North  Carolina,  Wal- 
lace, Wendover,  Whitman,  Wilkin,  Williams  of  Con- 
necticut, Wilson  of  Massachusetts,  and  Wilson  of 
Pennsylvania. 

NAYS. — Messrs.  Austin,  Ball,  Barbour  of  Virginia, 
Barber  of  Ohio,  Bassett,  Blount,  Boden,  Burwell, 
Butler  of  Louisiana,  Campbell,  Desha,  Ervin  of  South 
Carolina,  Floyd,  Hall  of  North  Carolina,  Harrison, 
Hendricks,  Herrick,  Hitchcock,  Hogg,  Hostetter, 
Johnson  of  Virginia,  McLean  of  Illinois,  Marchand, 
Marr,  Robert  Moore,  T.  M.  Nelson,  Patterson,  Pe- 
gram,  Pindall,  Rhea,  Rogers,  Speed,  Spencer,  Tarr, 


DEBATES  OF  CONGKESS. 


MARCH,  1819.] 


Connecticut  Asylum. 


[H.  OF  R. 


Trimble,  Tyler,  Walker  of  Kentucky,  Williams  of 
New  York,  "and  Williams  of  North  Carolina. 

So  the  House  concurred  with  the  Com- 
mittee of  the  Whole  in  rejecting  both  resolu- 
tions. 

The  House  then  took  up  the  amendments  re- 
ported by  the  committee  to  the  bill  "  to  enforce 
those  provisions  of  the  act  to  incorporate  the 
subscribers  to  the  Bank  of  the  United  States, 
which  relate  to  the  right  of  voting  for  direc- 
tors." 

And  the  question  was  then  taken,  "Shall 
the  said  bill  be  engrossed  and  read  a  third 
time?"  and  passed  in  the  affirmative — yeas  98, 
nays  38, 

FRIDAY,  February  26. 
Military  Academy. 

Mr.  HIGH  having  obtained  the  floor,  remarked 
that  he  rose  for  the  purpose  of  submitting  a 
motion,  the  object  of  which  was  to  call  upon 
the  Secretary  of  "War  for  information  to  be 
communicated  at  the  next  session  of  Congress, 
in  relation  to  the  Military  Academy.  He  said 
he  had  been  induced  to  submit  the  motion  from 
a  belief  that,  either  in  the  organization  of  the 
government  of  the  Academy,  or  in  the  adminis- 
tration of  it,  there  were  some  defects;  and 
from  a  further  belief  that  Congress  were  not 
possessed  of  the  information  necessary  to  enable 
it  to  judge  whether  the  country  received  a  fair 
equivalent  for  the  large  expenditures  which 
were  annually  made  upon  that  institution.  He 
then  submitted  the  following  resolutions,  which 
were  adopted : 

Resolved,  That  the  Secretary  of  War  be  instructed 
to  report  to  this  House,  at  an  early  period  of  the 
next  session  of  Congress,  a  copy  of  such  rules  and 
regulations  as  shall  have  been  adopted  for  the  Gov- 
ernment of  the  Military  Academy ;  together  with  a 
list  of  the  cadets  which  were  attached  to  the  Acad- 
emy on  the  first  day  of  January,  1815,  and  of  such 
as  shall  have  been  appointed  between  the  said  first  of 
January,  and  30th  September,  1819;  exhibiting  the 
date  of  their  several  appointments,  with  the  States 
and  Territories  from  whence  they  came ;  a  list  of 
such  as  shall  have  resigned  or  shall  have  been  dis- 
missed, and  at  what  period  ;  also,  a  list  of  such  as  shall 
have  been  commissioned  in  the  army,  with  the  date 
of  their  commissions,  and  of  such  as  shall  have  re- 
signed, with  the  date  of  their  resignations. 

Resolv id,  also,  That  the  said  Secretary  be  instructed 
to  report  as  aforesaid,  whether  any,  and  if  any,  what 
legislative  provisions  are  necessary  for  the  more  con- 
venient organization  and  government  of  the  said 
academy,  the  better  to  insure  a  strict  obedience  to 
all  proper  orders,  and  a  suitable  respect  for  all  the 
rights  of  those  whose  duty  it  may  be  to  yield  obedi- 


SATTJBDAY,  February  27. 
Treaty  for  the  Acquisition  of  Florida. 
The   following   Message  was  received  from 

the'PBESIDEXT  OF  THE  UNITED  STATES  : 

VOL.  VL— 24 


To  the  Senate  and  House  of 

Representatives  of  the  United  States. 

The  treaty  of  amity,  settlement,  and  limits  between 
the  United  States  and  his  Catholic  Majesty  having 
been  on  the  part  of  the  United  States  ratified,  by 
and  with  the  advice  and  consent  of  the  Senate,  copies 
of  it  are  now  transmitted  to  Congress.  As  the 
ratification  on  the  part  of  Spam  may  be  expected  to 
take  place  during  the  recess  of  Congress,  I  recom- 
mend to  their  consideration  the  adoption  of  such 
Legislative  measures,  contingent  upon  the  event  of 
the  exchange  of  the  ratifications,  as  may  be  necessary 
or  expedient  for  carrying  the  treaty  into  effect,  in 
the  interval  between  the  sessions,  and  until  Congress 
at  their  next  session  may  see  fit  to  make  further 
provision  on  that  subject. 

JAMES  MONROE. 

WASHINGTON,  Feb.  26,  1819. 


MONDAY,  March  1. 
Connecticut  Asylum. 

The  House  next  agreed,  on  motion  of  Mr. 
TEBEY,  by  the  casting  vote  of  the  Speaker,  to 
take  up  the  bill  for  the  benefit  of  the  Connecti- 
cut asylum  for  the  deaf  and  dumb,  [granting 
to  it  a  donation  of  six  sections  of  the  public 
lands.] 

Mr.  TEEEY  briefly  adverted  to  the  humane 
object  of  this  institution,  its  general  and  exten- 
sive utility,  the  number  of  unhappy  objects  who 
were  already  receiving  the  benefis  of  the  asy- 
lum, &c.  The  bill  was  also  supported  by  Mr. 
HAEEISON,  who  agreed  in  opinion  as  to  its 
general  utility — there  being  numbers  of  the 
unfortunate  beings  for  whose  benefit  it  was  in- 
tended, scattered  through  many  of  the  States, 
if  not  all,  &c. 

The  bill  was  opposed  by  Mr.  BASSETT,  who 
deemed  the  institution  entirely  a  local  one,  not 
deserving,  more  than  any  other  local  object,  the 
expenditure  of  national  funds  on  it.  He  sym- 
pathized with  the  subjects  in  the  institution, 
but  it  was  not  a  charitable  one,  as  the  rich 
alone,  he  understood,  received  the  benefits  of 
the  asylum;  and  he  wa$  unwilling  to  tax  the 
poor  for  their  support ;  and  it  was  furthermore 
a  precedent  which  might  hereafter  be  regretted 
when  too  late.  He  moved  the  commitment  of 
the  bill. 

Mr.  TEEEY  replied  that  the  institution  was 
strictly  charitable,  as  it  was  almost  exclusively 
used  for  the  benefit  of  the  indigent. 

Mr.  POINDEXTEB  was  unwilling  to  vote  a  dona- 
tion of  the  public  lands  for  this  object;  a  simi- 
lar donation  had  been  refused  to  the  individual 
States  for  the  benefit  of  a  university,  &c. 

Mr.  PITKIX  replied  to  the  opponents  of  the 
bill  at  some  length,  and  supported  the  humanity 
and  extensive  usefulness  and  benign  effects  of 
the  institution. 

The  motion  to  commit  the  bill  was  lost ;  and 
the  question  being  on  a  third  reading,  the  de- 
bate became  more  extensive — it  being  supported 
liy  M>— rs.  OKI?,  TEKKY,  COLSTOX,  and  MERCER; 
and  opposed  by  Messrs  UASSETT  and  BAEBOUE; 
the  last-named" gentleman  moving  the  indefinite 


370 


ABRIDGMENT  OF  THE 


H.  OP  R.]       Afissouri  State  Government — Disagreement  of  the  two  Houses — Senate  Adheres.      [MARCH,   1819. 


postponement  of  the  bill,  which  was  negatived 
— ayes  43,  noes  60,  and  the  bill  was  then  or- 
dered to  be  engrossed  for  a  third  reading  to- 
day. 

Occupation  of  Florida. 

The  House  then,  on  motion  of  Mr.  HOLMES, 
resolved  itself  into  a  Committee  of  the  Whole 
on  the  state  of  the  Union,  to  which  was  referred 
the  bill  authorizing  the  President  of  the  United 
States  to  take  possession,  under  the  treaty  with 
Spain,  of  East  and  West  Florida,  and  provid- 
ing for  the  temporary  government  of  the  terri- 
tory. 

Mr.  HOLMES  moved  to  amend  the  bill,  by  in- 
serting a  provision  to  authorize  the  appointment 
of  commissioners  for  the  adjustment  of  the 
claims,  and  of  the  western  boundary,  in  pur- 
suance of  the  stipulations  of  the  treaty,  and  pro- 
viding the  sum  of dollars  to  defray  the  ex- 
penses of  the  said  commission. 

The  question  was  then  taken  on  the  proposed 
amendment,  and  decided  in  the  negative  with- 
out a  division  ;  and  the  bill  was  ordered  to  be 
engrossed,  and  was  subsequently  read  a  third 
time,  passed,  and  sent  to  the  Senate  for  con- 
currence. 


TUESDAY,  March  2. 

Missouri  State  Government — Disagreement  of 

the  two  Houses — Senate  Adheres. 

The  House  took  up  the  amendments  of  the 
Senate  to  the  bill  authorizing  the  formation  of  a 
State  government  for  the  Territory  of  Missouri, 
and  concurred  in  all  of  them,  except  that  which 
struck  out  the  prohibitory  clause  concerning 
the  admission  and  toleration  of  slavery. 

Some  debate  arising  again  on  the  principle  of 
this  amendment,  Mr.  TALLMADGE  moved  the 
indefinite  postponement  of  the  bih1. 

This  motion  was  discussed  at  some  length, 
Messrs.  MILLS,  TATLOE,  and  TALLMADGE,  sup- 
porting the  postponement,  and  Messrs.  SCOTT, 
ASTDERSON  of  KENTUCKY,  POINDEXTER,  TUCKER 
of  Virginia,  BARBOUR  of  Virginia,  and  BEECHER, 
opposing  it;  and  was  decided  in  the  negative — 
yeas  69,  nays  74,  as  follows : 

YEAS. — Messrs.  Adams,  Anderson  of  Pennsylvania, 
Barber  of  Ohio,  Bateman,  Bennett,  Boden,  Boss, 
Comstock,  Crafts,  Cushman,  Darlington,  Ellicott, 
Folger,  Fuller,  Gage,  Gilbert,  Hale,  Hall  of  Dela- 
ware, Hasbrouck,  Hendricks,  Herkimer,  Herrick, 
Hopkinson,  Hostetter,  Hubbard,  Hunter,  Irving  of 
New  York,  Kinsey,  Kirtland,  Lincoln,  Linn,  Liver- 
more,  W.  Maclay,  W.  P.  Maclay,  Mason  of  Rhode 
Island,  Merrill,  Mills,  Samuel  Moore,  Murray,  Jere- 
miah Nelson,  Ogle,  Palmer,  Patterson,  Pawling,  Pit- 
kin,  Rice,  Rich,  Richards,  Rogers,  Rtiggles,  Sampson, 
Schuyler,  Sergeant,  Sherwood,  Silsbee,  Southard, 
Tallmadge,  Tarr,  Taylor,  Terry,  Tompkins,  Upham, 
Wallace,  Wendover,  Westcrlo,  Whiteside,  Wilkin, 
Williams  of  Connecticut,  and  Wilson  of  Pennsylvania 

NAYS. — Messrs.  Abbott,  Anderson  of  Kentucky, 
Austin,  Baldwin,  Ball,  Barbour  of  Virginia,  Bayley, 
Beecher,  Bloomfield,  Blonnt,  Burwell,  Butler  of 
Louisiana,  Campbell,  Cobb,  Colston,  Cook,  Crawford, 


Culbreth,  Davidson,  Desha,  Earle,  Edwards,  Ervin 
of  South  Carolina,  Floyd,  Hall  of  North  Carolina, 
Harrison,  Hogg,  Holmes,  Huntington,  Johnson  of 
Virginia,  Johnson  of  Kentucky,  Jones,  Lewis,  Little, 
Lowndes,  McLean  of  Illinois,  McCoy,  Marr,  Mason 
of  Massachusetts,  Mercer,  Middleton,  H.  Nelson,  T. 
M.  Nelson,  New,  Newton,  Ogden,  Owen,  Parrott, 
Pegram,  Peter,  Pindall,  Pleasants,  Poindexter,  Reed 
of  Georgia,  Rhea,  Ringgold,  Robertson,  Settle,  Sey- 
bert,  S.  Smith,  Ballard  Smith,  Alexander  Smyth, 
Speed,  Stewart  of  North  Carolina,  Strother,  Stuart 
of  Maryland,  Terrell,  Trimble,  Tucker  of  Virginia; 
Tucker  of  South  Carolina,  Tyler,  Walker  of  North 
Carolina,  Walker  of  Kentucky,  and  Williams  of  North 
Carolina. 

All  the  said  amendments  were  then  concurred 
in,  except  that  which  proposes  to  strike  out  the 
following  clause :  "  The  further  introduction  of 
slavery  or  involuntary  servitude,  be  prohibited, 
except  for  the  punishment  of  crimes,  whereof 
the  party  shall  have  been  duly  convicted.  And 
that  all  children  of  slaves  born  within  the  said 
State,  after  the  admission  thereof  into  the  Union, 
shall  be  free,  but  may  be  held  to  service  until 
the  age  of  twenty-five  years ;  "  and  insert,  "  the 
Legislature  of  the  said  State  shall  never  inter- 
fere with  the  primary  disposal  of  the  soil,  by 
the  United  States,  nor  with  any  regulations 
Congress  may  find  necessary  for  securing  the 
titles  in  such  soil,  to  the  bona  fide  purchasers ; 
and  that  no  tax  shall  be  imposed  on  lands,  the 
property  of  the  United  States ;  and  in  no  case 
shall  non-resident  proprietors  be  taxed  higher 
than  residents." 

Mr.  ADAMS  opposed  the  concurrence  at  some 
length". 

The  question  was  then  taken  to  concur  with 
the  Senate  in  striking  out  the  said  clause,  and 
determined  in  the  negative — yeas  76,  nays  78, 
as  follows : 

YEAS. — Messrs.  Abbott,  Anderson  of  Kentucky, 
Austin,  Baldwin,  Ball,  Barbour  of  Virginia,  Bavley, 
Bloomfield,  Blount,  Burwell,  Butler  of  Louisiana, 
Cobb,  Colston,  Cook,  Crawford,  Cruger,  Culbreth, 
Davidson,  Desha,  Earle,Edwards,  Ervin  of  South  Caro- 
lina, Fisher,  Floyd,  Garnett,  Hall  of  North  Carolina, 
Harrison,  Hogg,  Holmes,  Johnson  of  Virginia,  John- 
son of  Kentucky,  Jones,  Lewis,  Little,  Lowndes, 
McLane  of  Delaware,  McLean  of  Illinois,  McCoy, 
Marr,  Mason  of  Massachusetts,  Mercer,  Middleton, 
H.  Nelson,  T.  M.  Nelson,  New,  Newton,  Ogden, 
Owen,  Parrott,  Pegram,  Peter,  Pindall,  Pleasants, 
Poindexter,  Quarles,  Reed  of  Maryland,  Reed  of 
Georgia,  Rhea,  Ringgold,  Robertson,  Settle,  S.  Smith, 
Bal.  Smith,  Alex.  Smyth,  Spsed,  Stewart  of  North 
Carolina,  Strother,  Stewart  of  Maryland,  Terrell, 
Trimble,  Tucker  of  Virginia,  Tucker  of  South  Caro- 
lina, Tyler,  Walker  of  North  Carolina,  Walker  of 
Kentucky,  and  Williams  of  North  Carolina. 

NAYS. — Messrs.  Adams,  Allen,  Anderson  of  Penn- 
sylvania, Barber  of  Ohio,  Bateman,  Beecher,  Bennett, 
Boden,  Boss,  Campbell.  Comstock,  Crafts,  Cnshman, 
Darlington,  Drake,  Ellicott,  Folger,  Fuller,  Gage, 
Gilbert,  Hale,  Hall  of  Delaware,  Hasbrouck,  Hen- 
dricks, Herkimer,  Herrick,  Hopkinson,  Hostetter, 
Hub  jard,  Hunter,  Huntington,  Irving  of  New  York, 
Kinsey,  Kirtland,  Lincoln,  Linn,  Livermore,  W. 
Maclay,  W.  P.  Maclay,  Mason  of  Rhode  Island, 


DEBATES  OF  CONGRESS. 


371 


MARCH,  1819.] 


House  Adheres. 


(H.  OF  R. 


Merrill,  Mills,  Robert  Moore,  Samuel  Moore,  Murray, 
Jeremiah  Nelson,  Ogle,  Orr,  Palmer,  Patterson, 
Pawling,  Pitkin,  Rice,  Rich,  Richards,  Rogers,  Rug- 
gles,  Sampson,  Schuyler,  Sergeant,  Seybert,  Sherwood, 
SUsbee,  Southard,  Tallmadge,  Tarr,  Taylor,  Terry, 
Tompkins,  Upham,  Wallace,  Wendover,  Westerlo, 
Whiteside,  Wilkin,  Williams  of  Connecticut,  and 
Wilson  of  Pennsylvania. 

So  the  House  refused  to  agree  with  the 
Senate  in  striking  out  the  clause,  and  the  bill 
was  returned  to  the  Senate. 

House  Adheres. 

A  message  was  received  from  the  Senate,  an- 
nouncing that  they  adhered  to  their  amendment 
(striking  out  the  restriction  of  slavery)  to  the 
bill  authorizing  a  State  Government  for  the  Mis- 
souri Territory. 

The  said  message  was  then  taken  up ;  when 

Mr.  TAYLOR  moved  that  this  House  adhere  to 
its  disagreement  to  said  amendment ;  which  mo- 
tion brought  on  a  renewal  of  the  debate  on  the 
subject ;  in  which  the  restriction  was  zealously 
supported  by  Messrs.  TAYLOR,  MILLS,  and  TALL- 
MADGE,  and  as  zealously  opposed  by  Mr.  COBB. 

Mr.  COBB  observed  that  he  did  not  rise  for  the 
purpose  of  detaining  the  attention  of  the  House 
for  any  length  of  time.  He  was  too  sensible  of 
the  importance  of  each  moment  which  yet  re- 
mained of  the  session,  to  obtrude  many  remarks 
upon  their  patience.  But,  upon  a  measure  in- 
volving the  important  consequences  that  this 
did,  he  felt  it  to  be  an  imperious  duty  to  express 
his  sentiments,  and  to  enter  his  most  solemn 
protest  against  the  principle  proposed  for  adop- 
tion by  the  amendment.  Were  gentlemen 
aware  of  what  they  were  about  to  do  ?  Did 
they  foresee  no  evil  consequences  likely  to  re- 
sult out  of  the  measure  if  adopted  ?  Could  they 
suppose  that  the  Southern  States  would  submit 
with  patience  to  a  measure,  the  effect  of  which 
would  be  to  exclude  them  from  all  enjoyment 
of  the  vast  region  purchased  by  the  United 
States  beyond  the  Mississippi,  and  which  be- 
longed equally  to  them  as  to  the  Northern 
States  ?  He  ventured  to  assure  them  that  they 
would  not  The  people  of  the  slaveholding 
States,  as  they  are  called,  know  their  rights, 
and  will  insist  upon  the  enjoyment  of  them.  He 
should  not  now  attempt  to  go  over  ground  al- 
ready occupied  by  others,  with  much  more 
ability,  and  attempt  to  show  that,  by  the  treaty 
with  France,  the  people  of  that  territory  were 
secured  in  the  enjoyment  of  the  property  which 
they  held  in  their  slaves.  That  the  proposed 
amendment  was  an  infraction  of  this  treaty,  had 
been  most  clearly  shown.  Nor  would  he  at- 
tempt to  rescue  from  slander  the  character  of 
the  people  of  the  Southern  States  in  their 
conduct  towards,  and  treatment  of,  their 
black  population.  That  had  also  been  done, 
with  a  degree  of  force  and  eloquence  to  which 
he  could  pretend  no  claim,  by  the  gentleman 
from  Virginia,  (Mr.  BARBOUR,)  and  the  honor- 
able Speaker.  He  was,  however,  clearly  of 
opinion  that  Congress  possessed  no  power  un- 


der the  constitution  to  adopt  the  principle  pro- 
posed in  the  amendment.  He  called  upon  the 
advocates  of  it  to  point  out,  and  lay  their  finger 
upon,  that  clause  of  the  Constitution  of  the 
United  States  which  gives  to  this  body  the 
right  to  legislate  upon  the  subject.  Could  they 
show  in  what  clause  or  section  this  right  was 
expressly  given,  or  from  which  it  could  be  in- 
ferred ?  Unless  this  authority  could  be  shown, 
Congress  would  be  assuming  a  power,  if  the 
amendment  prevailed,  not  delegated  to  them, 
and  most  dangerous  in  its  exercise.  What  is 
the  end  and  tendency  of  the  measure  proposed  ? 
It  is  to  impose  upon  the  State  of  Missouri  condi- 
tions not  imposed  upon  any  other  State.  It  is 
to  deprive  her  of  one  branch  of  sovereignty  not 
surrendered  by  any  other  State  in  the  Union, 
not  even  those  beyond  the  Ohio ;  for  all  of  them 
had  legislated  upon  this  subject :  all  of  them 
had  decided  for  themselves  whether  slavery 
should  be  tolerated  at  the  time  they  framed 
their  several  constitutions.  He  would  not  now 
discuss  the  propriety  of  admitting  slavery.  It 
is  not  now  a  question  whether  it  is  politic  or 
impolitic  to  tolerate  slavery  in  the  United 
States,  or  in  a  particular  State.  It  was  a  dis- 
cussion into  which  he  would  not  permit  himself 
to  be  dragged.  Admit,  however,  its  moral  im- 
propriety :  yet  there  was  a  vast  difference  be- 
tween moral  impropriety  and  political  sover- 
eignty. The  people  of  New  York  or  Pennsyl- 
vania may  deem  it  highly  immoral  and  politi- 
cally improper  to  permit  slavery,  but  yet  they 
possess  the  sovereign  right  and  power  to  permit 
it,  if  they  choose.  They  can  to-morrow  so 
alter  their  constitutions  and  laws  as  to  admit  it, 
if  they  were  so  disposed.  It  is  a  branch  of 
sovereignty  which  the  old  thirteen  States  never 
surrendered  in  the  adoption  of  the  Federal  Con- 
stitution. Now  the  bill  proposes  that  the  new 
State  shall  be  admitted  upon  an  equal  footing 
with  the  other  States  of  the  Union.  It  is  in 
this  way  only  that  she  can  be  admitted,  under 
the  constitution.  These  words  can  have  no 
other  meaning  than  that,  she  shall  be  required 
to  surrender  no  more  of  her  rights  of  sover- 
eignty, than  the  other  States,  into  a  union  with 
which  she  is  about  to  be  admitted,  have  sur- 
rendered. But  if  the  proposed  amendment  is 
adopted,  will  not  this  new  State  be  shorn  of 
one  branch  of  her  sovereignty,  one  right,  which 
the  other  States  may  and  have  exercised, 
(whether  properly  or  not  is  immaterial,)  and  do 
now  exercise  whenever  they  think  fit. 

Mr.  0.  observed  that  he  did  conceive  the 
principle  involved  in  the  amendment  pregnant 
with  danger.  It  was  one,  he  repeated,  to  which 
he  believed  the  people  of  the  region  of  country 
which  he  represented  would  not  quietly  sub- 
mit. He  might  perhaps  subject  himself  to  ridi- 
cule for  attempting  the  display  of  a  spirit  of 
prophecy  which  he  did  not  possess,  or  of  zeal 
and  enthusiasm  for  which  ho  was  entitled  to 
little  credit.  But  he  warned  the  advocates  of 
this  measure  against  the  certain  effects  which 
it  must  produce.  Effects  destructive  of  the 


372 


ABRIDGMENT  OF  THE 


H.  OF  R.] 


Thanks  to  the  Speaker. 


[MARCH,  1819. 


peace  and  harmony  of  the  Union.  He  believed 
that  they  were*  kindling  a  fire  which  all  the 
waters  of  the  ocean  could  not  extinguish.  It 
could  be  extinguished  only  in  blood ! 

The  question  was  finally  taken  on  adhering  to 
the  former  decision  of  the  House,  and  decided 
in  the  affirmative,  by  yeas  and  nays.  For  ad- 
hering 78,  against  it  66,  as  follows : 

YEAS. — Messrs.  Adams,  Allen  of  Massachusetts, 
Anderson  of  Pennsylvania,  Barber  of  Ohio,  Bateman, 
Beecher,  Bennett,  Boss,  Campbell,  Comstock,  Crafts, 
Cushman,  Darlington,  Drake,  Ellicott,  Folger,  Fuller, 
Gage,  Gilbert,  Hale,  Hall  of  Delaware,  Hasbrouck, 
Hendricks,  Herkimer,  Herrick,  Hitchcock,  Hopkinson, 
Hostetter,  Hubbard,  Hunter,  Huntington,  Irving  of 
New  York,  Kinsey,  Lincoln,  Linn,  Livermore,  W. 
Maclay,  W.  P.  Maclay,  Mason  of  Khode  Island,  Mer- 
rill, Mills,  Robert  Moore,  Samuel  Moore,  Mosely, 
Murray,  J.  Nelson,  Ogle,  Orr,  Palmer,  Patterson, 
Pawling,  Pitkin,  Rice,  Rich,  Richards,  Rogers, 
Ruggles,  Sampson,  Schuyler,  Sergeant,  Sherwood, 
Silsbee,  Southard,  Tallmadge,  Tarr,  Taylor,  Terry, 
Tompkins,  Upham,  Wallace,  Wendover,  Westerlo, 
Whiteside,  Whitman,  Wilkin,  Williams  of  Connecti- 
cut, Wilson  of  Massachusetts,  and  Wilson  of  Penn- 
sylvania. 

NAYS.— Messrs.  Abbott,  Anderson  of  Kentucky, 
Austin,  Baldwin,  Ball,  Barbour  of  Virginia,  Bayley, 
Bloomfield,  Blount,  Burwell,  Butler  of  Louisiana, 
Cobb,  Colston,  Crawford,  Davidson,  Desha,  Edwards, 
Ervin  of  South  Carolina,  Fisher,  Floyd,  Garnett,  Har- 
rison, Herbert,  Hogg,  Holmes,  Johnson  of  Virginia, 
Jones,  Lewis,  Little,  Lowndes,  McLane  of  Delaware, 
McLean  of  Illinois,  McCoy,  Marr,  Mason  of  Massa- 
chusetts, Mercer,  Middleton,  H.  Nelson,  T.  M.  Nelson, 
Newton,  Ogden,  Owen,  Parrott,  Pegram,  Peter,  Pin- 
dall,  Pleasants,  Poindexter,  Reed  of  Georgia,  Rhea, 
Ringgold,  Settle,  S.  Smith,  Ballard  Smith,  Alexander 
Smyth,  Speed,  Stewart  of  North  Carolina.  Storrs, 
Strother,  Terrell,  Trimble,  Tucker  of  Virginia,  Tucker 
of  South  Carolina,  Tyler,  Walker  of  Kentucky,  and 
Williams  of  North  Carolina. 

The  adherence  of  the  two  Houses  to  their  re- 
spective opinions,  precluding  any  further  pro- 
positions or  compromise  on  the  subject,  the  bill 
was  of  course  lost.* 


WEDNESDAY,  March  3. 

Six  o'clock,  P.  M. 

Mr.  TATLOE  moved  the  House  to  come  to  the 
foUowing  order : 


*  This  was  the  end  of  the  bill,  and  it  left  the  two  Houses 
geographically  divided,  and  the  same  division  extending 
itself  with  electric  speed  to  the  States.  It  was  a  period  of 
deep  apprehension,  filling  with  dismay  the  hearts  of  the 
steadiest  patriots.  It  would  be  nine  months  before  Congress 
would  sit  again.  The  agitation,  great  as  it  was,  was  to  be- 
come greater,  and  no  one  could  foresee  its  bounds.  The 
movement  to  put  the  slavery  restriction  on  Arkansas,  and 
the  close  and  equivocal  votes  on  that  question,  greatly 
aggravated  the  Missouri  question,  and  seemed  to  menace 
the  slave  States  with  total  exclusion  from  the  province  of 
Louisiana.  To  judge  of  the  feelings  and  the  apprehensions 
of  that  day,  this  movement  to  restrict  Arkansas,  as  well  as 
Missouri,  must  bo  remembered,  and  how  much  it  increased 
the  heats  of  the  controversy. 


Ordered,  That  no  printing  directed  by  this  House 
to  be  executed  shall  be  received  from  the  printer,  by 
the  officers  thereof,  after  the  first  day  of  May  next. 

The  bill  from  the  Senate,  entitled  "  An  act  to 
establish  a  new  land  office  in  the  State  of  Illi- 
nois," was  read  the  first  time;  and,  on  the 
question,  u  Shall  the  said  bill  bo  read  the  second 
time  ?"  there  appeared — yeas  7.0,  nays  21,  as 
follows : 

YEAS.— Messrs.  Abbott,  Austin,  Baldwin,  Ball,  Bar- 
bour of  Virginia,  Barber  of  Ohio,  Bayley,  Butler  of 
Louisiana,  Cobb,  Comstock,  Davidson,  Drake,  Elli- 
cott, Fisher,  Floyd,  Folger,  Garnett,  Gilbert,  Hall 
of  North  Carolina,  Harrison,  Hendricks,  Herrick, 
Holmes,  Hubbard,  Irving  of  New  York,  Johnson  of 
Virginia,  Jones,  Lewis,  Lincoln,  Linn,  Livermore, 
McLean  of  Illinois,  Mason  of  Massachusetts,  Mercer, 
Middleton,  Samuel  Moore,  Mosely,  Jeremiah  Nelson, 
H.  Nelson,  Newton,  Ogle,  Owen,  Palmer,  Parrott, 
Pegram,  Peter,  Pitkin,  Reed  of  Maryland,  Reed  of 
Georgia,  Rhea,  Rich,  Ringgold,  Rogers,  Ruggles, 
Sampson,  Settle,  Seybert,  Silsbee,  Speed,  Storrs, 
Stuart  of  Maryland,  Tarr,  Tyler,  Upham,  Walker  of 
North  Carolina,  Walker  of  Kentucky,  Westerlo,  Wil- 
liams of  North  Carolina,  Wilson  of  Massachusetts, 
and  Wilson  of  Pennsylvania. 

NAYS. — Messrs.  Adams,  Bateman,  Bennett,  Dar- 
lington, Earle,  Hopkinson,  Little,  McLane  of  Dela- 
ware, W.  Maclay,  W.  P.  Maclay,  Murray,  Ogden, 
Schuyler,  Sergeant,  S.  Smith,  Southard,  Tallmadge, 
Terrell,  Terry,  Whitman,  and  Williams  of  Connecti- 
cut. 

Thus  it  appeared  that  a  quorum  was  not 
present. 

The  House  proceeded,  by  ballot,  to  the  elec- 
tion of  a  printer,  to  execute  the  printing  order- 
ed by  the  House  of  Eepresentatives  during  the 
next  Congress,  in  pursuance  of  the  "  Kesolution 
directing  the  manner  in  which  the  printing  of 
Congress  shall  be  executed,  fixing  the  prices 
thereof,  and  for  the  appointment  of  a  printer  or 
printers  to  Congress."  And,  upon  an  examina- 
tion of  the  ballots,  it  appeared  that  JOSEPH 
GALES,  Jr.,  and  WILLIAM  W.  SEATON,  under  the 
firm  of  GALES  and  SEATON,  were  duly  elected. 

A  message  from  the  Senate  informed  the 
House  that  the  Senate  have  elected  Gales  and 
Seaton,  printers  on  their  part,  to  execute  the 
printing  of  the  Senate  during  the  next  Con- 
gress, pursuant  to  the  resolution  on  that  sub- 
ject. They  have  passed  a  resolution  for  the  ap- 
pointment of  a  joint  committee  to  wait  on  the 
President  of  the  United  States,  and  inform  him 
that  the  two  Houses  of  Congress  are  about  to 
adjourn,  if  he  has  no  further  communications  to 
make  to  them,  and  have  appointed  a  committee 
on  their  part. 

The  said  resolution  was  read  and  concurred 
in  by  the  House,  and  Messrs.  PITKIN  and  HAB- 
RISON  were  appointed  of  the  said  committee  on 
their  part. 

Thanks  to  the  Speaker. 

On  motion  of  Mr.  HUGH  NELSON,  it  was 

Resolved,  unanimously,  That  the  thanks  of  this 
House  be  presented  to  the  honorable  Henry  Clay,  for 
the  able,  impartial,  and  dignified  manner  in  which 


DEBATES  OF  CONGRESS. 


373 


MARCH,  1819.] 


Thanks  to  the  Speaker. 


[H.  OF  R. 


he  has  presided  over  its  deliberations,  and  performed 
the  arduous  and  important  duties  of  the  Chair. 

Upon  which  Mr.  CLAY  rose,  and  addressed 
the  House  as  follows  : 

I  beg  you  to  receive,  gentlemen,  my  most  respect- 
ful acknowledgments  for  the  flattering  vote  yon  have 
done  me  the  honor  to  pass.  Always  entertaining  for 
this  House  the  highest  consideration,  the  expression 
of  your  approbation  conveys  a  gratification  as  pure 
as  it  is  indescribable.  I  owe  it  to  truth,  however,  to 
say,  gentlemen,  that,  but  for  the  almost  unlimited 
confidence  with  which  you  have  constantly  sustained 
the  Chair,  I  should  have  been  utterly  incompetent  to 
discharge  its  arduous  duties. 

If,  gentlemen,  in  the  course  of  our  deliberations, 
momentary  irritation  has  been  at  any  time  felt,  or 
unkind  expressions  have  ever,  in  the  heat  of  debate, 
fallen  from  any  of  us,  let  these  unpleasant  incidents 
be  consigned  to  oblivion,  and  let  us  recollect  only  the 
anxious  desire  which  has  uniformly  animated  every 
one  to  promote  what  appeared  to  him  to  be  for  the 
prosperity  of  our  common  country. 


One  painful  circumstance  fills  me  with  the  deepest 
regret.  It  is  that,  after  having  co-operated  with 
many  of  you,  with  some  for  years,  to  advance  the 
public  good,  we  separate  to  meet  perhaps  no  more. 
I  here  bear  testimony  to  the  fidelity  with  which  you 
have  all  labored  to  fulfil  the  high  and  honorable  trust 
committed  to  us  by  the  nation.  And  every  one  of 
you  will  carry  with  you  my  most  ardent  wishes  for 
your  individual  welfare  and  happiness. 

Mr.  PITKIN,  from  the  joint  committee  appoint- 
ed to  inform  the  President  of  the  United  States 
that  the  two  Houses  of  Congress  are  about  to 
adjourn,  if  he  had  no  further  communications 
to  make  to  them,  reported  that  the  committee 
had  waited  on  the  President  of  the  United  States, 
and  was  informed  by  him  that  he  had  no  fur- 
ther communications  to  make. 

A  message  was  then  received  from  the  Senate 
informing  the  House  that  the  Senate,  having 
completed  the  legislative  business  before  them, 
are  ready  to  adjourn ;  whereupon,  the  House 
adjourned  sine  die. 


374 


ABKIDGMENT  OF  THE 


SENATE.] 


Proceedings. 


[DECEMBER,  1819. 


SIXTEENTH  CONGBESS.—FIBST  SESSION. 


BEGUN    AT    THE    CITY    OF    WASHINGTON,    DECEMBER    6,   1819. 


PKOCEEDINGS  IN  THE  SENATE.* 


MONDAY,  December  6,  1819. 
The  first  session  of  the  Sixteenth  Congress, 
conformably  to  the  Constitution  of  the  United 
States,  commenced  this  day  at  the  city  of  Wash- 
ington, and  the  Senate  assembled. 

PRESENT. 

DAVID  L.  MOEEILL  and  JOHN  F.  PAEEOTT, 
from  New  Hampshire. 

PEENTISS  MELLEN  and  HARBISON  GEAY  OTIS, 
from  Massachusetts. 

JAMES  BUREILL,  jr.,  and  WILLIAM  HUNTEE, 
from  Ehode  Island  and  Providence  Plantations. 

ISAAC  TICHENOE  and  WILLIAM  A.  PALMEE, 
from  Vermont. 

SAMUEL  W.  DANA  and  JAMES  LANMAN,  from 
Connecticut. 

NATHAN  SANTOS  D,  from  New  York. 

MAHLON  DICKEESON  and  JAMES  J.  WILSON, 
from  New  Jersey. 

JONATHAN  EGBERTS  and  WALTEE  LOWBIE, 
from  Pennsylvania. 

OUTERBRIDGE    HoESEY    and    NICHOLAS    VAN 

DYKE,  from  Delaware. 

JAMES  BARBOUE,  from  Virginia. 

NATHANIEL  MACON,  from  North  Carolina. 

JOHN  GAILLAED  and  WILLIAM  SMITH,  from 
South  Carolina. 

JOHN  ELLIOTT,  from  Georgia. 

WILLIAM  LOGAN,  from  Kentucky. 

JOHN  WILLIAMS  and  JOHN  HENRY  EATON, 
from  Tennessee. 


BENJAMIN  RUGGLES  and  WILLIAM  A.  TEIM- 
BLE,  from  Ohio. 

JAMES  BEOWN,  from  Louisiana. 

JAMES  NOBLE  and  WALLEE  TAYLOB,  from  In- 
diana. 

WALTEE  LEAKE  and  THOMAS  H.  WILLIAMS, 
from  Mississippi. 

NINIAN  EDWAEDS  and  JESSE  B.  THOMAS,  from 
Illinois. 

JAMES  BAEBOUE,  President  pro  tempore,  re- 
sumed the  Chair. 

JAMES  LANMAN,  appointed  a  Senator  by  the 
Legislature  of  the  State  of  Connecticut,  for  the 
term  of  six  years,  commencing  on  the  fourth 
day  of  March  last;  NATHANIEL  MACON,  ap- 
pointed a  Senator  by  the  Legislature  of  the 
State  of  North  Carolina,  for  the  term  of  six 
years,  commencing  on  the  fourth  day  of  March 
last ;  JOHN  HENEY  EATON,  appointed  a  Senator 
by  the  Legislature  of  the  State  of  Tennessee,  for 
the  term  of  two  years,  in  place  of  George  W. 
Campbell,  resigned ;  JOHN  ELLIOTT,  appointed 
a  Senator  by  the  Legislature  of  the  State  of 
Georgia,  for  the  term  of  six  years,  commencing 
on  the  fourth  day  of  March  last ;  WILLIAM  A. 
TEIMBLE,  appointed  a  Senator  by  the  Legisla- 
ture of  the  State  of  Ohio,  for  the  term  of  six 
years,  commencing  on  the  fourth  day  of  March 
last;  JAMES  BROWN,  appointed  a  Senator  by 
the  Legislature  of  the  State  of  Louisiana,  for  the 
term  of  six  years,  commencing  on  the  fourth 
day  of  March  last ;  and  NINIAN  EDWAEDS,  ap- 


*LIST  OF  MEMBERS  OF  THE  SENATE. 

New  Hampshire— T)&\i&  L.  Morrill,  John  F.  Parrott 
Massachusetts.— Prentiss  Mellen,  Harrison  Gray  Otis. 
Connecticut. — Samuel  W.  Dana,  James  Lanman. 
Vermont. — Isaac  Tichenor,  William  A.  Palmer. 
Rhode  Island. — James  Burrill,  jr.,  William  Hunter. 
New  York. — Nathan  6anford,  Kufus  King. 
Pennsylvania. — Jonathan  Roberts,  Walter  Lowrie. 
New  Jersey. — Mahlon  Dickorson,  James  J.  Wilson. 
Delaware.— Outerbridge  Horsey,  Nicholas  Vandyke. 
Maryland.— Edward  Lloyd,  William  Pinkney. 


Virginia. — James  Barbour,  James  Pleasants. 
North  Carolina.— Nathaniel  Macon,  Montfort  Stokes. 
South  Carolina.— John  Gaillard,  William  Smith. 
Georgia.— John  Elliott,  Freeman  Walker. 
Kentucky.— William  Logan,  Richard  M.  Johnson. 
Tennessee. — John  II.  Eaton,  John  Williams. 
Ohio.— Benjamin  Ruggles,  William  A.  Trimble. 
Louisiana. — James  Brown,  Henry  Johnson. 
Alabama.— William  Rufus  King,  John  W.  Walker. 
Indiana.— James  Noble,  Waller  Taylor. 
Mississippi.— Walter  Leake,  Thomas  II.  Williams. 
Illinois.— Ninian  Edwards,  Jesse  B.  Thomas. 


DEBATES  OF  CONGKESS. 


375 


DECEMBER,  1819.] 


President's  Message. 


[SENATE. 


pointed  a  Senator  by  the  Legislature  of  the  State 
of  Illinois,  for  the  term  of  six  years,  commencing 
on  the  fourth  day  of  March  last ;  respectfully 
produced  their  credentials,  were  qualified,  and 
took  their  seats  in  the  Senate. 

The  oath  was  also  administered  to  Mr.  PAL- 
MER, Mr.  GAILLAED,  Mr.  PAREOTT,  Mr.  LOWBIE, 
and  Mr,  TAYLOR,  their  credentials  having  been 
filed  during  the  last  session. 

WILLIAM  LOGAN,  appointed  a  Senator  by  the 
Legislature  of  the  State  of  Kentucky,  for  the 
term  of  six  years,  commencing  on  the  fourth 
day  of  March  last,  stated  that  he  had  neglected 
bringing  his  credentials  with  him,  expecting 
they  would  be  forwarded  to  the  Senate  by  the 
proper  authority  of  the  State,  and  which  he 
still  supposed  would  speedily  be  done ;  where- 
upon the  oath  prescribed  by  law  was  adminis- 
tered to  him,  and  he  took  his  seat  in  the  Sen- 
ate. 

A  quorum  being  present,  and  the  House  of 
Representatives  being  advised  thereof,  the  Sen- 
ate proceeded  to  business. 

Alabama,  State  Government. 
The  PRESIDENT  laid  before  the  Senate  a  copy 
of  the  constitution  of  government  formed  by 
the  people  of  the  State  of  Alabama,  which  was 
referred  to  a  committee,  consisting  of  Messrs. 
WILLIAMS  of  Mississippi,  BROWN  and  MACON,  to 
consider  and  report  thereon. 

Death  of  Senator  Hanson. 

On  motion  of  Mr.  SANFORD, 

Itesohed,  That  the  members  of  the  Senate 
wear  the  usual  mourning  for  thirty  days,  as  a 
mark  of  respect  to  the  memory  of  the  honora- 
ble ALEXANDER  0.  HANSON,  a  Senator  from 
Maryland,  who  has  deceased  since  the  last  ses- 
sion. 

TUESDAY,  December  7. 
Mr.  BTJERILL  reported,  from  the  joint  com- 
mittee, that  they  had  waited  on  the  President 
of  the  United  States,  and  that  the  President  in- 
formed the  committee  that  he  would  make  a 
communication  to  the  two  Houses  this  day. 

President's  Message. 

The  following  Message  was  received  from  the 
PRESIDENT  OF  THE  UNITED  STATES  : 
Fellow-citizens  of  the  Senate 

and  of  the  House  of  Representatives : 

The  public  buildings  being  advanced  to  a  stage  to 
afford  accommodation  for  Congress,  I  offer  you  my 
sincere  congratulations  on  the  recommencement  of 
your  duties  in  the  Capitol. 

In  bringing  to  view  the  incidents  most  deserving 
attention,  which  have  occurred  since  your  last  session, 
I  regret  to  have  to  state,  that  several  of  our  principal 
cities  have  suffered  by  sickness;  that  an  unusual 
drought  has  prevailed  in  the  Middle  and  "U'.-.-u-ni 
States;  and  that  a  derangement  has  been  felt  in 
some  of  our  moneyed  institutions,  which  has  propor- 
tionably  affected  their  credit.  I  am  happy,  how- 


ever, to  have  it  in  my  power  to  assure  you  that  the 
health  of  our  cities  is  now  completely  restored ;  that 
the  produce  of  the  year,  though  less  abundant  than 
usual,  will  not  only  be  amply  sufficient  for  home  con- 
sumptionj  but  afford  a  large  surplus,  for  the  supply 
of  the  wants  of  other  nations ;  and  that  the  derange- 
ment in  the  circulating  paper  medium,  by  being  left 
to  those  remedies  which  its  obvious  causes  suggested, 
and  the  good  sense  and  virtue  of  our  fellow-citizens 
supplied,  has  diminished. 

Having  informed  Congress,  on  the  27th  of  Febru- 
ary last,  that  a  treaty  of  amity,  settlement,  and 
limits,  had  been  concluded,  in  this  city*  between  the 
United  States  and  Spain,  and  ratified  by  the  compe- 
tent authorities  of  the  former,  full  confidence  was 
entertained  that  it  would  have  been  ratified  by  His 
Catholic  Majesty,  with  equal  promptitude,  and  a  like 
earnest  desire  to  terminate,  on  the  condition  of  that 
treaty,  the  differences  which  had  so  long  existed  be- 
tween the  two  countries.  Every  view,  which  the 
subject  admitted  of,  was  thought  to  have  justified 
this  conclusion.  Great  losses  had  been  sustained  by 
citizens  of  the  United  States,  from  Spanish  cruisers, 
more  than  twenty  years  before,  which  had  not  been 
redressed.  These  losses  had  been  acknowledged  and 
provided  for  by  a  treaty,  as  far  back  as  the  year 
1802,  which,  although  concluded  at  Madrid,  was  not 
then  ratified  by  the  Government  of  Spain,  nor  since, 
until  the  last  year,  when  it  was  suspended  by  the  late 
treaty,  a  more  satisfactory  provision  to  both  parties, 
as  was  presumed,  having  been  made  for  them.  Other 
differences  had  arisen,  in  this  long  interval,  affecting 
their  highest  interests,  which  were  likewise  provided 
for  by  this  last  treaty.  The  treaty  itself  was  formed 
on  great  consideration,  and  a  thorough  knowledge  of 
all  circumstances,  the  subject-matter  of  every  article 
having  been  for  years  under  discussion,  and  repeated 
references  having  been  made,  by  the  Minister  of 
Spain,  to  his  Government,  on  the  points  respecting 
which  the  greatest  difference  of  opinion  prevailed. 
It  was  formed  by  a  Minister  duly  authorized  for  the 
purpose,  who  had  represented  his  Government  in  the 
United  States,  and  been  employed,  in  this  long  pro- 
tracted negotiation,  several  years;  and  who,  it  is 
not  denied,  kept  strictly  within  the  letter  of  his  in- 
structions. The  faith  of  Spain  was  therefore  pledged, 
under  circumstances  of  peculiar  force  and  solemnity, 
for  its  ratification. 

On  the  part  of  the  United  States,  this  treaty  was 
evidently  acceded  to  in  a  spirit  of  conciliation  and 
concession.  The  indemnity  for  injuries  and  losses, 
so  long  before  sustained,  and  now  again  acknowl- 
edged and  provided  for,  was  to  be  paid  by  them, 
without  becoming  a  charge  on  the  treasury  of  Spain. 
For  territory  ceded  by  Spam,  other  territory  of  great 
value,  to  which  our  claim  was  believed  to  be  woil 
founded,  was  ceded  by  the  United  States,  and  in  a 
quarter  more  interesting  to  her.  This  cession  was, 
nevertheless,  received,  as  the  means  of  indemnifying 
our  citizens,  in  a  considerable  sum,  the  presumed 
amount  of  their  losses.  Other  considerations,  of 
great  weight,  urged  the  cesSon  of  this  territory  by 
Spain.  It  was  surrounded  by  the  territories  of  the 
United  States,  on  every  side,  except  on  that  of  the 
ocean.  Spain  had  lost  her  authority  over  it,  and, 
falling  into  tho  hands  of  adventurers  connected  with 
the  savages,  it  was  made  the  means  of  unceasing  an- 
noyance and  injury  in  our  Union,  in  many  of  its 
most  essential  interests.  By  this  cession,  then, 
Spain  ceded  a  territory,  in  reality,  of  no  value  to  her, 


376 


ABRIDGMENT  OF  THE 


SENATE.] 


President's  Message. 


[DECEMBER,  1819. 


and  obtained  concessions  of  the  highest  importance, 
by  the  settlement  of  long-standing  differences  with 
the  United  States,  affecting  their  respective  claims 
and  limits,  and  likewise  relieved  herself  from  the 
obligation  of  a  treaty  relating  to  it,  which  she  had 
failed  to  fulfil,  and  also  from  the  responsibility  inci- 
dent to  the  most  flagrant  and  pernicious  abuses  of 
her  rights,  where  she  could  not  support  her  authority. 

It  being  known  that  the  treaty  was  formed  under 
these  circumstances,  not  a  doubt  was  entertained 
that  His  Catholic  Majesty  would  have  ratified  it 
without  delay.  I  regret  to  have  to  state,  that  this 
reasonable  expectation  has  been  disappointed ;  that 
the  treaty  was  not  ratified  within  the  time  stipulated, 
and  has  not  since  been  ratified.  As  it  is  important 
that  the  nature  and  character  of  this  unexpected  oc- 
currence should  be  distinctly  understood,  I  think  it 
my  duty  to  communicate  to  you  all  the  facts  and  cir- 
cumstances, in  my  possession,  relating  to  it. 

Anxious  to  prevent  all  future  disagreement  with 
Spain,  by  giving  the  most  prompt  effect  to  the  treaty, 
which  had  been  thus  concluded,  and,  particularly,  by 
the  establishment  of  a  government  in  Florida,  which 
should  preserve  order  there,  the  Minister  of  the  Unit- 
ed States,  who  had  been  recently  appointed  to  His 
Catholic  Majesty,  and  to  whom  the  ratification,  by 
his  Government,  had  been  committed,  to  be  ex- 
changed for  that  of  Spain,  was  instructed  to  transmit 
the  latter  to  the  Department  of  State,  as  soon  as  ob- 
tained, by  a  public  ship,  subjected  to  his  order  for 
the  purpose.  Unexpected  delay  occurring  in  the 
ratification,  by  Spain,  he  requested  to  be  informed  of 
the  cause.  It  was  stated,  in  reply,  that  the  great 
importance  of  the  subject,  and  a  desire  to  obtain  ex- 
planations on  certain  points,  which  were  not  speci- 
fied, had  produced  the  delay,  and  that  an  Envoy 
would  be  despatched  to  the  United  States  to  ob- 
tain such  explanations  of  this  Government.  The 
Minister  of  the  United  States  offered  to  give  full  ex- 
planations on  any  point  on  which  it  might  be  de- 
sired ;  which  proposal  was  declined.  Having  com- 
municated this  result  to  the  Department  of  State,  in 
August  last,  he  was  instructed,  notwithstanding  the 
disappointment  and  surprise  which  it  produced,  to  in- 
form the  Government  of  Spain,  that,  if  the  treaty 
should  be  ratified,  and  transmitted  here,  at  any  time 
before  the  meeting  of  Congress,  it  would  be  received, 
and  have  the  same  effect  as  if  it  had  been  ratified  in 
due  time.  This  order  was  executed  ;  the  authorized 
communication  was  made  to  the  Government  of 
Spain,  and  by  its  answer,  which  has  just  been  re- 
ceived, we  are  officially  made  acquainted,  for  the 
first  time,  with  the  causes  which  have  prevented  the 
ratification  of  the  treaty,  by  His  Catholic  Majesty. 
It  is  alleged  by  the  Minister  of  Spain,  that  this  Gov- 
ernment had  attempted  to  alter  one  of  the  prin- 
cipal articles  of  the  treaty,  by  a  declaration,  which 
the  Minister  of  the  United  States  had  been  ordered 
to  present  when  he  should  deliver  the  ratification  by 
his  Government,  in  exchange  for  that  of  Spain,  and 
of  which  he  gave  notice,  explanatory  of  the  sense  in 
which  that  article  was-  understood.  It  is  further  al- 
leged that  this  Government  had  recently  tolerated  or 
protected  an  expedition  from  the  United  States, 
against  the  province  of  Texas.  These  two  imputed 
acts  are  stated  as  the  reasons  which  have  induced 
His  Catholic  Majesty  to  withhold  his  ratification  from 
the  treaty,  to  obtain  explanations,  respecting  which, 
it  is  repeated,  that  an  Envoy  would  be  forthwith 
despatched  to  the  United  States.  How  far  these  al- 


the  conduct  of  the  Government 
Spain,  will  appear,  on  a  view  of  the  following 
facts,  and  the  evidence  which  supports  them. 

It  will  be  seen,  by  the  documents  transmitted  here- 
with, that  the  declaration  mentioned  relates  to  a 
clause  in  the  eighth  article,  concerning  certain  grants 
of  land,  recently  made  by  His  Catholic  Majesty  in 
Florida,  which,  it  was  understood,  had  conveyed  all 
the  lands,  which,  till  then,  had  been  ungranted.  It 
was  the  intention  of  the  parties  to  annul  these  latter 
grants,  and  that  clause  was  drawn  for  that  express 
purpose,  and  for  none  other.  The  date  of  these 
grants  was  unknown,  but  it  was  understood  to  be 
posterior  to  that  inserted  in  the  article.  Indeed,  it 
must  be  obvious  to  all,  that,  if  that  provision  in  the 
treaty  had  not  the  effect  of  annulling  these  grants, 
it  would  be  altogether  nugatory.  Immediately  after 
the  treaty  was  concluded  and  ratified  by  this  Gov- 
ernment, an  intimation  was  received  that  these  grants 
were  of  anterior  date  to  that  fixed  on  by  the  treaty, 
and  that  they  would  not,  of  course,  be  affected  by  it. 
The  mere  possibility  of  such  a  case,  so  inconsistent 
with  the  intention  of  the  parties,  and  the  meaning  of 
the  article,  induced  this  Government  to  demand  an 
explanation  on  the  subject,  which  was  immediately 
granted,  and  whicfi  corresponds  with  this  statement. 
With  respect  to  the  other  act  alleged,  that  this  Gov- 
ernment had  tolerated  or  protected  an  expedition 
against  Texas,  it  is  utterly  without  foundation. 
Every  discountenance  has  invariably  been  given  to 
any  such  attempt  from  within  the  limits  of  the 
United  States,  as  is  fully  evinced  by  the  acts  of  the 
Government,  and  the  proceedings  of  the  courts. 
There  being  cause,  however,  to  apprehend,  in  the 
course  of  the  last  Summer,  that  some  adventurers 
entertained  views  of  the  kind  suggested,  the  atten- 
tion of  the  constituted  authorities  in  that  quarter  was 
immediately  drawn  to  them,  and  it  is  known  that 
the  project,  whatever  it  might  be,  has  utterly  failed. 

These  facts  will,  it  is  presumed,  satisfy  every  im- 
partial mind  that  the  Government  of  Spain  had  no 
justifiable  cause  for  declining  to  ratify  the  treaty. 
A  treaty  concluded  in  conformity  with  instructions,  is 
obligatory,  in  good  faith,  in  all  its  stipulations,  ac- 
cording to  the  true  intent  and  meaning  of  the  par- 
ties. Each  party  is  bound  to  ratify  it.  If  either 
could  set  it  aside,  without  the  consent  of  the  other, 
there  would  be  no  longer  any  rules  applicable  to 
such  transactions  between  nations.  By  this  proceed- 
ing, the  Government  of  Spain  has  rendered  to  the 
United  States  a  new  and  very  serious  injury.  It  has 
been  stated  that  a  Minister  would  be  sent,  to  ask 
certain  explanations  of  this  Government.  But  if 
such  were  desired,  why  were  they  not  asked  within 
the  time  limited  for  the  ratification  ?  Is  it  contem- 
plated to  open  a  new  negotiation  respecting  any  of 
the  articles  or  conditions  of  the  treaty?  If  that 
were  done,  to  what  consequences  might  it  not  lead  ? 
At  what  time,  and  in  what  manner,  would  a  new  ne- 
gotiation terminate  ?  By  this  proceeding,  Spain  has 
formed  a  relation  between  the  two  countries  which 
will  justify  any  measures  on  the  part  of  the  United 
States,  which  a  strong  sense  of  injury,  and  a  proper 
regard  for  the  rights  and  interests  of  the  nation  may 
dictate.  In  the  course  to  be  pursued,  these  objects 
should  be  constantly  held  in  view,  and  have  their 
due  weight.  Our  national  honor  must  be  main- 
tained, and  a  new  and  a  distinguished  proof  be  af- 
forded of  that  regard  for  justice  and  moderation  which 
has  invariably  governed  the  councils  of  this  free  peo- 


DEBATES  OF  CONGRESS. 


377 


DECEMBER,  1819.] 


President's  Message. 


[SENATE. 


pie.  It  must  be  obvious  to  all,  that,  if  the  United 
States  had  been  desirous  of  making  conquests,  or  had 
been  even  willing  to  aggrandize  themselves  in  that 
way,  they  could  have  had  no  inducement  to  form 
this  treaty.  They  would  have  much  cause  for  grat- 
ulatioii  at  the  course  which  has  been  pursued  by 
Spain.  An  ample  field  for  ambition  is  opened  be- 
fore them.  But  such  a  career  is  not  consistent  with 
the  principles  of  their  Government,  nor  the  interests 
of  the  nation. 

From  a  full  view  of  all  circumstances,  it  is  sub- 
mitted to  the  consideration  of  Congress,  whether  it 
will  not  be  proper  for  the  United  States  to  carry  the 
conditions  of  the  treaty  into  effect,  in  the  same  manner 
as  if  it  had  been  ratified  by  Spain ;  claiming,  on 
their  part,  all  its  advantages,  and  yielding  to  Spain 
those  secured  to  her.  By  pursuing  this  course  we 
shall  rest  on  the  sacred  ground  of  right,  sanctioned, 
in  the  most  solemn  manner,  by  Spain  herself,  by  a 
treaty  which  ghe  was  bound  to  ratify,  for  refusing 
to  do  which  she  must  incur  the  censure  of  other  na- 
tions, even  those  most  friendly  to  her;  while,  by 
confining  ourselves  within  that  limit,  we  cannot  fail 
to  obtain  then:  well  merited-approbation.  We  must 
have  peace  on  a  frontier  where  we  have  been  so  long 
disturbed  ;  our  citizens  must  be  indemnified  for  losses 
so  long  since  sustained,  and  from  which  indemnity 
has  been  so  unjustly  withheld  from  them.  Accom- 
plishing these  great  objects,  we  obtain  all  that  is  de- 
sirable. 

But  His  Catholic  Majesty  has  twice  declared  his 
determination  to  send  a  Minister  to  the  United 
States  to  ask  explanations  on  certain  points,  and  to 
give  them  respecting  his  delay  to  ratify  the  treaty. 
Shall  we  act,  by  taking  the  ceded  territory,  and  pro- 
ceeding to  execute  the  other  conditions  of  the  treaty, 
before  this  Minister  arrives  and  is  heard  ?  This  is  a 
case  which  forms  a  strong  appeal  to  the  candor,  the 
magnanimity,  and  the  honor  of  this  people.  Much 
is  due  to  courtesy  between  nations.  By  a  short  de- 
lay we  shall  lose  nothing ;  for,  resting  on  the  ground 
of  immutable  truth  and  justice,  we  cannot  be  diverted 
from  our  purpose.  It  ought  to  be  presumed  that  the 
explanations  which  may  he  given  to  the  Minister  of 
Spain  will  be  satisfactory,  and  produce  the  desired 
result.  In  any  event,  tiie  delay,  for  the  purpose 
mentioned,  being  a  further  manifestation  of  the  sin- 
cere desire  to  terminate  in  the  most  friendly  man- 
ner all  differences  with  Spam,  cannot  fail  to  be 
duly  appreciated  by  His  Catholic  Majesty,  as  well  as 
by  other  powers.  It  is  submitted,  therefore,  whether 
it  will  not  be  proper  to  make  the  law  proposed  for 
carrying  the  conditions  of  the  treaty  into  effect, 
should  it  be  adopted,  contingent ;  to  suspend  its  ope- 
ration upon  the  responsibility  of  the  Executive,  hi 
such  manner  as  to  afford  an  opportunity  for  such 
friendly  explanations  as  may  be  desired  during  the 
present  session  of  Congress. 

I  communicate  to  Congress  a  copy  of  the  treaty, 
and  of  the  instructions"  to  the  Minister  of  the  United 
States  at  Madrid  respecting  it ;  of  his  correspondence 
with  the  Minister  of  Spain,  and  of  such  other  docu- 
ments as  may  be  necessary  to  give  a  full  view  of  the 
subject. 

In  the  course  which  the  Spanish  Government  have, 
on  this  occasion,  thought  proper  to  pursue,  it  is  satis- 
factory to  know  that  they  have  not  been  counte- 
nanced by  any  other  European  power.  On  the  con- 
trary, the  opinion  and  wishes,  both  of  France  and 
Great  Britain,  have  not  been  withheld,  either  from 


the  United  States  or  from  Spain ;  and  have  been  un- 
equivocal in  favor  of  the  ratification.  There  is  also 
reason  to  believe  that  the  sentiments  of  the  imperial 
Government  of  Russia  have  been  the  same,  and  that 
they  have  also  been  made  known  to  the  Cabinet  of 
Madrid. 

In  the  civil  war  existing  between  Spain  and  the 
Spanish  provinces  in  this  hemisphere,  the  greatest 
care  has  been  taken  to  enforce  the  laws  intended  to 
preserve  an  impartial  neutrality.  Our  ports  have 
continued  to  be  equally  open  to  both  parties,  and  on 
the  same  conditions ;  and  our  citizens  have  been 
equally  restrained  from  interfering  in  favor  of  either 
to  the  prejudice  of  the  other.  The  progress  of  the 
war,  however,  has  operated  manifestly  in  favor  of 
the  colonies.  Buenos  Ayres  still  maintains  un- 
shaken the  independence  which  it  declared  in  1816, 
and  has  enjoyed  since  1810.  Like  success  has  also 
lately  attended  Chili,  and  the  provinces  north  of  the 
La  Plata,  bordering  on  it,  and  likewise  Venezuela. 

This  contest  has,  from  its  commencement,  been 
very  interesting  to  other  powers,  and  to  none  more 
so  than  to  the  United  States.  A  virtuous  people 
may,  and  will,  confine  themselves  within  the  limit 
of  strict  neutrality ;  but  it  is  not  in  their  power  to 
behold  a  conflict  so  vitally  important  to  their  neigh- 
bors, without  the  sensibility  and  sympathy  which 
naturally  belong  to  such  a  case.  It  has  been  the 
steady  purpose  of  this  Government  to  prevent  that 
feeling  leading  to  excess,  and  it  is  very  gratifying  to 
have  it  in  my  power  to  state  that,  so  strong  has  been 
the  sense  throughout  the  whole  community,  of  what 
was  due  to  the  character  and  obligations  of  the  na- 
tion, that  very  few  examples  of  a  contrary  kind  have 
occurred. 

The  distance  of  the  colonies  from  the  parent  coun- 
try, and  the  great  extent  of  their  population  and  re- 
sources, gave  them  advantages  which  it  was  antici- 
pated at  a  very  early  period  it  would  he  difficult  for 
Spam  to  surmount.  The  steadiness,  consistency,  and 
success,  with  which  they  have  pursued  their  object, 
as  evinced  more  particularly  by  the  undisturbed  sov- 
ereignty which  Buenos  Ayres  has  so  long  enjoyed, 
evidently  give  them  a  strong  claim  to  the  favorable 
consideration  of  other  nations.  These  sentiments,  on 
the  part  of  the  United  States,  have  not  been  with- 
held from  other  powers,  with  whom  it  is  desirable  to 
act  in  concert.  Should  it  become  manifest  to  the 
world  that  the  efforts  of  Spam  to  subdue  these  prov- 
inces will  be  fruitless,  it  may  be  presumed  that  the 
Spanish  Government  itself  will  give  up  the  contest. 
In  producing  such  a  determination,  it  cannot  be 
doubted  that  the  opinion  of  friendly  powers,  who 
have  taken  no  part  in  the  controversy,  will  have 
their  merited  influence. 

It  is  of  the  highest  importance  to  our  national 
character,  and  indispensable  to  the  morality  of  our 
citizens,  that  all  violations  of  our  neutrality  should 
be  prevented.  No  door  should  be  left  open  for  the 
evasion  of  our  laws  ;  no  op'portunity  afforded  to  any 
who  may  be  disposed  to  take  advantage  of  it,  to  com- 
promit  the  interest  or  the  honor  of  the  nation.  It  is 
submitted,  therefore,  to  the  consideration  of  Congress, 
whether  it  may^not  be  advisable  to  revise  the  laws ; 
with  a  view  to  this  desirable  result. 

It  is  submitted,  also,  whether  it  may  not  be  proper 
to  designate,  by  law,  the  several  ports  or  places  along 
the  coast,  at  which,  only,  foreign  ships  of  war  and 
privateers  may  be  admitted.  The  difficulty  of  sus- 
taining the  regulations  of  our  commerce,  and  of 


378 


ABRIDGMENT  OF  THE 


SENATE.] 


President's  Message. 


[DECEMBER,  1819. 


other  important  interests  from  abuse,  without  such 
designation,  furnishes  a  strong  motive  for  this 
measure. 

At  the  time  of  the  negotiation  for  the  renewal 
of  the  commercial  convention  between  the  United 
States  and  Great  Britain,  a  hope  had  been  entertain- 
ed that  un  article  might  have  been  agreed  upon,  mu- 
tually satisfactory  to  both  countries,  regulating,  upon 
principles  of  justice  and  reciprocity,  the  commercial 
intercourse  between  the  United  States  and  the  British 
possessions,  as  well  in  the  West  Indies,  as  upon 
the  continent  of  North  America.  The  Plenipotenti- 
aries of  the  two  Governments  not  having  been  able 
to  come  to  an  agreement  on  this  important  interest, 
those  of  the  United  States  reserved  for  the  considera- 
tion of  this  Government  the  proposals  which  had  been 
presented  to  them,  as  the  ultimate  offer  on  the  part 
of  the  British  Government,  and  which  they  were  not 
authorized  to  accept.  On  their  transmission  here, 
they  were  examined  with  due  deliberation,  the  result 
of  which  was  a  new  effort  to  meet  the  views  of  the 
British  Government.  The  Minister 'of  the  United 
States  was  instructed  to  make  a  further  proposal, 
which  has  not  been  accepted.  It  was,  however,  de- 
clined in  an  amicable  manner.  I  recommend  to 
the  consideration  of  Congress,  whether  further  pro- 
hibitory provisions  in  the  laws  relating  to  this  inter- 
course may  not  be  expedient.  It  is  seen,  with  in- 
terest, that,  although  it  has  not  been  practicable,  as 
yet,  to  agree  in  any  arrangement  of  this  important 
branch  of  their  commerce,  such  is  the  disposition  of 
the  parties,  that  each  will  view  any  regulations  which 
the  other  may  make  respecting  it,  in  the  most  friend- 
ly light. 

By  the  5th  article  of  the  convention,  concluded  on 
the  20th  of  October,  1818,  it  was  stipulated  that  the 
difference  which  has  arisen  between  the  two  Govern- 
ments, with  regard  to  the  true  intent  and  meaning  of 
the  5th  article  of  the  Treaty  of  Ghent,  in  relation  to 
the  carrying  away,  by  British  officers,  of  slaves  from 
the  United  States,  after  the  exchange  of  the  ratifica- 
tions of  the  Treaty  of  Peace,  should  be  referred  to 
the  decision  of  some  friendly  Sovereign  or  State,  to 
be  named  for  that  purpose.  The  Minister  of  the 
United  States  has  been  instructed  to  name  to  the 
British  Government  a  foreign  Sovereign,  the  com- 
mon friend  to  both  parties,  for  the  decision  of  this 
question.  The  answer  of  that  Government  to  the 
proposal,  when  received,  will  indicate  the  further 
measures  to  be  pursued  on  the  part  of  the  United 
States. 

Although  the  pecuniary  embarrassments  which 
affected  various  parts  of  the  Union,  during  the  latter 
part  of  the  preceding  year,  have,  during  the  present, 
been  considerably  augmented,  and  still  continue  to 
exist,  the  receipts  into  the  Treasury,  to  the  30th  of 
September  last,  have  amounted  to  $19,000,000. 
After  defraying  the  current  expenses  of  the  Govern- 
ment, including  the  interest  and  reimbursement  of 
the  public  debt,  payable  to  that  period,  amounting  to 
$18,200,000,  there  remained  to  the  Treasury,  on 
that  day,  more  than  $2,500,000,  which,  with  the 
sums  receivable  during  the  remainder  of  the  year, 
will  exceed  the  current  demands  upon  the  Treasury 
for  the  same  period. 

The  causes  which  have  tended  to  diminish  the  pub- 
lic receipts,  could  not  fail  to  have  a  corresponding 
effect  upon  the  revenue  which  has  accrued  upon  im- 
posts and  tonnage  during  the  three  first  quarters  of 
the  present  year ;  it  is,  however,  ascertained  that  the 


duties,  which  have  been  secured  during  that  period, 
exceed  $18,000,000.  and  those  of  the  whole  year  will 
probably  amount  to' $23,000,000. 

For  the  probable  receipts  of  the  next  year,  I  refer 
you  to  the  statements  which  will  be  transmitted  from 
the  Treasury,  which  will  enable  you  to  judge  whether 
further  provision  be  necessary. 

The  great  reduction  in  the  price  of  the  principal 
articles  of  domestic  growth,  which  has  occurred  dur- 
ing the  present  year,  and  the  consequent  fall  in  the 
price  of  labor,  apparently  so  favorable  to  the  success 
of  domestic  manufactures,  have  not  shielded  them 
against  other  causes  adverse  to  their  prosperity. 
The  pecuniary  embarrassments  which  have  so  deeply 
affected  the  commercial  interests  of  the  nation,  have 
been  no  less  adverse  to  our  manufacturing  establish- 
ments in  several  sections  of  the  Unioa  The  great 
reduction  of  the  currency,  which  the  banks  have 
been  constrained  to  make,  in  order  to  continue 
specie  payments,  and  the  vitiated  character  of  it 
where  such  reductions  have  not  been  attempted,  in- 
stead of  placing  within  the  reach  of  these  establish- 
ments the  pecuniary  aid  necessary  to  avail  them- 
selves of  the  advantages  resulting  from  the  reduction 
in  the  prices  of  the  raw  materials,  and  of  labor,  have 
compelled  the  banks  to  withdraw  from  them  a  por- 
tion of  the  capital  'heretofore  advanced  to  them. 
That  aid,  which  has  been  refused  by  the  banks,  has 
not  been  obtained  from  other  sources,  owing  to  the 
loss  of  individual  confidence,  from  the  frequent  fail- 
ures which  have  recently  occurred  in  some  of  our 
principal  commercial  cities. 

An  additional  cause  for  the  depression  of  these 
establishments  may  probably  be  found  in  the  pecu- 
niary embarrassments  which  have  recently  affected 
those  countries  with  which  our  commerce  has  been 
principally  prosecuted. 

Their  manufactures,  for  the  want  of  a  ready  or 
profitable  market  at  home,  have  been  shipped  by 
the  manufacturers  to  the  United  States,  and,  in 
many  instances,  sold  at  a  price  below  their  current 
value  at  the  place  of  manufacture.  Although  this 
practice  may,  from  its  nature,  be  considered  tempo- 
rary or  contingent,  it  is  not  on  that  account  less  in- 
jurious in  its  effects.  Uniformity  in  the  demand  and 
price  of  an  article  is  highly  desirable  to  the  domestic 
manufacturer. 

It  is  deemed  of  great  importane  to  give  encourage- 
ment to  our  domestic  manufactures.  In  what  man- 
ner the  evils  which  have  been  adverted  to  may  be 
remedied,  and  how  far  it  may  be  practicable,  in  other 
respects,  to  afford  to  them  further  encouragement, 
paying  due  regard  to  the  other  great  interests  of  the 
nation,  is  submitted  to  the  wisdom  of  Congress. 

The  survey  of  the  coast,  for  the  establishment  of 
fortifications,  is  now  nearly  completed,  and  consider- 
able progress  has  been  made  in  the  collection  of 
materials  for  the  construction  of  fortifications  in  the 
Gulf  of  Mexico  and  in  the  Chesapeake  Bay.  The 
works  on  the  Eastern  bank  of  the  Potomac,  below 
Alexandria,  and  on  the  Pea  Patch  in  the  Delaware,  are 
much  advanced,  and  it  is  expected  that  the  fortifica- 
tions at  the  Narrows,  in  the  harbor  of  New  York, 
will  be  completed  the  present  year.  To  derive  all 
the  advantages  contemplated  from  these  fortifica- 
tions, it  was  necessary  that  they  should  be  judicious- 
ly posted,  and  constructed  with  a  view  to  permanence. 
The  progress,  hitherto,  has  therefore  been  slow  ;  but, 
as  the  difficulties,  in  parts  heretofore  the  least  ex- 
plored and  known,  are  surmounted,  it  will  in  future 


DEBATES  OF  CONGRESS. 


379 


DECEMBER,  1819.] 


Sierra  Leone  Colony. 


[SENATE. 


be  more  rapid.  As  soon  as  the  survey  of  the  coast  is 
completed,  which  it  is  expected  will  he  done  early  in 
the  next  Spring,  the  engineers  employed  in  it  will 
proceed  to  examine,  for  like  purposes,  the  northern 
and  north-western  frontiers. 

The  troops,  intended  to  occupy  a  station  at  the 
mouth  of  the  St.  Peter's,  on  the  Mississippi,  have  es- 
tahlished  themselves  there,  and  those  who  were 
ordered  to  the  mouth  of  the  Yellow  Stone,  on  the 
Missouri,  have  ascended  that  river  to  the  Council 
Bluff,  where  they  will  remain  until  the  next  Spring, 
when  they  will  proceed  to  the  place  of  their  destina- 
tion. I  have  the  satisfaction  to  state,  that  this 
measure  has  been  executed  in  amity  with  the  In- 
dian tribes,  and  that  it  promises  to  produce,  in  regard 
to  them,  all  the  advantages  which  are  contemplated 
by  it 

Much  progress  has  likewise  been  made  hi  the  con- 
struction of  ships-of-war,  and  in  the  collection  of 
timber  and  other  materials  for  ship-building.  It  is 
not  doubted  that  our  Navy  will  soon  be  augmented 
to  the  number,  and  placed,  in  all  respects,  on  the 
footing  provided  for  by  law. 

The  board,  consisting  of  engineers  and  naval  offi- 
cers, have  not  yet  made  their  final  report  of  sites  for 
two  naval  depots,  as  instructed,  according  to  the  reso- 
lutions of  March  18th,  and  April  20th,  1818,  but 
they  have  examined  the  coast  therein  designated, 
and  their  report  is  expected  in  the  next  month. 

For  the  protection  of  our  commerce  in  the  Medi- 
terranean ;  along  the  Southern  Atlantic  coast ;  in 
the  Pacific  and  Indian  Oceans ;  it  has  been  found 
necessary  to  maintain  a  strong  naval  force,  which  it 
seems  proper  for  the  present  to  continue.  There  is 
much  reason  to  believe  that,  if  any  portion  of  the 
squadron  heretofore  stationed  in  the  Mediterranean 
should  be  withdrawn,  our  intercourse  with  the  pow- 
ers bordering  on  that  sea  would  be  much  interrupted, 
if  not  altogether  destroyed.  Such,  too,  has  been  the 
growth  of  a  spirit  of  piracy,  in  the  other  quarters 
mentioned,  by  adventurers  from  every  country,  in 
abuse  of  the  friendly  flags  which  they  have  assumed, 
that,  not  to  protect  our  commerce  there,  would  be 
to  abandon  it  as  a  prey  to  then?  rapacity.*  Due  at- 
tention has  likewise  been  paid  to  the  suppression  of 
the  slave  trade,  in  compliance  with  a  law  of  the  last 
session.  Orders  have  been  given  to  the  commanders 
of  all  our  public  ships  to  seize  all  vessels  navigated 
under  our  flag,  engaged  in  that  trade,  and  to  bring 
them  in,  to  be  proceeded  against,  in  the  manner  pre- 
scribed by  that  law.  It  is  hoped  that  these  vigor- 
ous measures,  supported  by  like  acts  by  other  na- 
tions, will  soon  terminate  a  commerce  so  disgraceful 
to  the  civilized  world. 

In  the  execution  of  the  duty  imposed  by  these  acts, 
and  of  a  high  trust  connected  with  it,  it  is  with  deep 
regret  I  have  to  state  the  loss  which  has  been  sus- 


*  In  the  early  administrations,  ships  of  war  were  not  sent 
out  to  protect  commerce,  except  against  powers  and  depre- 
dators not  amenable  to  the  laws  of  nations — each  as  the 
Barbary  Powers  and  pirates:  and  when  so  sent,  tho  fact 
was  always  communicated  to  Congress,  and  the  reason  for 
it  given.  The  idea  of  sending  out  squadrons  without  a 
specific  object — without  a  known  danger  to  avert — was  then 
unknown.  They  were  sent  out  to  attend  to  a  known,  or 
apprehended  danger,  from  lawless  depredators,  and  nothing 
else.  The  civil  Government  at  home  reserved  to  itself  the 
settlement  of  injuries  to  commerce  from  the  civilized 
nations. 


tamed  by  the  death  of  Commodore  Perry.  His  gal- 
lantry, in  a  brilliant  exploit,  in  the  late  war,  added 
to  the  renown  of  his  country.  His  death  is  deplored 
as  a  national  misfortuue. 

JAMES  MONROE. 
WASHINGTON,  December  7,  1819. 

The  Message  and  accompanying  documents 
were  read,  and  three  thousand  copies  thereof 
ordered  to  be  printed  for  the  use  of  the 
Senate. 


MONDAY,  December  13. 
Mr.  BBOWN  presented  the  memorial  of  William 
Thornton,  Superintendent  of  the  Patent  Office, 
praying  an  increase  of  his  present  compensa- 
tion ;  and  the  memorial  was  read,  and  referred 
to  a  select  committee  to  consider  and  report 
thereon,  by  bill  or  otherwise.  And  Mr.  BBOWN, 
Mr.  KOBEBTS,  and  Mr.  MACON,  were  appointed 
the  committee. 

TUESDAY,  December  l<i> 

JAMES  PLEASANTS,  appointed  a  Senator  by 
the  Legislature  of  the  State  of  Virginia,  to  sup- 
ply the  vacancy  occasioned  by  the  resignation 
of  JOHN  W.  EPPES,  produced  his  credentials, 
was  qualified,  and  took  his  seat  in  the  Senate. 

JOHN  W.  WALKEE,  appointed  a  Senator  by 
the  Legislature  of  the  State  of  Alabama,  pro- 
duced his  credentials,  was  qualified,  and  took 
his  seat  in  the  Senate. 


WEDNESDAY,  December  15. 

MONTFOED  STOKES,  from  the  State  of  North 
Carolina,  arrived  the  14th  instant,  and  attended 
this  day. 

FEEEMAN  WALKEE,  appointed  a  Senator  by 
the  Legislature  of  the  State  of  Georgia,  to  sup- 
ply the  vacancy  occasioned  by  the  resignation 
of  John  Forsyth,  produced  his  credentials,  was 
qualified,  and  took  his  seat  in  the  Senate. 

MONDAY,  December  20. 
Sierra  Leone  Colony. 

The  following  Message  was  also  received  from 
the  PEESIDENT  OF  THE  UNITED  STATES  : 

To  the  Senate  and  House  of 

Representatives  of  the  United  States: 

Some  doubt  being  entertained  respecting  the  true 
intent  and  meaning  of  the  act  of  the  last  session, 
entitled  "  An  act  -in  addition  to  the  acts  prohibiting 
the  slave  trade,"  as  to  the  duties  of  the  agents  to  be 
appointed  on  the  coast  of  Africa,  I  think  it  proper  to 
state  the  interpretation  which  has  been  given  of  the 
act,  and  the  measures  adopted  to  carry  it  into  effect, 
that  Congress  may,  should  it  be  deemed  advisable, 
amend  the  same,  before  further  proceeding  is  had 
under  it. 

The  obligation  to  instruct  the  commanders  of  all 
our  armed  vessels  to  seize  and  bring  into  port  all 
ships  or  vessels  of  the  United  States,  wheresoever 
found,  having  on  board  any  negro,  mulatto,  or  person 
of  color,  in  violation  of  former  acts  for  the  suppression 


380 


ABRIDGMENT  OF  THE 


SENATE.] 


Proceedings. 


[DECEMBER,  1819. 


of  the  slave  trade,  being  imperative,  was  executed 
without  delay.  No  seizures  have  yet  been  made, 
but,  as  they  were  contemplated  by  the  law,  and 
might  be  presumed,  it  seemed  proper  to  make  the 
necessary  regulations,  applicable  to  such  seizures, 
for  carrying  the  several  provisions  of  the  act  into 
effect. 

It  is  enjoined  on  the  Executive  to  cause  all  ne- 
groes, mulattoes,  or  persons  of  color,  who  may  he 
taken  under  the  act,  to  be  removed  to  Africa.  It  is 
the  obvious  import  of  the  law,  that  none  of  the  per- 
sons thus  taken,  should  remain  within  the  United 
States ;  and  no  place,  other  than  the  coast  of  Africa, 
being  designated,  their  removal  or  delivery,  whether 
carried  from  the  United  States,  or  landed  immediately 
from  the  vessels  in  which  they  were  taken,  was  sup- 
posed to  be  confined  to  that  coast.  No  settlement  or 
station  being  specified,  the  whole  coast  was  thought 
to  be  left  open  for  the  selection  of  a  proper  place  at 
which  the  persons  thus  taken  should  be  delivered. 
The  Executive  is  authorized  to  appoint  one  or  more 
agents,  residing  there,  to  receive  such  persons ;  and 
one  hundred  thousand  dollars  are  appropriated  for 
the  general  purposes  of  the  law. 

On  due  consideration  of  the  several  sections  of  the 
act,  and  of  its  humane  policy,  it  was  supposed  to  be 
the  intention  of  Congress  that  all  the  persons  above 
described,  who  might  be  taken  under  it  and  landed  in 
Africa,  should  be  aided  in  their  return  to  their  former 
homes,  or  in  their  establishment  at  or  near  the  place 
where  landed.  Some  shelter  and  food  would  be  ne- 
cessary for  them  there,  as  soon  as  landed,  let  their 
subsequent  disposition  be  what  it  might.  Should 
they  be  landed  without  such  provision  having  been 
previously  made,  they  might  perish.  It  was  suppos- 
ed, by  the  authority  given  to  the  Executive  to  ap- 
point agents  residing  on  that  coast,  that  they  should 
provide  such  shelter  and  food,  and  perform  the  other 
beneficent  and  charitable  offices  contemplated  by  the 
act.  The  coast  of  Africa  having  been  little  explored, 
and  no  persons  residing  there  who  possessed  the  re- 
quisite qualifications  to  entitle  them  to  the  trust,  be- 
ing known  to  the  Executive,  to  none  such  could  it 
be  committed.  It  was  believed  that  citizens  only, 
who  would  go  hence  well  instructed  in  the  views  of 
their  Government,  and  zealous  to  give  them  effect, 
would  be  competent  to  these  duties,  and  that  it  was 
not  the  intention  of  the  law  to  preclude  their  appoint- 
ment. It  was  obvious  that  the  longer  these  persons 
should  be  detained  in  the  United  States,  in  the  hands 
of  the  marshal,  the  greater  would  be  the  expense, 
and  that  for  the  same  term  would  the  main  purpose 
of  the  law  be  suspended.  It  seemed,  therefore,  to  be 
incumbent  on  me  to  make  the  necessary  arrange- 
ments for  carrying  this  act  into  effect  in  Africa,  in 
tune  to  meet  the  delivery  of  any  persons  who  might 
be  taken  by  the  public  vessels  and  landed  there  un- 
der it. 

On  this  view  of  the  policy  and  sanctions  of  the 
law,  it  has  been  decided  to  send  a  public  ship  to  the 
coast  of  Africa,  with  two  such  agents,  who  will  take 
with  them  tools,  and  other  implements,  necessary  for 
the  purposes  above  mentioned.  To  each  of  these 
agents  a  small  salary  has  been  allowed — fifteen 
hundred  dollars  to  the  principal,  and  twelve  hundred 
to  the  other.  All  our  public  agents  on  the  coast  of 
Africa  receive  salaries  for  their  services,  and  it  was 
understood  that  none  of  our  citizens,  possessing  the 
requisite  qualifications,  would  accept  these  trusts, 
by  which  they  would  be  confined  to  parts  the  least 


frequented  and  civilized,  without  a  reasonable  com- 
pensation. Such  allowance,  therefore,  seemed  to  be 
indispensable  to  the  execution  of  the  act.  It  is  in- 
tended, also,  to  subject  a  portion  of  the  sum  appro- 
priated, to  the  order  of  the  principal  agent,  for  the 
special  objects  above  stated,  amounting  in  the  whole, 
including  the  salaries  of  the  agents  for  one  year,  to 
rather  less  than  one-third  of  the  appropriation.  Spe- 
cial instructions  will  be  given  to  these  agents,  defin- 
ing, in  precise  terms,  their  duties  in  regard  to  the 
persons  thus  delivered  to  them ;  the  disbursement  of 
the  money  by  the  principal  agent ;  and  his  accounta- 
bility for  the  same.  They  will  also  have  power  to 
select  the  most  suitable  place,  on  the  coast  of  Africa, 
at  which  all  persons  who  may  be  taken  under  this 
act  shall  be  delivered  to  them,  with  an  express  in- 
junction to  exercise  no  power  founded  on  the  princi- 
ple of  colonization,  or  other  power  than  that  of  per- 
forming the  benevolent  offices  above  recited,  by  the 
permission  and  sanction  of  the  existing  Government 
under  which  they  may  establish  themselves.  Orders 
will  be  given  to  the  commander  of  the  public  ship  hi 
which  they  will  sail,  to  cruise  along  the  coast,  to 
give  the  more  complete  effect  to  the  principal  object 
of  this  act. 

JAMES  MONROE. 
DECEMBER,  17,  1819. 

The*  Message  was  read. 


WEDNESDAY,  December  22. 

WILLIAM  E.  KING,  appointed  a  Senator  by 
the  Legislature  of  the  State  of  Alabama,  pro- 
duced his  credentials,  was  qualified,  and  took 
his  seat  in  the  Senate. 

On  motion,  by  Mr.  WILLIAMS,  of  Mississippi, 

Resolved,  That  the  Senate  proceed  to  ascer- 
tain the  classes  in  which  the  Senators  of  the 
State  of  Alabama  shall  be  inserted,  in  con- 
formity to  the  resolution  of  the  14th  of  May, 
1789,  and  as  the  constitution  requires. 

That  the  Secretary  put  into  the  ballot-box 
three  papers,  of  equal  size,  numbered  1,  2,  3 ; 
each  Senator  shall  draw  out  one  paper;  the 
Senator  who  shall  draw  No.  1,  shall  be  inserted 
in  the  class  of  Senators  whose  term  of  service 
will  expire  on  the  3d  of  March,  1821 ;  the 
Senator  who  shall  draw  No.  2,  shall  be  inserted 
in  the  class  of  Senators  whose  term  of  service 
expires  on  the  3d  of  March,  1823 ;  and  the 
Senator  who  shall  draw  No.  3,  shall  be  inserted 
in  the  class  of  Senators  whose  term  of  service 
expires  on  the  3d  of  March,  1825. 

Whereupon,  the  numbers  above  mentioned 
were,  by  the  Secretary,  rolled  up  and  put  into 
the  box ;  when  Mr.  KING  drew  No.  2,  and  is 
accordingly  of  the  class  of  Senators  whose 
terms  of  service  will  expire  on  the  3d  of  March, 
1823;  and  Mr.  WALKER  drew  No.  3,  and  is 
accordingly  of  the  class  of  Senators  whose 
terms  of  service  will  expire  on  the  3d  of 
March,  1825. 

MONDAY,  December  27. 
DANIEL  D.  TOMPKINS,  Vice  President  of  the 
United  States,  and  President  of  the  Senate,  at- 
tended and  took  the  Chair. 


DEBATES  OF  CONGRESS. 


381 


JANUAKY,  1820.] 


State  of  Maine. 


[SENATE. 


EDWARD  LLOYD,  appointed  a  Senator  by  the 
Legislature  of  the  State  of  Maryland,  to  con- 
tinue as  such  to  the  third  day  of  March,  1825, 
produced  his  credentials,  was  qualified,  and 
took  his  seat. 

HENRY  JOHNSON,  from  the  State  of  Louisiana, 
attended  this  day. 


WEDNESDAY,  December  29. 
Missouri  Territory. 

Mr.  SMITH  presented  the  memorial  of  the 
Legislative  Council  and  House  of  Representa- 
tives of  the  Missouri  Territory,  praying  to  be 
admitted  into  the  Union,  as  a  separate  and  in- 
dependent State ;  and  the  memorial  was  read, 
and  referred  to  the  Committee  on  the  Judi- 
ciary. 

The  memorial  is  as  follows  : 

To  the  honorable  the  Senate  and  House  of  Represent- 
atives  of  the  United  States  of  America  in  Congress 
assembled :  The  memorial  of  the  Legislative  Coun- 
cil and  House  of  Representatives  of  the  Territory 
of  Missouri,  in  the  name  and  behalf  of  the  people 
of  said  Territory,  respectfully  showeth : 
That  their  Territory  contains  at  present  a  popula- 
tion little  short  of  one  hundred  thousand  souls,  which 
is  daily  increasing  with  a  rapidity  almost  unexam- 
pled ;  that  their  territorial  limits  are  too  extensive  to 
admit  of  a  convenient,  proper,  and  equal  administra- 
tion of  Government;  and  that  the  present  interest 
and   accommodation,  as  well  as  the  future  growth 
and  prosperity  of  their  country,  will  be  greatly  pro- 
moted by  the  following  division,  which  your  memo- 
rialists propose,  to  the  end  that  the  people  may  be 
authorized  by  law  to  form  a  constitution  and  estab- 
lish a  State  government  within  the  following  limits : 
Beginning  at  a  point  in  the  middle  of  the  main 
channel  of  the  Mississippi  River,  at  the  thirty-sixth 
degree  of  North  latitude,  and  running  thence  in  a 
direct  line  to  the  month  of  the  Big  Black  River,  (a 
branch  of  White  River ;)  thence  up  the  main  branch 
of  White  River,  in  the  middle  of  the  main  channel 
thereof,  to  where  the  parallel  of  thirty-six  degrees 
thirty  minutes  North    latitude   crosses   the   same; 
thence,  with  that  parallel  of  latitude,  due  West,  to  a 
point   from  which  a  due  North  line  will  cross  the 
Missouri  River  at  the  mouth  of  Wolf  River ;  thence 
.  due  North  to  a  point  due  West  of  the  mouth  of  Rock 
River ;  thence  due  East  to  the  middle  of  the  main 
channel  of  the  River  Mississippi,  opposite  the  mouth 
of  Rock  River ;  and  thence  down  the  River  Missis- 
sippi, in  the  middle  of  the  main  channel  thereofj  to 

These  are  limits  to  which,  to  a  superficial  observer, 
glancing  over  the  chart  of  our  country,  would  seem 
a  little  unreasonable  and  extravagant,  but  which  a 
slight  attention  to  its  geography  (or  more  properly 
to  its  topography)  will  be  sufficient  to  satisfy  your 
honorable  body  are  not  only  proper,  but  necessary. 
The  districts  of  country  that  are  fertile  and  suscepti- 
ble of  settlement  are  small,  and  are  detached  and 
separated  from  each  other  at  great  distances,  by  im- 
mense plains  and  barren  tracts,  which  must  for  ages 
remain  waste  and  uninhabited.  These  distant  fron- 
tier settlements,  thus  insulated,  must  ever  be  weak 
and  powerless  in  themselves,  and  can  only  become 
important  and  respectable  by  being  united ;  and  one 


of  the  great  objects  your  memorialists  have  in  view 
is  the  formation  of  an  effectual  barrier  for  the  future 
against  Indian  incursions,  by  pushing  forward  and 
fostering  a  strong  settlement  on  the  little  River  Platte 
to  the  West,  and  on  the  Des  Moines  to  the  North. 

DAVID  BARTON, 
Speaker  of  the  House' of  Representatives. 

BENJAMIN  EMMONS, 
President  of  the  Legislative  Council. 
ST.  Louis,  November  21,  1818. 
The  foregoing  is  a  true  copy  of  the  original. 

D.  BARTON,  Speaker. 


MONDAY,  January  3,  1820. 

EICHAED  M.  JOHNSON,  appointed  a  Senator 
by  the  Legislature  of  the  State  of  Kentucky,  to 
supply  the  vacancy  occasioned  by  the  resigna- 
tion of  John  J.  Crittenden,  produced  his  cre- 
dentials, was  qualified,  and  took  his  seat  in 
the  Senate. 

State  of  Maine. 

The  Senate  resumed  the  consideration  of  the 
bill  declaring  the  consent  of  Congress  to  the  ad- 
mission of  the  State  of  Maine  into  the  Union. 

Mr.  BARBOTTR  observed  that  this  bill  involved 
considerations  of  great  moment;  that  it  em- 
braced provisions  on  which  there  were  conflict- 
ing opinions,  though  no  objection  whatever  was 
entertained  to  the  main  object  of  the  bill,  of 
which  indeed  he  was  warmly  in  favor.  For  this 
and  other  reasons,  which  Mr.  B.  afterwards 
submitted  at  large,  he  wished  the  bill  to  go  back 
to  the  committee,  in  hopes  that  they  might  so 
shape  it  as  to  obviate  the  difficulties  alluded  to, 
and  unite  the  voice  of  the  Senate  in  its  favor. 
Mr.  B.  concluded  his  remarks  by  moving  that 
the  further  consideration  of  the  bill  be  post- 
poned to  Wednesday ;  when,  if  his  present  mo- 
tion succeeded,  he  should  offer  the  following 
motion : 

"  That  the  bill  entitled  a  bill  declaring  the  consent 
of  Congress  to  the  admission  of  the  State  of  Maine 
into  the  Union,  be  committed  to  the  Committee  on 
the  Judiciary,  with  instructions  so  to  amend  it  as  to 
authorize  the  people  of  Missouri  to  establish  a  State 
government,  and  to  admit  such  State  into  the  Union 
upon  an  equal  footing  with  the  original  States  in  all 
respects  whatever." 

The  motion  to  postpone  was  opposed  at  con- 
siderable length  by  Messrs.  MELLEN,  OTIS,  and 
BURRILL,  successively,  on  the  ground  of  the  im- 
propriety of  delaying  the  bill,  and  also  as  taken 
in  connection  with  a  motion  of  which  Mr.  B  AR- 
BOUR had  given  notice.  The  inexpediency  of 
coupling  the  two  subjects  together  in  one  bill ; 
and,  incidentally,  the  question  connected  with 
the  Missouri  bill  of  certain  restrictions,  &c.,  en- 
tered into  the  debate. 

The  motion  strictly  before  the  Senate  being 
simply  to  postpone  the  consideration  of  the  bill 
to  Wednesday,  it  was  assented  to  generally  by 
those  gentlemen  who  had  opposed  the  object  of 
the  postponement,  and  was  agreed  to  without 
a  division. 


382 


ABRIDGMENT  OF  THE 


SENATE.] 


Maine  and  Mumtri. 


1820. 


TUESDAY,  January  4. 

WILLIAM  PIXKNEY,  appointed  a  Senator  by  the 
Legislature  of  the  State  of  Maryland,  in  place  of 
Alexander  C.  Ifanson,  deceased,  produced  his 
credentials,  was  qualified,  and  took  his  seat  in 
the  Senate. 


WEDNESDAY,  January  5. 

Pennsylvania — Resolutions  against  Slavery  in 
New  States. 

Mr.  EOBEETS  offered  the  following  proceed- 
ings of  the  Legislature  of  Pennsylvania,  which 
were  received,  and  read: 

Resolutions  relative   to  preventing  the  introduction  of 
slavery  into  new  States. 

The  Senate  and  House  of  Representatives  of  the 
Commonwealth  of  Pennsylvania,  whilst  they  cherish 
the  right  of  the  individual  States  to  express  their  opin- 
ions upon  all  public  measures  proposed  in  the  Con- 
gress of  the  Union,  are  aware  that  its  usefulness  must 
in  a  great  degree  depend  upon  the  discretion  with 
which  it  is  exercised.  They  believe  that  the  right 
ought  not  to  be  resorted  to  upon  trivial  subjects  or 
unimportant  occasions,  but  they  are  also  persuaded 
that  there  are  moments  when  the  neglect  to  exercise 
it  would  be  a  dereliction  of  public  duty. 

Such  an  occasion  as  in  their  judgment  demands  the 
frank  expression  of  the  sentiments  of  Pennsylvania  is 
now  presented.  A  measure  was  ardently  supported 
in  the  last  Congress  of  the  United  States,  and  will 
probably  be  as  earnestly  urged  during  the  existing 
session  of  that  body,  which  has  a  palpable  tendency 
to  impair  the  political  relations  of  the  several  States ; 
which  is  calculated  to  mar  the  social  happiness  of  the 
present  and  future  generations ;  which,  if  adopted, 
would  impede  the  march  of  humanity  and  freedom 
through  the  world,  and  would  affix  and  perpetuate  an 
odious  stain  upon  the  present  race — a  measure,  in 
brief,  which  proposes  to  spread  the  crimes  and  cruel- 
ties of  slavery  from  the  banks  of  the  Mississippi  to  the 
shores  of  the  Pacific. 

When  measures  of  this  character  are  seriously  ad- 
vocated in  the  republican  Congress  of  America,  in  the 
nineteenth  century,  the  several  States  are  invoked  by 
the  duty  which  they  owe,  to  the  Deity,  by  the  venera- 
tion which  they  entertain  for  the  memory  of  the 
founders  of  the  Republic,  and  by  a  tender  regard  for 
posterity,  to  protest  against  its  adoption,  to  refuse  to 
covenant  with  crime,  and  to  limit  the  range  of  an  evil 
that  already  hangs  in  awful  boding  over  so  large  a 
portion  of  the  Union. 

Nor  can  such  a  protest  be  entered  by  any  State 
with  greater  propriety  than  by  Pennsylvania.  This 
Commonwealth  has  as  sacredly  respected  the  rights  of 
other  States  as  it  has  been  careful  of  its  own.  It  has 
been  the  invariable  aim  of  the  people  of  Pennsylvania 
to  extend  to  the  universe,  by  their  example,  the  un- 
adulterated blessings  of  civil  and  religious  freedom. 
It  is  their  pride,  that  they  have  been  at  all  times  the 
practical  advocates  of  those  improvements  and  chari- 
ties amongst  men  which  are  so  well  calculated  to  en- 
able them  to  answer  the  purposes  of  their  Creator ; 
and,  above  all,  they  may  boast  that  they  were  fore- 
most in  removing  the  pollution  of  slavery  from 
amongst  them. 

Under  these  convictions,  and  in  full  persuasion  that 
upon  this  topic  there  is  but  one  opinion  in  Pennsyl- 
vania— 


Resolved,  by  the  Senate  and  House  of  Representatives 
of  the  Commonwealth  of  Pennsylvania,  That  the  Sen- 
ators and  Representatives  of  this  State  in  the  Con- 
gress of  the  United  States  be,  and  they  are  hereby, 
requested  to  vote  against  the  admission  of  any  terri- 
tory as  a  State  in  the  Union,  unless  "  the  further  in- 
troduction of  slavery  or  involuntary  servitude,  except 
For  the  punishment  of  crimes,  whereof  the  party  shall 
bave  been  duly  convicted,  shall  be  prohibited ;  and 
all  children  born  within  the  said  territory,  after 
the  admission  into  the  Union  as  a  State,  shall  be  free, 
but  may  be  held  to  service  until  the  age  of  twenty- 
five  years." 

Resolved,  That  the  Governor  be,  and  he  is  hereby, 
requested  to  cause  a  copy  of  the  foregoing  preamble 
and  resolution  to  be  transmitted  to  each  of  the  Sen- 
ators and  Representatives  of  the  State  in  the  Congress 
of  the  United  States. 

JOSEPH  LAWRENCE, 
Speaker  of  the  House  of  Representatives. 
ISAAC  WEAVER, 

Speaker  of  tlie  Senate. 

APPROVED — The  22d  day  of  December,  1819. 
WILLIAM  FINDLAY. 


THTJBSDAY,  January  13. 
Maine  and  Missouri. 

The  Senate  having  taken  up  the  bill  from  the 
House  of  Representatives,  for  the  admission  of 
the  State  of  Maine  into  the  Union,  on  an  equal 
footing  with  the  original  States,  together  with 
the  amendment  reported  thereto  by  the  Judi- 
ciary Committee,  which  amendment  embraces 
provisions  for  authorizing  the  people  of  the 
Territory  of  Missouri  to  form  a  convention, 
&c.,  preparatory  to  their  admission  into  the 
Union — 

Mr.  ROBERTS,  of  Pennsylvania,  rose  and  said 
he  felt  it  to  be  his  duty  to  try  the  merits  of 
these  two  subjects  by  a  preliminary  motion  to 
this  effect : 

"  That  the  bill  for  the  admission  of  the  State  of 
Maine  into  the  Union,  and  the  amendment  thereto 
reported,  be  recommitted  to  the  Judiciary  Commit- 
tee, with  instructions  so  to  modify  its  provisions  as 
to  admit  the  State  of  Maine  into  the  Union"  (divested 
of  the  amendment  embracing  Missouri) 

Mr.  ROBERTS  said  that  the  question  involved 
in  the  amendment  reported  by  the  Judiciary 
Committee  would  probably  excite  much  feeling. 
For  himself,  however,  he  was  determined  to 
prepare  to  meet  it  with  the  temper  and  moder- 
ation which  were  due  to  it.  But  he  wished,  in 
entering  upon  it,  there  should  be  the  most  per- 
fect regularity,  and  the  most  full  opportunity 
for  discussion.  The  question  of  the  admission 
of  Maine  into  the  Union  was  one  question ;  that 
of  the  admission  of  Missouri  another ;  and  that 
of  uniting  the  two  in  one  bill  was  a  distinct 
question,  for  the  purpose  of  obtaining  an  unem- 
barrassed decision  on  which  he  had  submitted 
the  present  motion.  Mr.  R.  adverted  to  the 
progress,  in  the  Senate,  of  the  proposition  for 
the  admission  of  Maine  into  the  Union.  Very 
early  in  the  session,  he  said,  a  communication 
had  been  received  from  a  regular  source,  that  a 


DEBATES  OF  CONGRESS. 


JANUARY,  1820.] 


Maine  and  Missouri. 


[SENATE. 


convention  of  the  people  of  Maine,  duly  author- 
ized thereto  by  an  act  of  the  Legislature  of 
Massachusetts,  had  met  and  formed  a  constitu- 
tion of  State  government.  A  bill  had  been 
duly  reported,  by  a  committee,  for  the  admis- 
sion of  the  State  of  Maine  into  the  Union,  and 
made  the  order  of  the  day  for  a  particular  day. 
On  that  day,  and  on  successive  following  days, 
it  was 'postponed,  for  various  reasons,  on  ac- 
count of  the  absence  of  members  from  different 
sections  of  the  Union.  At  that  time,  Mr.  R. 
said,  he  had  no  idea  that  there  was  an  intention 
to  connect  the  two  subjects  of  Maine  and  Mis- 
souri, until  a  member  from  Virginia,  in  moving 
a  further  postponement  of  the  bill,  stated  that 
he  had  some  notion  of  endeavoring  to  connect 
the  two  questions.  This  proceeding  struck 
him,  on  comparing  it  with  the  usual  order  of 
proceedings  in  this  House,  as  a  little  curious,  to 
say  the  least  of  it — though  he  did  not  mention 
it  as  a  matter  for  censure,  but  as  a  mere  state- 
ment of  facts.  On  the  29th  of  December,  said 
he,  we  find  a  memorial  from  the  Legislature  of 
Missouri  is  taken  from  the  files  of  the  House, 
and  referred  to  the  Judiciary  Committee.  Some 
days  afterwards,  a  message  is  received  from  the 
House  of  Representatives,  transmitting  a  bill  for 
the  admission  of  Maine  into  the  Union,  which 
is  referred  to  the  Judiciary  Committee,  and, 
the  two  subjects  being  thus  before  the  same 
committee,  they  reported  the  bill  for  the  admis- 
sion of  Missouri,  by  way  of  a  rider  to  the  bill 
which  came  from  the  other  House  for  the  ad- 
mission of  Maine.  This,  Mr.  R.  said,  was  an 
extraordinary  mode  of  proceeding,  which  ought 
to  be  met  at  the  threshold  ;  and  he  knew  not 
how  it  could  be  more  directly  met  than  by  the 
motion  which  he  had  submitted.  The  motion 
to  recommit,  he  said,  was  a  regular  motion,  but 
was  not  to  be  made,  he  admitted,  but  in  extra- 
ordinary cases.  This  was  a  case  of  that  descrip- 
tion. He  appealed  to  gentlemen  whether  it 
was  regular  or  even  justifiable  to  connect  in  one 
bill  two  subjects  totally  distinct,  as  these  in  re- 
ality are  ?  Maine,  he  said,  wras  a  part  of  the 
old  territory  of  the  United  States ;  her  consti- 
tution was  already  formed,  with  the  consent  of 
the  State  from  which  she  was  to  be  separated ; 
there  was  no  dispute  about  her  limits,  which 
were  defined,  nor  about  the  justice  of  her  claim 
to  admission,  which  was  admitted.  There 
were  many  doubts  about  Missouri,  with  respect 
to  her  extent,  boundaries,  and  population,  with- 
out regard  to  other  questions  which  might  arise 
respecting  her  constitution,  &c.  The  cases  of 
Kentucky  and  Vermont  had  been  cited  as 
a  precedent  for  this  proceeding ;  but,  Mr.  R. 
said,  they  were  admitted  by  separate  bills, 
passed  at  different  periods  of  the  same  session. 
Mr.  R.  said,  for  his  part,  ho  had  no  objection 
that  the  two  bills  for  the  admission  of  Maine 
and  Missouri  should  pass  on  the  SJUIK-  day  ;  but 
they  ought  to  pass  separately  and  independent!} 
of  each  other.  Standing,  as  they  did,  on  differ- 
ent grounds,  they  ought  to  be  decided  on  their 
own  merits. 


Mr.  SMITH,  of  South  Carolina,  said,  as  chair- 
man of  the  committee  which  reported  the 
amendment,  according  to  the  ordinary  usage 
when  opposition  arose,  it  became  his  duty  to 
explain  the  reasons  which  operated  with  them 
in  making  that  report,  although  the  motion  be- 
fore the  Senate  did  not  present  any  distinct  ob- 
jection to  it,  but  only  sought  to  modify  it.  If 
the  object  of  the  resolution  was  to  make  the 
admission  of  Maine  apart  of  the  bill,  the  motion 
was  nugatory,  because  Maine  was  already  in  the 
bill,  as  it  came  from  the  House  of  Representa- 
tives ;  and  to  recommit  the  bill  for  the  purpose 
of  introducing  what  was  already  there,  could 
answer  no  sensible  purpose.  If  the  object  was 
to  exclude  Missouri  for  the  want  of  formality  or 
simplicity  in  the  bill,  the  resolution  ought  to  be 
rejected.  There  could  be  no  good  reason  why 
they  should  be  separated.  The  subject  matter 
was  perfectly  congenial,  and  it  was  a  correct 
rule  in  legislation  to  incorporate  in  the  same 
statute  all  subjects  that  were  homogeneous, 
and  this  principle  accorded  with  the  uniform 
practice  of  the  Senate.  But,  if  it  had  for  its 
object  the  admission  of  Maine,  and  the  total  ex- 
clusion of  Missouri  from  the  privilege  of  a  place 
in  the  Union,  upon  an  equal  footing  with  the 
original  States,  it  became  more  objectionable. 

If  any  difference  did  exist  between  the  two 
cases  now  before  you,  the  preference  was  in  fa- 
vor of  Missouri.  The  assent  of  Congress  must 
first  be  had  before  Maine  can  be  admitted : 
Congress  was  bound  to  admit  Missonri,  when- 
ever she  presented  herself  with  such  a  popula- 
tion as  you  have  been  accustomed  to  recognize 
as  sufficient  in  other  cases,  which  Missouri  now 
tenders,  and  claims  her  right  of  admission. 
This  claim  to  the  right  of  admission,  on  the 
part  of  Missouri,  is  founded  on  the  third  article 
of  the  treaty  of  cession  under  which  the  United 
States  acquired  the  territory  of  Louisiana  in  full 
dominion.  That  article  of  the  treaty  is  so  ex- 
plicit and  definite  it  cannot  be  questioned.  It 
says,  "  The  inhabitants  of  the  ceded  territory 
shall  be  incorporated  in  the,Union  of  the  United 
States,  and  admitted  as  soon  as  possible,  accord- 
ing to  the  principles  of  the  Federal  Constitution, 
to  the  enjoyment  of  all  the  rights,  advantages, 
and  immunities  of  citizens  of  the  United  States; 
and  in  the  mean  time  they  shall  be  maintained 
and  protected  in  the  free  enjoyment  of  their 
liberty,  property,  and  the  religion  which  they 
profess."  The  terms  here  prescribed  are  im- 
perative. Here  is  no  condition  annexed ;  but 
they  shall  be  admitted  into  the  Union.  This 
treaty  has  become  a  part  of  the  supreme  law  of 
the  land.  It  is  made  so  by  the  constitution  it- 
self, and  is  as'obligsrtory  as  the  constitution  can 
be.  The  President  and  Senate  of  the  United 
States  are  made  competent  to  form  any  treaty 
they  may  deem  proper,  and  such  treaty  is  abso- 
lutely binding  to  the  fullest  extent  of  its  stipu- 
lations. Upon  this  occasion  the  words  used  are 
as  appropriate  as  any  in  the  English  language. 
To  incorporate  is  defined,  by  a  distinguished 
lexicographer,  in  these  words :  "  To  mingle  dif- 


384 


ABRIDGMENT  OF  THE 


SENATE.] 


^faine  and  Missouri. 


[JANUARY,  1820. 


ferent  ingredients,  so  as  they  shall  make  one 
mass."  In  addition  to  this  is  the  comprehensive 
and  appropriate  word  Union.  This  makes  Mis- 
souri as  much  a  component  part  of  the  Union 
as  Maine,  and  as  much  an  object  of  its  care  and 
protection.  "Where,  then,  exists  the  incongruity 
which  forbids  their  junction  in  the  same  bill  ? 
By  this  treaty  an  express  stipulation  is  entered 
into,  in  words  as  definite  and  appropriate  as  any 
the  English  language  affords,  to  secure  their 
rights  of  liberty  and  property.  But  this  is  said 
to  be  no  more  than  the  formula  of  a  treaty.  It 
would  afford  but  a  poor  consolation  to  the 
inhabitants  of  a  country  which,  in  the  destiny 
of  nations,  may  be  transferred  from  one  sov- 
ereign to  another,  to  be  told,  that  all  the 
plain  and  sensible  stipulations  securing  to 
them  their  most  sacred  rights  and  dearest  priv- 
ileges, are  but  the  formula  of  a  treaty.  It 
is  an  obligation  which  the  faith  of  the  nation  is 
pledged  to  fulfil.  Are  there  any  rights  attached 
to  Maine  that  ought  to  be  more  sacredly  guard- 
ed than  those  of  Missouri,  guaranteed  by  this 
treaty  ?  If  there  are  not,  why  should  Maine 
claim  to  approach  this  high  station  alone,  dis- 
daining and  avoiding  Missouri  as  her  associate  ? 
Mr.  MELLEN,  of  Massachusetts,  said,  as  he  had 
presented  the  memorial  of  the  convention,  pray- 
ing for  the  admission  of  Maine  into  the  Union, 
and,  as  he  was  an  inhabitant  of  that  section  of 
Massachusetts,  it  was  natural  to  suppose  that  he 
felt  an  interest  in  the  success  of  the  bill  under 
consideration.  I  do,  sir,  said  he,  feel  an  inter- 
est ;  and  though  on  a  former  occasion  I  have 
expressed  in  the  Senate  my  sentiments  in  rela- 
tion to  the  subject  of  the  separation  of  Maine 
from  Massachusetts,  and  have  elsewhere  frankly 
opposed  the  measure  then  in  contemplation, 
circumstances  have  since  given  a  new  aspect  to 
the  question ;  an  immense  majority  of  the  peo- 
ple of  Maine  have  declared  their  opinion  in  fa- 
vor of-  dissolving  their  connection  with  Massa- 
chusetts, and  becoming  an  independent  State ; 
Massachusetts  has  consented  to  their  wishes ;  a 
constitution  has  been  formed  in  a  spirit  of  har- 
mony, and  it  has  been  accepted  by  the  people 
by  a  vote  almost  unanimous.  In  this  state  of 
things  I  cheerfully  yield  my  own  opinion,  and 
am  disposed  to  join  the  general  wish,  and  aid  in 
such  measures  as  are  still  necessary  to  the  com- 
pletion of  the  great  object  in  view.  "With  this 
avowal  I  proceed,  sir,  to  state,  that  I  am  op- 
posed to  the  amendment  reported  by  the  com- 
mittee. I  am  opposed  to  it  for  several  reasons. 
It  will  be  recollected  that  the  bill  on  the  table 
has  passed  the  House  of  Eepresentatives  in  the 
simplest  form — merely  declaring  the  assent  of 
Congress  to  the  admission*  of  Maine  into  the 
Union ;  the  bill,  so  passed,  has  been  sent  to  the 
Senate  for  concurrence ;  in  the  usual  course  it 
was  referred  to  the  Committee  on  the  Judiciary, 
and  they  have  reported  it,  with  an  amendment, 
consisting  of  a  long  bill  for  authorizing  Missouri 
to  form  a  constitution,  as  a  preliminary  step 
towards  her  admission  into  the  Union  at  a  fu- 
ture day.  I  confess,  Mr.  President,  I  did  not 


anticipate  this  course;  I  had  no  authority  to 
expect  it ;  for  though  I  am  young  in  legislation, 
I  am  informed  by  those  who  aiv  experienced, 
that  such  an  amendment  is  a  perfect  novelty,  to 
say  the  least  of  it.  I  have  always  found,  sir, 
that  the  most  correct  course  for  a  man  of  busi- 
ness to  pursue  is  to  adopt  the  very  simple  rule 
of  doing  one  thing  at  a  time,  and  doing  it  fairly 
and  faithfully ;  that  the  proper  mode  of  decid- 
ing causes  in  a  court  of  justice,  or  questions  in 
a  legislative  body,  is  to  examine  them  distinctly, 
and  decide  each  cause  and  each  question  upon 
its  own  merits ;  and,  in  order  to  ascertain  those 
merits,  apply  principles  and  proof  without  con- 
fusion or  embarrassment.  I  am  desirous,  sir, 
that,  on  the  present  occasion,  this  plain,  old- 
fashioned  mode  of  proceeding  may  be  adopted 
and  pursued.  It  would  be  considered  as  a  sin- 
gular departure  from  the  ordinary  rules  of 
managing  the  concerns  of  a  court,  to  try  two 
causes  between  different  parties  at  the  same 
moment  and  by  the  same  jury;  and  for  the 
judge  to  instruct  this  jury  that  they  must,  at  all 
events,  return  their  verdict  in  both  causes  for 
the  plaintiffs,  or  both  for  the  defendants,  with- 
out any  regard  to  the  discriminating  merits  of 
the  causes ;  and  it  would  certainly  appear  more 
strange  still,  if,  in  one  of  the  causes,  there  were 
no  doubt  or  question  about  its  justice ;  and  yet 
that  it  must  be  sacrificed  in  company  with  the 
other,  because  the  jury  could  not  agree  in  a 
verdict  as  to  this  other.  The  case  I  have  now 
stated  shows  the  impropriety  of  this  junction 
of  the  two  bills.  This  is  not  consonant  to  the 
usage  in  similar  cases.  I  refer  to  Kentucky 
and  Vermont;  they  were  both  admitted  into 
the  Union  at  the  same  session,  with  an  interval 
of  only  a  few  days,  and  yet  separate  acts  of 
Congress  were  passed  for  the  purpose. 

Mr.  LLOYD,  of  Maryland,  expressed  his  hope 
that  the  motion  which  had  been  made  by  the 
gentleman  from  Pennsylvania  would  not  pre- 
vail. He  had  not  been  sufficiently  long  a  mem- 
ber of  this  body  to  know  precisely  the  usual 
mode  of  proceeding  in  cases  of  this  kind,  but  he 
should  have  thought  the  more  direct  course 
would  have  been  to  have  moved  to  strike  out 
the  amendment,  instead  of  moving  a  recommit- 
ment. This,  however,  was  matter  of  form ;  he 
objected  to  the  motion  on  principle.  It  had 
been  said  the  two  subjects  wrere  different  in 
their  nature.  This  Mr.  L.  did  not  admit.  "What, 
asked  he,  is  the  question  presented  by  the  bill 
and  the  proposed  amendment?  It  is  this: 
Shall  Maine  and  Missouri  be  admitted  into  the 
Union  on  an  equal  footing  with  the  original 
States?  Could  there,  he  asked,  be  a  plainer 
question ;  could  there  be  two  -subjects  more  in- 
timately connected,  or  in  principle  more  nearly 
allied,  than  the  two  embraced  in  this  question  ? 
We  may  imagine,  said  he,  as  many  distinctions 
between  the  two  cases  as  we  please ;  but  if  we 
confine  ourselves  to  the  power  granted  to  us  by 
the  constitution,  we  have  but  one  course  to 
pursue,  which  is,  to  admit  both  the  States,  on 
the  same  terms,  into  the  Union. 


DEBATES  OF  CONGRESS. 


385 


JANUARY,  1820.] 


Maine  and  Missouri. 


[SKNAl 


Mr.  L.  readily  admitted  that,  as  a  general 
course,  it  was  highly  improper  to  tack  together 
questions  depending  on  different  principles,  and 
relying  on  different  arguments  for  their  sup- 
port. He  denied,  however,  that  this  was  such 
a  case.  He  affirmed  that  if  the  Senate  had  a 
right  to  impose  restrictions  upon  Missouri,  they 
had  the  same  right  in  regard  to  Maine,  but  no 
power  over  the  one  which  they  had  not  over 
the  other.  If  the  novel  doctrine,  which  had 
been  recently  announced,  of  restrictions  and 
provisions  on  the  admission  of  new  States,  was 
to  prevail,  how  much  must  Massachusetts  and 
Maine  have  relied  on  the  liberality  of  Congress, 
in  forming  a  constitution  without  previously 
obtaining  the  assent  of  Congress,  and  in  suppos- 
ing they  were  to  be  admitted  into  the  Union  on 
their  own  terms.  How  did  they  know,  said 
Mr.  L.,  but  we  might  impose  a  restriction  upon 
Maine,  to  compel  her  to  admit  slavery  within 
her  limits?  If  we  have  a  right  to  impose  a 
negative  condition  in  regard  to  Missouri,  we 
have  a  correspondent  and  equal  right  to  impose 
an  affirmative  condition  in  regard  to  Maine. 
But,  in  this  case,  it  seemed  that  every  thing 
liberal  was  to  be  conceded  in  regard  to  Maine, 
and  every  thing  illiberal,  in  his  view  of  it,  was 
to  be  demanded  of  Missouri. 

Mr.  BUKEILL,  of  Ehode  Island,  took  the  floor. 
He  commenced  with  some  remarks  on  the  ques- 
tion of  order  involved  in  the  amendment.  Ho 
apprehended  the  committee  had  falleli  into  an 
error  in  reporting  it ;  at  least,  it  was  without 
precedent  for  a  committee  to  report  on  any 
subject  referred  to  them  by  way  of  amendment 
to  a  bill  from  the  House  of  Representatives, 
embracing  a  totally  different  object.  It  would 
be  agreed  on  all  hands,  he  said,  that  an  observ- 
ance of  their  own  rules  was  necessary  to  the 
dignity  of  this  body,  and  to  the  order  and  de- 
spatch of  business.  He  did  not  dwell  long, 
however,  on  the  point  of  order,  but  proceeded 
to  consider  the  merits  of  the  question,  which 
was  a  simple  proposition  to  separate  the  two 
subjects  of  Maine  and  Missouri. 

It  was  conformable  to  the  rules  and  practice 
of  the  Senate,  he  said,  to  divide  a  question, 
when  asked  by  any  member,  where  it  was  sus- 
ceptible of  division.  Now,  he  asked,  was  not 
this  question  susceptible  of  the  proposed  divi- 
sion? It  was  not  only  susceptible  of  division, 
he  said,  but  the  cases  embraced  by  it  were  es- 
sentially dissimilar.  With  regard  to  the  State 
of  Maine,  the  territory  embraced  by  it  had, 
from  the  adoption  of  the  constitution,  been 
known  as  the  District  of  Maine :  its  limits  were 
known  and  accurately  defined.  The  question 
on  the  admission  of  Maine  was  a  question  re- 
specting the  division  of  one  of  the  original 
States.  And  would  any  one  say  that  the  divi- 
sion of  an  old  State  was  a  question  of  the  same 
nature  as  that  of  the  erection  of  a  State  out  of 
an  acquired  territory?  There  were  cases,  he 
said,  in  which  Congress  were  under  an  obliga- 
tion to  erect  new  States  in  the  territories  of  the 
United  States;  but  they  were  not  obliged  to 
VOL.  VI.— 25 


admit  into  the  Union  a  State  formed  out  of  an 
old  State.  He  agreed  with  gentlemen  on  the 
other  side  in  some  of  their  premises,  though  he 
dissented  from  their  conclusions.  He  agreed 
that  the  question  of  consenting  to  the  division  of 
a  new  State  was  a  question  of  policy — a  question 
on  which  the  Congress  was  to  exercise  a  sound 
discretion.  For  example,  if  the  State  of  which 
he  was  a  Representative  on  this  floor  were  to 
ask  to  be  divided,  though  the  people  composing 
it  should  be  unanimously  agreed  on  the  subject, 
he  doubted  whether  Congress  would  assent  to 
it.  The  question  therefore  embraced  by  the 
bill  was  about  the  division  of  a  State,  which 
Congress  was  to  decide  as  it  should  deem  most 
wisely  in  regard  to  the  general  interests  of  the 
Union ;  whilst  the  question  involved  in  the 
amendment  regarded  the  erection  of  a  new 
State  in  a  Territory,  which  Congress  were  un- 
der an  obligation,  arising  not  only  from  the  co- 
lonial condition  of  the  Territory,  but  by  the 
force  of  a  treaty  with  a  foreign  power,  as  had 
been  contended,  and  as  he  admitted  in  a  certain 
sense,  to  establish.  There  was  no  connection 
between  questions  so  distinct  in  their  nature, 
and  they  ought  not  to  be  united  in  the  same 
bill. 

Mr.  MACON,  of  North  Carolina,  next  followed 
in  debate.  With  regard  to  the  order  of  pro- 
ceeding, he  said,  it  had  never  been  the  prac- 
tice to  refer  back  a  subject  to  a  committee,  but 
for  the  purpose  of  obtaining  details,  to  make 
that  which  was  doubtful  plain.  In  the  present 
case  there  was  no  occasion  for  such  a  reference, 
the  object  being  to  separate  two  subjects  pro- 
posed to  be  united,  which  could  be  directly  ef- 
fected by  a  disagreement  to  the  proposed 
amendment.  There  was  no  necessity,  there- 
fore, in  his  opinion,  to  recommit  the  bill  on  that 
ground. 

This,  said  he,  is  a  pretty  important  question, 
view  it  in  what  light  you  will.  The  appear- 
ance of  the  Senate  to-day  is  different  from  any 
thing  I  have  seen  since  I  have  been  a  member 
of  it.  It  is  the  greatness  of  the  question  which 
has  produced  it.  So  interesting  is  it,  that,  on 
this  incidental  question,  all  the  members  have 
gone  into  the  question,  which  is  not,  but  is  ex- 
pected to  be,  before  the  Senate. 

With  regard  to  the  question  immediately  be- 
fore the  Senate,  Mr.  M.  said  he  had  hardly  ex- 
pected that  the  gentleman  from  Pennsylvania 
would  have  forbidden  the  banns  of  this  mar- 
riage. He  thought  the  opposition  to  it  wonld 
have  come  from  some  one  more  interested,  more 
nearly  allied  to  the  parties.  Allusion  had  been 
made  to  the  case  of  Vermont  and  Kentucky. 
And  why,  he  asked,  were  there  given,  in  the 
same  bill,  to  Vermont  two  representatives,  and 
to  Kentucky  two  ?  Their  population  was  not 
known;  but  their  representation  was  made 
equal  in  order  to  keep  tip  the  proportion  which 
the  National  Convention  had  given  to  the  two 
sections  of  the  Union. 

It  had  been  said  that  the  law  of  Massachu- 
setts, sanctioning  the  independence  of  Maine, 


ABRIDGMENT  OF  THE 


SENATE.] 


[JANUARY,  1820. 


would  expire  on  the  8d  day  of  March,  and  it 
was  therefore  proper  to  hasten  the  passage  of 
the  bill  from  the  House  of  Eepresentatives, 
without  amendment.  But,  Mr.  M.  said,  that 
Massachusetts  would  not,  after  she  had  consent- 
ed to  her  daughter  setting  up  for  herself,  play 
the  stepmother,  and  say,  because  you  have  not 
done  this  to-day,  you  shall  not  do  it  to-morrow. 
Massachusetts  would  do  hereafter,  he  had  no 
doubt,  what  she  had  already  done. 

With  respect  to  the  alleged  impropriety  of 
connecting  the  two  subjects  in  one  bill,  Mr.  M. 
asked  if  there  was  any  thing  more  common 
than  for  Congress  to  pass  bills  for  particular 
objects,  "  and  for  other  purposes  ? "  It  was  the 
practice  of  every  day ;  and  those  "  other  pur- 
poses "  were  frequently  not  purposes  connected 
with  the  main  subject  of  the  bill.  The  Senate, 
the  gentleman  might  recollect,  had  at  times 
been  so  tenacious  of  their  bills,  as  not  to  allow 
them  to  be  amended  even  by  a  dot  over  an  i, 
or  a  cross  on  a  t.  Yet  the  Senate  had,  before 
now,  in  more  instances  than  one,  tacked  one 
bill  to  another  of  a  different  nature.  Mr.  M. 
quoted  an  instance,  being  an  act  to  establish  a 
board  of  commissioners  for  the  city  of  "Wash- 
ington, and  for  other  purposes,  passed  several 
years  ago.  After  the  bill  came  from  the  House 
of  Representatives  to  the  Senate,  as  the  Jour- 
nal would  show,  it  was  amended  by  the  addi- 
tion of  provisions  for  authorizing  the  making 
a  canal  from  the  Potomac  to  the  Eastern 
Branch ;  which  provision  was  certainly  not 
analogous  to  the  main  object  of  the  bill.  Mr, 
M.  said  he  questioned  whether  a  bill  ever  passed 
with  a  great  many  sections,  but  those  who 
voted,  for  it  objected  to  some  of  them.  He 
could  himself  recollect  amendments  to  bills 
having  been  made,  which  were  so  obnoxious 
that  gentlemen  friendly  to  the  object  of  the 
bills  had  been  almost  ready  to  give  up  the  main 
point,  rather  than  agree  to  the  amendments. 

Reference  had  been  made  to  proceedings  on 
this  subject  out  of  doors.  Those  proceedings, 
said  Mr.  M.,  have  been  all  one  side.  Our  peo- 
ple do  not  petition  much ;  we  plume  ourselves 
on  not  pestering  the  General  Government  with 
our  prayers.  Nor  do  we  set  the  woods  on  fire 
to  drive  the  game  out.  When  the  question, 
which  every  one  had  alluded  to,  came  properly 
before  the  House,  Mr.  M.  said  he  would  speak 
his  sentiments  upon  it.  Gentlemen  were  in- 
quiring what,  to  a  fraction,  was  the  population 
of  Missouri.  For  his  part,  if  she  was  other- 
wise fitted  for  self-government,  and  had  a  pop- 
ulation of  but  twenty  thousand,  he  would  say 
to  her,  come  into  the  family,  and  become  one 
of  us.  In  no  instance,  he  said,  had  Congress 
insisted,  in  the  admission  of  new  States,  on  a 
population  of  sixty  thousand.  The  true  reason 
of  the  objection  to  the  prompt  admission  of 
Missouri,  was  the  principle  to  which  gentlemen 
had  alluded,  and  which  had  made  so  much 
noise  out  of  doors.  He  confessed,  that  on  this 
question  he  had  felt  more  anxiety  than  on  any 
other  question  lately  presented  to  his  view.  It 


may,  said  he,  be  a  matter  of  philosophy  and 
abstraction  with  the  gentlemen  of  the  East,  but 
it  is  a  different  thing  with  us.  They  may  phi- 
losophize and  town-meeting  about  it  as  much 
as  they  please  ;  but,  with  great  submission,  sir, 
they  know  nothing  about  the  question. 


FBIDAY,  January  14. 
Maine  and  Missouri. 

The  Senate  resumed  the  consideration  of  the 
subject  of  the  Maine  bill,  (as  proposed  to  be 
amended  by  adding  Missouri  to  it,)  and  the 
proposition  by  Mr.  ROBERTS,  to  recommit  the 
bill  with  instructions  to  the  committee  to  sepa- 
rate the  two,  and  report  Maine  in  a  distinct 
bill,  as  it  came  from  the  other  House. 

Mr.  B  ARBOUR,  of  Virginia,  said,  the  particular 
agency  which  he  had  heretofore  had  in  this 
subject,  made  it  proper  that  he  should  endeavor 
to  show  the  impropriety  of  agreeing  to  the 
proposed  resolution,  and  at  the  same  time  vin- 
dicate the  course  pursued  by  the  committee  in 
recommending  the  amendment  providing  for 
the  admission  of  Missouri  into  the  Union.  To 
a  distinct  understanding  of  the  subject,  said  he, 
it  is  necessary  we  should  advert  to  the  history 
of  its  progress.  A  select  committee,  to  whom 
the  subject  was  referred,  brought  in  a  bill  whose 
object  was  to  provide  for  the  admission  of 
Maine  into  the  Union.  While  it  was  depend- 
ing before  the  Senate,  I  submitted  a  motion  to 
recommit  the  bill,  with  instructions  to  incorpo- 
rate the  very  amendment  which  has  now  been 
proposed.  Before  this  question  was  decided,  a 
bill  is  sent  tip  from  the  House  of  Representa- 
tives, precisely  like  that  depending  here.  In 
conformity  to  an  existing  comity  between  the 
two  Houses,  the  bill  depending  here,  with  the 
instructions  I  had  submitted,  was  postponed, 
and  the  Senate  proceeded  to  act  on  the  one 
from  the  House  of  Representatives.  At  the 
proper  time,  it  was  committed  to  the  Judiciary 
Committee,  who,  as  I  think,  most  wisely  and 
justifiably,  reported  the  bill  with  the  much  con- 
tested amendment  in  favor  of  Missouri — the 
memorial  of  that  people  having  been  previously 
referred  to  that  committee,  supplicating  admis- 
sion into  the  Union.  It  is  objected,  first,  by 
the  member  from  Pennsylvania,  that  the  com- 
mittee got  possession  of  the  subject  rather  cu- 
riously. In  justification  of  this  assertion,  he 
states  that  the  memorial  of  the  people  of  Mis- 
souri is  that  which  was  presented  the  last 
session.  Sure,  this  objection  is  of  itself  a  cu- 
riosity. Is  it  not  the  invariable  usage  which 
obtains  in  both  branches,  when  a  petition  has 
been  presented,  and  its  object  not  consumma- 
ted, as  is  but  too  commonly  the  case,  Congress 
either  being  unable  or  unwilling  to  do  so,  for 
the  same  identical  petition  to  be  presented  to 
the  ensuing  Congress?  Why  present  a  new 
one,  the  facts  and  grounds  of  the  application 
remaining  the  same?  It  is  next  objected  by 
the  gentleman  from  Rhode  Island,  that  the 
committee  have  exceeded  their  powers  in  rec- 


DEBATES  OF  CONGRESS. 


387 


JAOTAKY,  1820.] 


Maine  and  Missouri. 


[SENATE. 


ommending  this  amendment.  Pray,  sir,  what 
is  the  object  of  referring  a  bill  to  a  committee 
— merely  to  dot  the  i's  and  cross  the  t's  ?  I 
had  supposed  they  had  a  more  important  duty 
to  perform.  Not  only  their  right,  but  that  it 
was  their  bounden  duty  to  modify  or  amend 
any  and  every  part  in  relation  to  the  particular 
subject  embraced  by  the  bill,  and  to  extend  its 
provisions  so  as  to  embrace  every  correspond- 
ing subject.  This  is  not  only  a  rational  rule, 
but  one  which  is  prescribed  by  every  well-or- 
ganized deliberative  body.  It  in  the  first  place 
diminishes  that  multiplicity  of  laws  already 
swelled  to  an  extent  beyond  the  reading  of  the 
most  industrious.  Secondly,  it  prevents  that 
irregularity  and  inconsistency  which  ensue 
from  a  different  course.  I  appeal  to  the  expe- 
rience of  the  Senate,  when  I  assert,  that  the 
success  of  a  claim,  for  instance,  depends  some- 
times on  the  zeal,  perseverance,  and  ability  of 
its  patron.  A  claim  thus  supported,  is  carried 
in  triumph  through  the  House— while  one  no 
less  just,  for  want  of  those  efficient  auxiliaries, 
is  lost,  and,  in  consequence,  a  chequered  and 
unequal  system  of  legislation  obtains.  If  this 
be  true  on  trifling  occasions,  how  does  the  rea- 
son of  the  course  pursued  by*the  committee  in- 
crease upon  us,  and  the  necessity  of  adhering 
to  it  upon  subjects  so  important  as  those  in- 
volved in  the  bill  and  amendment !  But  it  is 
objected  that  the  two  subjects  are  dissimilar, 
and,  therefore,  should  be  separated.  If  this  be 
true,  why  send  it  back  to  the  committee  ?  The 
question  before  the  Senate  is,  shall  they  be 
joined  as  proposed  by  the  committee  ?  If  you 
disapprove  of  the  junction,  reject  it ;  but  do 
not  refer  it  to  the  committee :  they  have  per- 
formed their  duty;  do  you  perform  yours. 
But  is  it  true,  that  there  is  any  difference  in 
the  two  subjects,  so  as  to  make  it  indispensable 
to  separate  them  ?  As  to  any  thing  yet  before 
the  Senate,  there  is  no  essential  difference ;  and, 
therefore,  nothing  to  require  their  separation. 
Let  us  inquire,  first,  in  what  they  agree ;  Maine, 
it  is  readily  admitted,  has  just  claims  to  an  ad- 
mission into  the  Union ;  and  I  shall  be  greatly 
misunderstood,  if  I  am  suspected  of  any  hostil- 
ity to  such  admission.  Her  claims  rest  on  the 
extent  of  her  territory,  the  number  of  her  peo- 
ple, the  great  length  of  her  maritime  coast,  her 
frontier  situation,  and  the  necessity  of  the  resi- 
dence of  her  government  within  her  borders, 
by  which,  whenever  the  occasion  occurs,  the 
resources  of  the  State  may  be  called  out  imme- 
diately for  her  defence  and  protection.  What 
are  Missouri's  claims?  An  equal  extent  of 
country,  the  number  of  her  people,  her  fron- 
tier situation,  a  right  guaranteed  by  the  treaty 
by  which  we  acquired  the  country,  but,  above 
all,  the  invaluable  privilege  of  self-government, 
of  which  she  is  now  deprived :  a  privilege  dear 
to  every  American ;  the  deprivation  of  which 
is  the  last  injury  which  can  bo  inflicted  upon 
them.  In  what  do  they  differ?  It  is  said 
Maine  is  ready  to  come  into  the  Govern- 
ment, having  formed  her  constitution.  In  de- 


pendently  of  the  consideration  that  this  state 
of  things  would  make  it  necessary  only  to  adapt 
the  different  sections  of  the  bill  to  the  peculiar 
circumstances  of  the  two  cases,  I  must  be  per- 
mitted to  state,  that  Maine  has  no  claim  on  us 
for  the  precipitancy  with  which  she  has  acted. 
The  correct  course  would  have  been,  to  have 
obtained  the  consent  of  Congress  before  she 
had  proceeded  as  far  as  she  has.  For  I  pre- 
sume no  one  will  pretend  that  there  is  any  con- 
stitutional obligation  on  Congress  to  admit 
Maine  at  all  into  the  Union — for  the  very  ob- 
vious reason,  that  she  now,  as  a  part  of  Massa- 
chusetts, enjoys  all  the  inestimable  blessings  of 
self-government.  She  surely,  therefore,  has 
not  increased  her  claim  on  our  indulgence  by 
the  premature  step  she  has  taken  in  forming 
her  constitution ;  especially,  too,  as  she  did  not 
know  but,  according  to  the  new  doctrine  re- 
cently sprung  up,  Congress  might  think  proper 
to  impose  restrictions* — of  which  right  she 
seems  to  have  deprived  us,  by  making  and  fash- 
ioning her  constitution  according  to  her  own 
will  and  pleasure.  Missouri,  on  the  contrary, 
quietly  submitted  to  the  injustice  of  which  she 
was  the  victim  at  the  last  session,  and,  for  this 
submission,  and  her  forbearance  to  assert  her 
right  to  self-government,  is  held  as  an  unworthy 
associate  of  the  less  respectful  Maine. 

Mr.  OTIS,  of  Massachusetts,  observed  that, 
from  the  relation  hi  which  he  stood  to  the 
State  whose  separation  was  to  be  effected  by 
the  bill,  it  might  be  expected  that  he  should 
take  some  part  hi  the  debate,  though  he  was 
not  sure  that  it  was  in  his  power  to  add  much 
to  the  illustration  of  the  subject.  It  must  be 
obvious  to  all  that  he  could  not  reflect  without 
regret  upon  the  proposed  division  of  his  native 
State ;  but  as  this  measure  had  been  long  since 
agreed  to,  with  the  full  and  deliberate  consent 
of  all  parties  concerned;  and  the  people  of 
Maine,  in  consequence  of  what  he  regarded  as 
an  invitation  from  Congress,  had  actually  formed 
a  constitution,  and  were  now  intent  upon  the 
consummation  of  their  plan,  he  felt  it  to  be  his 
duty  to  contribute,  with  sincerity  and  frank- 
ness, to  its  accomplishment.  The  question  now 
before  the  Senate  was  in  substance  a  question 
of  order ;  and  it  was  with  a  view  to  disencum- 
ber it  of  other  questions,  of  a  more  grand  and 
interesting  character,  that  he  should  vote  hi  fa- 
vor of  the  recommitment.  He  should,  on  the 
whole,  have  preferred  taking  the  question  upon 
the  adoption*  of  the  amendment ;  but  as  upon 
that  the  entire  merits  of  the  Missouri  preten- 
sions would  have  been  open  to  a  debate,  at  the 
option  of  honorable  gentlemen,  which  it  was 
desirable  to  avoid,  he  was  reconciled  to  the 
present  course.  He  begged  leave,  however,  to 
deny,  that  a  vote  in  favor  of  this  motion  was 
equivalent  to  one  for  rejecting  Missouri.  He 
had  once  voted  for  the  admission  of  Missouri, 
and  expected,  after  a  fair  opportunity  for*  ex- 
amination into  the  details  of  a  bill  for  that  pur- 
pose, if  it  could  be  made  to  accord  with  his 
views,  to  vote  for  it  again.  It  was  not,  he 


388 


ABRIDGMENT  OF  THE 


SENATE.] 


Maine  and  Missouri. 


[JANUAKY,  1820. 


agreed,  very  easy  to  compass,  with  the  chains 
of  a  definition,  the  principles  that  shonld  regu- 
late the  embracing  of  several  objects  in  one 
bill ;  but  there  was  in  every  man's  bosom  a  per- 
ception of  the  fitness  and  congruity  of  objects 
which  furnished  an  almost  unerring  standard. 
If  the  subject-matter  of  two  provisions  was  en- 
tirely dissimilar,  and  unconnected ;  if  the  law 
could  neither  operate  simultaneously,  nor  with 
equal  effect,  upon  different  subjects ;  if  the  con- 
clusion to  be  drawn  resulted  from  different 
premises,  and  depended  on  arguments  which 
could  not  stand  in  any  possible  relation  to  each 
other,  it  might  be  assumed,  for  a  general  prin- 
ciple, that  they  ought  not  to  be  united.  If  a 
bill  were  sent  from  the  House  of  Representa- 
tives,  for  raising  revenue,  it  would  be  most  im- 
proper and  unusual  to  hook  upon  it  a  bankrupt 
act,  or  any  other  heterogeneous  amendment. 
In  England,  it  had  been  fashionable,  formerly, 
to  attempt  to  starve  majesty  into  a  compliant 
humor,  by  the  appendage  of  riders  to  the  sup- 

§ly  bills;  but  he  protested  against  the  intro- 
uction  of  so  objectionable  a  precedent  in  the 
Senate  of  the  United  States,  in  their  intercourse 
with  the  House.  In  reply  to  the  appeal  of  the 
honorable  member  from  Virginia,  who  emphat- 
ically demanded  whether  the  proposed  junction 
of  these  two  subjects  would  be  resisted,  but  for 
the  objection  held  in  reserve  to  the  admission 
of  Missouri,  he  declared,  with  the  most  perfect 
sincerity,  that  he  was  not  influenced  by  any 
such  anticipation ;  but  simply  by  a  sense  of  the 
absolute  discordance  of  the  two  provisions,  and 
a  regard  to  what  he  believed  the  dignity  of  the 
Senate  demanded.  No  two  things  could  have 
less  resemblance. 

Mr.  LOGAN,  of  Kentucky,  explained  the  views 
which  had  influenced  him,  as  one  of  the  select 
committee,  to  report  the  amendment.  It  was 
to  come  at  a  clear  and  distinct  view  of  the 
merits  of  the  questions  embraced  by  the  bill 
and  amendment;  to  show,  by  placing  them 
side  by  side,  that  the  same  rule  must  be  applied 
to  both ;  that  no  greater  right  existed  to  im- 
pose onerous  conditions  on  the  one  than  on  the 
other  of  these  Territories.  If,  said  he,  gentle- 
men will  come  across  my  boundary  to  affect  my 
property,  I  wish  to  look  over  on  the  other  side, 
and  see  how  they  stand.  He  was  opposed  to 
the  recommitment,  which  he  conceived  wholly 
unnecessary,  inasmuch  as  there  was  a  substan- 
tive proposition  now  before  the  Senate,  and  it 
would  be  made  no  plainer  by  recommitment, 
which  would  in  fact  only  be  to  consume  time, 
unnecessarily,  &c. 

Mr.  DANA,  of  Connecticut,  concluded  the  de- 
bate by  some  remarks  on  a  point  which  had  not 
been  adverted  to  by  others,  or,  he  said,  he 
would  not  have  spoken.  He  objected  to  the 
course  proposed  by  the  report  of  the  select 
committee,  and  was  in  favor  of  recommitment. 
Nine  States,  he  said,  had  already  been  admitted 
into  the  Union  since  the  adoption  of  the  consti- 
tution ;  and  in  no  case  had  there  been  a  con- 
nection of  two  in  one  bill,  and  this  for  a  very 


good  reason.  An  act  for  the  admission  of  a 
State  into  the  Union,  said  Mr.  D.,  is  entirely 
distinct  from  all  other  objects  of  legislation.  It 
is  a  question  whether  we  will  admit  a  new  as- 
sociate in  the  empire.  It  is  an  individual  case 
in  its  very  nature.  It  is  not  a  case  for  which 
we  can  provide  by  a  general  law.  We  can  no 
more  do  that  by  a  general  law,  than  we  can,  by 
such  a  law,  declare  whether  members  are  duly 
entitled  to  a  seat  on  this  floor,  so  as  to  super- 
sede the  necessity  of  examining  the  credentials 
in  each  particular  case.  The  House  of  Repre- 
sentatives, Mr.  D.  said,  had,  in  its  legislation, 
with  very  great  propriety,  confined  itself  to  the 
question  whether  a  single  State  should  be  ad- 
mitted. It  was  in  vain  to  ransack  the  annals 
of  legislation,  ancient  or  modern,  for  any  anal- 
ogy to  the  case  now  before  the  Senate.  It 
could  only  have  existed  in  our  own  history ;  and 
in  that  there  was  no  example  of  the  union  of 
two  States  in  one  act  of  admission ;  and  Mr.  D. 
said  they  ought  not  to  be  united.  If  the  pro- 
vision were  not  made  in  the  constitution  for 
the  admission  of  new  States,  the  general  power 
of  legislation  would  not  have  extended  to  it. 
Mr.  D.  cited  the  case  of  Kentucky,  as  precisely 
analogous  to  tharof  Maine ;  and  showed  that 
Massachusetts  had  followed,  in  her  assent,  &c., 
to  the  independence  of  Maine,  the  example  set 
by  Virginia.  There  had  been  a  case,  he  said, 
in  which,  at  the  same  session  of  Congress,  one 
Territory  had  been  admitted  into  the  Union, 
and  another  authorized  to  form  a  constitution 
of  State  government ;  but  the  idea  was  never 
suggested  of  uniting  them  both  in  one  act ;  the 
fact  being  that  the  reasons  of  the  two  acts  were 
not  the  same.  On  the  ground  that  acts  of  this 
description  were  entirely  different  from  all  or- 
dinary acts  of  legislation,  and  must  in  their  na- 
ture be  limited  to  particular  objects,  it  was  as 
improper  to  combine  these  two  questions  as  to 
combine  the  questions  whether  two  persons 
were  distinctly  qualified  to  represent  particular 
States  in  this  body. 

The  question  was  then  taken  on  the  motion 
for  recommitment,  and  decided,  by  yeas  and 
nays,  in  the  negative,  by  25  votes  to  18,  as  fol- 
lows: 

YEAS. — Messrs.  Burrill,  Dana,  Dickerson,  Horsey, 
Hunter,  Lanman,  Lowrie,  Mellen,  Merrill,  •  Noble, 
Otis,  Roberts,  Ruggles,  Sandford,  Tichenor,  Trimble, 
Van  Dyke,  and  Wilson. 

NAYS. — Messrs.  Barbour,  Brown,  Eaton,  Edwards, 
Elliott,  Gaillard,  Johnson  of  Kentucky,  Johnson  of 
Louisiana,  King,  Leake,  Lloyd,  Logan,  Macon,  Pal- 
mer, Parrott,  Pinkney,  Pleasants,  Smith,  Stokes, 
Taylor,  Thomas,  Walker  of  Alabama,  Walker  of 
Georgia,  Williams  of  Mississippi,  and  Williams  of 


So  the  motion  was  negatived;  the  Senate 
thus  refusing  to  separate  the  conjunction  of  the 
two  States  of  Maine  and  Missouri. 

The  Senate  adjourned  to  Monday  next. 


DEBATES  OF  CONGRESS. 


J.OJCARY,  1820.] 


Maine  and  Missouri— Restriction  on  Missouri. 


[SENATE. 


MONDAY,  January  17. 
Maine  and  Missouri— Restriction  on  Missouri. 

The  Senate  then  resumed  the  consideration 
of  the  admission  of  the  State  of  Maine  into  the 
Union,  as  proposed  to  be  amended  by  the  an- 
nexation of  Missouri.  And  the  said  proposed 
amendment  being  under  consideration — 

Mr.  EDWABDS  offered  an  amendment,  having 
in  view  the  principle  of  compromise,  (by  exclu- 
sion of  slavery  from  the  other  territories  of  the 
United  States ;)  but  subsequently  withdrew  it, 
to  give  an  opportunity  for  the  following  mo- 
tion: 

Mr.  ROBERTS  moved  to  add  to  the  amend- 
ment (whereby  Missouri  is  proposed  to  be  ad- 
mitted to  form  a  constitution)  the  following 
proviso : 

"  Provided,  that  the  farther  introduction  into  said 
State  of  persons  to  be  held  to  slavery  or  involuntary 
servitude  within  the  same,  shall  be  absolutely  and 
irrevocably  prohibited." 

The  said  amendment  having  been  read — 

Mr.  ROBEKTS  said  his  objection  to  the  order 
followed  in  the  introduction  of  this  bill  was  a 
serious  one.  Irregularity  in  legislative  pro- 
ceedings ought  always  to  be  avoided,  but  more 
especially  on  a  question  laying  the  foundations 
of  a  great  community.  I  have  thought,  said  he, 
and  still  think,  (with  deference  to  the  decision 
had,)  it  has  been  an  unfortunate  course,  and 
that  this  will  be  more  apparent  as  we  progress. 
Many  remarks  which  fell  from  gentlemen  in  the 
discussion  hitherto  had,  now  invite  reply.  I 
have  taken  some  care  to  arrange  my  thoughts 
for  that  purpose;  but  I  have  determined  to 
withhold  them  at  this  time.  The  subject  we 
are  entering  upon  is  one  of  great  magnitude ; 


the  understanding,  and  the  absence  from  the 
mind  of  all  sorts  of  passions.  I  very  much  de- 
sire to  avoid  touching  any  and  every  subject, 
however  pertinent,  calculated  to  awaken  im- 
patience or  dissatisfaction,  or  to  use  language 
which  may  be  justly  excepted  to,  as  incompati- 
ble with  this  declaration. 

It  has  sometimes  been  permitted,  in  God's 
providence,  that  a  people  should  deliberately 
fix  the  great  principles  of  their  polity,  under 
circumstances  happily  calculated  to  secure  to 
themselves  and  their  posterity  the  high  bless- 
ings of  his  benevolent  justice,  so  as  to  promise 
the  fulfilment  of  the  great  end  for  which  he 
created  man — happiness.  Such  was  the  occa- 
sion when  these  States  declared  themselves  free 
and  independent ;  such  was  that  that  secured  to 
the  people  of  the  Northwestern  Territory  the 
fundamental  principles  of  civil  and  religious 
liberty;  and  such,  let  me  observe,  and  not 
least  in  importance,  is  that  on  which  we  are  de- 
Ijberating.  The  people  of  these  happy  States 
were  the  first  who  proclaimed,  before  the  Uni- 
verse, u  That  all  men  are  created  equal ;  that 
they  are  endowed  by  the  Creator  with  certain 
inalienable  rights ;  that  among  these  are  life, 
liberty,  and  the  pursuit  of  happiness ;  that,  to 


COUSeilL  Oi  UtO  gUVtJIUCU.  i  pi«»J    J"U5          \ 

go  back  with  me  to  the  memorable  era  of 
which  I  am  speaking.  How  stood  the  affairs 
of  our  ancestors  when  they  adopted  these 
truths  as  the  maxims  of  their  policy?  The 
power  of  one  of  the  mightiest  nations  of  the 
earth  was  raised  to  crush  them;  that  power 
was  directed  by  the  vindictive  spirit  of  an  in- 
censed king,  and  parliament,  and  prejudiced 
people.  A  large  mass  of  the  people  of  America 
adhered  to  the  mother  country,  ready  to  be- 
come her  willing  instruments  in  the  worse 
scenes  of  the  sanguinary  conflict.  The  States 
were  without  government,  without  allies,  with- 
out revenue,  without  arms,  without  military 
organization.  In.  snch  a  state  of  things,  under 
such  circumstances,  they  called  the  Supreme 
Judge  of  the  world  io  witness  that,  as  to  them, 
his  laws  had  been  violated,  and  it  had  become 
their  duty  to  resist  oppression,  and  on  the 
purity  of  their  motives  they  invoked  the  pro- 
tecting arm  of  his  providence,  and  plighted 
their  lives,  their  fortunes,  and  their  sacred 
honor  to  vindicate  the  truth,  that  governments 
ought  to  secure  to  all  men  the  inalienable 
rights  of  life,  liberty,  and  the  pursuit  of  happi- 
ness. What  a  prodigy !  Truths  that  the  spec- 
ulative philosopher  and  retired  philanthropist 
had  hardly  ventured  to  indulge,  were  now  pro- 
claimed, as  the  bright  gem  which  was  to  be  ob- 
tained cheaply,  at  the  cost  of  every  danger  man 
could  encounter.  All  that  before  was  wonder- 
ful, sunk  into  littleness.  The  fainting  hopes  of 
humanity  were  revived ;  the  world  was  irradi- 
ated by  the  blaze  of  truth ;  it  was  as  the  voice 
of  Justice  crying  from  the  wilderness,  whither 
the  arm  of  tyranny  had  banished  her — Despair 
not,  yo  oppressed  nations !  My  temples  are  not 
everywhere  desolate.  There  is  still  a  people 
determined  and  able  to  vindicate  my  empire ! 
The  pledge  they  gave  was  redeemed.  The  arm 
of  that  providence,  besought  with  all  the  fer- 
vency of  the  prayers  of  suffering  virtue,  was  ex- 
tended to  good  men,  engaged  in  a  just  cause, 
who  had  sworn  to  establish  the  great  principles 
of  social  liberty,  or  fall  willing  victims  to  the 
high  attempt.  The  oppressor  was  humbled  to 
acknowledge  our  country  was,  and  of  right 
ought  to  be,  free  and  independent.  Magnani- 
mous allies  had  been  obtained  during  the  con- 
test, and  the  recognition  of  the  independence 
of  our  country  by  Britain,  removed  the  last 
caveat  to  our  admission  into  the  community  of 
nations.  History  informs  us,  though  independ- 
ence and  peace  had  been  achieved,  still  much 
remained  to  be  done,  by  a  wise  policy  and  just 
laws,  to  secure  the  benefit  of  the  great  princi- 
ples consecrated  at  the  birth  of  our  political 
community. 

In  1787  an  occasion  offered  more  felicitous 
than  that  in  which  the  faculties  of  sovereign 
power  were  assumed,  to  apply  the  just,  social 
principles  unanimously  recognized  by  the  great 
act  of  the  Congress  of  1776.  The  cession  of  the 


390 


ABRIDGMENT  OF  THE 


SENATE.] 


Maine  and  Missouri — Restriction  on  Missouri. 


f  JANUARY,  1820. 


Northwestern  Territory  by  the  several  States 
claiming  it,  in  full  sovereignty  to  the  United 
States,  gave  to  the  old  Congress  an  opportunity 
of  showing  that  peace  and  security  had  not 
weakened  their  faith  in,  or  lessened  their  at- 
tachment to,  the  principles  of  the  great  corner 
stone  of  all  our  laws  and  constitutions — the 
Declaration  of  Independence.  That  instrument 
Lad  the  unanimous  vote  of  the  representatives 
of  all  tho  States ;  there  were  no  geographical 
distinctions  then ;  slaveholding  and  non-slave- 
holding  States  were  not  thought  of.  By  one 
simultaneous  act  the  Congress  declared,  and  the 
States  ratified  the  declaration,  that  governments 
were  established  to  secure  the  enjoyment  of 
individual  rights,  deriving  their  just  authority 
from  the  consent  of  the  governed. 

At  that  time,  let  it  be  remembered,  all  the 
States  contained  slaves,  and  all  the  States  de- 
clared, before  the  Supreme  Judge  of  the  world, 
that  slavery  was  a  violation  of  his  truth,  and 
admitted  the  binding  obligation  to  remedy  the 
wrong,  when  possible.  Now,  let  us  recur  to 
the  ordinance  of  '87,  and  the  articles  of  compact 
it  contains.  I  can  do  it  justice  in  no  other  lan- 
guage than  that  declaring  its  purpose  as  laid 
down  by  the  wise  and  good  men  who  conceived 
and  gave  it  effect.  Thus  it  reads :  "  And  for 
extending  the  fundamental  principles  of  civil 
and  religious  liberty,  which  form  the  basis 
whereon  these  republics,  their  laws,  and  con- 
stitutions are  erected  ;  to  fix  and  establish  those 
principles  as  the  bases  of  all  laws,  constitutions, 
and  governments,  which  forever  hereafter  shall 
be  formed  in  said  territory ;  to  provide  also  for 
the  establishment  of  States  and  permanent  gov- 
ernment therein,  and  for  their  admission  to  a 
share  in  the  federal  councils,  on  an  equal  foot- 
ing with  the  original  States,  at  as  early  periods 
as  may  be  consistent  with  the  general  interest." 
Look  at  the  scope  and  character  of  this  declara- 
tion. Here,  indeed,  the  great  self-evident  truths 
of  which  I  have  been  speaking  were  applied,  in 
full  effect,  to  a  virgin  territory,  unstained  by 
the  vices,  untainted  by  the  errors,  and  un-em- 
barrassed  by  the  mistaken  notions  of  interest 
incident  to  human  society.  They  were  the  laws 
of  God,  applied  to  a  country  before  it  had  been 
peopled,  by  a  wise  foresight,  which  has  been 
often  displayed,  under  the  guidance  of  a  kind 
Providence,  by  the  councils  of  our  country.  At 
the  era  of  Independence  the  wholesome  maxims 
of  our  policy  recognized  could  not  have  their 
full  effect,  because  in  the  infancy  of  our  settle- 
ments the  curse  of  slavery  had  been  entailed  on 
us  by  a  blinded  and  unkind  mother  country. 
All  that  virtue  could  require  was,  that  so  invet- 
erate a  disease  should  be  relieved,  by  applying 
diligently  discreet  correctives,  and,  above  all, 
guarding  against  the  extension  of  the  evil.  Thus 
do  we  find,  four  years  after  peace  had  been 
settled,  on  cool  deliberation,  the  federal  council 
seized  the  first  opportunity  of  planting  the 
fundamental  principles  of  civil  and  religious 
liberty,  like  seed  sown  in  a  soil  received,  as  it 
were,  from  the  hand  of  the  Creator,  where  they 


designed  them  to  flourish  in  eternal  vigor,  and 
spread  their  fragrant  branches  through  the 
world.  This  mighty  stroke  of  a  wise  policy 
was  had  under  the  utmost  freedom  from  all  bias 
of  selfishness  and  of  constraint. 

The  great  men  who  executed  this  trust  looked 
not  at  the  bearings  of  interest  or  to  the  gratifi- 
cation of  an  unworthy  ambition.  The  ordinance 
declares  a  second  time  that  slavery  was  viewed 
as  a  great  evil,  and  one  for  the  existence  of 
which  the  people  of  that  day  were  not  account- 
able. That  States  which  found  themselves 
under  the  sad  necessity  of  permitting  its  con- 
tinuance, might,  at  the  same  time,  without  in- 
consistency, declare  again  and  again,  all  men 
are  created  equal.  This  immortal  ordinance, 
which  with  its  elder  sister  the  Declaration  of 
Independence,  will  shed  eternal  and  unextin- 
guishable  lustre  over  the  annals  of  our  country, 
was  also  adopted  by  a  unanimous  vote.  It  was 
aye,  aye,  from  New  Hampshire  to  Georgia. 
Here  again  there  was  no  geographical  distinc- 
tion. In  this  act  of  imperishable  virtue  Virgi- 
nia had  the  largest  share.  She  ceded  the  most 
extensive  and  best-founded  right  to  the  terri- 
tory. She  left  Congress  free  to  impress  on  it 
the  fundamental  principles  of  civil  and  religions 
liberty.  She  gave  her  ready  voice  for  the  ordi- 
nance, and  it  is  believed  her  representatives 
were  among  the  most  ardent  advocates  for  the 
measure.  I  cannot  look  into  the  provisions  of 
the  articles  of  compact  without  burning  with 
admiration  of  their  principles,  and  the  wisdom 
and  virtue  by  which  they  have  been  consecrated. 
There  are  no  marginal  notes,  or  I  would  briefly 
recount  them.  The  rights  of  the  untutored 
Indian  were  guaranteed,  and,  in  the  goodness 
and  wisdom  of  the  legislator,  it  was  left  open 
to  his  hopes  that  his  posterity  might  one  day 
enjoy  the  blessings  of  the  rights  they  secured. 
These  blessings,  Mr.  President,  have  been  al- 
ready consecrated  to  three  stars  of  your  constel- 
lation that  will  soon  take  rank  as  of  the  first 
magnitude.  Ohio  will  probably  appear  in  that 
character  at  the  next  census.  I  have  spoken  of 
the  ordinance  of  1787  as  applying  to  a  territory. 
But  of  what  mighty  magnitude  is  it!  It  is 
fitted  to  contain  a  mightier  population  than  the 
mightiest  of  the  old  continents.  If  its  history 
was  not  insulated  by  more  comprehensive 
events,  it  might  now  stand  as  the  world's  best 
hope.  In  this  instrument  it  was  not  necessary 
to  repeat  that  all  men  are  created  equal ;  that 
was  already  inscribed  on  the  corner  stone  of  all 
your  laws  and  polity.  It  was  here  enough  to 
say,  no  man  should  be  a  slave,  and  that  every 
man  should  have  an  equal  share  of  civil  and  re- 
ligious liberty,  by  the  decree  of  unchangeable 
justice.  So  far  we  discover  no  holding  back : 
all  is  one  consistent,  just,  enlightened,  and  un- 
varying policy.  Every  thing  seems  to  have 
been  done  in  the  divine  spirit,  breathed  by  the 
representatives  of  an  oppressed  people,  in  the 
Declaration  of  Independence. 

About  this  period  it  became  necessary  to  form 
a  more  perfect   union,  and  the   constitution, 


DEBATES  OF  CONGKESS. 


391 


JANCABY,  1820.] 


Maine  and  Missouri — Restriction  on  Missouri. 


[SEMATE. 


framed  by  an  assembly  in  which  WASHINGTON 
presided,  seemed  to  have  put  the  last  hand  to 
the  work  which  placed  on  an  immovable  foun- 
dation the  fundamental  principles  of  civil  and 
religious  liberty,  whereon  our  republics,  their 
laws  and  constitutions,  are  erected.  That  in- 
strument, framed  with  almost  superhuman  in- 
telligence, clothed  the  Congress  with  all  legis- 
lative powers  granted  in  it,  and  with  power  to 
make  all  needful  rules  and  regulations  respect- 
ing the  territory  belonging  to  the  United  States ; 
and  all  engagements  were  declared  to  be  as 
valid  against  the  United  States  under  the  con- 
stitution as  under  the  Confederation.  Among 
the  first  acts  of  the  new  Congress,  is  one  provid- 
ing that  the  ordinance  of  '87  should  continue  to 
have  full  effect.  At  the  formation  of  the  con- 
stitution this  ordinance  must  have  been  well 
understood.  It  was  enacted  a  little  tune  ante- 
rior to  the  adjournment  of  the  Convention,  and 
was  the  harbinger  of  the  great  compact  of 
Union.  The  councils  from  which  they  emanated 
were  clothed  with  the  power,  and  represented 
the  majesty  of  the  people,  and  it  was  impossi- 
ble that  the  compromise  resorted  to  by  the  Con- 
vention, in  settling  the  rule  of  representation 
and  taxation,  should  not  have  been  considered 
as  applicable  only  to  the  States  then  existing, 
and  to  those  which  might  be  admitted  out  of 
the  territory  of  the  good  old  thirteen.  The 
same  obligation  of  duty,  consistency  and  regard 
to  right,  which  induced  the  old  Congress  to 
prohibit  slavery  in  the  Northwestern  Territory, 
could  not  have  been  inoperative  in  the  Conven- 
tion, as  many  States  had  long  before  abolished 
slavery ;  and  nobody  seems  then  to  have  thought 
it  admissible,  only  under  hard  necessity.  I 
think  it  will  scarcely  be  contended,  that,  in  '87, 
any  of  our  councils  could  have  contemplated 
the  purchase  of  the  territory  which  presents 
the  great  question  on  which  we  are  now  delib- 
erating, or  that  such  a  question  could  have 
grown  out  of  such  an  event. 

In  1787,  North  Carolina  ceded  to  the  United 
States  the  territory  which  is  now  called  the 
State  of  Tennessee.  In  the  cession  she  stipu- 
lates, among  other  things,  that  the  inhabitants 
of  that  territory  should  enjoy  the  benefits  of 
the  ordinance,  save  only  that  •  the  Congress 
should  pass  no  law  tending  to  emancipate  slaves. 
In  this,  I  apprehend,  it  will  hardly  be  contend- 
ed she  was  binding  them  by  restrictions,  but 
that  it  will  be  allowed  she  intended  to  secure 
to  them  all  the  liberty  their  condition  would 
permit.  This  recognition  and  ratification  of 
the  ordinance  is  proof  of  the  estimation  in  which 
its  principles  were  held;  and  Tennessee  has 
been  admitted  under  its  enfranchising,  or,  as 
you  will  call  them,  restricting  provisions,  and 
has  long  appeared  amongst  us  as  an  ornament 
to  this  body.  On  her  admission  are  the  words, 
"  on  an  equal  footing  with  the  original  States," 
first  used.  She  being  the  first  State  admitted 
under  the  articles  of  compact  in  the  ordinance 
of  '87,  the  words  were  from  thence  transplanted, 
and,  like  texts  from  another  book,  not  standing 


in  their  original  relation  to  other  words,  their 
meaning  has  been  misunderstood.  Turn  to  the 
ordinance,  and  they  are  made  plain.  It  there 
reads,  the  "  new  State  shall  be  admitted  when 
it  shall  have  sixty  thousand  free  inhabitants 
therein,  by  its  delegates  in  the  Congress  of  the 
United  States,  on  an  equal  footing  with  the 
original  States  in  all  respects  whatever,  and 
shall  be  at  liberty  to  form  a  permanent  consti- 
tution and  State  government;  provided  the 
constitution  and  State  government  so  to  be 
formed  shall  be  republican,  and  in  conformity 
to  the  principles  contained  in  these  articles." 
These  are  conditions  under  which  seven  new 
States  have  been  admitted  into  this  Union,  save 
only  the  article  respecting  slavery  has  been 
silent  in  the  admission  of  Tennessee,  Mississippi, 
and  Alabama,  and,  by  especial  reservation,  it 
has  not  been  required  of  Louisiana  to  forbid 
slavery. 

Can  it  be  possible,  after  this  long-settled  con- 
struction, it  shall  be  seriously  contended  that 
the  Congress,  in  the  admission  of  Missouri,  can 
propose  no  check  on  the  evil  of  slavery,  and,  by 
parity  of  reasoning,  none  on  any  portion  of  the 
country  acquired  under  the  title  of  Louisiana  ? 
We  have  seen  Mississippi  and  Alabama  brought 
into  the  Confederation,  under  compact  to  per- 
mit slavery.  Louisiana  has  been  so  admitted  in 
the  discretion  of  Congress.  On  what  grounds  I 
know  not,  but  I  am  bound  to  believe  from  what 
was  understood  to  have  been  uncontrollable 
necessity.  If  so,  it  can  avail  Missouri  nothing, 
as  no  such  necessity  exists  in  this  case.  The 
amendment  has,  I  have  to  regret,  but  a  limited 
operation  on  slavery.  It  is  not  proposed  to  free 
the  slaves  hi  Missouri,  but  to  prevent  their  in- 
crease by  emigration.  This  principle  does  not 
touch  at  all  the  provisions  of  the  treaty.  The 
country  is  to  be  eventually  incorporated  into 
the  Union,  it  is  admitted.  We  are  all  anxious 
the  portion  in  question  should.  The  dispute 
is,  shah1  she  be  admitted  without  securing  to  her 
the  franchises  of  civil  and  religious  liberty,  as 
far  as  her  condition  admits  of  its  being  done. 
Congress  have  power  to  prevent  the  migration 
of  slaves,  and  though  lexicographers  may  not 
be  uniform  in  then-  interpretation  of  the  word 
in  general  acceptation,  it  means  change  of  place  ; 
so  it  has  been  construed  by  the  Congress.  An 
act  now  exists  prohibiting  the  migration  of  slaves 
to  Louisiana,  in  any  manner,  but  as  bona  Jide 
the  property  of  persons  actually  going  to  settle 
within  it.  I  know  it  will  be  alleged  that  it  is 
repealed.  But  I  have  searched  the  statute  book, 
and  looked  into  the  constitution  of  Louisiana, 
and  can  find  no  repeal  of  it.  The  section  I 
allude  to  it  as  follows  : 

"  It  shall  not  be  lawful  for  any  person  or  persons  to 
import,  or  bring  into  the  said  Territory,  from  any 
port  or  place  without  the  limits  of  the  United  States, 
or  cause  or  procure  to  be  so  imported,  or  brought,  or 
knowingly  to  aid  or  assist  in  so  importing  or  bring- 


ing any  slave  or  slaves  ;  and  every  person  so  offend- 

ing,  and  being  thereof  convicted  before 

within  said  Territory,  having  competent  jurisdiction, 


any  court 


392 


ABRIDGMENT  OF  THE 


SENATE.] 


Maine  and  Missouri — Restriction  on  Missouri. 


[JANUARY,  1820. 


shall  forfeit  and  pay,  for  each  and  every  slave  so  im- 
ported, the  sum  of  three  hundred  dollars ;  one  moiety 
for  the  use  of  the  United  States,  and  the  other  moiety 
for  the  use  of  the  person  or  persons  who  shall  sue  for 
the  same,  and  every  slave  so  brought  shall  thereupon 
become  entitled  to,  and  receive  his  or  her  freedom. 
It  shall  not  be  lawful  for  any  person  or  persons  to  im- 
port or  bring  into  said  Territory,  from  any  port  or 
place  within  the  limits  of  the  United  States,  or  to 
cause  or  procure  to  be  so  imported  or  brought,  or 
knowingly  to  aid  or  assist  in  so  importing  or  bringing 
any  slave  or  slaves  which  shall  have  been  imported 
since  the  first  day  of  May,  one  thousand  seven  hun- 
dred and  ninety  eight,  into  any  port  or  place  within 
the  limits  of  the  United  States,  or  which  may  be 
hereafter  so  imported  from  any  port  or  place  from 
without  the  United  States;  and  every  person  so 
offending,  and  being  thereof  convicted  before  any 
court  within  said  Territory,  having  competent  juris- 
diction, shall  forfeit  and  pay  for  each  and  every  slave 
so  imported,  or  brought,  the  sum  of  three  hundred 
dollars ;  one  moiety  for  the  use  of  the  United  States, 
and  the  other  moiety  for  the  use  of  the  person  or  per- 
sons who  shall  sue  for  the  same.  And  no  slave  or 
slaves  shall  be  introduced  into  said  Territory,  directly 
or  indirectly,  except  by  a  citizen  of  the  United  States, 
removing  into  said  Territory  for  actual  settlement,  and 
being  at  the  time  of  such  removal  bona  fide  owner  of 
such  slave  or  slaves  ;  and  every  slave  brought  into 
the  said  Territory,  contrary  to  the  provisions  of  this 
act,  shall  thereupon  be  entitled  to,  and  receive  bis  or 


If  this  be  the  law,  where  is  your  wonder- 
working writ  of  habeas  corpus  ?  Are  your 
Judiciary  asleep,  and  your  law  a  dead  letter  ? 
If  I  be  mistaken,  I  hope  to  be  corrected ;  but  it 
is  enough  for  my  purpose  to  show  such  a  law 
has  existed,  and  that  the  power  of  Congress  to 
regulate  the  migration  of  slaves  is  not  a  new 
doctrine,  nor  now  first  proposed  to  be  exercised. 
It  proves  incontestably  the  motion  I  have  now 
offered  has  not  hitherto  been  deemed  as  conflict- 
Lag  with  the  provisions  of  the  treaty  of  cession. 
I  am  willing  to  consider  Missouri  as  an  inchoate 
State ;  no  one  will  more  gladly  see  her  admit- 
ted into  the  Union  ;  but  I  wish  to  see  the  page 
of  her  constitution  irradiated  with  the  fun- 
damental principles  of  civil  and  religious  liberty 
— to  see  her  become  a  party  to  that  covenant 
round  which  the  patriots  of  '76  pledged  their 
lives,  their  fortunes,  and  their  sacred  honor. 
The  committee  have  attached  the  admission  of 
Missouri  to  the  bill  for  admitting  Maine,  under 
the  pretext  of  congeniality.  How  insufficient 
the  pretence !  What  ludicrous  incongruity  do 
the  two  propositions  present!  You  are  not 
acting  on  a  section  of  two  or  three  lines ;  as  to 
Maine,  it  is  her  constitution  you  are  ratifying. 
What  do  you  find  on  the  front  of  it ?  "Arti- 
cle 1,  section  1 :  All  men  are  born  free  and 
equal,  and  are  free  to  worship  God  in  their  own 
way."  Here  is  a  substantial  pledge  to  the  good 
old  faith.  To  her  we  may  say,  Come,  sister, 
take  your  place  in  our  constellation :  the  lustre 
of  your  countenance  will  brighten  the  American 
galaxy.  But  do  not  urge  us  to  admit  Missouri, 
under  a  pretence  of  congeniality — with  the 
visage  of  a  savage,  deformed  with  the  hideous 


cicatrices  of  barbaric  pride — with  her  features 
marred  as  if  the  finger  of  Lucifer  had  been 
drawn  across  them. 

Mr.  ELLIOTT,  of  Georgia,  said,  with  a  knowl- 
edge of  the  talents  which  would  be  called  forth 
on  this  occasion,  in  behalf  of  the  rights  of  Mis- 
souri, it  might  seem  unnecessary  for  one  so  un- 
skilled in  parliamentary  debate,  to  obtrude  his 
humble  efforts  on  the  attention  of  the  Senate. 
But,  said  he,  the  magnitude  of  the  consequences 
which  maj  grow  out  of  the  decision  about  to 
be  made,  and  the  weight  of  responsibility  rest- 
ing upon  every  member  charged  with  the  con- 
sideration of  the  subject,  urge  me  to  rise,  as  I 
honestly  conceive,  in  support  of  the  constitu- 
tion of  my  country,  the  faith  of  its  Govern- 
ment, and  the  future  peace  and  harmony  of  the 
Union. 

As  it  is  essential  to  a  correct  and  liberal  dis- 
cussion, that  the  point  at  issue  be  clearly  under- 
stood and  dispassionately  examined,  all  irrele- 
vant matter  should  be  cautiously  rejected,  and 
the  mind  brought  to  the  investigation  with  its 
powers  unembarrassed.  How  much  to  be  re- 
gretted, then,  is  the  public  excitement  which 
has  been  produced  in  anticipation  of  this  de- 
bate I  It  is,  I  fear,  not  well  calculated  to  in- 
sure a  decision  of  this  question  upon  its  merits. 
The  voice  of  the  people  should  be  heard,  and 
always  heard  with  deep  attention  and  due  re- 
spect. But,  when  feelings  are  thereby  excited 
which  do  not  belong  to  the  subject  under  con- 
sideration, you  are  bound,  by  the  strongest  ob- 
ligations of  duty,  to  exclude  them  from  these 
walls.  Here  the  passions  should  be  suffered  to 
sleep,  while  to  the  unbiased  judgment  and  the 
enlightened  conscience  are  committed  the  deci- 
sions which  may  be  recorded  in  your  journals. 

What,  then,  sir,  is  the  question  we  are  called 
upon  to  decide?  Does  it  involve  the  liberty  or 
slavery  of  the  black  population  of  the  United 
States?  On  this  subject  the  constitution  has 
wisely  interdicted  the  interference  of  the  Gen- 
eral Government.  Does  it  seek  a  suspension  of 
the  law  prohibiting  the  unhallowed  trade  to 
Africa,  until  the  people  of  Missouri  shall  have 
accommodated  themselves  with  slaves  from  that 
unfortunate  country  ?  No  such  sacrifice  of  feel- 
ing or  policy  is  asked  at  your  hands ;  on  the 
contrary,  the  prayer  of  the  people  of  Missouri, 
if  granted,  would  not  affect  the  liberty  of  a 
single  freeman.  Neither  of  these  subjects  being 
before  the  Senate,  the  arguments  and  feelings 
which  grow  out  of  them  are  alike  foreign  to 
the  present  discussion.  But  the  people  of  Mis- 
souri do  ask  of  you  to  fulfil  your  solemn  en- 
gagements in  their  behalf,  and  to  admit  them 
into  the  Union,  "  according  to  the  principles  of 
the  Federal  Constitution,  to  the  enjoyment  of 
all  the  rights,  advantages,  and  immunities  of 
citizens  of  the  United  States."  The  question 
then  is,  will  you  thus  admit  them  ? 

Indulge  me,  sir,  with  your  attention  for  a 
few  moments,  while  I  briefly  consider  their 
claims  to  such  admission :  1st,  under  the  consti- 
tution ;  2dly,  from  the  obligations  voluntarily 


DEBATES  OF  CONGRESS. 


JAJITJARY,  1820.] 


Maine  and  Missouri — Restriction  on  Missouri. 


[SENATE. 


assumed  by  the  United  States,  in  the  treaty  of 
cession,  of  the  30th  April,  1803 ;  and,  lastly, 
from  the  suggestions  of  sound  policy.  In  the 
3d  section  of  the  4th  article  of  the  constitution, 
it  is  declared — "  New  States  may  be  admitted 
by  the  Congress  into  this  Union  ;"  and  in  the 
subsequent  section  of  the  same  article,  "The 
United  States  shall  guarantee  to  every  State  in 
this  Union  a  republican  form  of  government." 
By  the  first  section  Congress  is  obviously  clothed 
with  discretionary  power  to  admit,  or  not  to 
admit,  new  States  into  this  Union.  But,  when- 
ever this  power  is  exercised  in  the  admission  of 
a  new  State  into  this  Union,  the  United  States 
become  bound,  by  the  second  section,  to  aid  in 
the  support  of  a  republican  form  of  govern- 
ment within  her  limits.  Hence,  the  power 
claimed  by  Congress  to  exact  a  constitution  on 
republican  principles,  as  a  condition  to  the  ad- 
mission of  a  new  State  into  this  Union.  The 
condition  is  the  necessary  result  of  the  obliga- 
tion previously  imposed  upon  the  United  States 
to  guarantee  a  republican  form  of  government  to 
each  State ;  and  it  is  to  be  considered  as  an  evi- 
dence of  the  patronage  of  the  constitution, 
rather  than  as  any  authority  to  impose  restric- 
tions on  the  States. 

The  second  section  of  the  fourth  article  de- 
clares— "  The  citizens  of  each  State  shall  be  en- 
titled to  all  privileges  and  immunities  of  citizens 
in  the  several  States."  A  new  State,  then,  when 
once  admitted  into  this  Union,  becomes  possess- 
ed, by  the  very  act  of  admission,  of  all  privi- 
leges and  immunities  of  the  old  States.  But 
the  old  States  claim  and  exercise  the  privilege 
to  alter  and  amend  their  constitutions  at  pleas- 
ure. This  is  accorded  to  them  as  an  inalienable, 
indefeasible  right,  essential  to  self-government 
— and  in  the  use  of  this  right  they  are  unre- 
strained, provided  they  preserve  the  form  of  the 
government,  and  do  not  violate  the  Federal 
Constitution.  But  the  admission  of  involuntary 
servitude  into  a  State  does  not  affect  the  form 
of  the  government,  nor  violate  the  Federal 
Constitution;  for  one-half  of  the  States  in  the 
Union  allow  of  it,  and  the  Federal  Constitution 
expressly  recognizes  and  sanctions  it.  Under 
the  constitution,  then,  any  State  in  this  Union 
may  admit  involuntary  servitude  within  its 
limits,  in  the  exercise  of  its  unquestionable  right 
of  self-government;  and  Congress  cannot  be 
supposed  to  have  power  to  impose  a  restriction, 
which  the  State  has  authority  to  abrogate  at 
pleasure. 

But  it  is  contended  by  the  honorable  gentle- 
man from  Pennsylvania,  (Mr.  ROBERTS,)  that, 
since  the  year  1808,  Congress  has  acquired  au- 
thority, under  the  ninth  section  of  the  first 
article,  to  impose  the  contemplated  restriction. 
This  section  reads :  "  The  migration  or  impor- 
tation of  such  persons  as  any  of  the  States  now 
existing  shall  think  proper  to  admit,  shall  not 
be  prohibited  by  the  Congress  prior  to  the  year 
1808,  but  a  tax  or  duty  may  be  imposed  on  such 
importation,  not  exceeding  ten  dollars  for  each 
person."  The  terms  migration  and  importation 


are  not  synonymous.  Migration  implies  voli- 
tion, choice,  self-direction — but  these  belong  not 
to  a  slave.  He  may  be  carried  or  imported,  or 
he  may  abscond,  but  he  can  never  migrate. 
The  Irish,  the  Scotch,  and  the  Dutch,  migrate 
to  this  country,  and  it  was  probably  to  prevent 
Congress,  until  after  the  year  1808,  from  inter- 
dicting this  practice,  under  the  authority  given 
to  that  body  "  to  establish  a  uniform  rule  of 
naturalization,"  that  the  word  migration  was 
introduced  in  this  section.  But  importation 
applies  to  slaves.  They  were  imported ;  and 
the  last  clause  of  this  section  is  conclusive  as  to 
the  correctness  of  this  exposition — "  but  a  tax 
or  duty  may  be  imposed  on  such  importation, 
not  exceeding  ten  dollars  for  each  person." 
The  subjects  of  this  tax  or  duty  were  persons 
imported,  while  those  who  migrated  were  suf- 
fered to  enter  our  ports  without  the  imposition 
of  any  duty.  This  section  is  restrictive,  and 
restrains  the  power  of  Congress  to  prohibit  the 
importation  of  slaves  or  the  migration  of  for- 
eigners prior  to  the  year  1808.  Since  that 
period,  Congress  has  very  wisely  acted  upon  the 
subject  of  the  slave  trade,  and,  under  the  au- 
thority imparted  by  the  constitution,  "  to  regu- 
late commerce  with  foreign  nations,"  such  laws 
have  been  passed  as  promise  at  no  distant  period 
its  entire  suppression.  But  Congress  has  never 
attempted  to  prevent  the  transfer  or  removal  of 
slaves  from  one  State  to  another  at  the  will  of 
their  owners.  The  section  restrains  no  such 
power,  for  no  such  is  given  in  the  constitution. 
The  truth  is,  it  is  a  right  claimed  and  exercised, 
by  the  States,  and  they  will  never  surrender  it. 
Congress  has  no  authority  for  claiming  it. 

But  the  latter  part  of  the  third  section  of  the 
fourth  article,  it  is  supposed,  gives  to  Congress 
competent  authority  on  this  subject.  It  reads 
— "  The  Congress  shah1  have  power  to  dispose 
of  and  make  all  needful  rules  and  regulations 
respecting  the  territory  or  other  property  be- 
longing to  the  United  States."  Under  the  au- 
thority here  given,  Congress  may  lay  out  and 
dispose  of  the  lands  of  the  United  States ;  and 
when  inhabited,  make  such  rules  and  regulations 
as  may  be  needful  for  the  civil  government  of 
the  territory.  But  the  question  before  the  Sen- 
ate is  not  what  rules  and  regulations  Congress 
may  make  for  the  government  of  a  territory. 
It  is,  I  conceive,  sir,  entirely  a  distinct  subject 
of  inquiry,  and,  therefore,  cannot  depend  for  its 
decision  upon  any  authority  drawn  from  this 
clause.  Whenever  the  question  respecting  the 
powers  of  Congress  to  impose  restrictions  on 
the  Territories  shall  come  up,  it  will  be  time 
enough  to  argue  it ;  at  present  it  ought  not  to 
be  permitted  to  embarrass  the  point  at  issue 
before  the  Senate.  To  me,  then,  the  constitu- 
tion does  not  seem  to  countenance  the  inhibi- 
tion sought  to  be  imposed  by  the  amendment. 

But,  sir,  the  treaty  of  cession  of  the  80th  of 
April,  1803,  is  still  more  explicit  on  this  sub- 
ject. The  third  article  provides  that,  "  the  in- 
habitants of  the  tvdi/d  territory  shall  be  incor- 
porated into  the  Union  of  the  United  States, 


394 


ABRIDGMENT  OF  THE 


SENATE.] 


Maine  and  Missouri — Restriction  on  Missouri. 


[JANUARY,  1820. 


and  admitted  as  soon  as  possible,  according  to 
the  principles  of  the  Federal  Constitution,  to 
the  enjoyment  of  all  the  rights,  advantages, 
and  immunities  of  citizens  of  the  United  States ; 
and,  in  the  mean  time,  they  shall  be  maintained 
and  protected  in  the  free  enjoyment  of  their 
liberty,  property,  and  the  religion  which  they 
profess."  The  only  difficulty  which  presents 
itself  here  is,  to  adopt  any  train  of  reasoning, 
by  which  the  right  of  Missouri  to  an  uncondi- 
tional admission  into  the  Union,  can  be  made 
more  obvious  than  it  is  rendered  by  a  bare  re- 
cital of  this  section.  It  seems  to  me  not  very 
unlike  an  attempt  to  prove  a  self-evident  pro- 
position. Under  the  constitution,  it  is  manifest 
Congress  may  refuse  admission  to  a  new  State. 
But  here  the  General  Government  stands  pledg- 
ed not  only  to  admit  Missouri  into  the  Union, 
but  to  do  so  as  soon  as  possible ;  that  is,  so  soon 
as  she  shall  be  in  possession  of  the  legal  requi- 
sites; and  when  admitted,  to  receive  her  "ac- 
cording to  the  principles  of  the  Federal  Con- 
stitution," by  which  is  intended,  "  under  a  re- 
publican form  of  Government,"  guaranteed  to 
her  by  the  United  States  in  conformity  with  the 
provisions  of  the  fourth  section  of  the  fourth 
article  of  the  constitution.  And,  sir,  as  it  re- 
gards the  plenitude  of  the  rights  which  are  to 
be  acquired  by  this  admission,  it  is  declared  to 
be  "  to  the  enjoyment  of  all  the  rights,  advan- 
tages, and  immunities,  of  citizens  of  the  Unit- 
ed States."  Now,  all  the  rights,  advantages, 
and  immunities  of  the  citizens  of  the  United 
States,  is  a  phrase  of  the  most  extensive 
latitude,  and  must  necessarily  include  the  mo- 
mentous and  inalienable  right  of  self-govern- 
ment, which  appertains  to  all  the  States.  But 
many  of  the  States,  in  the  exercise  of  the  right 
of  self-government,  have  established,  and  do 
permit,  involuntary  servitude  within  their  lim- 
its. Missouri,  then,  when  admitted,  may  so 
amend  her  constitution,  under  the  enjoyment  of 
the  same  right,  as  to  admit  slavery  within  her 
.jurisdiction.  And  yet,  it  is  contended  that 
Congress  can  impose  a  restriction  which  the 
State,  at  the  moment  of  her  admission  into  the 
Union,  will  have  a  right  to  annul !  Again,  in 
the  last  clause  of  this  section  it  is  expressly 
agreed,  that,  "  in  the  mean  time  they  shall  be 
maintained  and  protected  in  the  free  enjoyment 
of  their  liberty,  property,  and  the  religion 
which  they  profess."  But  a  part  of  this  prop- 
erty, for  the  protection  of  which  the  United 
States  stand  thus  solemnly  pledged,  was,  un- 
questionably, slaves.  The  Congress,  thus,  not 
only  has  no  power  to  impose  the  contemplated 
restriction  on  the  State  of  Missouri,  when  ad- 
mitted into  the  Union ;  but  having  guaranteed 
to  the  owners  of  slaves,  in  the  ceded  territory, 
the  free  enjoyment  of  their  property,  that  body 
could  not,  under  any  Territorial  regulation, 
have  imposed  such  a  restriction.  That  the  Gen- 
eral Government  thus  understood  the  obliga- 
tions of  the  treaty  may  be  fairly  inferred  from 
its  practice  under  it.  Since  the  acquisition  of 
Louisiana  from  France,  no  attempt  has  been 


made  by  Congress  to  legislate  on  this  subject ; 
and  the  inhabitants  have  been  left  to  the  uncon- 
trolled management  and  direction  of  this  species 
of  property.  In  the  year  1812,  when  a  part  of 
this  Territory,  under  the  name  of  Louisiana, 
was  admitted  into  the  Union,  the  admission  was 
unconditional  as  to  this  subject,  and  that  part 
of  the  territory  was  received  on  the  footing  of 
the  original  States. 

Mr.  MOHBII.L,  of  New  Hampshire,  said  it  was 
with  reluctance  that  he  rose  to  address  the 
President  of  the  Senate  on  this  subject.  I  ap- 
proach it,  said  he,  fully  impressed  with  the  pe- 
culiar sensibility  which  is  excited  in  this  House 
when  it  is  discussed.  I  arn  not  insensible  of 
the  force  of  argument,  the  power  of  eloquence, 
and  the  weight  of  numbers,  those  must  en- 
counter who  take  the  affirmative  of  this  ques- 
tion. But,  sir,  it  is  a  duty  which  I  cannot 
evade  without  doing  violence  to  my  own  con- 
science and  disappointing  the  expectation  of 
that  respectable  portion  of  community  whom  I 
have  the  honor,  in  part,  to  represent.  It  is  a 
duty  I  owe  to  myself,  my  constituents,  and  my 
country.  The  decision  of  this  question,  sir,  is 
not  to  affect  a  small  section  of  the  countiy  only, 
but  a  territory  more  extensive  than  all  the  rest 
of  the  United  States  will  have  occasion  to  look 
back  upon  the  measures  of  this  Congress  with 
joy  or  sorrow,  delight  or  regret,  perhaps,  to  the 
last  period  of  time.  Yes,  sir,  unborn  millions 
will  feel  the  effects  of  your  laws,  and  rise  up 
and  call  you  blessed,  or  justly  execrate  the  pol- 
icy that  permits  one  portion  of  the  citizens  to 
trample  on  the  rights  of  the  other,  and  trans- 
form those  into  despots,  and  these  into  enemies 
of  their  country. 

Mr.  President,  when  I  cast  my  eye  over  this 
widely-extended  empire,  and  behold  it  still  ex- 
tending, I  inquire,  with  deep  solicitude  and  in- 
expressible anxiety,  what  will  be  the  situation 
of  my  beloved  country  a  century  or  half  a  cen- 
tury to  come?  "Will  this  growing  Republic  rise 
like  the  cedar  of  Lebanon,  and  flourish  like  the 
palm  tree?  "Will  its  extensive  branches  and 
fragrant  leaves  cheer  and  heal  the  innumerable 
inhabitants  of  this  immense  domain  ?  Will  its 
civil  and  religious  liberties  be  preserved  ?  "Will 
its  intellectual  and  moral  improvements  pro- 
gress and  keep  pace  with  its  rapid  population 
and  increasing  wealth  ?  Sir,  history  furnishes 
us  with  no  fact  on  which  we  can  found  this 
hope.  Eepublics  have  risen  and  fallen,  empires 
have  been  shaken,  and  kingdoms  demolished. 
But,  sir,  for  my  country  I  would  ardently  desire 
a  better  fate,  that  she  may  convey  to  posterity 
her  inestimable  blessings,  and  thereby  outlive 
the  convulsions  of  nations. 

Mr.  President,  this  may  be  the  case ;  but  to 
insure  it,  our  Government  must  be  wisely  ad- 
ministered, our  liberties  and  morals  preserved 
from  contamination,  and  the  principles  of  the 
original  compact — "  the  palladium  of  our  rights  " 
— kept  sacred  and  entire.  This  will  cement  the 
bonds  of  affection,  sustain  the  Union,  and  give 
that  energy  to  the  Government  that  the  com- 


DEBATES  OF  CONGRESS. 


JANUARY,  1820.] 


Maine  and  Missouri — Restriction  on  Missouri. 


[SENATE. 


bined  power  and  influence  of  the  world  will  be 
unable  to  impair.  But,  sir,  violate  these,  and 
this  political  fabric  is  racked  to  its  centre.  As 
an  honorable  gentleman  intimated,  it  may  oc- 
casion a  tremor  in  the  West,  agitation  in  the 
East,  and  convulsion  in  the  centre,  and  chaos 
through  the  whole. 

Watch  them  with  caution  and  vigilance,  and 
this  growing  Eepublic  rises  as  the  cedar  and 
soars  as  the  eagle. 

Sir,  we  are  as  liberal  and  as  accommodating 
as  any  people  on  earth,  and  we  are  as  tenacious 
of  our  rights.  We  know  how  we  obtained  them, 
and  we  know  how  to  preserve  them. 

Mr.  President,  our  forefathers  quit  the  land 
of  their  nativity,  the  air  which  gave  them  birth, 
the  associates  of  their  youth,  that  they  might 
enjoy  civil  and  religious  liberty.  These  were 
more  precious  than  the  possession  of  wealth, 
and  the  society  of  friends  in  a  land  of  intoler- 
ance. They  ploughed  the  mighty  deep,  they 
endured  fatigue  and  danger,  and  implanted 
themselves  on  the  inhospitable  shores  of  a  sav- 
age land,  and  there  they  erected  the  standard 
of  liberty.  They  were  Eepublicans  in  heart, 
pious  in  their  profession,  and  virtuous  in  their 
practice.  But  they  were  not  beyond  the  reach 
of  oppression ;  the  strong  arm  of  power  was  ex- 
tended across  the  Atlantic.  They  felt  their  weak- 
ness and  dependence  ;  they  saw  the  hand  which 
had  been  extended  for  their  preservation  and 
safety;  they  implored  a  divine  benediction. 
Sir,  the  cause  of  this  country  was  the  cause  of 
liberty,  of  truth,  and  of  righteousness.  A  kind 
Providence  interposed,  and  we  were  strangely 
rescued  from  the  iron  grasp  of  an  unrelenting  foe. 

Omnipotent  was  the  power,  and  marvellous 
was  the  deliverance ! 

Mr.  President,  independence  was  the  high  des- 
tiny of  America ;  it  was  the  decree  of  the  Holy 
One  ;  its  banner  was  unfurled ;  its  enjoyments 
anticipated;  liberty  and  equality  had  "free 
course ;"  and  a  constitution,  the  admiration  of 
the  world,  the  dread  of  tyrants  and  the  boast  of 
freemen,  grew  out  of  the  mighty  conflict.  This, 
sir,  is  the  instrument  which  I  have  sworn  to 
support,  the  polar  star  to  direct  my  legislative 
course.  Let  no  unhallowed  touch  profane  the 
sacred  ark  of  your  liberties ;  preserve  it  invio- 
late, and  its  light,  like  the  fiery  pillar  of  captive 
Israel,  will  conduct  you  safely  through  all  the 
toils  and  perils  of  your  political  journey,  cheer 
the  desert  of  your  Western  country,  and  cause 
the  hearts  of  millions  to  rejoice.  Sir,  this  is  the 
standard  around  which  we  rally.  Guard  it 
with  watchfulness,  and  you  are  safe ;  violate, 
or  pervert  it,  and  a  train  of  evils,  too  dreadful 
to  imagine,  will  be  the  probable  result.  Sir,  do 
you  demand  proof  of  our  patriotism  and  attach- 
ment to  our  constitution  and  country?  We 
point  you  to  Bunker  Hill,  Bonnington,  Trenton, 
Princeton,  and  Monmouth.  We  have  met  the 
p.ower  that  spurned  us ;  we  took  our  lives  in 
our  hands,  and  faced  the  foe  that  bid  us  de- 
fiance. This  was  the  day  that  tried  men's  souls. 
We  have  lavished  our  strength,  our  treasure, 


and  our  blood,  in  the  first  and  second  war,  to 
sustain  triumphant  the  ark  of  American  lib- 
erty. In  the  name,  then,  of  our  constitution  and 
your  plighted  faith,  with  confidence  bordering 
on  certainty,  we  approach  an  enlightened,  lib- 
eral, and  magnanimous  Legislature,  and  only 
ask  the  protection  and  preservation  of  our  guar- 
anteed privileges.  We  do  not  mean,  sir,  in  the 
attitude  of  humble  suppliants,  to  implore  a  fa- 
vor for  which  we  have  no  just  claim  ;  but  to  re- 
mind you  of  your  solemn  compact — our  mutual 
agreement.  Sir,  are  pledges  of  our  sincerity 
and  integrity  required  ?  We  present  you  the 
best  securities  of  which  a  Eepublic  can  boast 
— faith  never  violated,  hearts  never  corrupted, 
valor  never  surpassed,  and  affections  cemented 
to  the  Government  by  ties  of  reciprocal  ad- 
vantage. 

Mr.  President,  I  have  arrived  at  a  point  which 
I  lament  I  am  compelled  to  disclose.  It  is  my 
deliberate  opinion,  that  the  uncontrolled  ex- 
tension of  involuntary  servitude  will  tend  to 
impair  all  those  virtuous  qualities  that  I  have 
named,  which  I  deem  the  stamina,  nerve, 
muscle,  and  hope  of  the  nation.  Alienation  of 
affection  and  discord  are  the  ruin  of  a  country. 
"  United  we  stand— divided  we  fall." 

Sir,  the  magnitude  of  this  subject,  the  impor- 
tance which  I  conceive  is  attached  to  it,  and  the 
vital  principle  which  will  be  affected  in  its  final 
decision,  are  the  only  apology  which  I  offer,  for 
viewing  it  in  the  several  points  of  light  in  which 
it  presents  itself  to  my  understanding.  In  the 
first  place,  to  clear  the  most  formidable  obstacle 
out  of  the  way,  I  shall  endeavor  to  demonstrate, 
that  Congress  have  a  right  and  power  to  pro- 
hibit slavery  in  every  territory  within  their  do- 
minion, and  in  every  State,  formed  of  territory 
acquired  without  the  limits  of  the  original 
States. 

This  right  and  power  are  derived  from  the 
constitution,  article  1,  section  9 :  "  The  migra- 
tion or  importation  of  such  persons  as  any  of 
the  States  now  existing  shall  think  proper  to  ad- 
mit, shall  not  be  prohibited  by  the  Congress 
prior  to  the  year  1808." 

Here  is  a  grant  of  power  suspended  for  a  cer- 
tain period.  It  amounts  to  this :  Congress  may, 
after  the  year  1808,  pass  laws  to  prohibit  the 
migration  and  importation  of  slaves.  I  under- 
stand the  sense  and  meaning  of  this  clause  to  be, 
that  the  power  of  the  Congress,  although  com- 
petent to  prohibit  such  migration  and  importa- 
tion, was  not  to  be  exercised  with  respect  to 
the  then  existing  States,  (and  them  only,)  until 
the  year  1808 ;  but  that  the  Congress  were  at 
liberty  to  make  such  prohibition  as  to  any  new 
State  which  might,  in  the  mean  time,  be  estab- 
lished. And  further,  that,  from  and  after 
that  period,  they  were  authorized  to  make  such 
prohibition  as  to  all  the  States,  whether  new  or 
old. 

It  will,  I  presume,  be  admitted,  that  slaves 
were  the  persons  intended.  The  word  slaves 
was  avoided,  probably  on  account  of  the  exist- 
ing toleration  of  slavery,  and  its  discordancy 


ABRIDGMENT  OF  THE 


SENATE.] 


Maine  and  Missouri — Restriction  on  Missouri. 


[JANUARY,  1820. 


with  the  principles  of  the  Revolution;  and 
from  a  consciousness  of  its  being  repugnant  to 
the  following  positions  in  the  Declaration  of  In- 
dependence :  "We  hold  these  truths  to  be  self- 
evident  ;  tliat  all  men  are  created  equal ;  that 
they  are  endowed  by  their  Creator  with  certain 
inalienable  rights ;  that  among  these  are  life, 
liberty,  and  the  pursuit  of  happiness." 

That  this  exposition  is  correct,  I  infer  from 
the  common  acceptation  of  words,  and  the  fact 
that  Congress  did,  in  March  1807,  pass  a  law  to 
take  effect  on  the  first  day  of  January,  1808, 
prohibiting  the  further  importation  of  slaves. 
No  objection  has  been  made  to  the  constitu- 
tionality, expediency,  or  policy  of  this  law.  The 
whole  nation  viewed  it  as  one  step  towards  ac- 
complishing the  object  the  framers  of  the  con- 
stitution evidently  had  in  view.  It  may  be  of 
use  to  us  to  inquire,  what  was  the  understand- 
ing, and  what  was  their  design,  in  introducing 
this  paragraph  into  that  instrument  ?  If  you 
examine  the  Journals  of  the  Federal  Conven- 
tion, sir,  you  will  find  it  was  not  hastily  or  in- 
cautiously adopted,  without  deliberation,  but 
after  critical  analysis  and  profound  investigation. 

Mr.  President,  it  is  a  sound  principle  in  ex- 
pounding a  law,  to  give  to  every  word  a  mean- 
ing and  an  operation,  and  to  be  governed  by  the 
evident  design  of  the  legislators ;  so,  in  explain- 
ing the  constitution,  we  are  surely  on  safe 
ground,  to  pursue  the  object  its  authors  evi- 
dently had  in  view,  by  giving  to  every  word 
some  meaning  and  operation.  Does  it  not  ap- 
pear, from  the  words  of  that  instrument,  it  was 
their  intention  to  arrest  the  progress  and  pre- 
vent the  further  extension  of  involuntary  ser- 
vitude ?  Let  common  sense  put  a  purport  upon 
our  Declaration  of  Independence,  the  letter  of 
our  constitution,  and  the  spirit  of  our  Govern- 
ment, and  this  must  be  the  result. 

It  is  well  understood,  that  this  question  tried 
the  feelings  and  excited  the  interest  of  that 
body  perhaps  more  than  any  question  they  dis- 
cussed. But  to  obtain  a  constitution  they 
came  to  a  compromise ;  and  in  this  compro- 
mise there  were  mutual  sacrifices.  The  large 
States  agreed  that  each  should  have  two  mem- 
bers in  the  Senate,  and  the  non-slaveholding 
States  consented  that  the  black  population 
should  come  into  the  calculation  in  the  appor- 
tionment of  members  in  the  House  of  Represent- 
atives, and  the  payment  of  direct  taxes.  It  was 
the  opinion  of  some,  that  involuntary  servitude 
ought  to  be  totally  excluded ;  and  of  others,  that 
it  could  not  be,  but  might  be  meliorated  and  re- 
strained. This  produced  the  compromise,  "  the 
States  now  existing,"  which  have  admitted 
slavery,  may  continue  to  do  so,  on  this  condi- 
tion :  "  Congress  may,  after  the  year  1808," 
pass  laws  to  prevent  the  '"  migration  "  and  fur- 
ther "importation"  of  slaves.  To  this  prop- 
osition they  agreed.  This  confirmed  the  com- 
pact. It  is  now  binding  on  the  whole.  And 
this  Congress  are  to  be  controlled  by  its  prin- 
ciples. We  wish  neither  to  disturb  the  com- 
pact, nor  violate  our  plighted  faith.  We  lament 


the  degraded  situation  of  the  slaves,  and  the 
misfortune  of  those  who  hold  them ;  but  we 
mean  to  attach  no  blame  to  them ;  it  is  an  evil 
produced  by  a  cause  which  was  never  within 
the  reach  of  the  present  generation. 

What  is  this  tract  of  country  ?  Is  it  a  State 
or  a  Territory  ?  If  a  State,  then  she  may  legis- 
late for  herself;  if  a  Territory,  then  Congress 
have  power  to  regulate.  It  is  not  a  State  till 
admitted  into  the  Union  by  an  act  of  Congress. 
This  is  clear,  because  should  Congress  pass  a 
law  to  admit  Missouri  into  the  Union  on  con- 
ditions, and  those  be  rejected,  she  remains  still 
a  Territory.  Then  every  legislative  act,  pre- 
vious to  that  of  admission,  is  a  "regiilation  re- 
specting a  Territory."  And,  under  this  provi- 
sion of  the  constitution,  in  connection  with  the 
immutable  principles  of  rational  government, 
conditions  have  uniformly  been  incorporated  in 
the  acts  admitting  new  States  into  the  Union, 
as  well  as  those  which  related  to  territorial 
government. 

If  Congress  have  a  constitutional  right  to 
"make  all  needful  rules  and  regulations  re- 
specting the  territories,"  then  it  follows,  ex  ti 
termini,  that  they  have  equal  right  to  exercise 
their  discretion  in  deciding  what  "rules  and 
regulations  are  needful."  The  power  to  make 
rules,  and  not  a  right  to  exercise  discretion  in 
adjusting  them,  would  be  a  complete  nullity. 
Previous  to  the  year  1808,  Congress  did  sup- 
pose, without  the  aid  of  this  clause  in  the  con- 
stitution, they  possessed  sovereign  power  and 
control  over  their  territories.  Under  this  very 
just  impression,  a  law  was  passed  in  April, 
1798,  prohibiting  the  importation  of  slaves  into 
the  Mississippi  Territory — Vol.  1,  page  40,  sec.  7: 

"  And  be  it  further  enacted,  That  from  and  after 
the  establishment  of  the  aforesaid  government,  it 
shall  not  be  lawful  for  any  person  or  persons  to  im- 
porter bring  into  the  said  Mississippi  Territory,  from 
any  port  or  place  within  the  limits  of  the  United 
States,  or  to  cause  or  procure  to  be  so  imported  or 
brought,  or  aid  in  bringing,  any  slave ;  and  being 
convicted,  &c.,  shall  forfeit  and  pay  three  hundred  dol- 
lars, &c.,  and  the  slave  be  entitled  to  freedom." 

This  distinctly  shows,  that  Congress  supposed 
their  power  over  the  Territories  more  exten- 
sive than  that  over  the  States ;  because  over 
them  they  could  not  pass  a  prohibitory  statute 
till  1808.  The  same  fact  appears  from  the  act 
of  Congress  of  March,  1804,  "  erecting  Louis- 
iana into  two  Territories."  Sec.  10 — "  It  shall 
not  be  lawful  for  any  person  or  persons  to  im- 
port or  bring  into  the  said  Territory,  from  any 
port  or  place  without  the  limits  of  the  United 
States,  &c.,  any  slave  or  slaves ;  and  every  per- 
son so  offending,  &c.,  shall  forfeit  three  hundred 
dollars,  and  the  slave  shall  receive  his  or  her 
freedom."  "  It  shall  not  be  lawful  for  any  per- 
son or  persons  to  import  or  bring  into  the  said 
Territory,  from  any  port  or  place  within  the 
limits  of  the  United  States,  any  slave  or  slaves 
which  shall  have  been  imported  since  the  first 
day  of  May,  1798,  or  which  may  hereafter  be 
imported ;  such  person  shall  forfeit,  &c.,  three 


DEBATES  OF  CONGKESS. 


397 


JANUARY,  1820.] 


Restriction  of  Slavery— Maine  and  Missouri. 


[SENATE. 


hundred  dollars ;  and  no  slave  or  slaves  shall, 
directly  or  indirectly,  be  introduced  into  said 
Territory,  except  by  a  citizen  of  the  United 
States,  removing  into  said  Territory  for  actual 
settlement,  and  being  at  the  time  of  such  re- 
moval bona  fide  owner  of  such  slave  or  slaves ; 
and  every  slave  brought  into  said  Territory, 
contrary  to  the  provisions  of  this  act,  shall  re- 
ceive his  or  her  freedom." 

From  these  facts  it  very  obviously  appears 
that  Congress  had,  and  did  exercise,  the  power 
of  inhibiting  the  importation,  and  even  the 
migration  of  slaves,  into  its  territories,  directly 
or  indirectly,  otherwise  than  by  a  citizen  of  the 
United  States  removing  thither  for  actual  set- 
tlement, and  being  at  the  time  bona  fide  owner 
of  the  slave.  And  this  previous  to  the  time 
that  the  ninth  section  in  the  first  article  of  the 
constitution  took  effect ;  of  course  the  power 
must  be  derived  from  some  other  clause  in  the 
constitution — perhaps  that  which  authorizes 
Congress  to  regulate  commerce,  or  from  the 
immutable  principle  that  all  legitimate  Govern- 
ments have  an  inherent  right  to  exercise  sov- 
ereign control  over  its  territories. 

TUESDAY,  January  18. 
Restriction  of  Slavery  in  the  Territory  North 

and  West  of  Missouri. 
Agreeably  to  notice  given,  Mr.  THOMAS  asked 
and  obtained  leave  to  bring  in  the  following 
bill,  which  was  read  and  passed  to  the  second 
reading : 

A  BUI  to  prohibit  the  introduction  of  slavery  into 
the  territories  of  the  United  States  North  and  West 
of  the  contemplated  State  of  Missouri. 
Be  it  enacted  by  the  Senate  and  House  of  Represent- 
atives of  the  United  States  of  America,  in  Congress 
assembled,  That  the  sixth  article  of  the  ordinance  of 
Congress,  passed  on  the  thirteenth  day  of  July,  one 
thousand  seven  hundred  and  eighty-seven,  for  the 
government  of  the  territory  of  the  United  States 
Northwest  of  the  river  Ohio,  shall,  to  all  intents  and 
purposes,  be  deemed  and  held  applicable  to,  and  shall 
have  full  force  and  effect  in  and  over  all  the  territory 
belonging  to  the  United  States,  which  lies  West  and 
Xortb  of  a  line  beginning  at  a  point  on  the  parallel 
of  North  latitude  thirty  degrees  and  thirty  minutes, 
where  the  said  parallel  crosses  the  Western  boundary 
line  of  the  United  States :  thence,  running  East,  along 
that  parallel  of  latitude,  to  a  point  where  the  said 
parallel  is  intersected  by  a  meridian  line  passing 
through  the  middle  of  the  mouth  of  the  Kansas  River, 
where  the  same  empties  into  the  Missouri  River; 
thence,  from  the  point  aforesaid,  North,  along  the 
said  meridian  line,  to  the  intersection  of  the  parallel 
of  latitude  which  passes  through  the  rapids  of  the 
River  Des  Moines,  making  the  said  line  to  corre- 
spond with  the  Indian  boundary  line ;  thence,  East, 
from  the  point  of  intersection  last  aforesaid,  along  the 
said  parallel  of  latitude,  to  the  middle  of  the  channel 
of  the  main  fork  of  the  said  river  Des  Moines ;  thence, 
down  and  along  the  middle  of  the  mam  channel  of 
the  said  river  Des  Moines,  to  the  motath  of  the  same, 
where  it  empties  into  the  Mississippi  River ;  thence, 
due  East,  to  the  middle  of  the  main  channel  of  the 
Mississippi  River;  thence,  up  and  following  the 


course  of  the  Mississippi  River,  in  the  middle  of  the 
main  channel  thereof,  to  its  source ;  and  thence,  due 
North,  to  the  Northern  boundary  of  the  United 

States.  

WEDNESDAY,  January  19. 
Maine  and  Missouri. 

The  Senate  resumed,  as  in  Committee  of  the 
Whole,  the  consideration  of  the  bill,  entitled 
"  An  act  for  the  admission  of  the  State  of  Maine 
into  the  Union,"  together  with  the  amendments 
reported  thereto  by  the  Committee  on  the 
Judiciary,  and  the  amendment  proposed  by 
Mr.  ROBERTS. 

Mr.  WALKEK,  of  Georgia,  said,  the  subject 
under  consideration  had  been  already  so  much 
discussed,  that  he  had  not  the  vanity  Jo  believe 
that  he  could  offer  any  thing  new  to  the  con- 
sideration of  the  Senate.  But  representing,  as 
he  did,  a  State  in  which  slavery  is  tolerated,  it 
might  possibly  be  construed  a  dereliction  of 
duty,  and  an  abandonment  of  the  sacred  inter- 
ests of  those  he  represented,  were  he  to  remain 
silent  on  the  present  occasion.  Nothing,  how- 
ever, said  he,  but  an  imperious,  an  irresistible 
sense  of  duty  could  have  induced  me  to  depart 
from  the  resolution  I  had  at  first  taken,  not  to 
trespass  upon  the  time  of  the  Senate  by  any 
observations  of  mine  upon  the  bill  now  in  pro- 
gression. And  really,  sir,  it  is  with  a  degree 
of  unfeigned  reluctance  I  have  risen  to  oppose 
my  opinions  to  those  of  gentlemen  of  so  much 
more  experience  than  myself,  and  for  whose 
opinions  I  cannot  but  entertain  the  most  pro- 
found respect. 

We  have  already  heard,  sir,  as  well  from  the 
honorable  gentleman  from  Pennsylvania,  who 
first  addressed  you,  as  from  the  honorable  gen- 
tleman from  New  Hampshire,  who  closed  his 
remarks  last  evening,  that  the  subject  under 
consideration  is  an  important  one.  In  this 
sentiment  I  perfectly  accord. 

Perhaps,  sir,  no  subject  which  has  agitated 
the  councils  of  the  United  States  of  America, 
from  the  formation  of  our  Government  down 
to  the  present  period,  has  been  pregnant  with 
more  important  consequences  than  the  one  now 
under  discussion.  It  is  a  subject,  sir,  which  has 
excited  not  only  the  deep  interest  of  those  who 
are  to  decide  upon  it,  but  one  which  is  agitat- 
ing this  continent  from  one  extreme  to  the 
other.  And  whether  we  turn  our  eyes  to  the 
East  or  to  the  West,  to  the  North  or  to  the 
South,  we  behold  anxiety  depicted  in  every 
countenance,  as  if,  upon  the  decision  of  this 
question,  depended  the  peace  and  harmony  of 
this  Union. 

Sir,  the  resolutions  and  instructions  of  differ- 
ent State  Legislatures — the  petitions  of  very 
many  assemblages  of  citizens  in  various  parts 
of  the  Union,  with  which  your  table  is  crowded 
— proclaim,  in  language  not  to  be  misunder- 
stood, the  deep-toned  feeling  to  which  the  dis- 
cussion of  this  question  has  given  rise. 

Mr.  President,  I  have  heard,  with  much  re- 
gret, the  sentiments  which  have  been  expressed 
in  this  debate.  They  evince  a  degree  of  sec- 


398 


ABRIDGMENT  OF  THE 


SENATE.] 


Maine  and  Missouri. 


[JANUARY,  1820. 


tional  feeling  which  I  had  not  expected  to  find 
within  these  walls.  I  had  indulged  the  hope, 
sir,  that,  with  the  close  of  the  late  war,  all 
party  animosity  had  subsided,  and  that  our  po- 
litical bark,  having  ridden  out  the  tempest  of 
faction,  had  been  safely  anchored  in  the  haven 
of  peace.  But  a  state  of  tranquillity,  I  appre- 
hend, is  incompatible  with  the  nature  of  man. 
Scarcely  had  the  storm  subsided — scarcely  had 
we  shaken  hands  as  brothers — when  a  new 
source  of  discontent  has  been  discovered ;  and 
another,  and  much  more  important  distinction 
of  party  than  any  which  has  preceded  it,  is 
about  to  be  established. 

The  feelings  of  humanity  and  benevolence 
have  taken  such  complete  possession  of  certain 
sections  Of  our  country,  that  every  other  con- 
sideration is  made  to  bend  to  the  irresistible 
inclination  to  ameliorate  the  condition  of  slaves. 
A  spirit  of  opposition — a  line  of  demarcation — 
is  sought  to  be  established  between  the  slave- 
holding  and  non-slaveholding  States.  And 
"slavery  or  not,"  seems  destined  to  be  the 
watch- word  of  party. 

I,  for  one,  Mr.  President,  deprecate  this  state 
of  things.  I  am  not  among  those  who  believe 
that  party  dissensions  are  essential  to  the  health 
of  the  body  politic.  I  delight,  sir,  to  inhale  the 
breeze  which  brings  with  it  harmony  and  peace ; 
but  when  other  sentiments  prevail,  it  is  not  my 
nature  to  yield  to  their  influence  with  calm  in- 
difference. Contest  is  preferable  to  submission. 
I  feel  it  my  duty,  therefore,  to  meet  this  ques- 
tion at  the  threshold ;  I  fear  there  is  too  much 
reason  to  consider  it  the  inception  of  a  policy 
whose  tendency  may  be  to  dismember  this 
Union.  And  the  alarming  doctrines  we  yester- 
day heard,  have  certainly  not  tended  to  allay 
my  apprehensions. 

It  will  not  be  expected,  I  trust,  that  I  should 
follow  the  honorable  gentlemen  who  advocate 
the  amendment,  over  all  the  ground  they  have 
occupied  in  debate;  for  this  I  have  neither  in- 
clination nor  ability,  and  were  they  both  in  my 
possession,  still,  the  effort  might,  perhaps,  by 
some,  be  thought  unnecessary. 

With  the  historical  sketches  which  have  been 
given  us,  of  the  early  settlements  of  this  coun- 
try, and  of  the  dangers  and  difficulties  which 
were  encountered  by  our  forefathers  in  this 
perilous  enterprise,  I  have  been  amused  and 
instructed — I  had  almost  said,  I  have  been 
charmed  by  their  novelty ;  but  I  must  be  par- 
doned for  saying,  I  cannot  perceive  their  re- 
levancy to  the  subject  under  discussion. 

The  honorable  gentleman  from  New  Hamp- 
shire, whose  arguments  I  cannot  hope  to  reach, 
much  less  to  answer,  has  employed  a  consider- 
able portion  of  a  very  long  and  a  very  able 
speech,  in  inventing  anathemas  against  slavery, 
and  has  been  pleased  to  draw  a  parallel  be- 
tween the  inhabitants  of  the  different  sections 
of  this  country,  (but  with  what  degree  of  ac- 
curacy others  must  judge,)  in  which  he  has  not 
failed  to  give  a  very  decided  preference  to  those 
who  inhabit  States  in  which  slavery  is  not  tol- 


erated ;  and  in  the  plenitude  of  his  charity  and 
benevolence,  has  ascribed  this  vast  and  essen- 
tial difference  to  the  influence  of  slavery.  To 
the  same  influence  is  ascribed  a  destitution  of 
talents,  of  courage,  of  morality,  and  of  religion ; 
and,  from  the  observations  of  the  honorable 
gentleman,  one  would  be  led  to  believe  that  all 
the  cardinal  virtues  wither  at  the  approach  of 
this  accursed  monster  slavery.  In  what  a  de- 
plorable condition  would  be  the  inhabitants  of 
the  slaveholding  States  if  the  honorable  gentle- 
man's speculations  were  history  I  Fortunately, 
however,  they  have  their  existence  only  in  a 
fervid  imagination. 

But,  dreading  lest  he  should  not  be  able  to 
carry  conviction  to  our  understandings,  which 
he  must  of  course  have  considered  extremely 
blunt  and  impenetrable,  the  honorable  gentle- 
man endeavors  to  make  an  attack  upon  our 
fears,  in  which  he  considers  us  perhaps  much 
more  assailable;  and  with  all  the  Christian 
meekness  and  charity  imaginable,  we  are  cau- 
tioned to  beware  how  we  encourage  slavery, 
for  that  the  vengeance  of  an  angry  God  will 
not  sleep  for  ever. 

The  honorable  gentleman's  zeal  seems  to  have 
transported  him  beyond  the  bounds  of  just  cal- 
culation. Our  apprehensions  are  not  so  easily 
excited.  For,  whilst  we  bow  with  great  hu- 
mility and  reverence  before  the  majesty  of 
Heaven,  and,  on  our  bended  knees,  would  de- 
precate the  wrath  of  God,  we  are  not  prepared 
to  consider  the  honorable  gentleman  as  one  of 
his  vicegerents. 

Mr.  President,  it  is  far  from  my  intention  to 
recriminate ;  I  came  not  here  to  offend  or  be 
offended.  If  it  will  be  a  gratification  to  the 
honorable  gentleman's  feelings,  I  am  willing  to^ 
admit,  that  the  inhabitants  of  that  section  of  * 
the  country  from  whence  he  comes,  are  all 
high-minded  and  honorable  men;  that  they  are 
intelligent,  brave,  virtuous,  moral,  religious, 
and  patriotic.  But  I  must  take  the  liberty  of 
reminding  the  honorable  gentleman,  that  these 
are  not  sectional  qualities;  and  that  if  he  will 
give  himself  the  trouble  to  consult  the  page  of 
history,  he  will  learn  that  those  virtues  are 
alike  the  growth  of  every  part  of  this  extensive, 
prosperous,  and  happy  country ;  and  I  trust  I 
shall  not  give  offence  by  declaring  it  as  my  firm 
conviction,  that  the  inhabitants  of  the  slave- 
holding  States  will  not  suffer  by  a  just  com- 
parison with  those  of  any  other  section  of  the 
Union. 

In  approaching  the  constitution  of  my  conn- 
try,  sir,  I  proceed  with  a  kind  of  deferential 
awe :  it  is  a  hallowed  instrument,  with  which 
I  am  almost  afraid  to  trust  myself. 

The  grant  of  powers  to  Congress  by  the  con- 
stitution, are  embraced  in  the  8th  section  of  the 
1st  article ;  by  which  Congress  shall  have  power 
to  lay  and  collect  taxes,  to  borrow  money,  to 
regulate  commerce,  to  establish  a  uniform  rule 
of  naturalization,  to  coin  money,  to  promote 
the  progress  of  science  and  useful  arts,  to  con- 
stitute tribunals  inferior  to  the  Supreme  Court, 


DEBATES  OF  CONGRESS. 


399 


JANUARY,  1820.] 


Maine  and  Missouri, 


[SENATE. 


to  declare  war,  &c.  Among  the  powers  enu- 
merated in  this  section,  the  one  contended  for 
will  not  be  found.  But  the  gentlemen  inform 
us  that  the  power  is  derived  from  the  9th  sec- 
tion of  the  same  article,  or  from  the  third  sec- 
tion of  the  4th  article ;  but  from  which  of  these 
sections  the  advocates  of  this  measure  have  not 
exactly  agreed  among  themselves.  That  it 
cannot  be  derived  from  both,  I  presume,  must 
be  admitted ;  for  it  would  be  doing  injustice  to 
the  profound  intelligence  of  the  immortal  fram- 
ers  of  the  constitution,  to  suppose  that  they 
would  have  employed  two  distinct  sections  hi 
different  articles  of  that  instrument,  to  convey 
the  same  power.  And  this  diversity  of  opinion 
among  such  able  expositors  of  the  constitution, 
renders  it  at  least  doubtful  whether  it  is  de- 
rivable from  either  section. 

But  let  us  examine  the  sections  referred  to. 
The  9th  section  of  the  1st  article  is  as  follows : 

"  The  migration  or  importation  of  such  persons  as 
any  of  the  States  now  existing  shall  think  proper  to 
admit,  shall  not  be  prohibited  by  the  Congress  prior 
to  the  year  1808  ;  but  a  tax  or  duty  may  be  imposed 
on  such  importation,  not  exceeding  ten  dollars  for 
each  person." 

It  is  much  to  be  regretted  that  any  section  of 
this  inimitable  instrument  should  have  been  so 
constructed  as  to  admit  even  of  doubtful  inter- 
pretation. It  is,  however,  a  proof  that  perfec- 
tion belongs  not  to  man,  but  is  an  attribute  of 
the  Deity.  The  instrument  under  consideration 
is,  perhaps,  as  perfect  as  man  could  make  it. 

The  gentlemen  who  rely  upon  this  section 
contend  that  the  power  impliedly  acknowledged 
to  reside  in  Congress,  by  the  phraseology  of 
this  section,  to  prohibit  the  migration  of  slaves, 
•is  sufficiently  extensive  to  authorize  the  inter- 
diction of  carrying  slaves  from  one  State  to  an- 
other of  this  Union,  or  from  the  States  to  the 
Territories  belonging  to  the  United  States ;  and 
that  Congress  may  well  regulate  the  inter- 
course between  the  States  and  Territories,  in 
this  regard,  and  totally  prohibit  the  "migra- 
tion "  of  slaves. 

On  first  turning  my  attention  to  this  subject, 
•with  a  view  to  the  formation  of  an  opinion 
upon  the  section  under  consideration,  I  was  im- 
pressed with  the  belief  that  the  words  "  migra- 
tion and  importation "  were  used  as  convert- 
ible; that  they  were  intended  to  have  the 
same  interpretation ;  and  both  to  have  refer- 
ence to  the  introduction  of  slaves  from  abroad : 
for,  although  the  word  "persons"  was  used,  I 
had  no  difficulty  in  believing  slaves  were  meant. 
This  construction  I  believed  to  be  strengthened 
by  the  fact  that  the  word  "migration"  is  en- 
tirely dropped  in  the  latter  part  of  the  section, 
and  the  word  "  such  "  is  made  to  refer  to  the 
persons  so  to  be  introduced ;  Congress  being 
authorized  to  impose  a  tax  on  such  importation 
not  exceeding  ten  dollars  for  each  person.  But, 
on  more  mature  reflection,  my  mind  came  to 
the  conclusion  that  the  words  were  entitled  to 
be  considered  separately;  that  they  \vero  in- 
tended to  have  distinct  meanings,  and  each  to 


be  employed  in  the  performance  of  a  particular 
office.  I  was  the  more  easily  led  to  this  con- 
clusion from  the  belief  that  the  great  and  ex- 
cellent men  who  formed  our  constitution,  would 
not  have  employed  an  unnecessary  phraseology, 
or  have  used  words  which  they  did  not  intend 
should  have  their  appropriate  signification. 

The  construction,  therefore,  which  I  am  dis- 
posed to  give  to  this  section  is — that  the  word 
"  importation,"  as  its  appropriate  meaning  would 
indicate,  looks  abroad  and  was  intended  to  em- 
brace slaves  brought  into  this  country  from 
Africa  and  elsewhere  by  water.  The  word 
"migration "  was  intended  to  embrace  such  as 
should  be  brought  into  the  United  States  by 
land,  from  the  contiguous  territory  belonging 
to  foreign  powers.  For  it  would  have  been 
idle  and  vain  to  have  prohibited  the  "im- 
portation" or  the  bringing  of  slaves  directly 
into  our  ports — whilst  there  should  be  no  inter- 
diction of  "  migration"  from  the  territory  of  for- 
eign powers  immediately  adjoining  the  terri- 
tory of  the  United  States,  and  it  must  be  recol- 
lected, that  at  the  time  of  the  adoption  of  the 
Federal  Constitution,  this  country  was  bordered 
in  different  directions  by  territory  belonging  to 
other  nations.  By  giving  this  construction  you 
satisfy  the  full  meaning  of  both  words.* 

Honorable  gentlemen,  arguing  this  as  an 
original  question  upon  the  subject  of  slavery, 
tell  us,  very  emphatically,  that  slavery  is  too 
great  an  evil  to  be  tolerated.  Suppose  we 


This  clause  in  the  constitution  forms  a  part  of  the  staple 
In  every  speech  on  the  Missouri  question,  being  quoted  for 
opposite  purposes  by  the  two  sides  to  the  question — by  one 
side,  the  phrases  "  migration  "  and  "  importation  "  being  held 
to  be  synonymous  and  applicable  to  slaves  within  the  United 
States,  and  their  removal  from  one  State  to  another ;  by  the 
other  side,  being  held  as  words  of  different  import,  and  ap- 
plicable both  to  slaves  and  free  persons,  brought  or  coming 
rom  abroad.  "  Migration  "  implied  voluntary  action— im- 
portation, involuntary.  The  puzzle  in  the  clause  came  from 
;he  use  of  both  words,  and  from  the  necessity  as  well  as  the 
mpossibility  of  finding  a  consistent  meaning  for  each  one. 
The  care  of  the  constitution,  in  the  use  of  language,  was 
known.  Far  from  using  an  equivocal  phrase,  it  would  not 
use  two  of  the  same  import  where  one  was  enough ;  yet 
lere  was  an  exception — a  departure  from  that  laudable  care ; 
and,  according  to  Mr.  Madison,  it  was  done  on  purpose,  and 
for  the  case  of  scrupulous  consciences.  Mr.  Madison,  in  his 
etter  of  November,  1819,  to  Mr.  Eobert  Walsh,  thus  ac- 
counts for  it :  "  Some  of  the  States  had  scruples  about  ad- 
mitting the  term  'slaves'  into  the  instrument:  hence  the 
descriptive  phrase,  'migration,  or  importation  of  persons;' 
the  term  migration  allowing  those  who  were  scrupulous  of 
acknowledging  expressly  a  property  in  human  beings,  to 
lew  imported  persons  as  a  species  of  emigrants,  while 
others  might  apply  the  term  to  foreign  malefactors  sent  or 
coming  into  the  country.  It  is  possible,  though  not  recol- 
ected,  that  some  might  have  had  an  eye  to  the  case  of  freed 
lacks  as  well  as  malefactors."  So  that  this  phrase,  "  migra- 
lon,"  which  gave  so  much  trouble  to  our  Congress,  and  ex- 
ited such  alarming  apprehension  in  one-half  of  the  Union, 
was  only  a  mode  of  getting  a  unanimous  vote  for  the  same 
thing,  to  wit :  the  non-importation  of  Africans  for  slaves 
•  a  certain  day. 


400 


ABRIDGMENT  OF  THE 


SENATE.] 


Maine  and  Missouri. 


[JANUARY,  1820. 


should  entertain  the  opinion  that  such  is  the 
fact,  and  the  people  of  Missouri  should  think 
differently,  shall  we  take  upon  ourselves  to 
judge  for  them  what  is  most  for  their  advan- 
tage ?  Shall  we  deny  them  the  right  of  opin- 
ion ?  Is  this  compatible  with  the  genius  and 
spirit  of  our  free  constitution  ?  Are  these  the 
sentiments  of  gentlemen  who  ahhor  slavery  ? 
I  had  thought,  Mr.  President,  that  the  pride  of 
opinion  was  the  American's  boast.  I  had  fondly 
hoped  that  the  old  doctrine  of  saving  the  peo- 
ple from  their  worst  enemy,  themselves,  had 
been  long  since  exploded  ;  and  that  one  much 
more  congenial  with  the  principles  of  our  Gov- 
ernment had  been  substituted.  I  had  thought, 
that,  as  the  people  were  the  source  of  all  power, 
they  might  be  permitted  to  judge  for  them- 
selves in  all  original  and  important  questions  in 
which  their  welfare  was  materially  involved. 
I  must  contend  then,  sir,  that  whether  slavery 
is  really  an  evil  or  not,  is  a  matter  for  the  peo- 
ple of  Missouri  to  determine  for  themselves, 
and  not  Congress  for  them.  If  it  is  an  evil, 
and  they  choose  to  hug  it  to  their  bosoms,  and 
to  enfold  it  in  their  fond  embrace,  does  it  per- 
tain to  Congress  to  deny  them  the  privilege  ? 
Shall  we  take  from  them  the  right  of  judging 
for  themselves  upon  a  subject  so  intimately  con- 
nected with  their  welfare  ?  Will  those  who  in- 
veigh so  bitterly  against  the  slavery  of  the 
blacks  make  slaves  of  the  white  people  of  Mis- 
souri, and  rivet  chains  about  their  necks? 
Shall  an  American  Congress,  basking  in  the 
sunshine  of  the  only  free  constitution  upon 
earth,  unmindful  of  the  blessings  which  they 
themselves  enjoy,  undertake  to  impose  a  gov- 
ernment upon  a  portion  of  their  citizens,  against 
their  will,  and  to  restrain  them  in  the  exercise 
of  rights  enjoyed  by  others  ?  Such  a  course  of 
conduct  might  do  well  for  a  despot  of  Europe. 
Such  a  procedure  might  have  been  expected 
from  a  Bonaparte,  in  the  meridian  of  his  splen- 
did career  of  conquest.  But  for  the  meek-eyed 
sons  of  a  Eepublic  to  attempt  such  a  thing,  I 
must  confess,  Mr.  President,  has  excited  my  as- 
tonishment and  regret. 

These  people  are  either  capable  of  self-gov- 
ernment, or  they  are  not.  If  the  former,  per- 
mit them  to  frame  a  constitution  for  them- 
selves, restrained  only  by  the  obligation  im- 
posed by  the  Federal  Constitution— that  it  shall 
have  a  Republican  form.  Let  us  grant  to  them 
the  boon  of  self-government,  without  alloy. 
But  if  they  should  be  deemed  incapable  of  self- 
government,  let  Congress,  in  tender  commis- 
eration for  their  unfortunate  condition,  con- 
tinue "to  make  all  needful  rules  and  regu- 
lations," which  may  be  essential  for  their  com- 
fort and  protection.  But  can  it  be  expected 
that  the  people  of  Missouri,  the  hardy  sons  of 
the  "West,  will  tamely  submit  to  such  a  degra- 
dation— to  such  a  palpable  infringement  of  their 
rights  ?  Will  they  submit  to  be  told  that  they 
are  incapable  of  thinking  and  acting  for  them- 
selves ;  that  they  are  incapable  of  appreciating 
the  advantages,  or  of  avoiding  the  evils  of 
slavery  ? 


Such  submission  and  humiliation,  sir,  might 
be  expected  from  the  slaves  of  an  eastern 
despot,  whose  souls,  enfettered  and  enchained 
by  arbitrary  power,  had  become  so  fallen,  so 
degraded,  and  debased,  that  they  were  inca- 
pable of  the  exercise  of  manly  feelings.  But 
to  expect  such  submission  from  the  free-born 
sons  of  America,  upon  whose  birth  the  genius 
of  liberty  smiled,  who  have  been  nursed  in  the 
lap  of  independence,  and  grown  to  manhood, 
warmed  and  animated  by  the  genial  influence 
of  our  happy  constitution,  is  to  expect  that 
which  reason  and  nature  forbid.  'Tis  to  expect 
from  freemen  the  conduct  of  slaves. 

Mr.  President,  unless  these  men  are  com- 
posed of  different  materials  from  what  I  pre- 
sume they  are,  I  fear — much  do  I  fear — that 
the  imposition  of  restrictions,  or  the  refusal  to 
admit  them  unconditionally  into  the  Union,  will 
excite  a  tempest,  whose  fury  will  not  be  easily 
allayed.  It  is,  perhaps,  wrong  to  predict  or  an- 
ticipate evil,  but  he  must  be  badly  acquainted 
with  the  signs  of  the  tunes,  who  does  not  per- 
ceive a  storm  portending ;  and  callous  to  all  the 
finer  feelings  of  nature  must  he  be,  who  does 
not  dread  the  bursting  of  that  storm. 

Mr.  President,  I  cannot  but  imagine  to  my- 
self intestine  feuds,  civil  wars,  and  all  the  black 
catalogue  of  evils  consequent  upon  such  a  state 
of  things.  I  behold  the  father  armed  against 
the  son,  and  the  son  against  the  father.  I  per- 
ceive a  brother's  sword  crimsoned  with  a 
brother's  blood.  I  perceive  our  houses  wrapped 
in  flames,  and  our  wives  and  infant  children 
driven  from  their  homes,  forced  to  submit  to 
the  pelting  of  the  pitiless  storm,  with  no  other 
shelter  but  the  canopy  of  heaven ;  with  nothing 
to  sustain  them  but  the  cold  charity  of  an  un- 
feeling world.  I  trust  in  God,  that  this  crea- 
ture of  the  imagination  may  never  be  realized. 
But  if  Congress  persist  in  the  determination  to 
impose  the  restriction  contemplated,  I  fear  there 
is  too  much  cause  to  apprehend,  that  conse- 
quences fatal  to  the  peace  and  harmony  of  this 
Union  will  be  the  inevitable  result. 

When  Mr.  WALKER  had  concluded — 

Mr.  MELLEN  rose  and  said :  I  rise,  Mr.  Presi- 
dent, to  express  my  sentiments  upon  the  subject 
under  consideration,  with  a  deep  conviction  of 
ts  importance  in  regard  to  the  lasting  welfare 
and  happiness  of  our  country.  I  approach  the 
question  with  respectfulness ;  aiming  at  nothing 
beyond  plainness  and  simplicity.  On  this  occa- 
sion, I  am  not  disposed,  were  I  able,  "  to  gather 
and  distribute  the  flowers  of  rhetoric,"  notwith- 
standing the  happy  example  which  I  have  this 
morning  witnessed. 

I  am  not  vain  enough  to  believe  that  I  can 
shed  new  light  upon  a  question  which  has  been 
so  learnedly  and  elaborately  investigated  in 
aoth  Houses  of  Congress  on  a  former  occasion, 
and  has  recently  employed  the  talents  of  respect- 
ed individuals  in  different  parts  of  the  Union, 
am  sure,  sir,  if  the  subject  has  not  already 
been  exhausted,  the  distinguished  powers  of  in- 
tellect which  will  be  exerted  during  the  present 


DEBATES  OF  CONGRESS. 


401 


JANUARY,  1820.] 


Maine  and  Missouri. 


[SENATE. 


discussion  will  completely  exhaust  it.  Still  it 
is  my  duty  and  my  pride  frankly  to  express  my 
own,  as  well  as  the  feelings  and  opinion  of  the 
State  I  represent ;  and  I  cannot  decline  it,  nor 
consent  to  give  my  silent  support  to  the  amend- 
ment proposed  by  my  honorable  friend  from 
Pennsylvania.  Notwithstanding  some  remarks 
which  have  been  made  by  those  who  have  pre- 
ceded' me,  I  can  assnre  those  with  whom  I  may 
differ  in  opinion,  that,  for  one,  I  am  the  firm 
friend  of  harmony  and  peace  ;  and  as  I  am  not 
conscious  of  any  hostility  of  feeling,  no  such 
hostility  will  be  shown  ;  no  other  language  but 
that  of  truth  and  independence  can  be  neces- 
sary or  proper.  "With  these  motives,  dispo- 
sitions, and  principles,  I  will  pursue  the  path  of 
duty. 

We  are  told,  sir,  that,  in  relation  to  the  sub- 
ject before  us,  an  unusual  and  alarming  degree 
of  excitement  exists  in  the  public  mind ;  that 
the  community  is  in  a  state  of  threatening  agi- 
tation ;  and  we  have  been  repeatedly  admon- 
ished, and  in  very  intelligible  terms  too,  to 
extend  our  view  to  consequences.  Without  at 
present  considering  those  consequences  which 
have  been  named,  permit  me,  Mr.  President,  to 
inquire,  "in  what  this  excitement  consists?" 
and  what  are  the  proofs  of  it  ?  I  believe  there 
is  an  opinion  on  this  interesting  subject ;  an 
opinion  deep  and  strong,  and  expressed,  in  va- 
rious places  and  on  various  occasions,  in  em- 
phatic language,  but  in  a  manner  as  calm  as  it 
is  firm.  Among  the  friends  of  the  proposed 
restriction,  I  have  never  heard  of  any  other  ex- 
citement. Surely  it  does  not  appear  within 
these  walls ;  nothing  can  be  more  cool  and  dis- 
passionate than  our  discussion  thus  far :  no 
other  warmth  is  displayed  than  that  which  is 
naturally  produced  by  intellectual  exertion. 
Sir,  if  the  agitations  of  the  community  could 
be  heard  from  our  windows,  they  ought  not  to 
disturb  the  calm  of  this  hallowed  hall  of  legis- 
lation, or  produce  an  undue  effect  upon  our  de- 
liberations. But,  sir,  if  we  look  abroad,  do  we 
see  any  thing  more  than  the  excitement  which 
I  have  described  ?  It  is  true,  there  is  a  lament- 
ed difference  of  opinion  on  this  important  ques- 
tion— the  further  extension  of  slavery.  A  por- 
tion of  the  community  believe  that  Congress 
have  no  constitutional  authority  to  interdict 
this  extension  of  slavery  in  the  new  States  to 
be  formed  west  of  the  Mississippi ;  and  that,  if 
tney  had,  it  would  be  unwise  and  unjust  to  ex- 
ercise the  authority.  Another  portion  of  the 
community  firmly  believe  that  Congress  do 
possess  this  authority,  and  that  they  are  under 
the  obligations  of  duty  to  exercise  it ;  and  that 
its  exercise  would  produce  lasting  and  extensive 
blessings.  This  opinion,  I  have  before  observed, 
is  deep  and  strong ;  but  the  only  proof  of  it  is 
contained  in  arguments  and  statements  which 
have  issued  from  the  press,  or  in  the  language 
of  respectful  resolutions  or  memorials,  which 
have  been  transmitted  to  us  for  our  consider- 
ation, expressive  of  the  opinions  of  legislatures 
or  large  and  respectable  bodies  of  our  fellow- 
VOL.  VI.— 26 


citizens.  If  any  other  proof  of  unusual  and 
alarming  excitement  can  be  found,  it  is  not 
among  those  who  advocate  the  proposed  amend- 
ment. Why,  then,  Mr.  President,  is  the  ques- 
tion to  be  prejudiced  by  allusions  to  circum- 
stances which  have  no  existence  but  in  imag- 
ination ;  and  why  should  there  be  an  attempt 
to  divert  us  from  our  object,  by  these  collateral 
considerations  ?  But,  sir,  we  have  been  again 
and  again  cautioned,  in  the  language  of  terrify- 
ing prophecy,  to  pause  and  consider  before  it 
may  be  too  late.  We  are  told, .that  if  the 
friends  of  the  amendment  should  obtain  their 
object,  and  succeed  in  excluding  slavery  from 
Missouri,  and  in  maintaining  a  principle  that 
will  exclude  it  from  the  extensive  territory  be- 
yond the  Mississippi,  sectional  jealousies  and 
animosities  will  be  the  immediate  consequence ; 
the  harmony  of  our  great  and  happy  family 
will  be  destroyed:  commotion  and  civil  war 
may  next,  present  their  horrors,  and  a  disso- 
lution of  the  Union  may  be  the  fatal  result. 
This,  to  be  sure,  is  a  dreadful  catalogue  of  evils ; 
the  prospect  is  dark  and  melancholy.  But,  Mr. 
President,  I  believe  better  things  of  my  fellow- 
citizens.  I  have  better  hopes  and  brighter 
views ;  the  bands  which  unite  us  are  not  so 
easily  to  be  broken ;  we  are  a  great,  prosperous, 
and  happy  people :  heaven  has  showered  upon 
us  ten  thousand  blessings  which  demand  our 
grateful  acknowledgments.  We  are  becoming 
more  assimilated  as  our  intercourse  increases : 
our  social  attachments  are  daily  strengthened 
as  our  commercial  connections  are  multiplied. 
And  shall  all  these  blessings  be  put  in  jeopardy, 
or  destroyed  ;  and  all  these  hopes  and  promises 
of  our  country  be  thrown  away,  because  Con- 
gress may  feel  it  their  duty  to  cherish  the  spirit 
of  liberty  in  its  best  estate,  in  Missouri,  and 
exclude  from  thence  a  principle  which  would 
impair  her  health  and  beauty  ?  No,  sir ;  I  can 
never  dream  of  such  consequences  as  these,  in 
this  land  of  good  feelings  and  good  sense.  We 
must  decide  the  question  before  us  one  way  or 
the  other,  as  our  sense  of  duty  may  direct ;  and 
it  is  to  be  presumed  that,  in  this  case  as  well  as 
in  all  others,  our  habitual  respect  for  the  laws 
and  the  principles  by  which  our  rights  are  se- 
cured, will  lead  all  to  a  ready  acquiescence  in 
the  decision  which  may  be  made.  On  this  oc- 
casion, we  cannot  pursue  a  safer  course  than  to 
act  under  the  influence  and  guidance  of  that  ex- 
cellent rule — "  Do  right,  and  let  heaven  answer 
for  the  rest." 

When  Mr.  MELLEN  sat  down — 

Mr.  EDWAEDS,  of  Illinois,  rose,  and  addressed 
the  Chair  as  follows : 

Mr.  President :  Having  long  been  out  of  the 
habit  of  public  speaking,  and  finding  myself  un- 
able to  command  that  composure  of  mind  and 
self-possession  which  are  so  essential  to  the  in- 
vestigation of  a  subject  as  important  as  the  one 
now  under  consideration,  I  should  leave  the 
discussion  of  it  to  gentlemen  who  are  infinitely 
more  competent  to  do  justice  to  it,  were  it  not 
that  my  silence  might  seem  to  sanction  the  im- 


402 


ABRIDGMENT  OF  THE 


SENATK.] 


Maine  and  Missouri. 


[JANUARY,  1820. 


putarion  of  an  honorable  gentleman  who  has 
thought  proper  to  express  the  opinion  that,  by 
my  vote  of  Friday  last,  which  I  thought  it  my 
duty  to  give,  I  had  abandoned  the  interest  of 
the  non-slaveholding  States  of  the  West. 

If  such  a  suggestion  be  well  founded,  nothing 
can  be  more  certain  than  that  I  have  not  been 
misled  by  personal  considerations ;  for,  my  per- 
manent residence  and  the  most  of  my  property 
being  in  one  of  those  States,  and  holding  a  seat 
in  this  House  by  the  kind  partiality  of  the  citi- 
zens thereof,  which  I  have  also  often  expe- 
rienced on  other  occasions,  and  for  which  no 
one  could  be  more  thankful ;  I  should  be  unjust 
to  myself,  ungrateful  to  them,  and  equally  re- 
gardless of  the  dictates  of  interest  and  duty, 
were  I  not  anxiously  disposed  to  promote  the 
best  interest  of  the  State  which  I  have  the 
honor  in  part  to  represent. 

Were  I  to  consult  my  popularity  only,  I  well 
know  that  it  would  be  much  easier,  to  swim 
with,  than  to  resist,  the  present  popular  current, 
which  threatens  to  overwhelm  all  opposition, 
and  to  deluge  the  non-slaveholding  States  of 
the  West,  with  what  I  consider,  with  all  due 
deference  to  the  opinions  of  other  gentlemen, 
political  heresies,  replete  with  mischiefs  calcu- 
lated to  impair  their  present  as  well  as  future 
prosperity  and  happiness. 

Sir,  I.  love  popularity  so  well  that  I  would 
gladly  retain  it  by  the  utmost  devotion  to  the 
interests  of  my  constituents ;  but  I  would  far 
rather  surrender  all  pretensions  to  it,  than  pre- 
serve it  at  the  expense  of  my  conscience.  I  re- 
spect public  sentiment  as  much  as  any  man, 
and  should  at  all  times  derive  the  sincerest 
gratification  from  being  able  to  discharge  the 
trust  confided  to  me  in  strict  conformity  with 
the  wishes  of  those  whom  I  have  the  honor  to 
represent — but  never  can  I  consent  to  shelter 
myself  even  from  the  tempest  and  hurricane  of 
popular  excitement,  by  a  violation  of  that  con- 
stitution which  I,  as  well  as  the  gentleman 
from  New  Hampshire,  (Mr.  MOHEILL,)  have  sol- 
emnly sworn  to  support.  But  more  of  this  bv 
and  by. 

Were  an  attempt  made  to  introduce  slavery 
into  the  non-slaveholding  States  of  the  West, 
then,  indeed,  might  there  be  just  cause  of  alarm  ; 
and  I  can  assure  gentlemen  that  there  is  no 
man  who  would  oppose  such  a  proposition  with 
more  determined  zeal  than  myself.  But,  taking 
for  granted  what  I  shall  presently  endeavor  to 
prove,  that  neither  the  slaveholding  States,  nor 
any  of  us  who  oppose  the  proposed  restriction 
upon  Missouri,  are  influenced  by  a  desire  to  in- 
crease slavery  in  the  United  States ;  and  that 
the  proposed  restriction  is  not  necessary  to  pre- 
vent, nor  its  omission  calculated  to  augment, 
the  importation  of  fresh  slaves,  it  is  inconceiv- 
able to  me  how  the  interest  of  the  non-slave- 
holding  States  of  the  West  can  be  cornproinitted 
by  the  admission  of  domestic  slaves  into  Mis- 
souri, more  than  to  permit  them  to  remain  in 
the  States  where  they  now  are ;  for,  if  that 
portion  of  political  power  which,  under  the 


constitution,  arises  from  the  slavery  that  now 
exists,  is  to  be  deprecated  and  dreaded  at  all, 
surely  it  cannot  be  worse  for  us  in  the  hands 
of  those  whose  identity  of  interest  with  our- 
selves affords  additional  security  against  its  in- 
fluence being  exerted  to  our  disadvantage.  As 
yet,  we  have  had  no  cause  to  regret  that  a  por- 
tion of  such  power  has  been  transferred  from 
some  of  the  Southern  States  to  Kentucky  and 
Tennessee,  whose  sympathies,  friendship,  and 
assistance,  have  never  been  withheld  from  us 
in  the  hour  of  need.  Our  experience,  there- 
frfre,  furnishes  nothing  to  cause  us  to  dread  the 
influence  of  a  similar  transfer  of  power  to  Mis- 
souri. 

For  my  part,  considering  every  part  of  the 
Western  country  identified  in  interest,  and  that 
its  domestic  improvements,  commercial  pros- 
perity, and  political  influence,  cannot  fail  to  be 
promoted  by  every  increase  of  population,  it 
does  appear  to  me  to  be  the  interest  of  every 
State  in  the  West,  that  fair  and  equal  induce- 
ments to  emigration  thither  should  be  afforded 
to  the  citizens  of  every  section  of  the  Union, 
whether  slaveholding  or  non-slaveholding.  But, 
in  opposition  to  this  very  obvious  policy,  with 
an  extent  of  territory  greatly  beyond  the  de- 
mands of  every  description  of  emigrants,  and 
affording  infinitely  more  than  sufficient  accom- 
modation for  all,  without  any  necessity  for  col- 
lisions of  interest,  feelings,  or  prejudices,  be- 
tween them,  we  are  called  upon  to  check  the 
emigration  of  our  Southern  brethren,  by  those 
who  dread  our  growth,  and  would  gladly  put 
an  entire  stop  to  emigration  from  every  other 
quarter.  And  thus  are  we  invited  to  let  lay 
waste  and  uninhabited  an  immense  frontier  of 
our  country  rather  than  permit  it  to  be  occu- 
pied by  our  Southern  brethren,  who  certainly 
would  not  be  less  our  friends  by  becoming  our 
neighbors. 

There  are  other  considerations  of  vital  im- 
portance to  the  Union  in  general,  and  to  the 
Western  country  in  particular,  which  I  pur- 
posely forbear  to  press,  because  I  do  not  wish 
to  excite  any  unpleasant  feelings,  am  anxious  to 
cherish  harmony,  and  most  ardently  hope  that 
some  compromise  may  take  place  which  will 
satisfy  the  reasonable  wishes  of  all  parties. 

Mr.  President,  in  attempting  to  discuss  the 
present  proposition,  it  is  not  my  purpose  to  ad- 
vocate slavery  in  any  shape,  or  to  deny  that, 
in  its  mildest  form,  it  is  equally  inconsistent 
with  the  inherent  rights  of  man,  and  repugnant 
to  every  principle  of  humanity  and  philan- 
thropy. On  the  contrary,  I  rejoice  most  sin- 
cerely that  an  increasing  sense  of  its  moral  in- 
justice and  turpitude,  and  the  happy  prevalence 
of  more  enlightened  and  magnanimous  views 
throughout  every  part  of  our  common  country, 
as  well  as  in  various  other  parts  of  the  civilized 
world,  are  eliciting  the  most  zealous  efforts  not 
only  to  prevent  its  extension,  but  to  ameliorate 
its  present  condition,  which,  with  the  blessing 
of  IJivine  Providence,  I  trust  will,  in  due  season, 
eventuate  in  its  final  extermination. 


DEBATES  OF  CONGRESS. 


JANUARY,  1820.] 


Maine  and  Missouri. 


The  present  subject  of  discussion,  surely,  is 
not  the  expediency  of  increasing  slavery  in  the 
United  States  by  importations  from  Africa  or 
elsewhere ;  nor  is  it  a  question  of  slavery  or 
freedom :  and  it  does  not  appear  to  me  to  be 
consistent  with  candor  to  attempt  to  give  to  it 
the  imposing  and  delusive  aspect  of  either. 
And  how  much  soever  such  an  artifice  may  be 
resorted  to,  in  other  places,  for  the  purpose  of 
rendering  popular  feelings  and  prejudices  sub- 
servient to  political  views,  I  felicitate  myself 
in  the  firm  conviction  that  such  unworthy  mo- 
tives can  receive  no  countenance  from  this  hon- 
orable body,  and  that  every  member  of  the 
Senate  would  disdain  to  impute  to  others  senti- 
ments which  he  does  not  believe  them  to 
entertain. 

Were  it,  in  fact,  a  question  whether  the  fur- 
ther introduction  of  slavery  into  the  United 
States,  by  importation  from  abroad,  should  be 
permitted,  the  universal  abhorrence  in  which  a 
practice  so  disgraceful  to  humanity  is  held  by 
all  classes  of  our  fellow-citizens,  and  the  cordial 
co-operation  of  gentlemen  from  every  section 
of  the  Union,  particularly  at  the  last  session  of 
Congress,  in  measures  to  prohibit  it,  forbid  the 
belief  that  such  a  measure  could  find  one  ad- 
vocate or  friend  in  this  House ;  nor  can  there 
be  a  doubt  that  we  would  all  cheerfully  unite 
in  such  farther  legitimate  means  as  experience 
may  demonstrate  to  be  neceasary  to  render  such 
prohibition  complete  and  effectual,  which  I  have 
no  doubt  is  perfectly  practicable. 

All  of  us,  therefore,  entertaining  the  same 
abhorrence  and  repugnance  at  the  further  in- 
troduction and  increase  of  slavery,  the  only 
point  of  difference  between  us  relates  to  the 
slaves  that  are  now  among  us;  and,  as  it  is 
conceded  on  all  sides  that  Congress  possess  no 
power  to  abolish  the  slavery  that  now  exists,  it 
follows  that  the  question  of  slavery  or  freedom 
is  not  involved  in  the  present  proposition,  and 
that  an  opposition  to  the  restriction  that  is  at- 
tempted to  be  imposed  upon  the  sovereignty 
and  independence  of  a  State,  may  well  exist  with- 
out any  predilection  for  slavery;  for,  should  our 
opposition  prevail,  the  State,  notwithstanding, 
like  all  others  in  this  Union,  would  be  left  per- 
fectly free  to  abolish  slavery ;  and  I  am  very 
ready  to  admit  that  she  would  consult  her  best 
interest  by  doing  so. 

I  have,  Mr.  President,  viewed,  with  feelings 
of  the  deepest  regret,  attempts  that  have  been 
made  to  excite  local  and  sectional  jealousies, 
particularly  against  the  slaveholding  States, 
upon  this  subject,  in  their  nature  but  too  well 
calculated  to  sap  the  foundation  of  that  spirit 
of  conciliation  which  produced  this  great  Con- 
federacy, and  to  interrupt  that  social  harmony 
and  mutual  friendship  and  confidence  which 
are  so  essential  to  maintain  and  strengthen  the 
bonds  our  Union. 

Experience  teaches  us,  that  it  is  much  more 
easy  to  produce  popular  discontent  than  to 
limit  its  operation  and  influence  to  the  first  ex- 
citing causes;  and,  if  the  proposed  restriction 


upon  Missouri  is  to  be  carried  by  arraying 
popular  prejudices  in  hostility  to  one  principle 
of  compromise  that  contributed,  in  no  small  de- 
gree, to  produce  our  present  happy  Union,  is  it 
not  to  be  feared  that  it  may  be  difficult  to  limit 
that  hostility  by  any  thing  short  of  the  power 
to  assail  that  principle  with  success  ?  And  if 
an  inequality  in  the  apportionment  of  represent- 
atives in  the  other  branch  of  the  National 
Legislature,  with  a  correspondent  obligation  to 
pay  direct  taxes  in  proportion  thereto,  is  to  be 
rendered  obnoxious  to  our  fellow-citizens,  what 
security  is  there  that  the  representation  in  this 
House,  which,  with  any  such  correspondent  ob- 
ligation, and  without  regard  to  numbers,  re- 
duces the  largest  States  in  this  Union  to  a 
level  with  the  smallest,  will  share  a  better  fate? 

I  confess,  sir,  that  while  I  cannot  perceive 
that  the  present  subject  of  deliberation  fur- 
nishes any  adequate  motives  for  those  attempts 
at  popular  excitement,  I  cannot  contemplate 
them  without  being  penetrated  with  the  most 
awful  apprehensions  for  the  fate  of  that  fair 
fabric  of  our  freedom,  which  has  hitherto  been 
not  more  our  boast  than  the  admiration  of  the 
civilized  world.  Upon  what  ground,  sir,  are 
those  jealousies  of  our  brethren  of  the  slave- 
holding  States  predicated  ?  Take,  for  example, 
if  you  please,  the  case  of  Virginia,  the  largest 
of  those  States.  Does  she  wish  the  extension 
of  slavery?  Let  her  known  conduct  decide. 
While  yet  a  colony  of  Great  Britain,  she  dis- 
tinguished herself  pre-eminently  by  a  noble, 
magnanimous,  and  persevering  stand  against  it, 
and  enumerated  its  toleration  in  the  list  of 
grievances,  of  which  she  so  forcibly  and  elo- 
quently complained  against  the  mother  country. 
True  to  the  principles  she  professed,  she  was  the 
first  State  in  the  Union  to  set  the  example  of 
efficient  opposition  to  a  traffic  in  human  flesh, 
so  disgraceful  to  our  country,  and  so  abhorrent 
to  the  principles  for  which  we  ourselves  con- 
tended, by  passing  a  law  to  prohibit  it  by  severe 
penalties,  as  early  as  the  year  1778,  in  which 
she  has  steadfastly  persevered  from  that  time 
to  the  present  day ;  nor  has  she  ever,  on  any 
occasion,  been  less  prompt  in  assisting  to  inter- 
pose the  shield  of  federal  authority  to  protect 
the  devoted  sons  of  Africa  from  such  ruthless 
oppression. 

Having  thus,  by  the  most  unequivocal  acts, 
so  demonstrated  the  sincerity  of  her  professions 
upon  this  subject,  as  to  extort  the  highest  com- 
mendation from  the  most  distinguished  advo- 
cates of  the  proposed  restriction ;  and  deplor- 
ing, as  she  must  do,  the  evils  of  slavery,  what 
reason  have  we  to  suppose  that  she  is  now  dis- 
posed to  relinquish  those  principles,  and  aban- 
don a  policy  which,  to  her  honor,  she  has  for 
such  a  series  of  years,  pursued  with  inflexible 
perseverance,  and  the  wisdom  of  which  is  daily 
more  and  more  developed  ?  No,  sir,  depend  on 
it,  Virginia  knows  too  well  what  she  owes  to 
her  own  character,  ever  to  descend  from  the 
proud  pre-eminence  which  she  has  acquired 
upon  this  subject. 


404 


ABRIDGMENT  OF  THE 


SENATE.] 


Maine  and  Missouri. 


[JANUARY,   1820. 


The  rest  of  the  slaveholding  States  have  also 
given  such  proofs  of  their  decided  hostility  to 
the  farther  introduction  of  slavery  among  us,  as 
to  leave  no  ground  for  even  the  affectation  of 
incredulity  upon  the  subject. 

As,  then,  those  States,  equally  -with  ourselves, 
are  opposed  to  the  further  increase  of  slavery 
in  the  United  States,  so,  with  them  as  with  us, 
the  only  subject  of  controversy  which  the  pro- 
posed restriction  presents,  relates  exclusively  to 
the  slaves  that  are  now  among  them.  And  can 
they  have  any  motives  for  opposing  that  re- 
striction which  are  not  truly  national,  and 
strictly  compatible  with  the  principles  of  our 
Confederation  ?  If  they  had  heretofore  desired 
to  increase  their  political  power  and  aggrandize 
themselves  upon  the  basis  of  a  slave  population, 
would  they  themselves  have  voluntarily  inhibit- 
ed the  importation  of  slaves,  and  united  in 
every  means  which  the  wisdom  of  the  national 
councils  has  yet  been  able  to  devise  for  its  pre- 
vention? Were  they  now  even  tenacious  of 
that  proportion  of  political  power  which  they 
derive  from  the  slavery  that  exists  among 
them,  would  they  be  the  advocates  of  a  meas- 
ure calculated  to  diminish  that  power,  by  its 
tendency  to  abstract  from  them,  and  transfer  to 
a  different  and  distant  section  of  the  Union,  a 
large  portion  of  their  slaves?  And  let  it  be  re- 
membered that,  to  impute  to  them  a  desire 
merely  to  diminish  the  number  of  their  slaves, 
is  to  admit  the  most  conclusive  evidence  of 
their  opposition  to  the  increase  of  slavery,  which 
is  the  point  I  have  endeavored  to  maintain. 

So  far,  therefore,  from  those  States  being  ac- 
tuated by  the  motives  which,  for  particular 
purposes,  have  been  attributed  to  them,  it  must 
be  evident  that  the  principles  for  which  they 
contend  are  calculated  not  only  to  diminish  the 
power  of  their  respective  States,  but  to  promote 
the  abolition  of  slavery  itself;  for,  in  propor- 
tion as  you  permit  the  slaves  now  among  us,  to 
be  dispersed,  so  do  you  diminish  their  relative 
numbers  to  the  white  population  in  any  one 
State,  and  to  that  extent,  at  least,  increase  their 
chances  of  emancipation,  as  is  evinced  by  the 
experience  of  Massachusetts,  New  York,  Penn- 
sylvania, New  Jersey,  Delaware,  &c.,  and  which 
is  also  conceded  by  the  supposition  that  the 

Erohibition  of  the  further  admission  of  slaves 
ito  Missouri  would  be  favorable  to  the  emanci- 
pation of  those  who  are  now  there,  which  seems 
to  be  a  favorite  sentiment  with  a  gentleman 
(Mr.  KING,  of  New  York)  of  pre-eminent 
talents,  who  has  distinguished  himself  by  his 
zealous  and  able  support  of  the  proposed  re- 
striction, and  who  admits  that  a  disposition 
more  favorable  to  emancipation  is  gaining 
ground  in  the  States  where  slavery  exists ;  that 
the  disproportionate  increase  of  free  people  of 
color  can  be  accounted  for  upon  no  other  sup- 
position; and  that,  whatever  would  tend  to 
provide  more  satisfactorily  for  the  comfort  and 
morals  of  emancipated  slaves,  would  increase 
the  practice  of  emancipation;  to  all  which  I 
vield  the  most  hearty  concurrence. 


It  cannot,  however,  be  denied  that  the  diffi- 
culties and  dangers  attendant  upon  emancipa- 
tion, in  any  State,  must  be  in  proportion  to  the 
number  of  slaves  therein  ;  and  it  is  well  known 
that  several  of  the  States  have  considered 
emancipation  so  incompatible  with  their  do- 
mestic safety  and  tranquillity,  as  to  feel  the 
necessity  of  absolutely  prohibiting  it,  which  is 
a  policy  that  it  is  not  presumable  they  will 
abandon.  While,  therefore,  confining  the  slaves 
to  those  States,  is  calculated  to  render  their 
bondage  perpetual,  it  must  be  acknowledged 
that  their  dispersion  into  different  sections  of 
the  Union  would  remove  many  of  the  most  im- 
portant objections  to  emancipation,  at  the  same 
time  that  it  would  increase  the  means  of  pro- 
viding more  satisfactorily  for  the  comfort  and 
morals  of  those  unhappy  beings,  and  would 
cherish,  by  rendering  more  availing,  that  in- 
creasing disposition  to  emancipation  which  im- 
parts so  much  consolation  to  every  true  phi- 
lanthropist. 

Mr.  LEAKE,  of  Mississippi,  then  rose  and  said, 
when  he  considered  the  vast  importance  of  the 
subject  now  under  consideration,  it  was  with 
great  diffidence  he  arose  to  address  the  Senate ; 
but  it  was  the  importance  of  the  subject,  to- 
gether with  his  having  been  one  of  the  com- 
mittee to  whom  it  had  been  referred,  which 
induced  him  to  be  unwilling  to  give  a  silent 
vote. 

He  said  he  did  not  intend  to  go  into  a  lengthy 
discussion  of  the  subject;  he  should  only  touch 
upon  some  of  the  principal  points  which  had 
been  relied  on  by  honorable  gentlemen  who 
were  in  favor  of  the  restriction  proposed  by  the 
amendment  introduced  by  the  honorable  gen- 
tleman from  Pennsylvania,  (Mr.  ROBERTS.) 

Sir,  said  Mr.  L.,  we  have  been  told  by  some 
honorable  gentlemen,  that  the  power  to  impose 
this  restriction  is  derived  from  the  first  clause 
of  the  3d  section  of  the  4th  article  of  the  Con- 
stitution of  the  United  States.  "  New  States 
may  be  admitted  by  the  Congress  into  this 
Union,"  &c.  That,  as  we  may  admit  them,  we 
may  also  refuse  to  admit  them,  unless  they  will 
submit  to  such  terms  as  we  may,  in  the  exercise 
of  our  discretion,  think  proper  to  impose.  Sir, 
said  Mr.  L.,  I  had  always  supposed  that  in  the 
exercise  of  this  power,  to  "  admit  new  States 
into  this  Union,"  it  was  only  necessary  to  in- 
quire, first,  what  are  the  claims  which  the 
people  who  petition  to  be  thus  admitted  have 
on  the  Congress  for  such  admission  ?  Whether 
their  numbers,  their  increasing  population,  and 
the  extent  of  territory  which  they  inhabit,  will 
justify  their  admission?  If  in  all  these  respects 
you  find  them  duly  qualified,  and  you  should 
deem  it  expedient  to  admit  them ;  then  the  next 
inquiry  is,  what  is  a  State  within  the  meaning 
of  the  Constitution  of  the  United  States?  I 
need  not  tell  the  Senate,  said  Mr.  L.,  that  States 
in  different  parts  of  the  world  mean  different 
tilings  ;  we  all  know  that  a  State,  separate  and 
unconnected  with  any  other  State,  means  a 
sovereign  independent  power,  possessing  abso- 


DEBATES  OF  CONGRESS. 


405 


JANUARY,  1820.] 


Maine  and  Missouri. 


[SENATE. 


lute,  unconditional  and  unlimited  authority; 
and  according  to  the  distribution  of  that  power, 
is  the  character  of  the  State  known.  If  the 
whole  is  lodged  in  a  single  individual,  it  is  then 
an  absolute  despotism;  if  it  he  divided  into 
different  branches,  and  the  authority  divided 
between  them,  it  is  a  limited  government ;  and 
whether  it  is  a  limited  monarchy,  or  a  republic, 
will  depend  upon  the  duration  in  office,  the 
mode  of  coming  into  office,  and  the  source  from 
whence  the  power  emanates.  And  when  a 
number  of  sovereign  States  connect  themselves 
together  in  a  confederacy,  and  by  their  compact 
yield  to  their  federal  government  a  portion  of 
their  sovereignty,  in  order  that  that  govern- 
ment may  be  enabled  to  protect  the  confedera- 
tion, those  States  then  become  limited  sover- 
eignties, and  that  portion  of  sovereign  power 
which  each  State  has  a  right  to  exercise,  de- 
pends upon  the  powers  they  have  delegated  to 
the  federal  government  by  their  compact,  and 
upon  the  restraints  which  they  have  submitted 
to  have  imposed  upon  them  by  it. 

Mr.  President,  so  far  as  I  am  able  to  judge  of 
the  meaning  of  this  clause  of  the  constitution, 
the  needful  rules  and  regulations  which  the 
Congress  are,  by  it,  authorized  to  make,  relate 
to  the  territory  itself,  that  is,  the  domain,  the 
land,  the  actual  soil  belonging  to  the  United 
States ;  and  not  the  inhabitants  of  the  territory. 
Sir,  the  Congress  may  dispose  of — dispose  of 
what?  of  the  territory  or  other  property;  not 
the  inhabitants  of  that  territory.  The  Congress 
may  make  all  needful  rules  and  regulations  re- 
specting the  territory,  or  other  property  of  the 
United  States.  Sir,  the  word  "territory," 
being  immediately  followed  by  the  words  "  or 
other  property,"  proves,  satisfactorily,  to  my 
mind,  that  the  word  "  territory  "  was  there  in- 
tended to  mean,  the  domain,  which  the  Con- 
gress may  dispose  of  by  sale  or  otherwise,  and 
may  make  such  needful  regulations  respecting 
its  protection  from  waste  or  other  injury,  and 
to  preserve  their  rights  to  it  unimpaired. 

Sir,  said  Mr.  L.,  we  have  already  seen  that 
the  Congress  has  a  right  to  dispose  of,  by  sale 
or  otherwise,  the  territory  which  is  the  land  of 
t!ie  United  States.  But  a  sale  cannot  be  effect- 
ed without  purchasers;  no  person  will  purchase 
unk-ss  he  can  be  protected  in  his  person  and  his 
property.  Hence,  in  order  to  effect  a  sale  of 
the  public  lands,  the  Congress  has  the  power 
"  to  make  all  laws  which  shall  be  necessary 
and  proper "  to  protect  the  purchasers  in  the 
enjoyment  of  their  lives,  liberty,  and  property  ; 
and  this  can  only  be  done  by  establishing  a  sys- 
tem of  government  for  them,  until  their  num- 
bers entitle  them  to  a  claim  for  admission  into 
this  Union,  upon  an  equal  footing,  in  all  re- 
spects whatever,  with  the  original  States ;  after 
which,  when  the  Congress  deems  it  expedient 
to  admit  them  as  such,  it  is  then  no  longer 
"necessary  or  proper"  for  the  Congress  to 
make  laws  for  their  government,  and  of  course 
the  power  of  the  Congress  to  make  these  laws 
ceases  to  exist. 


THTRSDAY,  January  20. 
Maine  and  Missouri. 

The  Senate  resumed,  as  in  Committee  of  the 
Whole,  the  consideration  of  the  bill,  entitled 
"An  act  for  the  admission  of  the  State  of 
Maine  into  the  Union,"  together  with  the 
amendments  reported  thereto  by  the  Committee 
on  the  Judiciary,  and  the  amendment  proposed 
by  Mr.  ROBERTS. 

Mr.  LOWRIE,  of  Pennsylvania,  observed,  that 
so  much  had  been  said,  and  so  much  had  been 
written,  on  this  subject,  it  was  extremely  diffi- 
cult to  say  any  thing  farther  that  would  have 
any  claim  to  originality ;  that  it  was  almost  im- 
possible to  support  an  argument  on  either  side, 
without  repeating  some  things  which  had  al- 
ready been  said.  This  he  would  endeavor  to 
avoid,  and,  as  the  Senate  must  be,  in  some 
measure,  weary  of  the  debate,  he  would  treat 
the  question  with  all  the  brevity  of  which  he 


In  this  discussion,  it  is  impossible  not  to  ad- 
vert to  the  following  maxims,  which  may  prop- 
erly be  called  first  principles : 

"We  hold  these  truths  to  be  self-evident, 
that  all  men  are  created  equal ;  that  they  are 
endowed  by  their  Creator  with  certain  inalien- 
able rights ;  that  amongst  these  are,  life,  liber- 
ty, and  the  pursuit  of  happiness." 

"He  that  made  the  world,  and  all  things 
therein,  hath  made  of  one  blood  all  the  nations 
of  man." 

There  is  no  excuse  for  hereditary  slavery,  ex- 
cept self-preservation — beyond  this  it  dwindles 
into  mere  farce. 

It  is  not  among  the  natural  rights  of  man  to 
enslave  his  fellow  man. 

Slavery  is  of  such  a  nature,  it  must  take  its 
rise  from  positive  law. 

These  principles,  as  abstract  truths,  are  not 
generally  denied.  How  far  they  have  a  bear- 
ing on  this  subject,  is  a  question  I  will  not,  said 
Mr.  L.,  at  this  moment,  take  up.  I  now  mere- 
ly bring  them  into  view ;  I  will  advert  to  them 
in  another  part  of  this  argument. 

The  first  question  which  meets  us  at  the 
threshold  is — have  Congress  the  right  to  pro- 
pose to  the  State  of  Missouri  the  restriction 
contained  in  the  amendment?  Before  disposing 
of  this  inquiry,  permit  me  to  say  a  word  on 
State  sovereignties.  I,  for  one,  Mr.  President, 
cherish  the  idea,  believing  that  our  political 
salvation  depends  upon  it ;  that  a  consolidation 
of  this  extended  empire  must  end  in  the  worst 
kind  of  despotism. 

The  people  of  the  United  States,  in  forming  a 
Government  for  themselves,  established  a  com- 
plex system.  The  Government  of  the  Union 
flows  as  directly  from  the  people  as  does  the 
government  of  any  of  the  States.  The  circum- 
tance  that  the  delegates  who  formed  the  pres- 
ent constitution,  were  appointed  by  the  State 
Legislatures,  does  not  detract  from  this  idea; 
because  the  instrument  was  afterwards  submit- 
ted to  the  people,  and  had  it  not  been  approved 


406 


ABRIDGMENT  OF  THE 


SENATE.] 


by  them,  it  would  have  had  no  more  authority 
than  the  sweeping  of  your  floor.  The  Govern- 
ment of  the  United  States,  though  limited  in  its 
powers,  is  supreme  within  the  proper  sphere  of 
its  action.  The  respective  Governments  of  the 
United  States  and  of  the  several  States  are  sov- 
ereign within  their  proper  spheres,  and  no  far- 
ther. Hence  it  follows,  that  the  States  are  lim- 
ited sovereignties.  It  follows,  also,  that  the 
right  to  admit  new  States,  being  within  the 
sphere  of  the  General  Government,  is  a  right 
which,  to  that  Government,  is  perfect.  Every 
gentleman  who  hears  me,  knows  that  these  are 
not  new  principles ;  that  they  have  been  laid 
down  and  acted  on  by  some  of  our  ablest  and 
wisest  statesmen. 

In  the  constitution  it  is  provided  that  "  the 
migration  or  importation  of  such  persons  as  any 
of  the  States  now  existing  shall  think  proper  to 
admit,  shall  not  be  prohibited  by  the  Congress 
prior  to  the  year  1808,  but  a  tax,"  &c.  In  this 
debate  it  seems  generally  to  be  admitted,  by 
gentlemen  on  the  opposite  side,  that  these  two 
words  are  not  synonymous;  but  what  their 
meaning  is.  they  are  not  so  well  agreed.  One 
gentleman  tells  us,  it  was  intended  to  prevent 
slaves  from  being  brought  in  by  land  ;  another 
gentleman  says,  it  was  intended  to  restrain  Con- 
gress from  interfering  with  emigration  from 
Europe. 

These  constructions  cannot  both  be  right. 
The  gentlemen  who  have  preceded  me  on  the 
same  side,  have  advanced  a  number  of  pertinent 
arguments  to  settle  the  proper  meaning  of 
these  words.  I,  sir,  shall  not  repeat  them. 
Indeed,  to  me,  there  is  nothing  more  dry  or  un- 
interesting, than  discussions  to  explain  the 
meaning  of  single  words.  In  the  present  case, 
I  will  only  refer  to  the  authority  of  Mr.  Madi- 
son and  Judge  "Wilson,  who  were  both  mem- 
bers of  the  Convention,  and  who  gave  their 
construction  to  these  words,  long  before  this 
question  was  agitated.  Mr.  Madison  observes, 
that,  to  say  this  clause  was  intended  to  prevent 
emigration,  does  not  deserve  an  answer.  And 
Judge  Wilson  says,  expressly,  it  was  intended 
to  place  the  new  States  under  the  control  of 
Congress,  as  to  the  introduction  of  slaves.  The 
opinion  of  this  latter  gentleman  is  entitled  to 
peculiar  weight.  After  the  Convention  had 
labored  for  six  weeks  on  the  subject  of  repre- 
sentation and  direct  taxes — when  those  great 
men  were  like  to  separate  without  obtaining 
their  object,  Judge  Wilson  submitted  the  pro- 
vision on  this  subject,  which  now  stands  as  a 
part  of  your  constitution.  Sir,  there  is  no  man, 
from  any  part  of  the  nation,  who  understood 
the  system  of  our  Government  better  than  him ; 
not  even  excepting  Virginia,  from  whence  the 
gentleman  from  Georgia  (Mr.  WALKEE)  tells 
us,  we  have  all  our  great  men.  But,  sir,  for 
all  the  purposes  of  my  argument,  I  consider 
this  provision  of  the  constitution  as  an  out- 
post ;  and,  as  I  do  not  intend  to  rely  upon  it, 
gentlemen  may  have  it  as  a  free  gift. 

In  the  constitution  it  is  further  provided, 


Maine  and  Missouri. 


[JANUARY,  1820. 


that  "  the  Congress  shall  have  power  to  dispose 
of,  and  make  all  needful  rules  and  regulations 
respecting,  the  territory  or  other  property  be- 
longing to  the  United  States."  From  the  com- 
mencement of  the  Government  until  lately,  this 
provision  of  the  constitution  received  but  one 
construction.  In  pursuance  of  this  authority, 
Congress  proceeded  to  regulate  the  government 
of  the  respective  territories,  until  from  time  to 
time  they  were  admitted  into  the  Union.  In 
pursuance  of  this  provision,  the  first  Congress 
sanctioned  the  ordinance  of  1787,  which  some 
writers  affect  to  call  a  usurpation.  But  another 
construction  is  now  given.  It  is  said  that  Con- 
gress have  power  only  to  dispose  of  the  soil,  as 
they  would  of  the  other  property  of  the  United 
States.  This  construction  appears  to  me  to  in- 
volve an  inconsistency,  to  which  gentlemen 
who  make  it  have  not  perhaps  attended.  To 
dispose  of  the  soil,  presupposes  a  Government 
to  regulate  the  inhabitants.  If  this  Govern- 
ment be  not  established  by  the  United  States,  it 
must  be  established  by  themselves.  Suppose 
that  a  large  colony  had  purchased  one  of  your 
territories.  You  have  disposed  of  the  soil,  and 
your  power  then  ceases ;  they  may  or  they  may 
not  acknowledge  your  authority ;  they  may,  if 
they  choose,  establish  a  monarchy.  These  dis- 
cordant principles  cannot  be  admitted  to  flow 
from  the  Constitution  of  the  United  States. 
The  truth  is,  Mr.  President,  that  the  power  to 
dispose  of  and  make  all  needful  rules  and  regu- 
lations for  the  territories,  and  the  power  to  ad- 
mit new  States  into  this  Union,  have  been  given, 
by  the  people  of  the  United  States,  to  Congress. 
They  are  powers  of  the  General  Government 
within  the  proper  sphere  of  its  action,  and,  of 
course,  sovereign  and  supreme.  This  Govern- 
ment, for  the  period  of  thirty  years,  by  its  acts, 
has  sanctioned  the  construction  contended  for. 
Territories  have  been  nurtured  and  protected 
through  their  infancy  and  youth,  until,  arriving 
at  a  proper  age,  they  were  admitted  into  the 
family  of  the  Republic. 

With  respect  to  Louisiana,  and  the  Territories 
of  Arkansas  and  Missouri,  including  the  whole 
country  claimed  by  the  United  States,  west  of 
the  Mississippi,  besides  the  right  given  by  the 
constitution,  Congress  have  another  superadded, 
which,  although  different,  is  not  discordant. 
France  received  this  district  of  country  from 
Spain,  and  ceded  the  same  to  the  United  States, 
in  "  full  sovereignty."  Our  title,  therefore,  to 
this  territory,  is  perfect  and  complete.  Con- 
gress have  the  same  sovereign  right  to  make 
any  provisions,  laws,  or  regulations,  which 
France  could  have  made,  had  this  territory 
still  remained  under  her  jurisdiction.  In  that 
case,  it  will  scarcely  be  contended  that  France 
would  not  have  had  the  right  to  inhibit  the 
further  introduction  of  slavery.  Suppose  that 
the  territory  of  Missouri  were  now  under 
France,  and  that  the  inhabitants  had  requested 
of  the  French  Government  the  privilege  of  be- 
coming one  of  the  United  States ;  in  giving  her 
consent,  France  could  have  said,  you  may  be- 


DEBATES  OF  CONGRESS. 


407 


JANUARY,  1820.] 


Maine  and  Missouri. 


[SENATE. 


come  one  of  those  States,  on  condition  that  you 
abolish  slavery.  In  this  case,  it  would  have 
been  perfectly  competent  for  France  to  have 
proposed  this  condition.  So  can  the  United 
'States:  because  \ve  have  the  same  sovereignty 
here  that  France  ever  had. 

These  principles  are  so  plain,  it  is  difficult  to 
illustrate  them  farther ;  but  let  us  take  the  cases 
of  two  provinces  held  by  different  powers,  the 
one  to  the  North,  and  the  other  to  the  South. 
Suppose  that  Canada  were  to  apply  to  the 
British  Government  for  liberty  to  join  the 
American  Kepublics,  that  Government  could 
say  to  her,  you  may  have  your  wish  on  condi- 
tion that  you  abolish  your  established  religion, 
and  your  system  of  'villanage ;  make  these 
fundamental  articles  of  your  constitution,  and 
if  Congress  will  consent,  you  may  become  one 
of  them.  Let  us  suppose,  further,  that  the 
twenty  years'  Avar  which,  with  pen  and  ink,  we 
have  waged  with  the  Government  of  Spain, 
were  now  to  take  another  direction,  and  that 
the  inhabitants  of  Florida  were  to  request  His 
Most  Catholic  Majesty's  permission  to  join  our 
family.  That  permission  might  be  granted  on 
any  conditions  not  repugnant  to  the  Constitu- 
tion of  the  United  States ;  and,  if  agreed  to  by 
them,  and  by  the  Congress,  would  be  binding, 
and  could  not  be  rescinded  without  a  breach  of 
good  faith. 

Mr.  President,  if  we  examine  the  history  of 
the  new  States  which  have  been  admitted  into 
this  Union,  we  will  find  that  none  of  them  were 
admitted  without  conditions,  which  were  to  be- 
come fundamental  articles,  irrevocable  without 
the  consent  of  both  parties.  The  cases  of  Ken- 
tucky and  Vermont  are  not  exceptions,  although 
they  have  generally  been  so  considered.  Ken- 
tucky was  formed  from  the  territory  belonging 
to  Virginia,  and  a  number  of  conditions  were 
imposed  by  the  one  State,  and  agreed  to  by  the 
other,  which  to  this  day  are  binding. 

Vermont  was  not  like  any  of  the  other  States. 
Her  history  is  briefly  this :  The  territory  was 
claimed  both  by  New  York  and  New  Hamp- 
shire. In  l761-'2,  New  Hampshire  granted  one 
hundred  and  thirty-eight  townships  west  of  the 
Connecticut  River.  Ne\v  York  became  alarmed 
at  this  preceeding,  applied  for  the  territory  to 
the  British  Government,  and  obtained  a  decision 
in  her  favor.  She  then  endeavored  to  dispos- 
sess the  settlers  who  claimed  under  the  New 
Hampshire  grants.  But  her  authority  was  re- 
sisted on  the  part  of  Vermont,  and  for  twenty- 
six  years  this  new  State  maintained  her  ground. 
In  this  contest,  the  Old  Congress  pursued  an 
undecided  course.  In  the  mean  time,  Vermont 
declared  itself  independent,  and  so  continued 
till  the  year  1789,  when  commissioners  were 
'  appointed  by  this  State  and  by  New  York,  who 
finally  agreed  that  Vermont  should  be  admitted 
into  the  Union  on  two  conditions :  the  one  re- 
lated to  her  boundaries,  and  the  other  required 
tl  10  payment  of  $30,000  to  New  York  within 
four  years  from  that  period. 

Mr.  L.  observed,  that  the  whole  discussion 


was  upon  a  dry  subject,  and  that  this  part  of  it 
was  peculiarly  so.  I  will,  therefore,  sir,  pass 
over  the  conditions  imposed  on  the  other 
States.  It  is  the  less  necessary  that  I  should 
mention  them,  as  other  gentlemen  have  brought 
the  most  of  them  into  view  already.  Let  me 
observe,  however,  that  in  the  nine  new  States, 
there  are  seventeen  distinct  conditions  attached, 
not  one  of  which  is  applied  to  the  old  thirteen 
States.  The  new  States  are  restricted  in  their 
taxes;  they  are  restricted  from  touching  the 
right  of  the  soil ;  they  are  restricted  in  their 
highways  and  navigable  streams  of  water ;  and 
three  of  them,  which  at  no  distant  day  will  be 
three  of  the  brightest  stars  in  our  political  con- 
stellation, are  restricted  as  to  slavery.  Take 
the  constitution  of  Maine ;  restrictions  are  there 
imposed  by  Massachusetts.  Nay  more,  sir,  look 
at  the  amendment  reported  by  the  honorable 
chairman  of  the  Judiciary  Committee,  and  even 
to  Missouri,  this  favorite  child,  we  find  restric- 
tions. It  is  true,  these  restrictions  are  placed 
in  the  bill  under  the  cover  of  provisos ;  so,  let 
me  tell  gentlemen,  is  the  restriction  offered  as 
an  amendment  by  my  colleague.  Our  right  is 
admitted  to  impose  one  restriction ;  but  to  im- 
pose another  restriction,  not  involving  the  ne- 
cessity of  a  greater  or  higher  degree  of  sover- 
eignty, the  right  is  denied.  We  have  called  on 
gentlemen  to  reconcile  these  views ;  much  was 
expected  from  their  talents,  but  to  perform  im- 
possibilities is  beyond  their  reach. 

The  obligation  imposed  upon  this  Government 
by  the  treaty  of  cession  has  been  much  relied 
upon.  It  is  said  we  are  all  bound  to  admit  Mis- 
souri, and  that  upon  her  own  terms ;  that,  in 
her  case,  we  have  no  discretion.  Mr.  President, 
it  is  a  sufficient  answer  to  say,  that  the  treaty- 
making  power  cannot  control  the  genius  of  the 
constitution.  New  States  may  be  admitted,  are 
the  words  of  this  instrument.  Sir,  it  never  was 
in  the  contemplation  of  the  people,  when  they 
passed  upon  this  provision,  to  suppose  that  the 
President  and  two-thirds  of  the  Senate  could 
change  its  import.  If  gentlemen  will  still  con- 
tend that  the  treaty  differs  from  the  constitution, 
they  must  be  told  that,  as  far  as  that  is  the  case, 
tlie  treaty  itself  is  a  nullity. 

It  is  further  said,  that  the  treaty  guarantees 
their  property  to  all  the  inhabitants  of  Missouri, 
and  that  this  property  embraces  slaves.  At  the 
date  of  this  treaty  of  cession  almost  the  whole 
of  this  territory  was  a  wilderness,  and  a  large- 
portion  of  it  is  still  a  wilderness.  Admitting 
for  a  moment  that  slaves  are  property,  it  must 
be  proved  that  any  others,  besides  those  there 
at  the  date  of  the  treaty,  were  intended  to  be 
embraced  by  its  provisions.  This  'cannot  be 
shown.  The  inhabitants  then  there  were  the 
parties  we  admit  to  this  treaty ;  and,  whatever 
may  have  been  their  rights  or  their  property, 
they  are  not  touched  by  this  amendment.  But, 
farther  proof  is  still  wanted,  because  it  is  denied 
that  the  word  property,  in  this  treaty,  means 
slaves.  Here  I  ask  no  rule  of  construction  that. 
is  foreign  to  the  subject.  Apply  to  the  writers 


408 


ABRIDGMENT  OF  THE 


SENATE.] 


Maine  and  Missouri. ' 


[JANUARY,  1820. 


on  the  kw  of  nations ;  let  them  pass  upon  these 
words ;  try  them  by  the  principles  of  the  con- 
stitution ;  submit  them  to  the  test  of  reason ; 
there  all  speak  the  same  language ;  they  tell 
you  that  slates  and  property  are  not  convertible 
terms.  In  the  history  of  our  Government,  we 
have  a  case  fully  in  point :  When  Virginia  ceded 
the  Northwestern  territory  to  Congress,  it  was 
ou  condition  that  it  should  become  members  of 
the  Federal  Union,  and  have  the  same  rights, 
sovereignty,  freedom,  and  independence,  as  the 
other  States.  This  language  is  as  strong  as  that 
of  the  treaty  with  France ;  neither  can  it  be 
denied  that,  at  the  time  Virginia  made  this  ces- 
sion, there  were  in  this  territory  a  number  of 
inhabitants  professing  to  be  her  citizens,  and 
owning  slaves. 

Congress,  with  the  knowledge  of  these  facts, 
and  the  deed  of  cession  before  them,  passed  the 
ordinance  of  1787,  by  which  slavery  was  ban- 
ished from  this  fair  portion  of  our  territory. 
This  ordinance  was  sanctioned  by  the  First 
Congress ;  it  has  been  interwoven  in  the  con- 
stitution of  many  of  the  States;  even  at  the 
present  session,  in  the  admission  of  the  State  of 
Alabama  into  the  Union,  it  is  distinctly  recog- 
nized. Thus,  in  a  case  perfectly  analogous,  we 
have  a  legislative  sanction,  descending  from  the 
First  Congress,  through  many  of  the  interme- 
diate ones,  down  to  the  present,  which  com- 
pletely covers  the  ground  I  have  taken.  With 
this  example  before  us,  I  hazard  nothing  in  as- 
serting that,  if  Congress  had  extended  the  ordi- 
nance of  1787  to  the  territory  of  Louisiana,  ex- 
cepting from  its  provisions  the  slaves  then  there, 
this  obligation  of  the  treaty  would  have  been 
fulfilled  in  good  faith. 

I  will  now,  Mr.  President,  said  Mr.  L.,  say  a 
few  words  on  the  policy  of  adopting  the  pro- 
posed restriction.  We  were  told  the  other  day 
by  an  honorable  member  from  North  Carolina, 
(Mr.  MACON,)  that  we  knew  nothing  about  this 
question,  however  much  we  might  be  disposed 
to  philosophize  on  the  subject.  Sir,  the  expe- 
rience and  integrity  of  that  gentleman  have 
gained  him  my  entire  confidence.  Although 
this  assertion  was  not  accompanied  by  any  facts 
or  reasoning,  it  led  me  to  examine  anew  every 
principle  relating  to  the  policy  of  this  measure. 
I  have  also  attended  to  all  that  has  been  said 
against  the  policy  of  adopting  this  restriction, 
but  I  have  yet  found  nothing  to  shake  my  first 
convictions  on  the  subject. 

It  has  not  been  pretended — it  cannot  be  pre- 
tended— that  the  toleration  of  slavery  is  neces- 
sary for  the  self-preservation  of  the  people  of 
Missouri.  This  being  the  case,  the  first  princi- 
ples I  have  already  brought  into  view,  bear  with 
their  undivided  weight  upon  the  question.  The 
gentlemen  tell  us  that  slavery  is  an  evil — on 
this  floor  they  have  lamented  its  existence ;  and 
yet,  strange  as  it  may  seem,  they,  almost  in  the 
same  breath,  contend  for  the  expediency  of  ex- 
tending this  evil  to  the  peaceful  region  west  of 
the  Mississippi. 

Humanity  to  the  slaves  themselves,  it  is  said, 


requires  the  rejection  of  this  amendment.  Sir, 
how  is  the  matter  of  fact  on  this  point  ?  Let 
us  suppose  that  one  hundred  families,  with  each 
ten  slaves,  are  about  to  emigrate  to  Missouri. 
Every  gentleman  here  knows  the  situation  of 
this  class  of  our  population — the  husband  is  in 
one  family,  the  wife  in  another,  the  children  in 
another.  In  removing,  no  respect  to  these  re- 
lations can  be  paid — all  must  be  disregarded ; 
the  husband  and  the  wife  must  part,  to  meet 
no  more ;  the  father  is  dragged  away,  and  the 
mother  and  the  children  left,  or  they  are  taken 
and  he  by  force  is  compelled  to  stay  behind ; 
or,  if  he  escapes  after  them,  he  is  pursued,  bound, 
and  brought  back.  This,  sir,  is  not  fancy  ;  these 
scenes,  but  a  few  months  ago,  I  witnessed  in 
person,  amongst  emigrants  going  to  this  said 
Missouri.  Our  humanity  may  be  called  sickly, 
but  it  gives  no  sanction  to  scenes  like  these. 

The  gentleman  from  Illinois,  (Mr.  EDWABDS,) 
with  great  apparent  force  of  reasoning  has  en- 
deavored to  prove  that,  by  opening  the  extensive 
regions  of  the  West  to  the  introduction  of  slaves, 
nothing  is  thereby  done  to  spread  slavery ;  that 
whether  they  are  admitted  west  of  the  Missis- 
sippi or  not,  the  number  remains  the  same.  I 
presume,  sir,  that  every  gentleman  here  has  paid 
some  attention  to  the  principle  which  governs 
the  population  of  the  human  race.  It  is  capable 
of  demonstration,  that  the  population  increases 
faster  than  the  means  of  subsistence ;  the  one 
increases  in  a  geometrical,  the  other  in  an  arith- 
metical progression.  The  spring  which  causes 
one  thousand  to  double  their  number  in  a  given 
time,  will  cause  a  thousand  millions  to  double 
in  the  same  time ;  in  other  words,  the  capability 
of  increase  is  not  affected  by  the  size  of  the 
number.  Take,  for  example,  an  island  contain- 
ing ten  thousand  farms,  of  one  hundred  acres 
each ;  let  it  be  supposed  that  there  is  an  inhab- 
itant for  each  farm,  and  that  they  double  their 
number  every  twenty-five  years.  In  one  hun- 
dred and  forty  years  there  would  be  more  in- 
habitants than  acres,  and  at  the  end  of  the  third 
century  there  would  be  above  three  hundred 
inhabitants  for  every  acre.  But  the  impossi- 
bility of  supporting  that  number  on  the  given 
territory  would  keep  the  inhabitants  down  to 
the  level  of  the  food.  The  principles  which 
govern,  in  the  supposed  case  of  this  island,  wilJ 
govern  in  the  case  of  a  nation  or  of  the  world. 
In  every  nation  the  population  presses  more  or 
less  against  the  means  of  subsistence,  and  from 
its  very  nature,  must  continue  to  do  so,  until 
the  end  of  time. 

Apply  these  principles  to  the  case  before  us, 
and  what  becomes  of  the  gentleman's  argument  ? 
Seventy  years  ago  the  penetrating  mind  of  Dr. 
Franklin  discovered  this  principle.  Go,  says  he, 
to  Africa,  and  see  if  you  can  discover  the  gap 
from  whence  the  negroes  have  come,  that  have 
blackened  half  America,  the  West  Indies,  and 
many  other  places  1  Such  will  be  the  case  at 
no  distant  day,  if  the  policy  advocated  by  gen- 
tlemen is  now  to  prevail.  A  single  century  will 
not  have  elapsed,  until  the  question  may  be 


DEBATES  OF  CONGRESS. 


409 


JANUARY,  1820.] 


Maine  and  Missouri. 


[SENATE. 


asked :  Where  is  the  gap  in  any  of  the  slave- 
holding  States  from  whence  have  come  the 
slaves,  that,  from  the  banks  of  the  Mississippi 
to  the  Rocky  Mountains,  have  blackened  the 
whole  region  of  the  West  ?  Sir,  that  opening 
never  will  be  found,  because  it  never  will  exist. 
The  spring  of  population  will  always  keep  the 
number  full.  A  market  extended  as  the  forests 
of  your  Western  regions,  is  thus  opened  for  the 
sale  of  human  flesh.  Every  inducement  which 
avarice  or  the  insatiable  love  of  gain  could  de- 
sire, is  held  out  to  the  slaveholder  to  increase 
the  number  of  his  slaves.  Under  such  induce- 
ments this  class  of  population  will  increase  with 
a  rapidity  heretofore  unknown.  Even  at  the 
rate  of  increase  from  1800  to  1810,  in  a  single 
century  there  will  be  upwards  of  twenty-seven 
millions  of  slaves  in  -the  United  States*.  This 
single  fact,  founded  as  it  is  on  arithmetical  cer- 
tainty, is  sufficiently  alarming ;  but,  sir,  it  points 
you  to  a  very  different  policy  than  the  one  con- 
tended for  by  the  honorable  members  on  the 
other  side. 

Mr.  BUREILL,  of  Ehode  Island,  said  it  might 
probably  be  thought  that  the  very  full  discus- 
sion which  this  question  had  received,  rendered 
it  quite  unnecessary  to  add  any  thing  to  the 
elaborate  arguments  of  the  honorable  gentlemen 
who  had  preceded  him :  I  even  think  so  my- 
self, said  he;  but,  having  at  the  last  session 
taken  some  share  in  the  debate  upon  a  similar 
motion,  it  would  be  expected  of  me  that  the 
same  sense  of  duty  which  then  prompted  me  to 
address  you,  would  still  continue  its  effect,  un- 
less further  reflection  or  the  arguments  of  hon- 
orable gentlemen  had  produced  a  change  of 
opinion.  No  change  of  that  kind  has  been 
wrought,  and  longer  and  more  careful  consider- 
ation has  produced  a  deeper  conviction,  not 
only  of  the  constitutionality,  but  of  the  necessity 
of  the  proposed  restriction.  I  shall  aim,  how- 
ever, to  avoid,  as  far  as  possible,  the  repetition 
of  former  arguments,  for  I  feel  too  much  im- 
pressed with  the  very  kind  and  encouraging  at- 
tention which  my  humble  attempts  on  this  floor 
have  always  received  from  the  Senate,  to  tax 
their  friendly  patience  for  any  very  great  length 
of  time. 

The  objection  principally  relied  upon  by  those 
who  have  opposed  this  restriction  is,  that  the 
constitution  gives  us  no  power  to  impose  it ;  and 
they  call  upon  us,  in  a  manner  which  implies 
that  they  feel  themselves  strong  on  this  point, 
to  produce  the  clause  or  article  in  which  the 
power  is  granted.  Objections  of  a  constitutional 
kind,  opposed  to  a  measure  of  legislation,  are 
entitled  to  respect,  and  must  be  answered ;  but 
they  have  so  frequently  been  urged,  in  Congress 
and  in  the  States,  against  almost  every  measure 
proposed  or  adopted,  that  they  have  lost  the 
importance  arising  out  of  their  name  and  source, 
and  must  stand  upon  their  own  merits,  or, 
which  is  sometimes  unfortunately  the  case,  will 
stand  upon  the  eloquence  and  ability  of  those 
who  urge  them.  In  the  threshold,  I  might  ask 
honorable  gentlemen  whether  the  burden  of 


this  argument  is  not  thrown  upon  their  shoul- 
ders rather  than  ours.  We  propose  to  subject 
Missouri  to  no  other  restrictions  than,  in  1787, 
was  imposed  by  the  "  immortal"  ordinance,  as 
the  gentleman  from  Pennsylvania  has,  with 
great  force  and  propriety,  called  it,  upon  the 
whole  Northwestern  Territory,  a  restriction 
which  was  readily  and  freely  assented  to,  un- 
der an  act  of  Congress,  by  the  States  of  Ohio, 
Indiana,  and  Illinois,  and  to  which  the  unparal- 
leled growth  and  happy  condition  of  the  first  of 
those  fertile  and  extensive  States  is,  in  a  great 
degree,  to  be  ascribed.  A  restriction,  then,  the 
propriety  of  which  is  strengthened  by  a  refer- 
ence to  the  conduct  of  the  old  Congress  and  of 
the  new,  of  the  States  and  of  the  Union,  ought 
not  hastily  to  be  condemned  as  unconstitutional. 
It  has  often  been  repeated  within  doors  and 
without,  that  our  free  and  happy  constitution, 
in  which  so  many  apparent  contradictions  and 
jarring  interests  are  reconciled  into  a  strong  and 
harmonious  Federal  Government,  was,  in  great 
part,  the  fruit  of  compromise.  We  have  often 
been  reminded,  and  I  shall  not  soon  forget  it, 
that  the  small  States  are  indebted  to  this  prin- 
ciple of  conciliation  and  compromise  for  their 
equal  suffrage  in  this  branch  of  the  National 
Legislature.  On  such  occasions,  it  is  but  fair 
and  equal  to  remind  other  gentlemen  that  the 
same  friendly  and  patriotic  principle  has  given 
to  the  slaveholding  States  a  representation  upon 
property  in  the  other  House,  and  that  the  com- 
pensation intended  to  have  been  made  by  the 
apportionment  of  direct  taxes,  according  to  the 
same  ratio,  has,  owing  to  the  ability  or  disposi- 
tion to  dispense  with  such  taxes,  except  in  a 
very  few  instances,  never  been  received. 

But,  Mr.  President,  this  principle  of  compro- 
mise went  much  farther.  Almost  all  the  States, 
and  nearly  every  individual  in  the  Convention, 
considered  slavery  as  an  evil,  and  an  evil,  as 
one  of  the  gentlemen  from  Georgia  has  observed, 
in  the  course  of  this  debate,  to  be  tolerated,  be- 
cause it  could  not  be  remedied.  They  also 
agreed  that  the  traffic  in  slaves  on  the  African 
coast  was  inhuman  as  well  as  impolitic,  and 
ought,  as  soon  as  possible,  to  be  suppressed. 
There  was  still,  however,  an  unwillingness  in 
some  gentlemen,  that  Congress  should  have  the 
immediate  power  to  interdict  this  trade.  The 
Convention,  therefore,  in  the  spirit  of  compro- 
mise, agreed  to  a  limitation  on  that  general 
power  which  Congress  would,  by  the  constitu- 
tion, have  possessed  over  the  migration  and 
importation  of  slaves,  and  they  inserted  in  the 
9th  section,  1st  article,  that  u  the  migration  or 
importation  of  such  persons  as  any  of  tho  States 
now  existing  shall  think  proper  to  admit,  >h;tll 
not  be  prohibited  by  Congress  prior  to  the  year 
1808,  but  a  tax  or  duty  may  be  imposed  on  such 
importation,  not  exceeding  ten  dollars  for  each 
person."  It  is  very  observable  that  the  con- 
vention have,  throughout  the  constitution,  sed- 
ulously avoided  the  words  slaves  and  slavery. 
One  of  the  most  distinguished  members  of  that 
body  proposed  tho  substitution  of  other  words, 


410 


ABRIDGMENT  OF  THE 


SENATE.] 


Maine  and  Missouri. 


[JANUARY,  1820. 


and  said  he  hoped  that  the  time  might  arrive, 
during  the  existence  of  this  constitution,  when 
slavery  would  no  longer  exist,  and  he  wished 
there  might  be  no  memorial  in  the  constitution 
itself,  that  it  ever  had  existed.  We  have  the 
evidence  of  the  venerable  Mr.  Jay,  as  to  the  in- 
tention of  the  Convention.  There  was,  in  fact, 
this  compromise :  Congress  s^all  have  the 
power  of  preventing  the  migration  and  importa- 
tion of  slaves ;  but  as  to  the  States  then  exist- 
ing, they  shall  not  exercise  it  till  1808.  As  to 
new  States,  their  power  was  not  even  tempo- 
rarily restrained.  In  truth,  there  was  then,  as 
unfortunately  there  is  not  now,  a  universal  dis- 
position to  restrain  and  limit  the  extension  of 
slavery.  In  the  same  spirit  was  conceived  and 
enacted  the  ordinance  of  1787,  passed  unani- 
mously, assented  to  by  all  the  States  concerned, 
and  ratified  hy  the  first  Congress  under  the  new 
constitution.  An  ordinance,  too,  enacted  dur- 
ing the  session  of  the  Convention,  by  persons, 
sortie  of  whom  were  members  of  both  bodies, 
and  having  an  effect  not  upon  the  spirit  merely, 
but  upon  the  frame  and  phraseology  of  the  con- 
stitution. In  short,  those  great  men  considered 
that  henceforth  we  had  adopted,  as  a  basis,  a 
fundamental  principle  of  our  polity,  that  domes- 
tic slavery  was  not  to  be  further  extended. 

On  these  grounds,  the  limitation  on  the  other- 
wise unlimited  power  of  Congress  over  this 
subject  was  confined  to  the  States  then  existing. 
It  was  already  prohibited  in  the  Territories  by 
the  ordinance,  and  Congress  were  not  to  be  re- 
strained or  limited  in  this  regard  by  the  tempo- 
rary limitation  as  to  the  then  existing  States. 
The  then  existing  States  were  to  do  as  they 
thought  fit  till  1808 ;  and  in  fact — and  to  their 
honor  be  it  said — the  greater  number  prohibit- 
ed immediately,  and  had  already  prohibited 
both  migration  and  importation :  but  as  to  the 
Territories ;  as  to  new  States ;  as  to  States  not 
then  existing ;  the  power  of  Congress  was  un- 
fettered— was  supreme.  It  has  not  been  suffi- 
ciently considered,  that  the  clause  under  consid- 
eration is  not  a  grant  of  power,  but  a  limitation 
of  a  power  which  existed  in  Congress  by  the 
force  of  the  express  words  of  the  constitution, 
or  by  a  necessary  implication.  And  this  limi- 
tation, too,  we  must  bear  in  mind,  was  tempo- 
rary, and  to  expire  in  the  short  period  of  twenty 
years.  But  it  is  urged  by  honorable  gentlemen, 
that,  though  Congress  might  prohibit  importa- 
tion after  1808,  they  could  not  prohibit  the  car- 
rying of  slaves  from  one  State  to  another,  and 
consequently  not  into  new  States.  Gentlemen 
who  deny  the  ordinance  of  1787,  and  resist  the 
force  of  the  argument  derived  from  the  various 
legislative  expositions  of  Congress,  ought  at 
least  to  agree  among  themselves  as  to  the 
meaning  of  the  word  migration.  An  honorable 
gentleman  from  Georgia  says  that  migration 
means  the  coming  from  a  foreign  country  by 
land,  and  that  the  meaning  is  that  Congress 
might  prevent  the  migration  of  slaves  from 
foreign  countries  or  colonies  by  land,  and  the 
importation  from  abroad  by  sea.  Other  gentle- 


men say  that  the  word  migration  has  no  refer- 
ence at  all  to  slaves,  but  relates  to  white  foreign- 
ers emigrating  from  Europe. 

In  regard  to  the  first  construction,  I  may  ask, 
if  migration  relates  to  slaves  coming  by  land, 
why  has  not  Congress  the  power  given  it  of 
imposing  the  duty  of  ten  dollars,  in  the  same 
way  as  if  they  were  brought  by  water?  In 
fact,  it  is  in  both  cases  an  importation,  and  the 
Convention  were  in  this  case  guilty  of  the  sin 
of  tautology  if  this  construction  is  correct.  In 
the  acts  against  the  slave  trade,  importation  by 
land  or  water  is  prohibited. 

The  second  construction,  which  refers  this 
word  to  the  emigration  of  white  free  men,  is 
equally  inadmissible.  What  State  ever  imag- 
ined that  Congress  would  prevent  the  emigra- 
tion from  Europe  into  this  country  of  white 
freemen  ?  And,  if  any  jealousy  on  this  head 
existed,  why  was  the  control  over  Congress  to 
cease  in  1808  ?  Were  they  at  liberty  to  do  so 
strange  a  thing  in  1808,  why  were  they  forbid- 
den to  do  so  previous  to  that  epoch  ?  There 
never  was,  there  never  could  have  been,  any 
fear  on  this  head ;  nor  was  there  any  intention 
to  limit  the  general  superintending  power  of 
Congress  in  relation  to  the  intercourse  with 
foreign  nations,  or  the  naturalization  of  aliens ; 
or,  if  there  was  such  a  fear  or  such  an  intention, 
the  ground  of  the  one  and  the  reason  of  the 
other  would  extend  far  beyond  the  year  1808. 
Applying  these  terms  as  they  Avere  intended  to 
be  applied — that  is,  to  slaves — and  we  have  a 
key  to  the  construction,  an  explanation  of  the 
reason  of  this  limitation  of  the  power  of  Con- 
gress, consistent  with  what  I  have  stnted  to 
have  been  the  general  intent  of  the  Convention, 
which  was  to  restrain  and  circumscribe  slavery. 
Two  of  the  Southern  States  would  not  agree  to 
the  immediate  prohibition  either  of  importation 
or  migration,  and  the  clause  therefore  was  the 
fruit  of  a  compromise.  A  power  which  two 
States  were  apprehensive  might  be  exercised  to 
their  injury  was  to  be  suspended  until  1808. 
In  addition  to  the  fair  import  of  the  constitution 
itself,  and  to  the  evidence  derived  from  the  or- 
dinance of  1787,  and  the  history  of  the  times, 
we  have  a  decided  legislative  exposition  of  the 
meaning  of  the  new  word  migration,  and  the 
confinement  of  the  restriction  to  the  powers  of 
Congress  within  the  old  States,  in  the  conduct 
of  the  Executive  and  Legislature  after  the  ac- 
quisition of  Louisiana,  in  1803. 

Under  the  administration  of  Mr.  Jefferson, 
when  Mr.  Madison,  a  member  of  the  Conven- 
tion, was  Secretary  of  State,  Congress  passed 
an  act,  March  26,  1804,  (vol.  3,  p.  603,)  for 
erecting  Louisiana  into  two  Territories,  one  of 
which  was  called  Orleans ;  and  in  regard  to 
Orleans  there  were  enacted,  and  without  (so 
far  as  we  know)  any  opposition,  important  re- 
strictions upon  the  introduction  of  slaves. 
Congress  not  only  interdicted  the  introduction 
of  slaves  from  abroad,  but  they  expressly  for- 
bade the  introduction  of  any  slaves  from  the 
old  States,  which  had  been  imported  after  May, 


DEBATES   OF  CONGRESS. 


411 


JAXUARY,  1820.] 


Maine  and  Missouri. 


[SENATE. 


1798;  and  also  the  introduction  of  slaves,  di- 
rectly or  indirectly,  except  by  a  citizen  of  the 
United  States  removing  into  the  Territory  for 
actual  settlement,  and  being  at  the  time  of  such 
removal  bona  fide  owner  of  such  slave  or  slaves ; 
otherwise,  the  slave  to  be  restored  to  his  free- 
dom. The  residue  of  the  old  province  of  Louis- 
iana was .  placed  under  the  jurisdiction  of  the 
Governor  and  other  authorities  of  Indiana, 
where,  by  the  ordinance  of  1787,  slavery  was 
already  prohibited.  Here  then  we  have,  upon 
a  most  important  occasion,  a  legislative  con- 
struction of  the  constitution  on  the  subject  of 
migration,  and  also  on  the  power  of  Congress 
over  Territories,  so  far  forth  as  relates  to  sla- 
very ;  and  it  is  also,  as  I  shall  have  occasion  to 
show,  a  commentary  upon  the  treaty  of  cession 
of  the  province  of  Louisiana. 

Indeed,  Mr.  President,  if  we  look  through  all 
the  acts  of  cession  and  acts  for  admitting  new 
States — from  the  admission  of  Kentucky,  Feb- 
ruary 4.  1791,  to  the  admission  of  Alabama  at 
this  Mission — we  shall  find  a  continual  reference 
to  and  acknowledgment  of  the  ordinance  of 
1787,  and  a  recognition  of  the  power  in  Con- 
id  a  constant  exercise  of  it,  too,  of  im- 
posing such  restrictions  on  the  new  States,  not 
inconsistent  with  their  perfect  equality  in  fed- 
eral rights,  as  were  necessary  for  the  security  of 
the  rights  and  property  and  supremacy  of  the 
Federal  Government;  and  of  those  principles 
(among  which  was  the  prevention  of  the  further 
spread  of  slavery)  which  were  and  are  and  al- 
ways must  be  the  vital  and  fundamental  princi- 
ples of  the  Federal  Union.  Thus,  in  the  acts 
for  the  admission  of  Tennessee,  April  2,  1790, 
and  May  25, 1797,  though  a  part  of  an  old  State, 
there  is  no  other  reserve  on  the  part  of  North 
Carolina,  as  to  the  ordinance  of  1787,  than  this : 
"  That  no  regulation,  to  be  made  by  Congress, 
should  tend  to  emancipate  slaves."  At  that 
time  there  was  a  general  consent  and  under- 
standing that  this  pestilence  of  slavery  was  not 
to  be  further  diffused.  But  the  times  are 
changed,  and  we  are  changed  with  them. 

In  opposition  to  the  amendment  now  under 
consideration,  it  has  been  urged  that  the  adop- 
tion of  it  would  place  the  States  upon  a  footing 
of  inequality,  and  the  honorable  gentleman  from 
Georgia  (Mr.  ELLIOT)  has  said,  with  great  force 
and  elegance,  and  has  supported  the  proposition 
by  a  reference  to  the  history  of  various  confed- 
eracies, ancient  and  modern,  that  inequality 
among  the  members  of  a  confederacy  has  always 
proved  a  source  of  jealousy  and  dissension,  and, 
in  many  cases,  of  dissolution  and  ruin.  But, 
sir,  the  inequalities  to  which  ho  alluded  were 
inequalities  in  federal  rights.  In  regard  to  such 
rights,  can  it  be  pretended  that  Misxmri  will  be 
on  a  footing  of  inferiority  after  her  admission? 
Will  she  not  have  her  Senators,  her  Repn •M-IU- 
ative,  her  Electors,  by  the  same  rules  as  other 
Must  not  all  the  regulations  of  her 
commerce,  all  her  relations  to  the  Union,  and 
to  other  States,  be  the  same  as  those  of  Ohio  or 
Vermont?  Will  she  not,  according  to  her  pop- 


ulation, have  the  same  power  and  weight  as 
other  States?  It  were  to  be  wished  that  a 
greater  absolute  equality  existed  among  the 
States  as  to  extent,  wealth,  and  population; 
but  these  inequalities  are  not  of  the  sort  which 
have  endangered  or  destroyed  other  federal 
leagues.  In  regard  to  the  navigation  of  rivers 
and  other  subjects,  there  is  already  an  inequal- 
ity, and,  from  the  nature  of  things,  must  be, 
among  the  States.  Louisiana  has,  by  compact, 
renounced  any  right  to  impose  tolls  upon  the 
passage  of  the  Mississippi  and  other  navigable 
rivers.  Pennsylvania  and  New  Jersey  have  re- 
nounced none  of  their  rights  over  the  river  Del- 
aware, nor  has  New  York  renounced  hers  over 
the  Hudson.  Louisiana,  moreover,  has  agreed 
to  establish  the  right  of  habeas  corpus,  of  trial 
by  jury  in  criminal  cases,  and  to  keep  her  re- 
cords in  the  English  language.  In  fact,  she  has 
agreed  to  exchange,  to  a  certain  extent,  the 
principles  of  the  civil  or  Roman  law  for  those 
of  the  common  law.  In  some  of  the  StatesTthe 
trial  by  jury  does  not  exist  in  all  criminal  cases, 
especially  in  minor  offences  ;  and,  in  one  State, 
the  right  to  the  writ  of  habeas  corpus  stands 
not  upon  a  written  constitution,  but  upon  a 
legislative  act.  No  one  will,  on  these  accounts, 
pretend  that  there  is  any  inferiority  in  the  fed- 
eral rights  of  Louisiana  to  the  rights  of  any 
other  State. 

Mr.  MACOX,  of  North  Carolina,  said  he  agreed 
in  opinion  with  the  gentleman  who  had  declared 
this  to  be  the  greatest  question  ever  debated  in 
the  Senate,  and  that  it  ought  to  be  discussed  in 
the  most  calm  and  cool  manner,  without  at- 
tempting to  excite  passion  or  prejudice.  It 
was,  however,  to  be  regretted,  that  while  some 
of  those  who  supported  the  motion  were  quite 
calm  and  cool,  they  used  a  good  many  hard 
words,  which  had  no  tendency  to  continue  the 
good  humor  which  they  recommended.  He 
would  endeavor  to  follow  their  advice,  but 
must  be  pardoned  for  not  following  their  exam- 
ple in  the  use  of  hard  words.  If,  however,  one 
should  escape  him,  it  would  be  contrary  to  his 
intention,  and  an  act  of  indiscretion,  not  of  de- 
sign or  premeditation.  He  hoped  to  examine 
the  subject  with  great  meekness  and  humility. 

The  debate  had  brought  forcibly  to  his  recol- 
lection the  anxiety  of  the  best  patriots  of  the 
nation,  when  the  present  constitution  was  ex- 
it. The  public  inind  was  then  greatly  excited, 
and  men  in  whom  the  people  properly  placed 
the  utmost  confidence  were  divided.  There 
was  then  no  whisper  about  disunion,  for  every 
one  considered  the  Union  as  absolutely  neces- 
sary for  the  good  of  all.  But  to-day,  we  have 
been  told,  by  the  honorable  gentleman  from 
Pennsylvania,  (Mr.  LOWRIE,)  that  he  would  pre- 
fer disunion,  rather  than  slaves  should  be  car- 
ried west  of  the  Mississippi.  Age,  Mr.  M.  said, 
may  have  rendered  him  timid,  or  education 
may  have  prevailed  on  him  to  attach  greater 
-  to  the  Union  and  the  constitution  than 
they  deserve.  If  this  be  the  case,  and  it  be  an 


412 


ABRIDGMENT  OP  THE 


SENATE.] 


Maine  and  Missouri. 


[JANUARY,  1820. 


error,  it  was  one  he  had  no  desire  to  be  free 
from,  even  after  what  he  heard  in  this  de- 
bate. Get  clear  of  this  Union  and  this  consti- 
tution, and  it  will  be  found  vastly  more  difficult 
to  unite  again  and  form  another  than  it  was  to 
form  this.  There  were  no  parties  in  the  coun- 
try at  the  time  it  was  formed ;  not  even  upon 
this  question.  The  men  who  carried  the  nation 
through  the  Kevolution  were  alive,  and  mem- 
bers of  the  Convention.  WASHINGTON  was  at 
their  head.  Have  we  a  "Washington  now  ?  No. 
Is  there  one  in  the  nation  to  fill  his  place?  No. 
His  like,  if  ever,  has  been  rarely  seen ;  nor  can 
we,  rationally,  expect  another  in  our  day.  Let 
us  not  speak  of  disunion  as  an  easy  thing.  If 
ever  it  shall,  unfortunately,  come,  it  will  bring 
evils  enough  for  the  best  men  to  encounter;  and 
all  good  men,  in  every  nation,  lovers  of  free- 
dom, will  lament  it.  This  constitution  is  now 
as  much  an  experiment  as  it  was  in  the  year 
1789.  It  went  into  operation  about  the  time 
the  French  revolution  commenced.  The  wars 
which  grew  out  of  that,  and  the  difficulties  and 
perplexities  which  we  had  to  encounter,  in  con- 
sequence of  the  improper  acts  of  belligerents, 
kept  the  people  constantly  attached  to  the  Gov- 
ernment. It  has  stood  well  the  trial  of  trouble 
and  of  war,  and  answered,  in  those  times,  the 
purposes  for  which  it  was  formed  and  adopted ; 
but  now  is  to  be  tried,  in  time  of  universal 
peace,  whether  a  government  within  a  govern- 
ment can  sustain  itself  and  preserve  the  liberty 
of  the  citizen.  When  we  are  told,  disunion, 
rather  than  slaves  be  carried  over  the  Missis- 
sippi 1  it  ought  not  to  be  forgotten  that  the 
union  of  the  people  and  the  confederation  car- 
ried us  through  the  Eevolutionary  war — a  war 
of  which  no  man  can  wish  to  see  the  like  again 
in  this  country — but,  as  soon  as  peace  came,  it 
was  found  to  be  entirely  unfit  for  it ;  so  unfit, 
that  it  was  given  up  for  the  present  constitu- 
tion. Destroy  it,  and  what  may  be  the  condi- 
tion of  the  country,  no  man,  not  the  most  saga- 
cious, can  even  imagine.  It  will  surely  be  much 
worse  than  it  was  before  it  was  adopted,  and 
that  must  be  well  remembered. 

The  amendment  is  calculated  to  produce  geo- 
graphical parties,  or  why  admonish  us  to  dis- 
cuss it  with  moderation  and  good  temper?  No 
man  who  has  witnessed  the  effect  of  parties 
nearly  geographical,  can  wish  to  see  them  re- 
vived. Their  acts  formerly  produced  uneasi- 
ness, to  say  the  least  of  them,  to  good  men  of 
every  party.  General  Washington  has  warned 
us  against  them ;  but  he  is  now  dead,  and  his 
advice  may  soon  be  forgotten ;  form  geographi- 
cal parties,  and  it  will  be  neglected.  Instead 
of  forming  sectional  parties,  it  would  be  more 
patriotic  to  do  them  away.  But  party  and  pa- 
triotism are  not  always  the  same.  Town  meet- 
ings and  resolutions  to  inflame  one  part  of  the 
nation  against  another  can  never  benefit  the 
people,  though  they  may  gratify  an  individual. 
A  majority  of  them  want  things  right.  Leave 
them  to  form  their  own  opinions,  without  the 
aid  of  inflammatory  speeches  at  town  meetings, 


and  they  will  always  form  them  correctly. 
What  interest  or  motive  can  the  good  people  of 
one  part  of  the  country  have  for  meeting  and 
endeavoring  to  imitate  those  of  another?  No 
town  meeting  was  necessary  to  inform  or  in- 
flame the  public  mind  against  the  law  giving 
members  of  Congress  a  salary  instead  of  a  daily 
allowance.  The  people  formed  their  own  opin- 
ions, disapproved  it,  and  it  was  repealed.  So 
they  will  always  act,  if  left  to  themselves.  Let 
not  parties,  formed  at  home  for  State  purposes, 
be  brought  into  Congress,  to  disturb  and  distract 
the  Union.  The  General  Government  hitherto 
has  been  productive  enough  of  them  to  satisfy 
those  who  most  delight  in  them,  that  they  are 
not  likely  to  be  long  wanted  in  it.  Enough, 
and  more  than  enough,  has  been  produced,  by 
the  difficulty  of  deciding  what  is  and  what  is 
not  within  the  limits  of  the  constitution.  And, 
at  this  moment,  we  have  difficulties  enough  to 
scuffle  with,  without  adding  the  present  ques- 
tion. The  dispute  between  the  Bank  of  the 
United  States  and  those  of  the  States ;  the  want 
of  money  by  the  Government,  the  people  not  in 
a  condition  to  increase  the  taxes,  because  more 
indebted  at  home  than  they  ever  were  ;  and  the 
dispute  with  Spain,  might  serve  for  this  session. 
But  the  beginners  of  these  town  meetings  may 
be  like  the  beginners  of  the  addresses  of  old — 
want  office.  If  this  should  be  the  case,  the 
Government  is  too  poor  to  gratify  them.  It  is 
more  easy  to  influence  the  public  mind  than  to 
quiet  it  when  inflamed.  A  child  may  set  the 
woods  on  fire,  but  it  requires  great  exertions  to 
extinguish  it.  This  now  very  great  question 
was  but  a  spark  at  the  last  session. 

Ah1  the  States  now  have  equal  rights,  and  all 
are  content.  Deprive  one  of  the  least  right 
which  it  now  enjoys  in  common  with  the  others, 
and  it  will  no  longer  be  content.  So,  if  Govern- 
ment had  an  unlimited  power  to  put  whatever 
conditions  it  pleased  on  the  admission  of  a  new 
State  into  the  Union,  a  State  admitted  with  a 
condition  unknown  to  the  others  would  not  be 
content,  no  matter  what  might  be  the  character 
of  the  condition,  even  though  it  was  not  to  steal 
or  commit  murder.  The  difference  in  the  terms 
of  admission  would  not  be  acceptable.  All  the 
new  States  have  the  same  rights  that  the  old 
have ;  and  why  make  Missouri  an  exception  ? 
She  has  not  done  a  single  act  to  deserve  it; 
and  why  depart,  in  her  case,  from  the  great 
American  principle,  that  the  people  can  govern 
themselves  ?  No  reason  has  been  assigned  for 
the  attempt  at  the  departure,  nor  can  one  be 
assigned  which  would  not  apply  as  strong  to 
Louisiana.  In  every  free  country  that  ever 
existed,  the  first  violations  of  the  principles  of 
the  Government  were  indirect,  and  not  well 
understood,  or  supported  with  great  zeal,  by  a 
part  of  the  people. 

All  the  country  west  of  the  Mississippi  was  ac- 
quired by  the  same  treaty,  and  on  the  same 
terms,  and  the  people  in  every  part  have  the  same 
rights ;  but,  if  the  amendment  be  adopted,  Mis- 
souri will  not  have  the  same  rights  which  Louis- 


DEBATES  OF  CONGRESS. 


413 


JANUARY,  1820.J 


Maine  and  Missouri. 


[SENATE. 


iana  now  enjoys.  She  has  been  admitted  into 
the  Union  as  a  full  sister,  but  her  twin  sister 
Missouri,  under  the  proposed  amendment,  is  to 
be  admitted  as  a  sister  of  a  half-blood,  or  rather 
as  a  step-dauirhter,  under  an  unjust  step-mother : 
for  what  ?  Becaxise  she,  as  well  as  Louisiana, 
performed  well  her  part  during  the  late  war ;  and 
because  she  has  never  given  the  General  Govern- 
ment any  trouble.  The  operation  of  the  amend- 
ment is  unjust  as  it  relates  to  the  people  who 
have  moved  there  from  the  other  States.  They 
carried  with  them  the  property  which  was  com- 
mon in  the  States  they  left,  secured  to  them  by 
the  Constitution  and  laws  of  the  United  States,  as 
well  as  by  the  treaty.  There  they  purchased 
public  lands  and  settled  with  their  slaves,  with- 
out a  single  objection  to  their  owning  and 
carrying  them  ;  but  now,  unfortunately  for 
them,  it  is  discovered  that  they  ought  not  to 
have  been  permitted  to  have  carried  a  single 
one.  What  a  pity  it  is  the  discovery  had  not 
been  made  before  they  sold  their  land  in  the 
old  States  and  moved.  They  must  now  sell 
their  land  and  move  again,  or  sell  their  slaves 
which  they  have  raised,  or  have  them  taken 
from  them,  and  this  after  they  have  been  at  the 
trouble  and  expense  of  building  houses  and 
clearing  plantations  in  the  new  country ;  not, 
it  seems,  for  themselves  and  children,  but  for 
those  who  are  considered  a  better  people.  The 
country  was  bought  with  the  money  of  all,  slave- 
holders as  well  as  those  who  are  not  so ;  and 
every  one  knew,  when  he  bought  land  and 
moved  with  his  property,  he  had  a  perfect 
right  to  do  so.  And  no  one,  till  last  session,  ever 
said  to  the  contrary,  or  moved  the  restriction 
about  slaves.  The  object,  now  avowed,  is  to 
pen  up  the  slaves  and  their  owners,  and  not 
permit  them  to  cross  the  Mississippi,  to  better 
their  condition,  where  there  is  room  enough  for 
all,  and  good  range  for  man  and  beast.  And 
man  is  as  much  improved  by  moving  and  range, 
as  the  beast  of  the  field.  But,  what  is  still  more 
unaccountable,  a  part  of  the  land  granted  to  the 
soldiers  for  their  services  in  the  late  war,  was 
laid  off  in  Missouri  expressly  for  the  soldiers  who 
had  enlisted  in  the  Southern  States,  and  would 
prefer  living  where  they  might  have  slaves. 
These,  too,  are  now  to  leave  the  country  of  their 
choice,  and  the  land  obtained  by  fighting  the 
battles  of  the  nation.  Is  this  just,  in  a  Govern- 
ment of  law,  supported  only  by  opinion — for  it 
is  not  pretended  that  it  is  a  Government  of 
force  ?  In  the  most  alarming  state  of  our  affairs 
at  home — and  some  of  them  have  an  ugly  ap- 
pearance— public  opinion  alone  has  corrected 
and  changed  that  which  seemed  to  threaten 
disorder  and  ill  will,  into  order  and  good  will, 
except  once,  when  the  military  was  called  out, 
in  1791.  Let  this  be  compared  to  the  case  of 
individuals,  and  it  will  not  be  found  to  be  more 
favorable  to  the  amendment  than  the  real  case 
just  stated.  A.  and  B.  buy  a  tract  of  land  large 
enough  for  both,  and  for  their  children,  and 
settle  it,  build  houses,  and  open  plantations. 
When  they  have  got  in  a  good  way  to  live  com- 


fortably, after  ten  or  fifteen  years,  A.  thinks 
there  is  not  to6  much  for  him  and  his  children, 
and  that  they  can,  a  long  time  hence,  settle  and 
cultivate  the  whole  land.  He,  then,  the  first 
time,  tells  B.  that  he  has  some  property  he  does 
not  like,  and  that  he  must  get  clear  of  it,  or 
move.  B.  states  the  bargain.  A.  answers,  it 
is  true,  that  he  understood  it  so  till  of  late ;  but, 
that  move  he  must,  or  get  clear  of  the  property  ; 
for  that  property  should  not  be  in  his  way.  The 
kind  or  quality  of  property  cannot  affect  the 
question.  Xay,  if  it  was  only  a  difference  in 
the  color  of  their  cattle — one  preferring  red,  the 
other  pied.  Would  this  be  just  ?  The  answer 
must  settle  the  question  with  all  men  who  are 
free  from  prejudice. 

A  wise  Legislature  will  always  consider  the 
character,  condition,  and  feeling,  of  those  to  be 
legislated  for.  In  a  Government  and  people  like 
ours,  this  is  indispensable.  The  question  now 
under  debate  demands  this  consideration.  To  a 
part  of  the  United  States,  and  that  part  which 
supports  the  amendment,  it  cannot  be  important, 
except  as  it  is  made  so  by  the  circumstances  of  the 
times.  In  all  questions  like  the  present  in  the 
United  States,  the  strong  may  yield  without 
disgrace  even  in  their  own  opinion ;  the  weak, 
cannot ;  hence,  the  propriety  of  not  attempting 
to  impose  this  new  condition  on  the  people  of* 
Missouri.  Their  numbers  are  few,  compared  to 
those  of  the  whole  United  States.  Let  the 
United  States,  then,  abandon  this  new  scheme ; 
let  their  magnanimity,  and  not  their  power,  be 
felt  by  the  people  of  Missouri.  The  attempt  to 
govern  too  much  has  produced  every  civil  war 
that  ever  has  been,  and  will,  probably,  every 
one  that  ever  may  be.  Ah1  Governments,  no 
matter  what  their  form,  want  more  power  and 
more  authority,  and  all  the  governed  want  less 
government.  Great  Britain  lost  the  United 
States  by  attempting  to  govern  too  much,  and 
to  introduce  new  principles  of  governing.  The 
United  States  would  not  submit  to  the  attempt, 
and  earnestly  endeavored  ,to  persuade  Great 
Britain  to  abandon  it,  but  in  vain.  The  United 
States  would  not  yield ;  and  the  result  is  known 
to  the  world.  The  battle  is  not  to  the  strong, 
nor  the  race  to  the  swift.  What  reason  have 
we  to  expect  that  we  can  persuade  Missouri  to 
yield  to  our  opinion,  that  did  not  apply  as 
strongly  to  Great  Britain  ?  They  are  as  near 
akin  to  us  as  we  were  to  Great  Britain.  They 
are  "  flesh  of  our  flesh,  and  bone  of  our  bone." 
But,  as  to  kin,  when  they  fall  out,  they  do  not 
make  up  sooner  than  other  people.  Great 
Britain  attempted  to  govern  us  on  a  new  prin- 
ciple, and  we  attempt  to  establish  a  new  prin- 
ciple for  the  people  of  Missouri,  on  becoming  a 
State.  Great  Britain  attempted  to  lay  a  three- 
penny tax  on  the  tea  consumed  in  the  then 
colonies  which  were  not  represented  in  Parlia- 
ment ;  and  we  to  regulate  what  shall  be  prop- 
erty, when  Missouri  becomes  a  State,  when  she 
has  no  vote  in  Congress.  The  great  English 
principle  of  no  tax  without  representation  was 
violated  in  one  case,  and  the  great  American 


414 


ABRIDGMENT  OF  THE 


SENATE.] 


Maine  and  Missouri. 


[JANUARY,  1820. 


principle,  that  the  people  are  able  to  govern 
themselves,  will  be,  if  the  amendment  be 
adopted.  Every  free  nation  has  had  some  prin- 
ciple in  their  government  to  which  more  im- 
portance was  attached  than  to  any  other.  The 
English  was  not  to  be  taxed  without  their  con- 
sent given  in  Parliament ;  the  American  is  to 
form  their  own  State  government,  so  that  it  be 
not  inconsistent  with  that  of  the  United  States. 
If  the  power  in  Congress  to  pass  the  restriction 
was  expressly  delegated,  and  so  clear  that  no 
one  could  doubt  it,  in  the  present  circumstances 
of  the  country,  it  would  not  be  wise  or  prudent 
to  do  so  ;  especially  against  the  consent  of  those 
who  live  in  the  territory.  Their  consent  would 
be  more  important  to  the  nation  than  a  restric- 
tion which  would  not  make  one  slave  less,  un- 
less they  might  be  starved  in  the  old  States. 

Let  me  not  be  understood  as  wishing  or  in- 
tending to  create  any  alarm  as  to  the  intentions 
of  the  people  of  Missouri.  I  know  nothing  of 
them.  But  in  examining  the  question,  we  ought 
not  to  forget  our  own  history,  nor  the  character 
of  those  who  settle  on  our  frontiers.  Your 
easy,  chimney-corner  people,  the  timid  and  fear- 
ful, never  move  to  them.  They  stay  where 
there  is  no  danger  from  an  Indian,  or  any  wild 
beast.  They  have  no  desire  to  engage  the  pan- 
'ther  or  the  bear.  It  is  the  bravest  of  the  brave, 
and  the  boldest  of  the  bold,  who  venture  there. 
They  go  not  to  return. 

The  settling  of  Kentucky  and  Tennessee,  dur- 
ing the  war  of  the  Revolution,  proves,  in  the 
most  satisfactory  manner,  what  they  can  do, 
and  will  undergo,  and  that  they  will  not  return. 
The  few  people  who  first  settled  there,  had  to 
contend,  without  aid  from  the  States,  against 
all  the  Indians  bordering  on  the  United  States, 
except  the  Chickasaw  and  Choctaw  nations, 
and  maintained  their  stations.  The  Northern 
tribes,  unaided  by  the  Southern,  attacked  the 
United  States,  since  the  adoption  of  the  consti- 
tution, defeated  two  armies,  and  it  required  a 
third  to  conquer  them.  The  frontier  people,  in 
the  Revolutionary  war,  as  well  as  in  the  late, 
astonished  everybody  by  their  great  exploits. 
Vermont,  though  claimed  in  the  Revolutionary 
war,  by  New  Hampshire  and  New  York,  was 
not  inferior  to  any  of  the  States  in  her  exertions 
to  support  independence.  The  gentleman  from 
Pennsylvania  will  pardon  me  for  stating,  that 
that  State  had  had  some  experience  of  their 
government  managing  a  few  people,  who  would 
not  yield  obedience  to  their  authority,  though 
settled  within  their  limits.  They  were  obliged 
to  compromise.  I  mean  the  "Wyoming  settlers. 
Again,  since  this  Government  was  in  operation, 
a  few  people  settled  on  the  Indian  lands  :  they 
were  ordered  to  move  from  them,  but  did 
not  obey.  The  military  were  sent  to  burn  their 
cabins.  The  commanding  officer  told  them  his 
business,  and  very  humanely  advised  them  to 
move  what  property  they  had  out  of  them. 
This  they  did,  and  their  cabins  were  burnt. 
They  waited  till  the  troops  marched,  and  very 
soon  after  built  new  cabins  on  the  same  places. 


and  to  the  same  backs  where  the  old  ones  had 
been  burnt.  These  facts  are  stated  to  show  th:it 
a  contest  with  people  who  believe  them- 
selves right,  and  one  with  a  Government,  are 
very  different  things.  It  would  have  been  very 
gratifying  to  me  to  have  been  informed  by  some 
one  of  the  gentlemen  who  support  the  amend- 
ment, what  is  intended  to  be  done  if  it  be 
adopted,  and  the  people  of  Missouri  will  not 
yield,  but  go  on  and  form  a  State  Government, 
(having  the  requisite  number,  agreeably  to  the 
ordinance,)  as  Tennessee  did,  and  then  apply 
for  admission  into  the  Union,  "Will  she  be  ad- 
mitted, as  Tennessee  was,  on  an  equal  footing 
with  the  original  States,  or  will  the  application 
be  rejected,  as  the  British  government  did  the 
petitions  of  the  Old  Congress?  If  you  do  not 
admit  her,  and  she  will  not  return  to  the  terri- 
torial government,  will  you  declare  the  people 
rebels,  as  Great  Britain  did  us.  and  order  them 
to  be  conquered,  for  contending  for  the  same 
rights  that  every  State  in  the  Union  now  enjoys  ? 
Will  you  for  this  order  the  father  to  march 
against  the  son,  and  brother  against  brother  ? 
God  forbid !  It  would  be  a  terrible  sight  to  be- 
hold these  near  relations  plunging  the  bayonet 
into  each  other,  for  no  other  reason  than  be- 
cause the  people  of  Missouri  wish  to  be  on  an 
equal  footing  with  the  people  of  Louisiana. 
"When  territories,  they  were  so.  Those  who 
remember  the  Revolution  will  not  desire  to  see 
another  civil  war  in  our  land.  They  know  too 
well  the  wretched  scenes  it  will  produce.  If 
you  should  declare  them  rebels,  and  conquer 
them,  will  that  attach  them  to  the  Union?  No 
one  can  expect  this.  Then  do  not  attempt  to 
do  that  for  them  which  was  never  done  for 
others,  and  which  no  State  would  consent  for 
Congress  to  do  for  it.  If  the  United  States 
are  to  make  conquests,  do  not  let  the  first  be  at 
home.  Nothing  is  to  be  got  by  American  con- 
quering American.  Nor  ought  we  to  forget 
that  we  are  not  legislating  for  ourselves,  and 
that  the  American  character  is  not  yielding 
when  rights  are  concerned. 

But  why  depart  from  the  good  old  way, 
which  has  kept  us  in  quiet,  peace,  and  harmony 
— every  one  living  under  his  own  vine  and  fig- 
tree,  and  none  to  make  him  afraid  ?  Why  leave 
the  road  of  experience,  which  has  satisfied  all, 
and  made  all  happy,  to  take  this  new  way,  of 
which  we  have  no  experience  ?  The  way  leads 
to  universal  emancipation,  of  which  we  have  no 
experience.  The  Eastern  and  Middle  States  fur- 
nish none.  For  years  before  they  emancipated 
they  had  but  few,  and  of  these  apart  were  sold  to 
the  South,  before  they  emancipated.  We  have 
not  more  experience  or  book  learning  on  this  sub- 
ject than  the  French  Convention  had  which 
turned  the  slaves  of  St.  Domingo  loose.  Nor 
can  we  foresee  the  consequences  which  may  re- 
sult from  this  motion,  more  than  the  conven- 
tion did  in  their  decree.  A  clause  in  the  De- 
claration of  Independence  has  been  read,  de- 
claring "  that  all  men  are  created  equal ;"  follow 
that  sentiment,  and  does  it  not  lead  to  universal 


DEBATES  OF  CONGRESS. 


415 


JANUARY,  1820.] 


Jfaine,  and  Missouri. 


[SENATE. 


emancipation  ?  If  it  will  justify  putting  an  end 
to  slavery  in  Missouri,  will  it  not  justify  it  in 
the  old  States  ?  Suppose  the  plan  followed,  and 
all  the  slaves  turned  loose,  and  the  Union  to 
continue,  is  it  certain  that  the  present  constitu- 
tion would  last  long  ?  Because  the  rich  would, 
in  such  circumstances,  want  titles  and  heredi- 
tary distinctions ;  the  negro  food  and  raiment ; 
and  they  would  be  as  much  or  more  degraded, 
than  in  their  present  condition.  The  rich  might 
hire  these  wretched  people,  and  with  them  at- 
tempt to  change  the  Government,  by  trampling 
on  the  rights  of  those  who  have  only  property 
enough  to  live  comfortably. 

Opinions  have  greatly  changed  in  some  of 
the  States  in  n  few  years.  The  time  has  been 
when  those  now  called  slaveholding  States  were 
thought  to  be  the  firm  and  steadfast  friends  of 
the  people  and  of  liberty.  Then  they  were  op- 
posing an  Administration  and  a  majority  in 
Congress,  supported  by  a  sedition  law;  then 
there  was  not  a  word  heard,  at  least  from  one 
side,  about  those  who  actually  did  most  towards 
changing  the  Administration  and  the  majority 
in  Congress,  and  they  were  from  slaveholding 
States.  And  now  it  would  be  curious  to  know 
how  many  members  of  Congress  actually  hold 
seats  in  consequence  of  their  exertions  at  the 
time  alluded  to.  Past  services  are  always 
forgotten  when  new  principles  are  to  be  intro- 
duced. 

It  is  a  fact,  that  the  people  who  move  from 
the  non-slaveholding  to  the  slaveholding  States, 
when  they  become  slaveholders  by  purchase  or 
marriage,  expect  more  labor  from  them  than 
those  do  who  are  brought  up  among  them.  To 
the  gentleman  from  Rhode  Island  (Mr.  BTJEKILL) 
I  tender  my  hearty  thanks,  for  his  liberal  and 
true  statement  of  the  treatment  of  slaves  in  the 
Southern  States.  His  observations  leave  but 
little  for  me  to  add,  which  is  this,  that  the 
slaves  gained  as  much  by  independence  as  the 
free.  The  old  ones  are  better  taken  care  of 
than  any  poor  in  the  world,  and  treated  with 
decent  respect  by  all  their  white  acquaintances. 
I  sincerely  wish  that  he,  and  the  gentleman 
from  Pennsylvania,  (Mr.  ROBERTS,)  would  go 
home  with  me,  or  some  other  Southern  member, 
and  witness  the  meeting  between  the  slaves  and 
the  owner,  and  see  the  glad  faces  and  the  hearty 
shaking  of  hands.  This  is  well  described  in 
General  Moultrie's  History  of  the  Revolution- 
ary War  in  South  Carolina ;  in  which  he  gives 
the  account  of  his  reception  by  his  slaves  the 
first  time  he  went  home  after  he  was  exchanged. 
He  was  made  prisoner  at  the  surrender  of 
Charleston.  Could  Mr.  M.  have  procured  the 
book  in  the  city,  he  intended  to  have  read  it, 
to  'show  the  attachment  of  the  slave  to  his 
owner.  A  fact  shall  be  stated.  An  excellent 
friend  of  mine — he,  too,  like  the  other  charac- 
ters which  have  been  mentioned  in  the  debate, 
was  a  Virginian — had  business  in  England, 
which  made  it  necessary  that  he  should  go  to 
that  country  himself,  or  send  a  trusty  agent. 
He  could  not  go  conveniently,  and  sent  one  of 


his  slaves,  who  remained  there  near  a  year. 
Upon  his  return  he  was  asked  by  his  owner  how 
he  liked  the  country,  and  if  he  would  have  liked 
to  stay  there  ?  He  replied,  that  to  oblige  him 
he  would  have  stayed ;  the  country  was  the 
finest  country  he  ever  saw ;  the  land  was  work- 
ed as  nice  as  a  square  in  a  garden ;  they  had 
the  finest  horses,  and  carriages,  and  houses,  and 
every  thing ;  but  that  the  white  servants  abused 
his  country.  What  did  they  say  ?  They  said 
we  owed  them  (the  English)  a  heap  of  money, 
and  would  not  pay.  To  which  he  added,  their 
chief  food  was  mutton — he  saw  very  little  bacon 
there. 

The  owner  can  make  more  free  in  conversa- 
tion with  his  slave,  and  be  more  easy  in  his 
company,  than  the  rich  man,  where  there  is  no 
slave,  with  the  white  hireling  who  drives  his 
carriage.  He  has  no  expectation  that  the  slave 
will,  for  that  free  and  easy  conversation,  expect 
to  call  him  fellow-citizen,  or  act  improperly. 

Massachusetts,  Pennsylvania,  and  Virginia, 
have  been  often  mentioned  in  the  debate ;  and 
it  has  frequently  been  said,  that  the  two  first 
had  emancipated  their  slaves ;  from  which  an 
inference  seemed  to  be  drawn  that  the  other 
might  have  done  so:  emancipation,  to  these 
gentlemen,  seems  to  be  quite  an  easy  task.  It 
is  so  where  there  are  but  very  few  ;  and  would 
be  more  easy  if  the  color  did  not  everywhere 
place  the  blacks  in  a  degraded  state.  Where 
they  enjoy  the  most  freedom,  they  are  there  de- 
graded. The  respectable  whites  do  not  permit 
them  to  associate  with  them,  or  to  be  of  their 
company  when  they  have  parties.  But  if  it  be 
so  easy  a  task,  how  happens  it  that  Virginia, 
which  before  the  Revolution  endeavored  to  put 
an  end  to  the  African  slave  trade,  has  not  at- 
tempted to  emancipate?  It  will  not  be  pre- 
tended that  the  great  men  of  other  States  were 
superior;  or  greater  lovers  of  liberty,  than  her 
Randolph,  the  first  President  of  the  First  Con- 
gress, her  Washington,  her  Henry,  her  Jeffer- 
son, or  her  Nelson.  None  pf  these  ever  made 
the  attempt — and  their  names  ought  to  convince 
every  one  that  it  is  not  an  easy  task  in  that 
State.  And  is  it  not  wonderful,  that,  if  the 
Declaration  of  Independence  gave  authority  to 
emancipate,  that  the  patriots  who  made  it  never 
proposed  any  plan  to  carry  it  into  execution  ? 
This  motion,  whatever  may  be  pretended  by  its 
friends,  must  lead  to  it.  And  is  it  not  equally 
wonderful,  that,  if  the  constitution  gives  the 
authority,  this  is  the  first  attempt  ever  made, 
under  either,  by  the  Federal  Government,  to 
exercise  it?  For  if,  under  either,  the  power  is 
given,  it  will  apply  as  well  to  States  as  Terri- 
tories. If  either  intended  to  give  it,  is  it  not 
still  more  wonderful  that  it  is  not  given  in  di- 
rect terms?  The  gentlemen  would  not  then  be 
put  to  the  trouble  of  searching  the  confedera- 
tion, the  constitution,  and  the  laws,  for  a  sen- 
tence or  a  word  to  form  a  few  doubts.  If  the 
words  of  the  Declaration  of  Independence  be 
taken  as  part  of  the  constitution,  and  that  they 
are  no  part  of  it,  is  as  true  as  that  they  are  no 


416 


ABRIDGMENT  OF  THE 


SENATE.] 


Maine  and  Missouri. 


[JANUARY,  1820. 


part  of  any  other  book,  what  will  be  the  condi- 
tion of  the  Southern  country  when  this  shall  be 
carried  into  execution  ?  Take  the  most  favor- 
able which  can  be  supposed,  that  no  convulsion 
ensue — that  nothing  like  a  massacre  or  war  of 
extermination  takes  place,  as  in  St.  Domingo : 
but  that  the  whites  and  blacks  do  not  marry 
and  produce  mulatto  States — will  not  the  whites 
be  compelled  to  move  and  leave  their  land  and 
houses,  and  leave  the  country  to  the  blacks  ? 
And  are  you  willing  to  have  black  members  of 
Congress  ?  But  if  the  scenes  of  St.  Domingo 
should  be  reacted,  would  not  the  tomahawk  and 
scalping- knife  be  mercy? 


MONDAY,  January  24. 

Admission  of  Missouri — New  Jersey  Resolution*. 
Mr.  WILSON  communicated  the  resolutions 
of  the  Legislature  of  the  State  of  New  Jer- 
sey, protesting  against  the  admission  of  Mis- 
souri without  a  prohibition  of  slavery,  and  di- 
recting a  copy  of  the  Resolutions  to  be  commu- 
nicated to  its  Senators  and  Representatives  in 
Congress. 


TUESDAY,  January  25. 

The  VICE  PRESIDENT  having  retired  from  the 
Chair,  the  Senate  proceeded  to  the  choice  of  a 
President  pro  tempore,  as  the  constitution  pro- 
vides ;  and  the  honorable  JOHN  GAILLAED  was 
elected. 

On  motion  by  Mr.  SANFOBD  the  Secretary 
was  directed  to  wait  on  the  President  of  the 
United  States,  and  acquaint  him  that  the  Senate 
have,  in  the  absence  of  the  /Vice  President, 
elected  the  honorable  JOHN  GAJLLARD,  President 
of  the  Senate  pro  tempore,  and  that  the  Secre- 
tary make  a  similar  communication  to  the  House 
of  Representatives. 

RUFUS  KING,  appointed  a  Senator  by  the  Le- 
gislature of  the  State  of  New  York,  for  the 
term  of  six  years,  commencing  on  the  fourth 
day  of  March  last,  produced  his  credentials,  was 
qualified,  and  took  his  seat  in  the  Senate. 

Maine  and  Missouri. 

The  Senate  resumed,  as  in  Committee  of  the 
Whole,  the  consideration  of  the  bill,  entitled 
"  An  act  for  the  admission  of  the  State  of  Maine 
into  the  Union,"  together  with  the  amendments 
proposed  thereto. 

Mr.  OTIS  addressed  the  Senate  this  day,  at 
considerable  length,  in  reply  to  Mr.  PINKNEY, 
and  in  favor  of  the  restriction  on  Missouri.  His 
speech  is  given  entire,  as  follows : 

Mr.  OTIS,  of  Massachusetts,  observed,  that 
when  the  bill  for  admitting  Missouri  into  the 
Union,  at  the  last  session,  passed  the  Senate,  he 
was  among  those  who  voted  in  its  favor.  It 
was  introduced  only  a  few  days  before  the  ad- 
journment, and  was  certainly  not  regarded  as  a 
measure  pregnant  with  the  important  interest 
which  had  since  been  attached  to  it.  There 
was  hardly  a  serious  debate  about  its  passing, 


in  which  two  or  three  gentlemen  only  took  part- 
Having,  at  that  time,  but  imperfect  means  of 
examining  the  merits  of  the  question,  he  first 
voted  with  those  who  were  in  favor  of  a  post- 
ponement ;  but  finding  this  was  lost,  he  thought, 
under  the  best  view  he  could  then  take  of  the 
question,  that  the  people  of  that  territory,  hav- 
ing migrated  thither  under  an  expectation  of 
being  placed  on  the  same  footing  with  the 
States  already  carved  out  of  the  same  cession, 
had  some  claims  to  a  similar  indulgence.  But 
his  idea  was,  that  it  should  stop  here,  and  that 
all  would  concur  in  measures  to  prevent  the 
further  extension  of  slavery  into  the  territories 
and  the  States  in  future  to  be  erected  within 
them.  And  if  this  could  now  be  effected,  and 
the  bill  for  admitting  Missouri  could  be  accom- 
panied by  such  guards  and  provisions  as  would 
forever  preclude  the  spread  of  that  moral  pesti- 
lence, he  should  not  repent  of  the  oblation  he 
had  then  offered  to  the  spirit  of  conciliation. 
He  should,  on  the  other  hand,  with  his  pres- 
ent impressions,  be  inclined  to  repeat  ife. 
But  perceiving,  as  yet,  no  disposition  promising 
such  a  result,  and  considering  that  the  ground 
now  taken  by  the  friends  to  the  bill  involved 
an  absolute  denial  of  the  powers  of  the  General 
Government  to  make  any  compact  binding  on 
States  hereafter  to  be  admitted  into  the  Union ; 
a  doctrine  against  which  he  altogether  protest- 
ed; he  felt  it  to  be  his  duty  to  support  the 
amendment.  These  circumstances  would  ac- 
count for,  and  excuse  his  indiscretion,  in  at- 
tempting to  engage  the  attention  of  the  Senate, 
after  the  display  of  eloquence  with  which  they 
had  been  regaled  for  two  entire  days.  He 
was  sensible  of  the  disadvantage  under  which 
he  labored,  and  could  only  forewarn  the  Senate 
of  the  disappointment  which  awaited  them,  if 
his  rising  should  be  thought  to  indicate  an  in- 
tention of  replying  in  detail  to  the  argument  of 
the  gentleman  from  Maryland,  (Mr.  PINKNEY.) 
Various  considerations  forbad  his  making  any 
such  effort.  He  was  quite  sensible  of  his  own 
incompetency  to  follow  him  through  his  en- 
chanted grounds.  To  many  of  his  principles 
he  was  disposed  to  assent.  Some  of  them  his 
recollection  could  not  embody :  like  the  rays 
of  the  diamond  they  sparkled,  dazzled,  and 
were  gone.  And  a  very  large  class  of  his  re- 
marks he  could  regard  merely  as  the  gold  and 
silver  tissue  wherewith  the  honorable  gentle- 
man had  enriched  the  splendid  dress  in  which 
he  had  thought  fit  to  present  himself  to  the 
Senate  for  the  first  time.  "With  these  excep- 
tions enough  would  still  be  left  for  him  to  un- 
dertake, and  this  he  should  do  in  the  order  in 
which  his  mind  had  been  led  to  investigate  and 
decide  on  the  question,  noticing  incidentally, 
and  in  his  own  course,  those  objections  of  the 
honorable  gentleman  which  appear  to  have  the 
most  immediate  bearing  on  the  subject. 

It  was  asserted  by  gentlemen  that  a  more 
grave  and  portentous  question  had  never  been 
agitated  within  these  walls.  This  he  would  not 
deny;  and  yet  he  could  not  consider  it  a  new 


DEBATES  OF  CONGRESS. 


417 


JANUAKT,  1820.] 


Maine  and  Missouri. 


[SENATE. 


question.  If  a  stranger  to  our  country,  but 
familiar  with  our  history,  upon  arriving  here,  at 
this  moment,  and  witnessing  the  perturbation 
of  men's  minds,  within  doors  and  without, 
should  be  told,  upon  inquiring  the  cause,  that  it 
arose  from  a  discussion  of  the  question  whether 
slavery  should  be  inhibited  in  your  territorial 
possessions ;  his  first  impression  would  certainly 
be  that  this  question  had  been  put  to  rest  some 
three  and  thirty  years  ago.  I  have  "  read  (he 
would  be  inclined  to  say)  that  the  earliest  exer- 
cise of  your  authority  over  the  domain  ceded  to 
the  United  States,  was  manifested  in  a  solemn 

Protest  against  the  introduction  of  slavery  into 
,  and  that  you  thus  afforded  an  earnest  of  your 
future  policy  and  intentions  in  regard  to  all 
similar  acquisitions  of  ceded  territory.  Where- 
fore, in  the  ordinance  for  governing  the  North- 
western Territory,  did  you,  with  such  grave  de- 
liberation establish,  as  one  of  the  fundamental 
principles  of  civil  and  religious  liberty,  for  the 
regulation  of  your  territories  in  all  future  time, 
the  exclusion  of  involuntary  servitude,  and  why 
would  you  now  relax  a  system  established  in 
the  healthful  vigor  and  freshness  of  your  newly- 
acquired  liberty,  and  bring  into  doubt  princi- 
ples which  were  then  so  solemnly  determined  ?" 
To  these  inquiries,  he  said,  he  should  only  be 
able  to  answer,  "  Tempora  mutantur  et  nos  mu- 
tamur  in  illis." 

If  the  obligations  imposed  upon  us  by  the 
constitution  were  rigorous  to  the  extent  which 
gentlemen  seemed  to  insist,  our  condition  was 
indeed  deplorable.  If,  while  the  nations  of  the 
old  world  were  forming  confederations  in  order 
to  exclude  from  their  own  dependencies  the  fu- 
ture introduction  of  slaves,  and  to  propitiate 
Heaven  by  an  attempt  to  atone  for  the  past 
abominations  of  that  traffic  of  the  human  spe- 
cies, we  are  not  only  inhibited  from  coming  into 
their  system,  but  are  really  obliged,  by  treaty, 
to  open  a  new  and  illimitable  market  within 
our  own  territories ;  and  while  they  are  con- 
tracting the  sphere  of  human  misery  and  servi- 
tude, we  are  compelled  to  widen  its  expanse 
from  the  Mississippi  to  the  setting  sun :  then, 
indeed,  is  our  situation  most  humbling.  It  will 
be  in  vain,  he  feared,  to  compare  the  youth  and 
purity  of  our  institutions  with  the  decrepitude 
of  the  old  world,  and  the  rottenness  of  their 
systems,  if  this  be  our  predicament. 

If  the  President  and  Senate  can,  by  treaty, 
acquire  possessions  in  all  parts  of  the  globe,  and 
bind  us  to  admit  them  into  our  Union,  without 
any  restriction  upon  their  laws  and  usages; 
should  he  chance  to  travel  any  part  of  Europe, 
after  these  should  be  admitted  as  acknowledged 
principles  of  constitutional  law,  and  hear  his 
country  branded  as  a  region  of  hypocrisy,  and 
its  people  as  a  race  of  men,  who,  with  liberty 
in  their  mouths,  carried  rods  for  the  backs  and 
chains  for  the  feet  of  unborn  millions,  into  a 
new  world ;  he  should  stand  in  need  of  the 
speech  of  the  honorable  gentleman  from  Mary- 
land, as  the  only  panoply  competent  to  enable 
him  to  repel  the  point  of  such  injurious  accusa- 
VOL.  VL— 27 


tions,  as  his  own  invention  would  not  supply  him 
with  a  satisfactory  answer.  Still,  if  in  reality 
our  faith,  by  treaty,  was  thus  plighted,  though 
he  should  deem  the  acquisition  of  the  whole 
territory  a  vital  misfortune,  and  should  think 
it  would  have  been  happier  for  us  if  the  Missis- 
sippi had  been  an  eternal  torrent  of  burning 
lava,  impassable  as  the  lake  which  separates  the 
evil  from  the  good,  and  the  regions  beyond  it 
destined  to  be  covered  forever  with  brakes  and 
jungles,  and  the  impenetrable  haunts  of  the 
wolf  and  the  panther ;  yet,  he  would  not  then 
advocate  a  breach  of  the  public  faith,  but  he 
should  think  it  the  duty  of  Congress  to  recom- 
mend a  new  negotiation  with  the  present  bene- 
ficent monarch  of  France,  to  the  end  of  obtain- 
ing his  release  from  the  provisions  of  a  treaty  so 
fatal  to  our  best  interests. 

"Without  this  power  of  annexing  conditions, 
the  United  States,  he  said,  would  be  a  strange 
anomaly  in  the  society  of  nations — compelled  to 
admit  to  their  bosom,  and  to  a  participation  of 
their  fundamental  powers  and  privileges,  with- 
out terms  or  restrictions,  any  people  in  what- 
ever part  of  the  world,  which  the  Executive 
Government  should  acquire  by  treaty,  however 
alien  their  laws  and  usages  might  be  from  those 
of  our  own  nation.  For  it  is  insisted  that  a 
colonial  policy  is  abhorrent,  from  the  genius  of 
our  constitution,  and  that  States  must  be  formed 
as  soon  as  possible  in  all  our  possessions.  He 
believed  no  nation  on  earth  but  ourselves  were 
ever  placed  in  such  a  predicament,  nor  did  he 
perceive  how  a  sovereign  State  could  ever  form 
a  union  with  a  foreign  sovereign  or  people  with- 
out such  a  power.  On  the  same  foundation, 
alone,  could  Scotland  be  held  to  the  restrictions 
imposed  by  the  articles  of  union  with  England. 
Cases,  and  those  by  no  means  extreme,  might 
be  imagined,  in  which  the  exercise  of  such 
a  power  would  be  indispensable  to  the  safety 
and  policy  of  the  principal  State.  It  is  not 
long,  for  example,  since  the  feudal  system  pre- 
vailed in  France ;  and  the  Inquisition,  though 
with  features  somewhat  relenting,  still  holds  its 
iron  sway  in  Spain.  Louisiana  has  belonged  to 
these  nations  in  succession.  He  knew  not 
whether  feudal  tenures  had  been  ever  intro- 
duced into  that  country ;  but  there  was  nothing 
extravagant  in  the  supposition  that  they,  or  at 
least  some  of  the  badges  of  feudality,  might 
have  been  there  tolerated.  If  such  had  been 
the  circumstances,  should  the  United  States  be 
held  to  admit  new  States  in  that  territory,  with- 
out stipulating  for  the  abolition  of  these  ten- 
ures ?  Must  we  have  subjected  our  citizens  mi- 
grating thither  to  all  the  oppressions  of  villanage, 
of  aids  and  services,  and  the  detestable  bondage 
of  the  feudal  vassals?  Or,  if  a  branch  of  the 
Inquisition  had  been  established  there,  could  we 
not  have  interposed  to  put  down  that  pillar  of 
an  established  religion?  Or,  if  the  torture  had 
been  practised  as  it  was  under  the  civil  law  in 
France  and  Spain,  could  no  controlling  power 
be  retained  by  any  compact  or  agreement  to 
extirpate  that  abomination? 


418 


ABRIDGMENT  OF  THE 


SENATE.] 


Maine  and  Missouri. 


[JANUARY,  1820. 


Mr.  O.  said  he  would  suppose  another  case, 
not  likely  to  happen,  but  yet,  as  he  trusted,  not 
outrageo'usly  improbable.  There  were,  as  was 
well  known,  in  many  parts  of  this  country,  so- 
cieties of  persons  called  Shakers,  of  good  moral 
characters,  and  exemplary  habits  of  industry, 
whose  fundamental  doctrines  were  founded  on 
the  duty  of  celibacy.  They  are  also  a  rich  peo- 
ple, arid,  in  some  of  the  States,  experience  inter- 
ruptions in  their  endeavors  to  augment  their 
numbers,  and  inconveniences  from  laws  which 
press  upon  their  consciences,  especially  in  mili- 
tary concerns.  Imagine,  sir,  said  he,  all  these 
sects  combined  and  determined  to  make  a  pil- 
grimage, and  become  sojourners  in  this  new 
country  of  promise.  Figure  to  yourself  four  or 
five  thousand  adults  of  both  sexes,  with  their 
children,  in  separate  and  dismal  processions, 
marching  beyond  the  Mississippi  until  they 
should  find  a  spot  suited  to  their  occasions; 
then  halting,  and  sending  you  a  missionary, 
with  the  intelligence  of  their  demand  to  be  ad- 
mitted as  a  State.  Are  you  bound  to  admit 
them  without  a  stipulation  that  they  shall  make 
no  laws  prohibiting  marriage,  at  the  moment 
you  know  this  to  be  the  main  design  of  their 
emigration,  and  thus  secure  to  a  sect  of  those 
peculiar  and  anti-social  tenets  a  monopoly  of 
the  entire  State,  and  a  power  of  virtually  ex- 
cluding from  its  jurisdiction  the  great  mass  of 
your  citizens?  There  is  no  end  to  the  instances 
•which  might  be  multiplied,  wherein  your  inter- 
ference would  be  indispensable  for  the  protec- 
tion of  your  citizens,  and  the  prevention  of  con- 
tagious customs  and  institutions  adverse  to  the 
policy  and  nature  of  our  Government.  The 
consequences  of  the  doctrine  maintained  on  the 
other  side  would  be  detrimental  to  the  Territo- 
rial inhabitants ;  it  would  create  a  reluctance 
to  admit  them  all  into  the  Union.  Besides,  if 
compacts  of  this  description  would  not  be  ob- 
ligatory hereafter,  those  already  framed  are 
void,  and  being  void  in  part,  are  wholly  null. 
Hence  would  arise  uproar  and  confusion  wild : 
all  things  done  under  the  ordinance,  and  the 
laws  which  recognize  it,  are  liable  to  be  abro- 
gated. The  great  and  flourishing  State  of 
Ohio,  and  her  contiguous  neighbors,  and  all  that 
is  fixed  to  their  soil,  should  of  right  revert  to 
the  Union,  and  the  grants  of  Georgia  and  North 
Carolina  are  ipso  facto  rescinded ;  for  the  sub- 
ject-matter being  not  within  the  powers  of  the 
constitution,  all  contracts  respecting  it,  or  grow- 
ing out  of  it,  must  be  void. 

Here,  then,  Mr.  0.  said,  he  might  safely  rest 
the  question.  Language  could  not  furnish  a 
power  more  clear  and  express  than  the  constitu- 
tional article  to  admit  new  States ;  and,  having 
these  express  words  for  his  basis,  he  would 
again  request  nothing  better  than  the  speech  of 
the  gentleman  from  Maryland ;  not  his  speech 
of  yesterday,  but  the  model  of  forensic  argu- 
ment and  eloquence  which  he  had  exhibited- in 
the  case  of  the  Bank  of  the  United  States,  to 
show  that  the  faculty  of  imposing  conditions 
was  among  the  necessary  derivative  powers, 


even  if  the  meaning  of  the  word  states  was  not 
as  explicit  as  he  had  shown  it  to  be. 

In  the  view  which  he  had  thus  presented  of 
the  subject,  Mr.  O.  said,  he  had  endeavored  to 
establish  principles,  which,  if  sound,  contained 
a  substantial  refutation  of  the  most  important 
dogmas  advanced  by  the  honorable  gentleman 
from  Maryland,  though  not  in  the  order  in 
which  they  had  been  arranged  by  him.  He 
would,  therefore,  pass  rapidly  over  a  review  of 
some  of  his  objections,  though  his  answers 
might  seem  like  repetitions  in  another  form,  of 
a  portion  of  his  previous  remarks ;  and  if,  among 
the  specimens  of  brilliant  ores  and  gems  that 
were  scattered  through  the  honorable  gentle- 
man's collection,  he  should  occasionally  find 
some  whose  genuineness  he  doubted,  he  would 
take  leave  to  point  them  out,  though  his  unskil- 
ful finger  might  disturb  the  beauty  of  the  whole 
arrangement.  The  honorable  member  had 
dwelt  with  great  pathos  upon  the  enormous 
character  of  the  power  claimed  for  Congress 
under  the  constitution,  and  its  consequent  li- 
ability to  abuse.  But  the  power  of  full  sov- 
ereignty is  in  its  nature  enormous.  If  the 
United  States  are  capable  of  taking  and  holding 
a  grant  in  full  sovereignty,  there  is  no  security 
against  their  abuse  of  powers,  except  what 
arises  from  the  character  of  the  people  and 
their  institutions.  Here,  however,  limitations 
are  provided  by  the  treaty.  There  can  be  no 
abuse  of  power  where  the  inhabitants  are  enti- 
tled to  all  the  rights  of  citizens  of  the  United 
States. 

It  has  been  also  contended,  that  as  Congress 
has  not  the  constitutional  power  to  establish, 
so  neither  is  it  competent  to  abolish  slavery. 
To  this  he  answered,  that  the  attempt  was 
neither  to  do  the  one  nor  the  other ;  but  to  pre- 
vent its  introduction,  by  a  fair  compact,  into  a 
new  region,  where  it  had  not  been  ^Established 
by  law.  He  disavowed  entirely  the  right  of 
Congress  to  interpose  its  authority  in  relation 
to  slavery  in  the  old  States,  and  protested 
against  the  wish  or  design  to  promote  a  general 
emancipation  of  their  slaves,  nothing  doubting 
but  that  such  a  measure  would  be  pregnant 
with  evil  to  master  and  man.  A  more  impor- 
tant principle  asserted  by  the  honorable  gentle- 
man, he  said,  was  this:  That  when  Missouri 
becomes  a  State,  she  would  acquire,  ipso  facto, 
the  right  to  abrogate  our  restrictions  as  an  in- 
cident to  State  sovereignty.  This  assertion  is, 
in  fact,  begging  the  question.  If,  by  the  consti- 
tution, conditions  may  be  imposed  as  precedent 
to  her  becoming  a  State,  they  cannot  be  re- 
scinded by  Missouri  in  her  capacity  of  State. 
There  is  the  widest  possible  distinction  between 
legislating  upon  the  internal  concerns  of  a  State, 
after  she  assumes  that  character,  and  framing  a 
compact  by  a  legislative  act  previously  to  that 
event,  which  is  to  constitute,  prospectively,  the 
fundamentals  of  their  future  constitution.  In 
order  to  effect  the  latter  object,  it  is  necessary 
only  to  settle  the  question,  whether  the  inhab- 
itants of  a  territory  have  a  capacity  to  con- 


DEBATES  OF  CONGRESS. 


419 


JANUARY,  1820.] 


Maine  and  Missouri. 


[SENATE. 


tract?  If  they  are  destitute  of  this  power, 
there  is  no  safety  in  dealing  with  them,  no  se- 
curity for  any  of  your  reservations,  for  your  ex- 
emption from  taxation  on  your  own  lands,  for 
securing  the  trial  by  jury,  or  habeas  corpus,  or 
any  other  privilege.  If  they,  on  the  contrary, 
are  capable  of  making  a  compact,  how  can  they 
become  entitled  to  commit  a  fraud  by  breaking 
it,  in  consequence  of  changing  the  form  of  their 
community  ?  If  they  can  bind  the  United  States 
they  can  bind  themselves.  If  they  can  claim 
charter  rights,  they  must  be  held  to  the  perform- 
ance of  charter  obligations  and  conditions.  The 
people  of  the  United  States  have  framed  a  con- 
stitution ;  but  their  debts,  contracts,  and  obliga- 
tions, antecedently  incurred,  have  not  been,  and 
can  never  be,  with  justice  or  honor,  renounced. 
It  would  be  a  most  unhappy  exposition  of  State 
rights  that  should  render  the  opposite  theory 
convincing  to  the  nation  :  its  moral  would  be, 
that  no  good  faith  could  be  expected  from  a 
territorial  population,  and  its  corollary,  that  no 
bargain  should  be  made  with  them. 

WEDNESDAY,  January  26. 
Maine  and  Missouri. 

The  Senate  then  resumed  the  consideration 
of  the  Missouri  question. 

Mr.  SMITH,  of  South  Carolina,  observed,  that, 
after  the  Senate  had  heard  from  the  honorable 
gentleman  from  Maryland,  (Mr.  PETKNTEY,)  a 
speech  of  five  hours  in  continuance,  not  less 
distinguished  for  its  logical  and  unsophisticated 
reasoning,  and  its  pure,  classical  style,  than  for 
its  unrivalled  eloquence  and  brilliancy  of  fancy, 
and  which  had  been  preceded  by  a  number  of 
eloquent  speeches  from  other  gentlemen,  on  the 
same  side  of  the  question,  he  could  hardly  in- 
dulge a  hope  that  the  Senate  would  believe,  at 
this  late  hour  of  the  discussion,  any  further 
light  could  be  shed  upon  it.  But,  as  he  be- 
lieved this  to  be  a  more  important  subject  than 
any  wliich  had  agitated  the  public  mind  since 
this  Government  had  been  established,  if  the 
Senate  would  have  the  goodness  to  give  him 
their  attention,  he  would  beg  leave  to  present 
his  humble  views.  He  knew  many  gentlemen 
thought  the  subject  already  exhausted ;  and  he 
would,  therefore,  that  he  might  not  contribute 
further  to  weary  the  patience  of  the  Senate, 
carefully  avoid  touching  those  points  which  had 
already  been  so  ably  treated,  and  so  luminously 
explained  by  others.  If  he  should,  it  would  be 
to  give  them  a  different  construction,  and  from 
reasons  different  from  those  which  had  as  yet 
been  applied. 

The  first  clause  of  the  ninth  section  of  the 
first  article  of  the  Constitution  of  the  United 
States,  in  the  following  words,  "  the  migration 
or  importation  of  such  persons  as  any  of  the 
States  now  existing  shall  think  proper  to  admit, 
shall  not  be  prohibited  by  Congress  prior  to  the 
year  1808,  but  a  tax  or  duty  may  be  imposed 
on  such  importation,  not  exceeding  ten  dollars 
for  each  pi-rson,''  has  received  a  different  con- 
struction by  different  gentlemen,  on  both  sides 


of  this  question ;  and  he  would  beg  leave  to 
give  it  his  construction.  The  Constitution  of 
the  United  States  is  the  supreme  law  of  the 
land,  and,  like  all  other  laws,  when  any  doubts 
arise  as  respects  its  meaning,  some  fixed  rules 
must  be  resorted  to  by  which  these  doubts  can. 
be  solved.  The  rule  laid  down  by  one  of  the 
greatest  jurists  known  to  us,  (Judge  Black- 
stone,)  is,  to  ascertain,  by  the  fairest  and  most 
rational  means,  the  intention  of  the  law-giver 
at  the  time  the  law  was  made  or  enacted.  This 
is  done  in  various  ways ;  either  by  the  words 
of  the  law,  by  the  subject-matter,  the  context, 
the  effects  and  consequences,  or  the  reason  and 
spirit  of  the  law  itself.  This  rule  has  not  only 
the  sanction  of  Judge  Blackstone's  opinion,  but 
it  has  the  sanction  of  reason  on  its  side,  and 
which  no  honorable  gentleman  of  the  Senate 
would  controvert. 

In  looking  to  the  reasons,  you  must  employ 
all  the  grounds  necessary  to  ascertain  for  what 
purpose  a  particular  principle  was  adopted ; 
and,  if  the  words  of  a  law  are  doubtful,  to  as- 
certain what  particular  cause  led  to  the  use  of 
those  words  in  that  law.  In  doing  this,  djffer- 
ent  gentlemen  had  presented  to  the  view  of  the 
Senate,  different  reasons  why  the  words  "  mi- 
gration or  importation  "  were  used  in  this  sec- 
tion of  the  constitution.  Those  gentlemen  who 
pressed  the  principle  of  restriction,  did  it  on 
the  authority  of  the  words  migration  or  im- 
portation. They  say  the  slaveholding  States 
refused  to  subscribe  to  the  Federal  Constitu- 
tion, unless  it  should  be  conceded  to  them  by 
the  non-slaveholding  States,  that  they  should 
be  permitted  to  continue  the  further  importa- 
tion of  slaves  from  Africa,  until  the  year  1808 ; 
and  in  compromising  the  principles  upon  which 
the  constitution  should  be  framed,  they  yielded 
to  the  General  Government  the  right,  after  that 
period,  to  restrain  the  migration  of  slaves  from 
one  State  to  another,  and  hence  they  pretend 
to  derive  the  power  vested  in  Congress,  to  in- 
hibit the  admission  of  slavery  into  the  State  of 
Missouri.  They  have  some  other  grounds, 
which  they  deem  auxiliary,  and  which  he  would 
examine  presently,  but  the  preceding  was  their 
strong  ground.  For  this  construction  they  of- 
fer no  reasons  but  that  it  comports  with  the 
general  principles  of  free  government,  and  the 
spirit  of  the  Declaration  of  Independence. 

On  the  other  hand,  gentlemen  who  oppose 
the  right  of  restriction  have  given  a  different 
construction,  and  think  that  the  word  "  migra- 
tion "  is  coupled  with  the  word  "  importation," 
and  is  synonymous,  and  that  the  import  of  it  is 
entirely  foreign ;  that  it  does  not  relate  to  our 
domestic  relations,  and  could  never  be  intended 
to  regulate  the  internal  distribution  of  our 
slaves,  [Mr.  PIXKNEY,  of  Maryland.]  Some 
other  constructions  had  been  presented,  and 
enforced  by  strong  arguments,  [Mr.  WALKEB,  of 
Georgia.]  These  grounds  of  construction  had 
been  in  abler  hands  than  his,  and  he  would  not 
disturb  them  ;  but  he  would  repose  his  solution 
of  these  words  on  a  ground  which  had  not  yet 


420 


ABRIDGMENT  OF  THE 


SENATE.] 


Maine  and  Missouri. 


[JANUARY,  1820. 


been  presented  to  the  Senate,  by  any  gentle- 
man on  either  side.  He  would  draw  it  from 
the  Declaration  of  Independence  itself;  and, 
for  that  purpose,  would  beg  leave  to  read  the 
first  clause  of  that  declaration,  in  these  words : 

«'  When,  in  the  course  of  human  events,  it  be- 
comes necessary  for  one  people  to  dissolve  the  politi- 
cal bonds  which  have  connected  them  with  another, 
and  to  assume,  among  the  powers  of  the  earth,  the 
separate  and  equal  station  to  which  the  laws  of  na- 
ture and  of  nature's  God  entitle  them,  a  decent  re- 
spect to  the  opinions  of  mankind  requires  that  they 
should  declare  the  causes  which  impel  them  to  a 
separation." 

Sir,  said  Mr.  S.,  the  gentleman  has  been  a 
lawyer  of  the  first  respectability,  and  a  judge 
of  high  standing,  in  the  State  he  represents ; 
and  he  could  not  suppose  the  gentleman  could 
conceive  there  was  any  force  in  the  analogy 
which  he  had  attempted.  The  cases  were  not 
parallel.  Missouri  had  a  claim  founded  in 
right ;  and  had  the  uncle  been  under  any  obli- 
gation to  make  titles,  he  could  prescribe  no 
conditions  as  to  what  kind  of  property  the 
nephew  should  hold  on  the  land.  He  would 
have  as  much  right  to  stock  it  with  dogs,  as  he 
would  to  stock  it  with  cattle  or  horses.  Here 
he  appealed  to  the  legal  judgment  of  that  hon- 
orable gentleman,  to  say  if  he,.  Mr.  S.,  was  not 
correct.  As  a  sound  lawyer,  he  defied  him  to 
negative  the  position. 

Sir,  that  honorable  gentleman,  whose  mind 
and  eloquence  had  so  often  illumined  and  de- 
lighted this  Senate,  seemed  to  have  fallen  far 
short  of  his  usual  greatness.  Instead*  of  dis- 
cussing the  constitutional  question  with  his 
technical  abilities,  he  had  been  presenting  to 
the  Senate  the  horrid  spectacle  of  bears,  pan- 
thers, the  Mississippi  rolling  with  liquid  fire, 
mad  dogs,  and  hydrophobia !  This  gentleman 
has  made  such  a  departure  from  the  subject, 
and  has  been  so  incoherent  in  his  arguments, 
if  he  had  not,  at  setting  out,  intimated  that  he 
should  speak  one  way  and  vote  the  other,  he, 
Mr.  S.,  would  have  entertained  serious  appre- 
hensions that  the  gentleman  had  really  been  bit 
by  some  of  his  own  mad  dogs,  and  was  labor- 
ing under  the  hydrophobia. 

There  was  but  one  more  view  which  he 
would  take  of  this  case.  Much  had  been  said 
of  the  effects  of  slavery  upon  society.  He 
would  compare  the  morality  of  the  slavehold- 
ing  States  with  that  of  the  non-slaveholding 
States.  He  did  not  mean  the  morality  of  indi- 
viduals, but  he  would  compare  the  political 
morality  of  the  States.  South  of  the  State  of 
Pennsylvania  you  had  heard  of  no  rebellions, 
no  insurrections,  no  delays  in  performing  all 
the  requisitions  of  the  State  and  General  Gov- 
ernments. The  State  of  Massachusetts  had 
emancipated  what  slaves  she  had  left,  shortly 
after  the  Treaty  of  Peace  in  1783.  In  three 
years  after,  they  had  a  rebellion  which  shook 
the  State  to  its  centre.  The  courts  of  justice 
were  broken  up  throughout  the  State.  The 
civil  authority  was  put  down.  Kecourse  was 


had  to  arms,  from  one  end  of  the  State  to  the 
other.  Battles  ensued ;  some  were  killed,  oth- 
ers wounded,  others  taken  prisoners,  and  some 
hanged,  or  rather  condemned,  and  pardoned  by 
the  Executive.  It  raged  to  such  a  degree,  that 
the  principal  citizens  had  at  one  time  deter- 
mined to  make  no  efforts  to  check  it,  that  the 
imbecility  of  a  republican  Government  might 
be  fully  manifested,  and  some  Government  of 
greater  energy  resorted  to.  What  that  Gov- 
ernment would  have  been,  he  knew  not ;  but 
he  supposes  they  would  have  chosen  a  King. 
This  statement  was  contained  in  Minot's  history 
of  that  transaction,  which  he  had  then  before 
him,  and  which  had  been  furnished  him  from 
the  public  library. 

The  State  of  Pennsylvania  had  freed  her 
slaves  in  1780.  In  January,  1791,  the  Congress 
of  the  United  States  had  under  consideration 
the  subject  of  excise.  The  Legislature  of  Penn- 
sylvania were  then  in  session.  They  took  up 
the  subject  with  the  same  temper — with  the 
same  enthusiasm  and  heat — which  they  have 
so  lately  manifested  on  the  Missouri  question, 
and  passed  the  following  resolutions  for  in- 
structing their  members  of  the  Senate  to  op- 
pose the  measure : — 

"  HOUSE  OF  REPRESENTATIVES, 

"January  22,  1791. 

"  The  Legislature  of  the  Commonwealth,  ever  at- 
tentive to  the  rights  of  their  constituents,  and  con- 
ceiving it  a  duty  incumbent  on  them  to  express  their 
sentiments  on  such  matters  of  a  public  nature  as,  in 
their  opinion,  have  a  tendency  to  destroy  their  rights, 
agree  to  the  following  resolutions : 

"  Resolved,  That  any  proceedings  on  the  part  of  the 
United  States  tending  to  the  collection  of  a  revenue 
by  means  of  excise,  established  upon  principles  sub- 
versive of  the  peace,  liberty,  and  rights  of  the  citi- 
zens, ought  to  attract  the  attention  of  this  House. 

"Resolved,  That  no  public  exigency  within  the 
knowledge  or  contemplation  of  this  House,  can,  in 
their  opinion,  warrant  the  adoption  of  any  species  of 
taxation  which  shall  violate  those  rights  which  are  the 
basis  of  our  Government,  and  which  would  exhibit 
the  singular  spectacle  of  a  nation  resolutely  opposing 
the  oppression  of  others,  in  order  to  enslave  itself. 

"  Resolved,  That  these  sentiments  be  communica- 
ted to  the  Senators  representing  the  State  of  Penn- 
sylvania in  the  Senate  of  the  United  States,  with  a 
hope  that  they  will  oppose  every  part  of  the  excise 
bill,  now  before  the  Congress,  which  shall  militate 
against  the  just  rights  and  liberties  of  the  people." 

This  was  a  high-handed  measure,  to  oppose 
the  constituted  authorities  in  this  bold  and  me- 
nacing form,  because  they  were  about  to  lay  a 
small  duty  on  whiskey,  that  delicious  beverage. 
This  law  was  passed  by  Congress,  and,  the  year 
following,  Mr.  Neville,  the  inspector  of  the  rev- 
enue, was  often  menaced.  At  length  they 
broke  out  into  an  open  insurrection  in  the 
neighborhood  of  Pittsburg.  The  public  mind 
was  much  agitated.  Companies  armed  them- 
selves, and  marched  into  the  neighborhood  of 
the  inspector.  Brackenridge,  in  his  history  of 
that  insurrection,  which  Mr.  S.  had  in  his  hand, 
gives  the  following  account : 


DEBATES  OF  CONGRESS. 


421 


JANUARY,  1820.] 


Missouri  Question. 


[Sow 


"  TLe  next  morning,  after  daybreak,  the  inspector, 
having  just  got  oat  of  bed  and  opened  the  door,  dis- 
covered a  number  of  armed  men  about  the  house, 
and,  demanding  of  them  who  they  were  and  whence 
they  came,  the  answer  was  such  as  induced  him  to 
consider  their  intentions  to  be  hostile  ;  and,  on  re- 
fusing to  disperse,  he  fired  on  them.  The  fire  was 
returned,  and  a  contest  ensued.  The  negroes,  from 
some  adjoining  small  buildings,  fired  on  the  flank  of 
the  assailants,  and  they  were  repulsed  with  six 
wounded,  one  mortally." 

He  wished  to  call  the  attention  of  gentlemen 
to  this  faithful  attachment  of  the  slaves  ;  they 
repelled  the  insurgents,  without  an  order  even 
from  the  master.  They  wounded  six,  one  mor- 
tally. This  all  passed  in  Pittsburg,  and  not  a 
white  man  ever  approached  the  scene.  The 
inspector's  houses  were  all  burned  down  the 
next  day,  and  no  man  attempted  to  oppose 
them.  These  slaves  have  presented  an  exam- 
ple of  fidelity  and  bravery  in  defence  of  their 
master,  while  the  whole  population  of  Pitts- 
burg  were  terrified  into  submission.  He  pre- 
sented this  for  the  view  of  Marcus  and  his  as- 
sociates. It  may  serve  them  as  a  beacon. 

This  insurrection  extended  itself  over  a  great 
part  of  the  western  section  of  Pennsylvania. 
It  required  the  strong  arm  of  the  General  Gov- 
ernment to  quell  it.  A  regular  armed  force 
was  called  out  before  its  impetuosity  could  be 
checked  ;  an  impetuosity  which  threatened  to 
overwhelm  that  State,  if  not  the  whole  Union. 
Does  Pennsylvania  and  Massachusetts  wish 
those  feelings  and  those  scenes  renewed?  If 
they  do,  the  course  they  have  taken  may  lead 
them  directly  to  it.  The  American  people,  of 
whom  it  was  his  pride  and  his  glory  that  he 
was  one,  were  as  honest  as  any  other  people  in 
the  world,  and  only  wanted  to  be  correctly  in- 
formed, to  do  justice  to  every  policy  and  every 
measure.  But  if,  under  the  misguided  influ- 
ence of  fanaticism  and  humanity,  the  impetu- 
ous torrent  is  once  put  in  motion,  what  hand 
short  of  Omnipotence  can  stay  it  ? 

New  York  has  been  a  slaveholding  State, 
until  very  lately,  in  the  strictest  sense  of  the 
word.  The  Governor  of  New  York  recom- 
mended to  the  Legislature  of  that  State,  only 
three  years  ago,  to  take  measures  for  the  eman- 
cipation of  their  slaves.  Two  years  ago  these 
measures  were  taken ;  and,  at  the  next  session 
of  Congress  thereafter,  their  Representatives 
and  Senators  came  out  upon  this  very  Missouri 
question,  as  the  champions  of  freedom ;  and 
that  State  has  given  as  hopeful  signs  of  a  tur- 
bulent temper  as  either  Pennsylvania  or  Massa- 
chusetts, for  the  time  that  she  has  had  after 
emancipation.  "What  progress  she  will  make 
in  revolutions  time  will  develop. 

When  Mr.  SMITH  had  concluded  the  Senate 
adjourned. 

THURSDAY,  January  27. 
Delaware  Resolutions  against  admitting  Slavery 

in  Missouri. 
Mr.  VAN  DYKE  communicated  the  following 


resolutions  of  the  Legislature  of  the  State  of 
Delaware,  which  were  read: 

"  Resolved  by  the  Senate  and  House  of  Representa- 
tives of  the  State  of  Delaware,  in  General  Assembly 
met,  That  it  is,  in  the  opinion  of  this  General  Assem- 
bly, the  constitutional  right  of  the  United  States  ia 
Congress  assembled,  to  enact  and  establish,  as  one  of 
the  conditions  for  the  admission  of  a  new  State  into 
the  Union,  a  provision  which  shall  effectually  pre- 
vent the  further  introduction  of  slavery  into  such 
State  :  and  that  a  due  regard  to  the  true  interest  of 
such  State,  as  well  as  of  the  other  States,  requires 
that  the  same  should  be  done. 

"  Resolved,  That  a  copy  of  the  above  and  foregoing 
resolution  be  transmitted  by  the  Speaker  of  the  Sen- 
ate to  each  of  the  Senators  and  Representatives  from 
this  State  in  the  Congress  of  the  United  States." 


FRIDAY,  January  28. 
Missouri  Question. 

The  Senate  resumed,  as  in  Committee  of  the 
Whole,  the  consideration  of  the  bill,  entitled 
"  An  act  for  the  admission  of  the  State  of 
Maine  into  the  Union,"  together  with  the 
amendments  proposed  thereto. 

Mr.  VAN  DYKE,  of  Delaware,  rose  and  ad- 
dressed the  Senate  as  follows  : 

Mr.  President :  Conscious  that  I  cannot  add 
to  the  force  of  arguments  which  have  been  al- 
ready urged  against  the  proposed  amendment, 
with  unrivalled  powers  of  eloquence,  nothing 
but  a  sense  of  duty,  growing  out  of  the  pecu- 
liar situation  in  which  I  stand  in  relation  to 
this  question,  could  induce  me  to  trespass  on 
the  patience  of  the  Senate.  This  subject,  sir, 
has  produced  much  excitement  in  different  sec- 
tions of  the  Union ;  that  excitement  has  per- 
vaded the  State  which  I  have  the  honor  in  part 
to  represent ;  there,  too,  public  meetings  have 
been  called ;  opinions  in  favor  of  the  proposed 
restriction  have  been  expressed,  and  are  pub- 
lished under  the  sanction  of  names  deservedly 
esteemed  for  talents  and  integrity.  The  Legis- 
lature of  that  State  also,  in  their  wisdom,  have 
resolved,  that  the  proposed  restriction  is  com- 
patible with  the  constitution,  and  ought  to  be 
adopted  as  a  measure  of  sound  policy.  That 
resolution  is  now  upon  your  table.  The  opin- 
ion of  that  honorable  Legislature  justly  merits, 
and  will  ever  command,  my  sincere  respect. 
To  their  confidence  in  me  I  am  indebted  for  a 
place  in  this  dignified  assembly;  to  deserve 
and  retain  the  good  opinion  of  that  honorable 
body  will  ever  be  my  highest  ambition.  But, 
sir,  as  it  is  my  misfortune  to  differ  from  them 
in  sentiment  on  the  great  constitutional  ques- 
tion, I  am  not  satisfied  to  give  a  silent  vote. 

The  honorable  gentleman  from  Pennsylvania 
who  moved  the  amendment,  remarked,  that  it 
was  a  question  of  great  importance  between 
the  people  of  the  United  States  and  those  of 
Missouri.  It  is,  sir,  a  question  of  importance, 
because  it  involves  the  construction  of  the  great 
charter  of  our  liberties.  The  zeal  with  which 
the  amendment  has  been  urged  and  opposed, 
evinces  that  it  excites  more  than  common  in- 


422 


ABRIDGMENT  OF  THE 


SENATE.] 


Missouri  Question. 


[JANUARY,  1820. 


terest.  A  question  touching  the  extent  of  pow- 
ers delegated  to  Congress  by  the  constitution, 
must  ever  be  deeply  interesting ;  for  in  its  de- 
cision are  implicated  the  rights  reserved  to  the 
people,  and  the  sovereignty  of  the  States.  It 
was,  however,  not  anticipated  that  the  Decla- 
ration of  Independence  would  be  resorted  to, 
as  furnishing  a  key  to  the  construction  of  the 
constitution  of  1787,  or  that  arguments  would 
be  drawn  from  that  source  to  give  color  to  a 
claim  of  power  under  the  latter  instrument. 
Much  less  was  it  expected  that  the  recital  of 
abstract  theoretical  principles,  in  'a  national 
manifesto  in  1776,  would  be  gravely  urged  at 
this  day,  to  prove  that  involuntary  servitude 
does  not  lawfully  exist  within  the  United 

tleman  has  referred,  with  an  air  of  triumphant 
confidence,  reminding  us  that  the  whole  people 
then  united  in  proclaiming  to  the  world,  "  that 
all  men  are  created  equal ;  that  they  are  en- 
dowed by  their  Creator  with  certain  inaliena- 
ble rights ;  that  among  these  are  life,  liberty, 
and  the  pursuit  of  happiness."  Sir,  these  prin- 
ciples are  correct,  and  intelligible  in  the  politi- 
cal sense  in  which  they  were  used  by  the 
statesmen  who  signed  that  manifesto.  They 
are  the  received  doctrines  of  schools,  in  rela- 
tion to  man,  as  he  is  supposed  to  exist  in  the 
fancied  state  of  nature.  But  that  individuals, 
entering  into  society,  must  give  up  a  share  of 
liberty  to  preserve  the  rest,  is  a  truth  that  re- 
quires no  demonstration.  Those  principles 
formed  correct  premises  from  which  to  draw 
the  conclusion,  "that,  to  secure  these  rights, 
governments  are  instituted  among  men,  deriv- 
ing their  just  powers  from  the  consent  of  the 
governed  ;  that  the  people  have  a  right  to  alter 
or  to  abolish  one  form  of  government,  and  to 
institute  new  government."  They  also  formed 
correct  premises  from  which  (under  existing 
oppression)  was  drawn  the  inference,  "that 
these  united  colonies  are,  and  of  right  ought  to 
be,  free  and  independent  States."  But,  Mr. 
President,  the  distinguished  statesmen  who 
pledged  to  each  other  "  their  lives,  their  for- 
tunes, and  their  sacred  honor,"  in  support  of 
that  declaration,  were  not  visionary  theorists ; 
they  were  men  of  sound,  practical,  common 
sense,  and,  from  the  premises  assumed,  arrived 
at  sound  practical  conclusions.  When  we  call 
to  mind  the  state  of  this  young  country  at  that 
awful  moment,  struggling  for  the  right  of  self- 
government,  engaged  in  a  war  with  the  most 
powerful  nation  of  Europe,  pressed  on  all  sides 
with  accumulating  difficulties  and  dangers,  can 
it  be  credited  that  the  Declaration  of  Inde- 
pendence was  designed  to  dissolve  the  bonds  of 
social  order  throughout  the  Stated — to  reduce 
all  men  to  a  state  of  nature,  and  to  set  at  large 
a  host  of  slaves,  the  readiest  instruments  to  be 
employed  by  the  enemy  in  the  work  of  destruc- 
tion, in  the  very  bosom  of  the  nation  ?  Think 
you,  sir,  that  it  was  meant  to  invoke  the  genius 
of  universal  emancipation,  and  to  proclaim  lib- 
erty and  equality  to  every  human  being  who 


breathed  the  air,  and  trod  the  soil  of  this  new 
Republic?  The  faith  of  that  man  who  can  be- 
lieve this,  is  much  stronger  than  mine.  No, 
sir,  that  manifesto  was  not  intended — was  not 
understood — to  abolish  or  to  alter  any  law  then 
existing  in  any  State  for  the  security  of  prop- 
erty, or  for  the  regulation  of  their  internal  con- 
cerns. Self-preservation — a  regard  for  their 
own  personal  safety,  and  that  of  their  families, 
and  a  regard  for  the  best  interests  of  the  nation 
— forbade  those  sages  to  do  such  an  act.  But, 
sir,  were  slaves  liberated  in  any  State  of  the 
Union  by  virtue  of  the  Declaration  of  Inde- 
pendence ?  Never.  On  the  contrary,  wherev- 
er emancipation  has  been  effected,  it  has  been 
by  the  authority  of  State  laws;  and  every 
State  has  assumed,  and  invariably  exercised,  at 
its  discretion,  the  right  of  legislating  about  this 
class  of  persons,  down  to  the  present  day. 
Pennsylvania,  so  justly  applauded  for  her  be- 
nevolence towards  these  persons,  did  not  admit 
that  they  obtained  freedom  under  the  Declara- 
tion of  Independence,  for  she  undertook  to 
loose  their  chains  gradually,  by  her  own  legis- 
lative authority,  in  1780 ;  and  even  at  this  mo- 
ment some  are  held  in  involuntary  servitude  in 
that  State.  In  truth,  sir,  we  cannot  advance  a 
step  in  the  history  of  the  Revolution,  without 
meeting  evidence  that  there  were  in  the  nation 
two  separate  classes — free  men,  and  those  who 
were  not  free.  Consult  the  articles  of  Confed- 
eration, emanating  immediately  from  the  act  of 
Independence,  and  signed  by  many  of  the  same 
men  who  signed  that  declaration,  and,  in  arti- 
cle 4,  "  free  inhabitants  of  each  State,"  and 
"  free  citizens,"  designate  the  persons  who  were 
to  enjoy  privileges  and  immunities  under  that 
Government,  plainly  indicating  that  there  was 
another  class  of  persons  in  the  country  who 
were  not  free,  and  not  entitled  to  those  privi- 
leges. Consult  the  Treaty  of  1783,  which 
acknowledged  the  independence  of  these  States, 
and  you  will  read  a  stipulation,  on  the  part  of 
the  British,  for  the  restoring  "of  negroes  or 
other  property  of  the  American  inhabitants." 

Another  war  with  the  same  power  has  been 
recently  waged,  and  is  happily  terminated  by 
the  Treaty  of  Ghent,  in  which  you  again  find  a 
stipulation  for  the  restoration  of  "  slaves  or 
other  property."  Sir,  the  Federal  Constitution, 
whose  powers  are  now  under  examination,  in 
providing  for  the  delivering  up  of  fugitives  from 
labor,  held  to  service  under  the  laws  of  a  State, 
recognizes  as  well  the  existence  of  such  a  class 
of  persons,  as  that  they  are  held  under  the  State. 
Open  your  statute  book,  examine  the  different 
acts  which  have  been  passed  at  different  periods, 
in  which  it  became  necessary  to  notice  this  class 
of  persons,  and  you  shall  be  forced  to  acknowl- 
edge that  Congress  has  enacted  laws  recogniz- 
ng  them  as  property ;  sometimes  describing 
them  as  fugitives  from  labor,  at  others  calling 
them  slaves.  Thus,  sir,  the  act  of  12th  Febru- 
ary, 1793,  provides  for  executing  the  constitu- 
tional provision  relative  to  fugitives  from  labor. 
The  statute  erecting  Louisiana  into  two  Terri 


DEBATES  OF  CONGRESS. 


423 


JANUARY,  1820.] 


Missouri  Question. 


[SENAI 


tories  in  1804,  in  the  same  tenth  section  which 
was  read  by  the  honorable  gentleman  from  Penn- 
sylvania, speaks  in  plainer  language  where  it 
provides,  "  that  no  slave  or  slaves  shall,  directly 
or  indirectly,  be  introduced  into  said  Territory, 
except  by  citizens  of  the  United  States  removing 
into  suidTerritory  for  actual  settlement,  and  be- 
ing at  the  time  of  such  removal  bona  fide  owner  of 
such  slave  or  slaves."  This  section,  sir,  establishes 
t\vo  facts :  First,  that  a  citizen  of  the  United 
States  may  be  bona  fide  owner  of  slaves.  Second, 
that  such  citizen  had  the  right  of  removing 
with  his  slaves  from  any  State  into  the  newly 
acquired  Territory  of  Louisiana. 

I  proceed,  sir,  to  examine  the  constitutional 
question  which  the  amendment  presents.  Hap- 
pily, Mr.  President,  we  are  not  investigating 
the  principles  of  a  Government  whose  origin  is 
buried  in  the  rubbish  of  antiquity — whose 
powers  are  to  be  collected  from  history  or  tra- 
dition— which  relies  on  precedent  and  usage  to 
give  color  to  the  usurpation  of  power  in  every 
emergency :  acquiring  new  vigor  from  every 
succeeding  precedent;  and  often  from  prece- 
dents created  in  times  of  foreign  war  and  do- 
mestic violence.  Happily  for  this  nation,  its 
constitution  is  a  written  instrument,  framed  in 
a  time  of  peace,  with  care  and  deliberation,  by 
the  most  enlightened  men,  and  penned  with  all 
the  accuracy  and  precision  that  serious  thought 
and  calm  reflection  could  insure.  Its  history  is 
brief,  and  known  to  all :  the  time  and  manner 
of  its  creation,  the  circumstances  attending  its 
adoption,  are  familiar.  Many  of  the  enlightened 
statesmen  whose  talents  and-  labors  were  de- 
voted to  this  great  work,  yet  live  to  share  the 
honors  which  their  grateful  country  bestows, 
as  a  reward  due  to  their  distinguished  merit. 

We  must  remember,  then,  Mr.  President,  that 
it  is  a  written  compact,  thus  created,  thus 
adopted,  whose  powers  we  examine.  To  insure 
a  correct  result,  it  is  proper  to  bring  into 
view  certain  rules  of  reason  and  common  sense, 
applicable  to  the  construction  of  all  written  in- 
struments. That  we  must  look  to  the  intention 
of  the  parties,  as  the  polar  star,  is  the  great 
leading  rule  of  construction.  This  rule  applies 
with  equal  force  to  the  contracts  of  individuals 
in  private  life — to  compacts  between  sovereign, 
independent  States,  as  public  treaties,  and  to  a 
compact  between  the  people  and  Government, 
in  the  form  of  a  constitution.  To  ascertain  the 
intention  of  the  parties,  and  to  execute  the  com- 
pact in  good  faith,  is  the  duty  of  an  honest 
statesman.  The  intention,  sir,  is  most  naturally 
and  safely  collected  from  the  language  and  ex- 
pressions used  in  relation  to  the  subject-matter. 
If  the  expressions  be  so  indefinite  or  inartificial 
as  to  leave  the  intention  doubtful,  a  comparison 
may  be  made  of  different  parts  of  the  instru- 
ment for  elucidation,  and  from  that  comparison 
an  intention  may  be  inferred  not  incompatible 
with  what  is  plainly  and  certainly  expressed. 
Should  doubts  still  remain,  the  mind  recurs  to 
the  situation  of  the  parties  at  the  time  of  the 
compact,  and  judges,  from  the  known  condition 


of  the  parties,  how  far  the  proposed  construc- 
tion may  comport  with  reason  and  good  sense. 
These  are  means  used,  under  different  circum- 
stances, to  arrive  at  truth.  In  examining  a 
claim  of  power  under  this  constitution,  when 
we  recur  to  the  specific  enumeration  of  powers, 
attend  to  the  prohibitions  there  written,  and 
read  that  jealous  declaration  of  the  tenth 
amendment,  that  all  power  not  granted  is  re- 
served, the  conclusion  is  irresistible,  that  the 
United  States  Government  is  one  of  limited 
powers ;  that  although  supreme  and  sovereign 
as  to  all  matters  within  its  legitimate  sphere  of 
action,  yet  it  cannot  claim  a  general,  unlimited 
sovereignty.  The  people  have  created  State 
governments  also,  and  have  delegated  to  them 
other  portions  of  power  within  the  State  limits 
for  the  regulation  and  management  of  their 
internal  domestic  concerns.  A  British  states- 
man may  boast  of  the  omnipotence  of  a  British 
Parliament ;  but  an  American  statesman  will 
never  claim  the  attribute  of  omnipotence  for  an 
American  Congress. 

To  the  advocates  of  power,  in  any  instance, 
the  people  may  with  propriety  say,  show  the 
grant  of  the  power  in  the  constitution.  It  is  in- 
cumbent on  you  to  show  either  that  it  is  granted 
as  a  substantive,  independent  power,  or  that  it 
is  incidental  to  such  a  power,  by  being  necessary 
and  proper  to  be  used  as  a  mean  to  carry  such 
a  power  into  execution.  If  you  cannot  show 
this,  your  claim  is  bad,  your  pretension  must 
fail.  In  the  present  instance  you  search  in  vain 
among  the  enumerated  powers  of  the  Congress : 
examine  the  whole  catalogue,  with  the  most 
scrutinizing  eye,  it  is  not  found  there :  proceed 
to  the  section  which  enumerates  all  that  is  pro- 
hibited to  the  States,  nothing  there  written  can 
furnish  a  plausible  ground  to  infer  that  such  a 
power  was  intended  to  be  delegated  to  Congress. 
It  is  not  then  a  substantive,  independent  power, 
specified  and  defined  in  the  general  enumeration 
of  powers ;  nor  can  it,  in  \my  view,  be  raised  by 
necessary  implication.  Can  it  with  any  color 
of  right  be  asserted,  as  a  power  necessary  and 
proper  for  carrying  into  effect  any  of  the  speci- 
fied powers?  Here,  sir,  the  advocates  of  th» 
amendment  are  equally  embarrassed.  With 
which  of  the  specified  powers  is  it  connected  ? 
which  of  them  calls  upon  it  for  aid,  or  which  of 
them  can  receive  any  aid  from  it?  Is  it  neces- 
sary to  aid  in  laying  and  collecting  taxes,  bor- 
rowing money,  or  regulating  commerce?  Sir, 
you  shall  name  in  succession  every  power  enu- 
merated in  this  instrument,  examine  and  con- 
sider them  in  all  their  various  bearings  and  re- 
lations to  the  interests  and  concerns  of  this 
nation,  and  reason  and  candor  shall  compel  you 
to  acknowledge  that  the  power  now  claimed  to 
impose  this  restriction  has  not  the  remotest 
connection  with  any  of  them. 

Sir,  it  must  be  admitted  by  every  statesman, 
that  this  constitution  never  was  designed  to 
have  jurisdiction  over  the  domestic  concerns  of 
the  people  in  the  several  States.  No,  sir,  these 
are  wisely  left  exclusively  to  the  State  sover- 


424 


ABRIDGMENT  OF  THE 


SENATE.] 


New  York  Resolutions  against  the  Extension  of  Slavery. 


[JANUARY,  1820. 


eignties,  as  their  natural  guardians.  The  pro- 
posed amendment,  if  adopted,  will  regulate,  by 
an  irrevocable  provision  in  a  statute,  one  of  the 
domestic  relations  of  the  people  of  the  State  of 
Missouri.  Can  this  be  denied  ?  Need  I  name 
to  this  Senate  what  are  appropriately  termed 
the  domestic  relations  of  civil  life  ?  They  are 
those  of  husband  and  wife — to  which  happily 
succeeds  that  of  parent  and  child,  too  often  fol- 
lowed by  that  of  guardian  and  ward ;  with  all 
of  which  is  connected  that  of  master  and  ser- 
vant, either  by  voluntary  or  involuntary  servi- 
tude. These,  sir,  with  peculiar  propriety  and 
truth,  are  denominated  "the  domestic  rela- 
tions." They  exist  in  the  bosom  of  the  family, 
in  the  humble  walks  of  private  life,  and  have 
no  connection  with  the  general  political  in- 
terests of  the  Union.  If  Congress  can  regulate 
one,  why  not  all  of  these  domestic  relations  ? 
They  all  stand  on  the  same  level,  and  if  one  be 
within  the  grasp  of  your  power,  what  shall  ex- 
empt or  protect  the  rest?  Even  the  contract 
of  marriage,  and  the  period  of  release  from 
guardianship,  may  become  the  subject  of  dis- 
cussion in  some  future  Congress,  on  the  admis- 
sion of  some  future  State.  If  such  a  power  ex- 
ists, who  shall  stay  its  hand  or  prescribe  its 
limits  ?  Sir,  the  proposed  restriction  is  a  direct 
invasion  of  the  sovereignty  of  the  State — it  will 
wrest  from  Missouri  that  power  which  belongs 
to  every  State  in  the  Union,  to  regulate  its  do- 
mestic concerns  according  to  the  will  of  the 
people.  But  further,  Mr.  President,  it  cannot 
escape  observation,  that,  to  accomplish  the  pro- 
posed object,  Congress  must  invent  a  new  mode 
of  legislation — a  legislation  in  perpetuity.  In 
the  common  course  of  legislation,  every  law  is 
subject  to  be  altered,  or  repealed,  according  to 
the  wisdom  and  discretion  of  any  future  Legis- 
lature. Here  you  transcend  the  power  of  any 
legislative  body  known  to  a  Republic — you  im- 
pose by  statute  a  restriction  to  be  and  remain 
irrevocable  forever.  To  such  a  dilemma  the 
usurpation  of  power  leads.  What,  then,  Mr. 
President,  is  the  true  character  of  this  bill,  with 
such  an  amendment  ?  Not  simply  a  law,  but  a 
law  to  make,  in  part,  a  constitution  for  the 
future  State  of  Missouri;  nay,  more,  to  make 
her  constitution  in  that  point  unalterable  for- 
ever, and  place  it  beyond  the  power  of  the 
people.  Is  not  this  depriving  the  people  of 
their  acknowledged  rights,  and  the  State  of 
part  of  its  legitimate  sovereignty  ?  If  Congress 
can  thus,  by  anticipation,  make  part  of  a  con- 
stitution for  a  State,  and  force  it  upon  her  as  a 
condition  precedent  to  her  admission,  why  may 
not  Congress  make  other  parts  of  her  constitu- 
tion under  the  form  of  other  conditions  ?  The 
power  is  the  same,  the  right  is  equal.  If,  sir, 
the  people  of  Missouri  be  thus  compelled  to 
mould  their  State  constitution  according  to  the 
mandate  of  Congress,  must  not  Missouri  enter 
the  Union  shorn  of  some  of  those  beams  of 
sovereignty  that  encircle  her  sister  States  ?  Can 
she  be  said  to  stand  upon  an  equal  footing  with 
them  ?  Let  truth  and  candor  answer. 


But.  sir,  to  this  objection  it  is  replied  that 
similar  terms  were  prescribed  to  the  States  of 
Ohio,  Indiana,  and  Illinois.  True.  Recollect, 
however,  that  the  condition  of  those  States  was, 
in  every  respect,  different  from  the  condition 
of  Missouri.  The  ordinance  of  1787,  passed  by 
Congress  under  the  Articles  of  Confederation, 
was  tendered  to  the  settlers  in  the  Northwestern 
Territory,  (whether  with  or  without  authority, 
is  immaterial  now,)  as  a  compact  and  agree- 
ment. The  settlers  there  knew  of  this  compact 
— made  their  arrangements  accordingly — society 
there  was  formed  and  moulded  on  the  principles 
of  that  ordinance,  and  was  thus  gradually  pre- 
pared to  adopt  the  -same  principles  in  the  State 
constitutions;  and,  under  these  circumstances, 
the  terms  were  proposed,  without  opposition, 
and  met  the  approbation  of  the  people.  The 
maxim,  " volenti  non  fit  injuria"  applies  with 
peculiar  force  to  such  a  case.  Different,  in  all 
respects,  is  the  case  of  Missouri :  part  of  a  terri- 
tory acquired  by  treaty  from  a  foreign  power 
— never  subject  to  the  ordinance  of  1787 — in- 
voluntary servitude  existed  there  at  the  time  of 
cession,  and  still  exists — the  people  object  to 
this  restriction — insist  upon  their  rights  under 
the  treaty,  and  deny  your  power  to  impose 
such  a  condition.  Under  circumstances  so  en- 
tirely dissimilar,  the  Northwestern  States  fur- 
nish not  even  the  frail  authority  of  precedent 
to  bind  Missouri. 

MONDAY,  January  31. 

New  York  Resolutions  against  the  Extension  of 

Slavery. 

Mr.  SANFOKD  communicated  the  following 
resolutions  of  the  Legislature  of  the  State  of 
New  York,  which  were  read : 

STATE  OF  NEW  YOBK,  IN  ASSEMBLY, 

January  17,  1820. 

"  Whereas  the  inhibiting  the  further  extension  of 
slavery  in  these  United  States  is  a  subject  of  deep 
concern  among  the  people  of  this  State  :  and  whereas 
we  consider  slavery  as  an  evil  much  to  be  deplored  ; 
and  that  every  constitutional  barrier  should  be  inter- 
posed to  prevent  its  further  extension ;  and  that  the 
Constitution  of  the  United  States  clearly  gives  Con- 
gress the  right  to  require  of  new  States,  not  comprised 
within  the  original  boundaries  of  these  United  States, 
the  prohibition  of  slavery,  as  a  condition  of  its  admis- 
sion into  the  Union  :  therefore, 

"  Resolved,  (if  the  honorable  Senate  concur  herein,) 
That  our  Senators  be  instructed,  and  our  Representa- 
tives in  Congress  be  requested,  to  oppose  the  admis- 
sion as  a  State  into  the  Union  of  any  Territory  not 
comprised  as  aforesaid,  without  making  the  prohibi- 
tion of  slavery  therein  an  indispensable  condition  of 
admission :  therefore, 

"  Rexolved,  That  measures  be  taken  by  the  Clerks 
of  the  Senate  and  Assembly  of  this  State,  to  transmit 
copies  of  the  preceding  resolutions  to  each  of  our  Sen- 
ators and  Representatives  in  Congress. 

"  Ordered,  That  the  Clerk  deliver  a  copy  of  the 
preceding  resolutions  to  the  honorable  the  Senate, 
and  request  their  concurrence  in  the  same. 

"  By  order  of  the  Assembly, 

AARON  CLARK,  Clerk." 


DEBATES  OF  CONGRESS. 


425 


FEBRUABY,  1820.] 


Missouri  Question. 


[SENATE. 


"  STATE  OF  NEW  YORK,  IN  SENATE, 

"  January  20,  1820. 

• '  Resolved,  That  the  Senate  do  concur  with  the 
honorable  the  Assembly  in  their  said  resolutions. 

"  Ordered,  That  the  Clerk  deliver  a  copy  of  the 
preceding  resolution  of  concurrence  to  the  honorable 
the  Assembly.  By  order. 

"JOHN  T.  BACON,  Clerk? 


TUESDAY,  February  1. 
Missouri  Question. 

The  Senate  then  resumed  the  consideration 
of  the  Missouri  question. 

Mr.  BAEBOUB,  of  Virginia,  said : 

Mr.  President,  the  Senate  will  do  justice  to 
my  sincerity  when  I  declare  that  it  is  with  un- 
feigned reluctance  I  rise  to  address  them  at  this 
stage  of  the  discussion — that,  had  I  yielded  to 
my  feelings,  instead  of  obeying  a  sense  of  duty, 
I  should  have  remained  silent.  Whatever  the 
human  mind  could  well  conceive  has  been  either 
spokea  or  written  on  this  subject,  and  no  su- 
periority of  intellect  could  add  an  additional  ray 
of  light.  So  vain  a  hope,  therefore,  with  my 
humble  pretensions,  would  be  the  height  of  folly. 

The  question,  however,  involves  such  impor- 
tant consequences,  whether  we  view  it  in  its 
constitutional  light,  or  as  it  regards  the  honor 
of  the  nation,  plighted  by  treaty,  or  consider  it 
as  to  its  expediency,  as  involving  the  duration 
of  the  Union,  or  in  any  event  its  tranquillity,  it 
seems  to  justify,  if  not  to  require,  any  man  to 
disclose  the  reasons  of  his  vote.  But,  personal 
considerations  apart,  the  feeling  which  this 
policy,  as  insulting  as  it  is  unjust,  has  so  justly 
excittd  in  the  South  and  West,  in  which  my 
constituents  so  naturally  participate,  seems  to 
require  that  their  Representative  on  this  floor 
should  raise  his  voice,  however  feeble,  in  solemn 
protest  against  its  adoption. 

In  the  contemplation  of  this  subject,  and  the 
sentiments  avowed  in  its  discussion,  I  had  ex- 
pected to  have  felt  nothing  but  unmixed  re- 
gret;  I  had  expected  to  have  travelled  an 
unpleasant  path,  filled  only  with  thorns.  To 
my  relief,  I  have  found  here  and  there  a  solitary 
spot  of  verdure,  on  which  my  eye  delighted  to 
dwell.  I  have  seen  the  most  prodigious  display 
of  the  powers  of  the  human  mind  ;  I  have  seen 
its  empire  enlarged  far  beyond  my  most  san- 
guine hopes.  I  do  not  intend  to  confine  my 
remarks  to  one  or  two,  but  to  extend  them  to 
most  of  those  who  have  engaged  in  the  debate. 
They  have  surrounded  this  body  with  deserved 
renown ;  to  which,  although  I  feel  a  conscious- 
ness I  cannot  add,  yet  I  must  be  permitted,  as 
a  member  of  this  body,  to  claim  some  partici- 
pation. But  I  have  seen  more ;  I  have  seen  a 
degree  of  firmness  and  magnanimity  most  enno- 
bling to  human  nature — Senators  rising  superior 
to  clamor  and  popular  excitement,  and  tilling 
the  measure  assigned  them  by  the  constitution, 
at  the  expense  of  office,  with  the  sacrifice  of 
popularity,  firmly  discharging  their  duty.  Such 
men,  compared  with  the  supple  politician,  who 
bends  like  a  reed  to  the  blast — who,  to  promote 


his  own  aggrandizement,  practises  upon  the 
prejudices  of  mankind — will,  by  an  impartial 
posterity,  when  the  false  fire  of  the  moment 
shall  have  subsided,  be  placed  in  the  zenith, 
while  the  latter  will  be  consigned  to  the  nadir 
of  the  moral  world.  Go  on,  illustrious  Senators, 
in  the  career  of  glory  you  have  commenced ! 
Abide  whatever  sacrifice  the  faithfal  discharge 
of  your  duty  may  produce  with  fortitude,  and 
reap  your  re  ward' in  the  consolation  of  reflect- 
ing that  you  have  saved  your  country  from  ruin, 
and  in  the  justice  of  all  trying  time!  With 
these  exceptions,  all  that  I  have  heard  has  filled 
me  with  solicitude  and  pain.  I  have  heard 
sentiments  uttered  that  go  to  shake  the  founda- 
tions of  the  Union,  and  to  produce  a  revolution 
in  the  Government — principles  avowed  directly 
hostile  to  the  compact  on  which  reposes  our 
Union,  and  the  doctrine  avowed  that  all  power 
not  prohibited  belongs  to  the  General  Govern- 
ment. To  combat  these — to  deprive  them  of 
all  authority,  by  showing  their  fallacy — will  be 
the  object  of  my  endeavors. 

I  appeal,  without  the  fear  of  contradiction,  to 
every  member  of  the  Senate,  from  every  quarter 
of  the  Union,  when  I  ask  if  the  Southern  mem- 
bers have  not  invariably  supported,  with  unani- 
mity, every  proposition  which  had  for  its  object 
the  suppression  of  the  slave  trade ;  and  whe- 
ther, during  the  last  session,  we  did  not  indulge 
them  in  the  project,  as  wild  as  it  was  well  de- 
signed, of  expending  thousands  for  the  accom- 
modation of  the  unfortunate  victims  of  that 
abominable  trade,  by  authorizing  the  Govern- 
ment to  provide  them  an  asylum  in  Africa,  to 
be  maintained  at  the  public  expense.  Can,  then, 
any  man  believe  we  wish  to  multiply  the  num- 
ber ?  The  question  we  are  called  to  discuss  is 
not  whether  slaves  shall  be  multiplied.  If  it 
was,  there  would  be  but  one  sentiment  here. 
What  is  the  real  question  ?  Shall  we  violate 
the  constitution,  by  imposing  restrictions  on 
the  people  of  Missouri?  While  exercising  the 
great  privilege  of  forming  their  government, 
shall  we  disregard  the  solemn  obligations  im- 
posed by  treaty?  And  shall  we  finally  do  an 
immeasurable  act  of  injustice,  in  excluding  the 
people  of  one-half  the  Republic  from  participa- 
ting in  that  country  bought  by  a  common  treas- 
ure and  their  exclusive  councils?  And  for 
what  ?  Not  to  diminish  slavery,  but  to  confine 
it  within  its  present  limits— destructive  to  the 
slaves  themselves,  and  fatal,  eventually,  to  the 
whole  population — instead  of  ditfusing  them 
over  a  wide-spread  country,  where  their  com- 
forts would  be  increased,  and  by  their  dispro- 
portionate numbers  they  might  be  within  the 
reach  of  the  suggestions  of  policy  and  of  hu- 
manity. Not  to  diminish  slavery,  I  repeat 
again ;  but  to  seduce  the  white  population  from 
this  portion  of  country  thus  interdicted,  and  to 
increase  the  disproportion  of  the  blacks  to  such 
an  extent  as  forever  to  shut  the  door  of  hope 
upon  them ;  or  to  drive  us  from  the  country, 
and  surrender  it  exclusively  to  them. 

Let  us  examine  them  respectively.     1st,  let 


426 


ABRIDGMENT  OF  THE 


SENATE.] 


Missouri  Question. 


[FEBRUARY,   1820. 


us  consider  the  1st  clause  of  the  9th  section,  1st 
article.  Gentlemen  contend  that  the  word 
"  migration,"  is  the  magical  word  in  which  is 
contained  the  power  about  to  be  exercised.  The 
plain  answer  to  this  is,  that  it  produces  a  con- 
fusion of  ideas,  to  assert  that  a  clause,  whose 
palpable  design  was  to  restrain  Congress  from 
exercising  an  authority,  imparts  a  substantive 
grant  of  power;  but,  it  is  reasoned,  why  re- 
strain Congress,  till  the  year  1808,  from  exercis- 
ing an  authority  which  they  did  not  possess  f 
Do  gentlemen  mean  to  say  that  all  power  inter- 
dicted by  the  9th  section  would  belong  to  Con- 
gress, had  not  such  restriction  been  inserted? 
The  gentleman  from  New  Hampshire  contends 
for  this  monstrous  doctrine,  and  asks,  had  it  not 
been  for  the  clause  interdicting  titles  of  nobility, 
would  not  Congress  have  had  the  power  to  have 
created  a  nobility  ?  The  gentleman  seems  not 
to  understand  the  first  principles  of  the  Gov- 
ernment— for,  if  his  doctrine  be  acted  upon,  it 
is  equal  to  a  revolution,  and  a  Government  of 
limited  powers  would  instantly  be  converted 
into  one  of  absolute  authority.  I  should  have 
paid  less  attention  to  this  doctrine  by  supposing 
that  the  gentleman  had  not  reflected  upon  it, 
had  he  not  uttered  the  same  thing  during  the 
last  session.  It  seems,  therefore,  that  this  is 
one  of  his  fixed  principles.  A  more  heretical 
or  a  more  dangerous  one,  cannot  well  be  con- 
ceived. But,  sir,  were  I  for  a  moment  to  yield 
a  point  so  palpable  as  this,  still,  I  might  contend 
that  the  gentlemen  would  be  without  the  power 
contended  for.  What  is  the  argument  on  their 
part,  that  "migration"  and  "importation" 
equally  relate  to  slaves  ?  That  "  importation" 
relates  to  foreign  slaves,  while  "  migration" 
refers  to  domestic  slaves  passing  from  one  State 
to  another,  and  that  Congress,  therefore,  has  a 
right  to  prevent  their  passage  to  the  Missouri. 
Now,  I  contend  that  "  migration"  was  intended 
to  refer  to  free  foreigners,  coming  to  this  coun- 
try, while  "  importation"  was  intended  to  ap- 
ply to  slaves  from  abroad.  This  conclusion  is 
warranted,  as  well  by  the  phraseology  of  the 
section,  as  by  the  circumstances  of  the  country. 
"What  is  its  language  ?  That  the  migration  or 
importation  of  such  persons  as  any  of  the  States 
now  existing  shall  think  proper  to  admit,  shall 
not  be  prohibited  by  the  Congress  prior  to  the 
year  1808  :  but  a  tax  or  duty  may  be  imposed 
on  such  importation  not  exceeding  ten  dollars 
for  each  person.  If  this  interpretation  be  re- 
ceived, the  meaning  of  the  clause  is  intelligible 
and  natural.  By  dropping  "  migration"  when 
speaking  of  a  tax  or  duty,  it  may  be  fairly  in- 
ferred that  the  migration  spoken  of  was  that  of 
freemen,  to  tax  whom  would  be  absurd.  But 
the  circumstances  of  the  country  at  that  time 
are  entitled  to  great  weight  in  forming  our 
opinion.  A  large  portion  of  the  Middle,  South- 
ern, and  Western  States,  were  sparsely  inhab- 
ited. It  was  among  the  grievances  enumerated, 
as  leading  to  the  Revolution,  that  the  Crown  of 
Great  Britain  had  indicated  a  hostility  to  the 
migration  of  foreigners.  Hence,  lest  the  most 


populous  portions  of  the  United  States  should 
indulge  in  a  similar  abuse  of  power,  Congress 
was  expressly  interdicted  from  taking  any  step 
in  relation  thereto,  prior  to  the  year  1808. 

That  this  was  the  true  import  of  this  clause 
isnot  only  sustained  by  the  consideration  to  which 
I  have  just  referred,  but  is  supported  by  an  ex- 
position given  us  at  a  period  near  the  adoption 
of  the  constitution.  Those  who  opposed  the 
alien  law  in  Congress  insisted  upon  this  inter- 
pretation, and  none  with  more  force  than  my 
predecessor,  Judge  Tazewell,  one  of  the  most 
distinguished  men  of  whom  Virginia  can  boast. 
In  his  speech,  which  I  have  now  before  me,  on 
the  alien  law,  he  holds  the  language  I  now  do, 
and  contended  that  Congress  was  virtually 
violating  this  clause.  The  Senate  will  recollect 
this  discussion  was  in  1798;  and  it  is  worthy  of 
remark,  that  the  application  of  this  word  to 
slaves  was  first  made  by  the  friends  of  the  alien 
law,  to  elude  the  force  of  this  argument.  The 
committee  of  the  House  of  Representatives,  in 
an  elaborate  report,  drawn  with  a  view  to  de- 
fend this  law,  assert  that  "  migration"  related 
to  slaves ;  but  even  the  authors  of  that  report 
contend  only  that  it  relates  to  the  importation 
of  slaves  from  abroad.  But,  we  are  told,  Con- 
gress has  fixed  the  meaning  of  this  clause  by  the 
law  of  1804,  interdicting  the  bringing  of  slaves 
into  Louisiana  from  any  place  in  the  United 
States,  except  by  removal  with  their  owners. 
But  nothing  is  to  be  gained  by  this  precedent 
1st.  Louisiana  was  a  Territory,  and  not  a  State. 
2d.  It  was  the  result  of  an  excitement  produced 
by  peculiar  causes,  which  have  been  amply  de- 
tailed by  the  gentleman  from  South  Carolina, 
and  passed  probably  without  discussion.  3d. 
It  was  repealed  at  the  next  session,  by  the  law 
relative  to  the  Territory  of  Mississippi,  in  which 
Louisiana  was  placed  on  the  same  footing  with 
that  territory.  So  that,  if  it  weigh  any  thing, 
it  is  against  the  interpretation  contended  for,  as 
Congress  retraced  its  steps  within  one  year 
after  the  passage  of  the  law  of  1804. 

Have  we  not  a  right  to  contend,  that,  if  the 
Convention  had  intended  to  give  to  Congress 
the  power  of  admitting  on  conditions,  it  would 
have  said  so  ?  The  constitution  has  not  author- 
ized the  exercise  of  such  a  powrer  directly,  and 
there  is  nothing  to  justify  the  exercise  of  such 
a  power  by  implic'ation,  if  implication  were 
allowable. 

If,  then,  it  be  true,  that  your  discretion,  even 
as  to  admission,  is  limited,  as  I  have  endeavored 
to  show,  and  in  the  present  case  all  the  constit- 
uent qualifications  exist  on  the  part  of  the  peo- 
ple of  Missouri  for  self-government,  you  are 
bound  to  say  that  she  shall  be  admitted  as  a 
State  into  this  Union.  If  she  be  admitted  as  a 
State,  all  the  attributes  of  the  old  States  instant- 
ly devolve  on  her,  and  the  most  prominent  of 
those  attributes  is  the  right  to  fashion  her  gov- 
ernment according  to  the  will  and  pleasure  of 
the  good  people  of  that  State;  whereas  your 
restriction  deprives  her  of  that  privilege  for- 
ever ;  and  your  restriction  applies  to  a  species 


DEBATES  OF  CONGRESS. 


427 


FEBRCABY,  1820.] 


Missouri  Question. 


[SENATE. 


of  property  that  most  peculiarly  belongs  to  the 
jurisdiction  of  the  State  government.  For,  can 
it  be  believed  that  the  States  holding  slaves  could 
ever  have  intended  to  impart  to  non-slavehold- 
ing  States  an  authority  over  a  property  in  which 
they  had  no  common  interest ;  a  property,  in 
relation  to  which,  so  far  from  the  necessity  of 
surrendering  the  power  to  control  it  to  the  Gen- 
eral Government,  self-preservation  required  that 
it  should  be  left  exclusively  to  the  State  govern- 
ments ? 

To  all  this  it  is  replied,  that  the  uniform  course 
of  the  Government,  since  the  ordinance  of  1787, 
amounts  to  a  precedent  not  now  to  be  canvassed. 

In  cases  of  doubt,  it  is  readily  admitted  that 
decisions,  after  mature  deliberation,  upon  full 
discussion  of  distinguished  men,  are  entitled  to 
great  weight  in  analogous  cases.  Now,  sir, 
how  far  will  the  proceedings  of  Congress,  under 
the  ordinance,  operate  as  a  precedent?  The 
ordinance  itself  was  founded  in  usurpation.  No 
such  power  had  been  granted  Congress  by  the 
Confederation.  Lest  I  should  be  charged  with 
an  assumption  myself,  I  will  call  to  my  aid  the 
work  so  frequently  referred  to — the  Federalist. 
In  page  235,  this  is  expressly  admitted.  It  is 
there  stated  that  it  was  an  assumption  on  the 
part  of  Congress.  I  have  seen  it  stated,  indeed, 
in  a  pamphlet  or  speech,  (for  I  know  not  what 
to  call  it,)  that  Congress  had  the  power,  as  in- 
cident to  their  character.  Mark  the  facility 
with  which  every  usurpation  of  power  is  justi- 
fied !  AVhat  is  not  expressly  given,  may  be  im- 
plied ;  or,  if  there  be  nothing  to  justify  implica- 
tion, it  may  be  incidental ;  and,  if  it  be  neither 
the  one  nor  the  other,  the  next  step  is,  that  it 
ought  to  have  been  given ;  and  thus,  by  some 
means,  every  power  which,  it  is  desirable  to 
exercise,  will  be,  or  may  be,  claimed.  But,  re- 
jecting these  claims  as  entirely  untenable,  I 
assert,  the  ordinance  itself  was  an  assumption 
of  power.  It  is  admitted  that  it  has  been  ac- 
quiesced in,  and  all  its  provisions  have  been 
carried  into  effect.  It  is  not  now  to  be  disturb- 
ed. But  it  still  is  nothing  as  a  precedent ;  be- 
cause it  attached  to  a  wilderness,  and  not  to 
men.  Those  who  subsequently  settled  this 
country  adopted  it  from  choice.  Their  senti- 
ments and  habits  were  fashioned  by  the  princi- 
ples of  the  ordinance,  and,  when  admitted  into 
the  Union,  instead  of  the  right  of  Congress  to 
impose  a  restriction  on  them  being  denied,  and 
discussed,  and  seriously  decided,  I  am  warranted 
in  saying  that  the  question  was  never  stirred. 
Why  inquire  into  a  condition  that  was  perfectly 
useless,  the  people  themselves  not  wishing  to 
hold  slaves  ?  But  this  1  assert,  that  the  people 
of  the  States,  embraced  by  this  ordinance,  when 
in  convention,  considered  themselves  unre- 
strained, and  considered  the  question  with  an 
exclusive  eye  to  its  expediency. 

The  course,  therefore,  pursued  by  the  Gov- 
ernment, under  this  ordinance,  is  not  entitled  to 
the  least  weight  as  a  precedent ;  but,  if  it  were, 
I  beg  leave  to  present  various  precedents  of  a 
directly  different  character.  The  States  of 


Kentucky,  Tennessee,  Louisiana,  Mississippi,  and 
Alabama,  have  all  been  admitted  without  re- 
striction. To  what,  then,  does  the  history  of 
our  proceedings  amount?  That,  in  every  in- 
stance, other  than  those  connected  with  the 
ordinance,  Congress  has  admitted  without  re- 
striction. Congress  has  never  before  dared  to 
apply  it  to  a  portion  of  country  where  slaves 
were  ;  in  effect,  where  it  was  to  amount  to  a 
restriction.  It  is,  however,  urged  that  condi- 
tions were  imposed  on  Louisiana.  The  princi- 
pal part  of  these  were  merely  in  conformity  to 
the  great  principles  of  freedom  ;  were  incorpo- 
rated in  the  law  in  reference  to  the  peculiar  peo- 
ple whom  we  were  about  to  introduce  into  the 
Union — people  who  had  before  lived  under  a 
different  form  of  government,  and  who  were 
supposed  not  sufficiently  versed  in  the  principles 
of  our  Government;  and  were  justifiable  only, 
if  at  all,  under  the  power  of  Congress  to  guar- 
antee to  each  member  of  the  Confederacy  a 
Republican  form  of  Government.  I  doubt, 
however,  the  power  of  Congress  to  impose  them 
at  all ;  but  sure  I  am  that  they  had  no  power  to 
restrict/  them  as  to  the  language  which  they 
should  employ  in  promulgating  their  laws.  The 
best  criterion  to  test  the  right  of  Congress  to 
impose  this  restriction  is,  to  inquire  by  what 
means  will  they  enforce  obedience,  were  Louis- 
iana to  refuse  a  compliance.  For,  to  every 
legitimate  power,  you  have  the  corresponding 
one  of  enforcement.  Where  the  latter  is  want- 
ing, the  former  does  not  exist.  This,  I  think, 
may  be  assumed  as  an  axiom  in  our  Govern- 
ment. The  exercise,  therefore,  of  this  power 
was  without  right,  and  serves  no  other  purpose 
than  to  show  the  facility  with  which  all  gov- 
ernments advance  in  the  acquisition  of  power. 
They  well  may  be  likened  to  a  screw :  they 
never  retrograde ;  every  acquisition  becomes  a 
temptation  to  new  aggressions,  and,  not  uiifre- 
quently,  the  means  by  which  they  are  realized. 
There  is  one  idea  so  repeatedly  urged,  that  those 
who  entertain  it  must  have  credit  for  their 
sincerity,  and  that  is,  that  we  have  greater 
power  with  the  States  to  be  formed  out  of  ac- 
quired territory  than  in  that  originally  a  part  of 
the  United  States. 

By  what  course  of  argument  this  conclusion 
is  arrived  at,  I  am  at  a  loss  to  discover.  There 
is  but  one  distinction  acknowledged  in  the  con- 
stitution, between  the  then  existing  States  and 
those  thereafter  to  be  admitted,  and  that  is  con- 
fined to  the  importation  of  slaves.  This  shows 
that,  in  all  other  respects,  they  were  to  be  on 
an  equal  footing  with  the  old  States ;  for,  had 
not  such  been  the  design  of  the  Convention,  as 
they  discriminated  in  the  one  case,  they  would 
have  done  so  in  every  particular  where  it  was 
intended.  In  addition,  it  may  be  remarked, 
that  in  the  third  clause  of  the  second  section  of 
the  first  article,  the  same  principle  of  represen- 
tation, as  it  regards  slaves,  was  to  be  extended 
to  such  States  as  may  be  admitted ;  pointing 
directly  to  the  clause  of  course,  that  new  States 
might  be  admitted  into  the  Union. 


428 


ABRIDGMENT  OF  THE 


SENATE.] 


Missouri  Question. 


[FEBRUARY,  1820. 


But,  the  gentleman  from  Pennsylvania  asks, 
shall  we  suffer  Missouri  to  come  into  the  Union 
with  this  savage  mark  on  her  countenance  ?  I 
appeal  to  that  gentleman  to  know  whether  this 
be  language  to  address  to  an  American  Senate, 
composed  equally  of  members  from  States  pre- 
cisely in  the  condition  that  Missouri  would  be 
in,  were  she  to  tolerate  slavery.  Are  these  sen- 
timents calculated  to  cherish  that  harmony  and 
affection  so  essential  to  any  beneficial  results 
from  our  Union  ?  But,  sir,  I  will  not  imitate 
this  course,  and  I  will  strive  to  repress  the  feel- 
ing which  such  remarks  are  calculated  to 
awaken. 

How  has  it  happened  that  these  doctrines 
have  slept  till  this  moment?  Where  were 
they  at  the  adoption  of  the  constitution,  in 
which  slavery  is  recognized,  and  the  property 
guaranteed  by  an  express  clause  ?  And  shall 
we,  the  mere  creatures  of  that  instrument,  pre- 
sume to  question  its  authority  ?  To  every 
other  sanction  imposed  by  our  situation,  is  the 
solemn  oath  that  we  will  support  it.  Where 
are  the  consciences  of  gentlemen  who  hold  this 
language  ?  But  they  assure  us  that  they-do  not 
mean  to  touch  this  property  in  the  old  States. 
What,  this  eternal,  and,  as  they  say,  immutable 
principle,  consecrated  by  this  famous  instru- 
ment, and  in  support  of  which  we  have  ap- 
pealed to  God,  is  to  have  no  obligatory  force  on 
the  very  parties  who  made  it,  but  attaches  in- 
stantly you  cross  the  Mississippi !  What  kind 
of  ethics  is  this,  that  is  bounded  by  latitude  and 
longitude,  which  is  inoperative  on  the  left,  but 
is  omnipotent  on  the  right  bank  of  a  river? 
Such  doctrines  are  well  calculated  to  excite  our 
solicitude ;  for,  although  the  gentlemen  who 
now  hold  it,  are  sincere  in  their  declarations, 
and  mean  to  content  themselves  with  a  triumph 
in  this  controversy,  what  security  have  we  that 
others  will  not  apply  it  to  the  South  generally  ? 
This,  sir,  is  no  longer  matter  of  speculation ; 
you  have  heard  the  doctrine  contended  for  al- 
ready not  at  cross  roads,  or  in  the  city  taverns, 
but  in  the  legislative  hall  of  a  State.  When  it 
shall  be  resorted  to  by  faction,  who  can  pretend 
to  prescribe  its  limits  ?  Every  page  of  history 
is  full  of  melancholy  proofs  of  the  feebleness 
of  that  security,  which  reposes  upon  the  mod- 
eration of  the  ambitious  and  designing.  The 
means  are  always  made  to  yield  to  the  end.  I, 
therefore,  heard  the  doctrine  with  unmixed  re- 
gret. I  fear  it  is  the  beginning  of  new  counsels, 
whose  disastrous  effects  no  one  can  foresee. 

But  the  principal  feature  in  a  legislative  act 
is,  that  it  is  in  the  power  of  our  successors  to 
change  it ;  here,  on  the  contrary,  you  seek  to 
make  the  regulation  immortal.  The  constitu- 
tion itself  contains  a  principle  of  alteration,  so 
as  to  adapt  itself  to  the  progress  of  human 
affairs,  and  yet  you  place  a  legislative  act  be- 
yond all  human  power  of  change  or  modifica- 
tion. I  will  forbear  any  further  remarks  on 
this  branch  of  the  subject,  and  proceed  in  the 
order  I  proposed.  I  will  now  inquire  whether, 
by  treaty,  we  are  not  restrained  from  restrict- 


ing Missouri  ?  By  the  third  clause  of  the  treaty, 
by  which  we  acquired  this  country,  the  inhab- 
itants are  to  be  incorporated,  &c. 

I  consider  it  not  of  moment  to  inquire, 
whether  their  admission,  according  to  tl*e  prin- 
ciples of  the  Federal  Constitution,  relates  to 
the  time  or  the  terms  of  such  admission,  be- 
cause they  are,  when  admitted,  to  enjoy  all  the 
rights,  privileges,  and  immunities,  of  American 
citizens.  An  attempt  has  been  made  to  dis- 
criminate between  Federal  and  State  rights  iu 
a  celebrated  tract  denominated  "  The  Substance 
of  Two  Speeches,"  &c.  For  my  part  I  have  been 
utterly  unable  to  comprehend  the  meaning  of 
the  author.  Does  he  mean  to  assert  that  there 
may  be  one  or  more  citizens  entitled  to  Federal 
privileges  and  not  to  State  privileges  ?  On  the 
converse,  to  me  it  has  always  appeared  as  not 
admitting  of  a  question,  that  these  were  indis- 
solubly  united  in  an  American  citizen.  A  citi- 
zen of  the  United  States  must  be  a  citizen  of 
some  one  of  the  States,  and,  as  such,  entitled  to 
every  right  or  privilege  secured  by  the  Federal 
or  State  government.  If  there  be  any  right 
pertaining  to  citizens  of  the  United  States,  it  is 
that  of  fashioning  their  Government  according 
to  their  own  will  and  pleasure.  This  right 
was,  therefore,  secured  by  compact  to  the  in- 
habitants of  the  territory  in  question,  and  any 
attempt  to  impair  or  abridge  it,  is  in  violation 
of  that  treaty.  In  the  same  tract  it  is  said, 
slaves  are  not  property;  the  gentleman  from 
Massachusetts  (Mr.  OTIS)  frankly  admits  that 
this  is  an  unwarrantable  assertion,  and  such 
must  be  the  award  of  all  mankind.  Did  not 
both  the  contracting  parties  recognize  slaves  as 
property  ?  Were  they  not  known  to  abound  in 
the  territory  ceded,  and  constituting  the  largest 
proportion  of  the  property  of  the  people  ?  Is 
it  consistent  with  reason  to  suppose  that,  when 
such  care  was  taken  to  secure  the  people  of  the 
territory  in  the  undisturbed  enjoyment  of  their 
property,  the  principal  part  was  intended  to  be 
excluded  ?  It  is  mortifying  to  have  to  contend 
with  such  a  shadow.  The  whole  territory 
ceded  was  to  be  admitted  into  the  Union.  The 
letter  of  the  treaty  required  that  it  should  have 
been  admitted  as  a  whole.  You  thought  proper 
to  divide  it;  but  you  suffered  the  Louisiana 
part  to  come  in  without  restriction  in  this  re- 
gard. Upon  what  principle  can  you  reconcile 
with  good  faith,  the  distinction  you  now  set  up 
between  Missouri  and  Louisiana  ? 

Lest  I  weary  you,  sir,  I  will  now  proceed  to 
the  last  branch  of  this  interesting  subject, 
which  I  proposed  to  discuss :  Is  it  expedient  or 
just? 

The  first  objection  that  presents  itself,  is  its 
mmeasurable  injustice.  By  whom  was  the 
country  acquired?  By  the  common  treasure 
of  every  part  of  the  Union,  and  by  the  exclu- 
sive counsels  of  that  portion  which  you  seek  to 
interdict  by  your  measure.  Yes,  sir,  I  say  the 
exclusive  counsels.  The  opposition  which  was 
made  to  the  treaty  by  which  we  acquired  it,  is 
too  recent  and  too  notorious  to  require  proof. 


DEBATES  OF  CONGRESS. 


429 


FEBRUABY,  1820.] 


Missouri  Question. 


[Siou 


Nay,  sir,  so  inveterate  is  the  opposition,  that 
\ve  have  a  portion  of  its  leaven  mingled  with 
the  present  discussion.  The  gentleman  from 
Rhode  Island  has  told  us  that  we  acquired  it 
by  treaty  with  a  man  who  has  become  a  pri- 
vate gentleman,  and  who  had  no  title  himself. 
A  country  thus  acquired,  of  boundless  extent, 
is  to  be  shut  against  us.  "Were  our  opponents 
not  under  the  influence  of  an  insatiable  ambi- 
tion, they  would  content  themselves  with  the 
enjoyment  of  a  large  and  disproportionate  share 
of  this  country,  to  which  they  would  exclusively 
succeed,  independently  of  any  legal  regulation 
on  this  subject.  This  is  too  obvious  to  be  de- 
nied, when  we  take  as  our  guide  the  history  of 
our  own  country,  which  furnishes  indubitable 
proof  that  slaves,  to  any  considerable  number, 
are  never  seen  beyond  a  given  parallel  of  lati- 
tude. When  you  cast  your  eye  on  the  map  of 
the  country  hi  question,  it  is  palpable  that  much 

a  slave.  Why  are  they  not  content  with  this 
great  natural  advantage  ?  Can  you  bring  your 
minds  to  believe  that  we  shall  sit  quietly  under 
this  act  of  iniquity,  as  insulting  as  it  is  injuri- 
ous ?  Sir,  no  portion  of  the  United  States  has 
been  more  loyal  than  the  South.  Amid  all  the 
vicissitudes  of  party  and  the  violence  of  faction 
— in  peace  and  in  war — in  good  and  in  evil  re- 
port—we have  respected  the  laws,  and  rallied 
around  the  constitution  and  the  Union.  To  the 
Union  we  have  looked,  as  the  ark  of  our  salva- 
tion, and  the  resting-place  of  our  hopes.  Is 
this  your  reward  for  our  loyalty?  Sir,  there 
is  a  point  where  submission  becomes  a  crime, 
and  resistance  a  virtue.  In  despotic  countries 
even  the  despot  is  obliged  to  keep  some  terms 
with  his  subjects:  in  free  States  you  more 
readily  arrive  at  the  point  to  which  I  allude. 
Beware  how  you  touch  it,  in  regard  to  the 
South !  Our  people  are  as  brave  as  they  are 
loyal.  They  can  endure  any  thing  but  insult. 
The  moment  you  pass  the  Rubicon,  they  will 
redeem  their  much-abused  character;  they 
will  throw  back  upon  you  your  insolence  and 
your  aggression.  But  let  us  suppose  they  will 
quietly  submit  to  the  wrongs  you  inflict,  what 
must  be  their  feelings  friendly  to  union — to 
that  harmony  so  essential  to  our  common  pros- 
perity? What  is  the  foundation  of  our  con- 
nection? The  Federal  compact.  He  must, 
indeed,  be  profoundly  ignorant  of  human  na- 
ture, if  he  suppose  the  Union  reposes  on  such 
a  foundation.  No,  sir,  it  is  a  common  interest, 
and  those  kind  and  affectionate  sentiments  which 
the  preservation  by  a  parental  government  of 
that  interest  generates,  form  its  prop  and  secu- 
rity. Withdraw  these,  you  may  preserve  the 
form,  but  the  vital  part  is  gone.  To  what  end 
do  you  encounter  this  great  risk  ?  To  exclude 
slavery  from  Missouri  ?  That  cannot  be  your 
object.  You  have  slaves  there  already.  These, 
you  say,  you  do  not  mean  to  touch.  The 
principle,  then,  is  given  up;  the  stock  they 
have  already  there  will  multiply  and  fill  the 
land. 


But  we  are  gravely  told,  and  upon  it  all  the 
changes  have  been  rung  to  excite  the  prejudices 
of  the  non-slaveholding  States,  that  the  political 
influence  resulting  from  the  slaves  which  will 
be  carried  to  this  country,  is  the  principal 
ground  of  objection  to  Missouri's  coming  in 
without  restriction.  You  reduce,  say  they, 
the  white  man  to  an  equality  with  the  slave. 
What  sophistry  is  this!  Will  not  the  slave 
have  the  same  influence  in  Georgia  or  Virginia, 
as  in  Missouri?  His  removal  to  the  latter 
State  is,  in  no  way,  to  increase  it.  But  they 
will,  we  are  told,  multiply  faster  in  Missouri 
than  in  the  old  States.  Mark  the  dilemma  in 
which  gentlemen  are  placed ;  at  one  time  they 
weep  over  the  condition  of  the  slave;  their 
tender  souls  are  overflowing  with  kindness  and 
compassion  to  their  sufferings.  To  ameliorate 
their  condition,  is  their  professed  object.  What 
course  do  they  pursue  to  accomplish  it?  To 
pen  them  up,  as  my  honorable  friend  from 
North  Carolina  has  justly  remarked,  and  cut 
them  off  from  those  benefits  which  await  them 
in  a  new  and  fertile  country,  the  enjoyment  of 
which  produces  that  increase  they  so  much 
affect  to  dread.  Let  us  hear  no  more  of  hu- 
manity— it  is  profaning  the  term.  Their  object 
is  power.  They  assume  the  mask  of  humanity 
for  the  purpose  of  seducing  tender  consciences, 
and  they,  as  far  as  their  policy  can  effect  it,  de- 
vote the  very  beings  whose  welfare  they  pre- 
tend to  urge  as  a  reason  for  the  measure  of 
which  we  so  justly  complain.  Yes,  humanity 
is  their  motto.  The  interest,  the  peace,  the 
happiness  of  the  whites,  form  with  them  the 
dust  of  the  balance ;  their  affections  are  alive 
only  to  the  condition  of  the  slave.  They  speak 
of  their  measures  with  great  deliberation,  and 
invite  us  to  be  calm.  They  are  afar  off  while 
this  new  drama  is  performing.  Turn  out 
comedy  or  tragedy,  they  are  equally  unaffected. 
On  the  contrary,  we  are  to  be  involved  in  the 
catastrophe.  It  is  not  left  to  us  to  stand  aloof 
as  mere  spectators.  We  shall  have  to  act  a 
part.  We  may  lose,  but  cannot  gain.  We  fur- 
nish the  stakes ;  and  they  are  nothing  less  than 
the  vital  interests  of  our  country.  The  gentle- 
man from  Massachusetts  (Mr.  OTIS)  has  been 
edifying  in  his  suggestions  as  to  what  we  are 
to  fear  from  St.  Domingo,  unless  we  adopt  his 
counsels.  The  mention  of  St.  Domingo  calls 
up  a  train  of  unpleasant  recollections.  Its  his- 
tory is  replete  with  instructive  lessons  upon 
this  subject.  Let  us  alone,  and  we  have  noth  • 
ing  to  fear.  It  is  your  pretended  solicitude  foi 
our  welfare  that  constitutes  our  danger.  It  is 
the  doctor,  and  not  the  disease,  we  dread. 
Yes,  sir,  the  pseudo  friends  of  humanity,  in 
France,  far  beyond  the  reach  of  the  effects  of 
their  own  policy,  in  the  spirit  of  fanaticism, 
issued  the  celebrated  decree  that  involved  the 
fate  of  that  devoted  island.  Its  caption  was 
"  liberty  and  equality."  It  no  sooner  reached 
its  object,  than  the  bands  of  society  were  dis- 
solved. Monsters  stalked  over  the  face  of  this 
wretched  country,  and  their  footsteps  were 


430 


ABRIDGMENT  OF  THE 


SENATE.] 


Missouri  Question. 


[FEBRUARY,  1820. 


everywhere  traced  by  conflagration,  and  rapine, 
and  murder,  and  lust,  and  all  the  unutterable 
horrors  which  the  most  ferocious  passions, 
coupled  with  unbridled  power,  could  inflict. 
The  few  wretched  survivors,  who  fled  before 
the  fury  of  the  storm,  carried  to  every  part  of 
Christendom  their  tale  of  suffering  and  of  woe, 
which,  by  its  irresistible  pathos,  drew  tears  of 
pity  from  every  eye.  But,  where  or  when  has 
it  been  known  that  fanaticism  has  paused  to 
reflect  on  consequences  ?  Experience,  the  les- 
sons of  prudence  and  of  caution,  are  presented 
to  it  in  vain.  But,  sir,  let  us  analyze  this  argu- 
ment of  the  gentleman  from  Massachusetts,  if, 
indeed,  argument  it  may  be  called.  If,  says  he, 
you  extend  slavery  to  Missouri,  the  emissaries 
of  St.  Domingo  will  penetrate  this  interior  re- 
gion, and  preach  the  doctrines  of  insurrection. 
Indeed!  If,  then,  according  to  the  logic  of  this 
gentleman,  the  slaves  be  retained  in  the  Atlan- 
tic States,  to  which  the  access  is  the  most  easy, 
and  swell  to  a  disproportionate  number,  we 
have  nothing  to  apprehend;  but,  if  removed  to 
the  interior,  and  so  diffused  as  to,  be  entirely 
outnumbered  by  the  white  population,  then, 
and  not  till  then,  are  we  in  danger.  Can  any 
thing  be  necessary  to  refute  a  proposition, 
when  to  state  it  is  to  destroy  it? 

We  have  heard  much  of  the  moral  and  politi- 
cal effects  of  slavery.  Instead  of  the  picture 
furnished  by  theorists  and  enthusiasts  on  this 
subject,  let  us  consult  the  testimony  of  history 
from  the  first  to  the  present  age.  In  the  master 
States  of  antiquity,  Greece  and  Eome,  it  exist- 
ed in  its  worst  form.  And  yet,  such  was  the 
march  of  the  human  mind,  in  these  distinguish- 
ed Republics,  in  all  that  was  ennobling  in  mor- 
als and  science,  that  it  continued  to  shine 
through  the  long  eclipse  of  interposing  dark- 
ness. And  in  the  modern  world  the  lamps  of 
science  and  of  liberty  were  lighted  up  from  its 
yet  unexpired  embers.  I  will  not  pretend  to 
retouch  the  picture  delineated  by  the  masterly 
hand  of  my  distinguished  friend  from  Maryland. 
His  glowing  and  sublime  eloquence,  the  exclu- 
sive companion  of  superior  genius,  lifted  the 
curtain  which  separates  us  from  past  ages,  and 
caused  to  pass  in  review  the  heroes  of  Ma- 
rathon, Salamis,  and  Thermopyl® — splendid 
achievements,  that  lose  nothing  in  comparison 
with  all  that  has  since  intervened.  If  you  de- 
scend to  modern  times,  the  result  of  experience 
in  our  own  country  is  no  less  opposed  to  the 
suggestions  of  theory.  I  will  not  enter  into  the 
invidious  task  of  contrasting  the  South  with  the 
North.  How  disastrous  must  be  that  question 
whose  discussion  permits  a  member  of  this 
body,  in  recounting  the  splendid  monuments  of 
American  skill  and  bravery,  to  content  himself 
with  naming  Bunker's  Hill,  Bennington,  and 
Saratoga !  Could  not  the  gentleman  from  New 
Hampshire  permit  his  national  feelings  to  sur- 
vive so  long  as  to  have  recounted  the  Cowpens, 
King's  Mountain,  Guilford,  Eutaw,  York,  and, 
finally,  the  victory  of  New  Orleans,  whose  mem- 
ory will  live  co-extensively  with  the  flood  on 


whose  margin  it  was  achieved?  -"Why  this  in- 
vidious distinction?  Does  the  honorable  gen- 
tleman imagine  I  take  less  interest  in  indulging 
my  pleasing  recollection  of  the  prowess  of  my 
country  in  the  first  than  in  the  last  ?  No,  they 
were  my  countrymen  ;  the  fame  they  acquired 
was  a  common  stock ;  my  portion  of  the  in- 
heritage  I  will  not  surrender. 

Let  it  not,  however,  be  supposed,  that  in  the 
abstract  I  am  advocating  slavery.  Like  all  other 
human  things,  it  is  mixed  with  good  and  evil — 
the  latter,  no  doubt,  preponderating. 

The  gentleman  from  Massachusetts  (Mr.  MEL- 
LEN)  tells  us  he  is  legislating  for  after  ages.  His 
view  disdains  the  limited  horizon  of  the  present. 
Poor  arrogant  man,  not  content  to  act  well  his 
part  in  the  little  span  assigned  him  by  his  Crea- 
tor, he  builds  his  mole-hill,  and  challenges  im- 
mortality for  his  labors!  A  few  revolving 
years,  they  are  erased  with  the  same  facility  as 
are  the  characters  by  the  flood,  on  whose  sandy 
margin  they  have  been  inscribed.  Tell  me  at 
what  pure  fountain  of  knowledge  have  you 
drunk  in  the  holy  inspiration  which  enables 
you  to  penetrate  the  dark  cloud  which  hangs  on 
the  future,  and  to  adapt  your  counsels  to  the 
endless  vicissitudes  of  human  affairs  ?  Satisfy 
me  on  this,  before  I  surrender  present  happi- 
ness. I  fear  you  have  commenced  this  distant 
voyage  under  the  most  unhallowed  auspices. 
You  violate  the  constitution  ;  you  trample  un- 
der feet  the  plighted  faith  of  the  nation ;  you 
do  an  immeasurable  act  of  injustice  to  one-half 
of  the  nation ;  you  lay  the  foundation  of  incu- 
rable hatred;  and  all  this  for  consequences 
which  none  can  see,  but  that  Providence,  in 
whose  hands  is  the  destiny  of  nations.  Sir,  re- 
flections of  this  kind  call  up  a  fearful  subject  of 
contemplation.  Your  Government,  upon  its 
present  scale,  is  as  yet  but  an  experiment. 
While  the  people  are  virtuous,  it  may  equal  all 
our  fond  hopes  and  anticipations ;  but  when  it 
shall  reach  from  ocean  to  ocean,  become  pop- 
ulated to  excess,  and  poverty  and  vice  shall 
have  shed  their  baneful  influence ;  when  ma- 
terials of  this  kind  shall  be  subjected  to  the  in- 
trigues of  the  wicked  and  ambitious;  who, 
judging  even  from  the  present  time,  is  sanguine 
enough  to  hope  that  we  alone  are  to  be  exempt 
from  the  calamities  to  which  man  has  been 
born  heir  ?  Who  can  pretend  to  predict  that  the 
present  order  of  things  will  be  able  to  ride  out 
the  storm  ?  And  if,  conforming  to  all  human 
things,  we,  too,  shall  experience  adversity — it 
this  last  hope  of  afflicted  humanity  shall,  as  the 
precursor  of  its  final  doom,  be  rent  in  twain, 
what  then  will  be  the  fruits  of  your  policy  ?  On 
this  side  the  Mississippi  a  black  population,  on 
the  other  a  white.  The  latter,  you  tell  us,  is 
feeble,  inadequate  to  its  own  defence;  we 
present  only  a  temptation  to  conquest.  Instead 
of  presenting  a  rampart,  you  have  surrendered 
us,  by  your  policy,  an  unresisting  prey  to  our 
now  hostile  neighbors.  It  may  perhaps  be  con- 
sistent with  retributive  justice  that,  our  country 
overrun,  you  in  turn  may  severely  feel  the  ter- 


DEBATES  OF  CONGRESS. 


431 


FEBRUARY,  1820.] 


Missouri  Question, 


[SENATE. 


rible  effects  of  your  present  injustice.  Let  me 
conjure  the  gentleman  to  return  from  his  dis- 
tant voyage,  and  unite  with  us  in  consulting  the 
happiness  of  the  present  generation.  Whether 
slavery  was  ordained  by  God  himself  in  a  par- 
ticular revelation  to  his  chosen  people,  or  whe- 
ther it  be  merely  permitted  as  a  part  of  that 
moral  evil  which  seems  to  be  the  inevitable 
portion  of  man,  are  questions  I  will  not  ap- 
proach :  I  leave  them  to  the  casuists  and  the 
divines.  It  is  sufficient  for  us,  as  statesmen,  to 
know  that  it  has  existed  from  the  earliest  ages 
of  the  world,  and  that  to  us  has  been  assigned 
such  a  portion  as,  in  reference  to  their  number 
and  the  various  considerations  resulting  from  a 
change  of  their  condition,  no  remedy,  even 
plausible,  has  been  suggested,  though  wisdom 
and  benevolence  united  have  unceasingly  brood- 
ed over  the  subject. 

However  dark  and  inscrutable  may  be  the 
•ways  of  heaven,  who  is  he  that  arrogantly  pre- 
sumes to  arraign  them?  The  same  mighty 
power  that  planted  the  greater  and  the  lesser 
luminary  in  the  heavens,  permits  on  earth  the 
bondsman  and  the  free.  To  that  Providence, 
as  men  and  Christians,  let  us  bow.  If  it  be  con- 
sistent with  his  will,  in  the  fulness  of  time,  to 
break  the  fetter  of  the  slave,  he  will  raise  up 
some  Moses  to  be  their  deliverer.  To  him  com- 
mission will  be  given  to  lead  them  up  out  of 
the  land  of  bondage.  At  his  approach,  seas 
will  subside  and  mountains  disappear.  "When 
the  revelation  shall  be  made,  and  the  jubilee  of 
emancipation  be  proclaimed,  philanthropy  will 
lift  its  voice  to  swell  the  joyful  note,  which, 
sweeping  the  continent  and  the  isles  of  the  new 
world,  and  resounding  through  the  old,  shall 
cause  the  oppressor  to  let  go  his  prey,  the  dun- 
geon to  surrender  its  victim,  and  give  emanci- 
pation to  the  slave.  Till  -then,  let  us  draw 
consolation  from  the  reflection  that,  however 
incomprehensible  this  dispensation  may  be  to 
us,  it  is  a  link  in  that  great  concatenation  which 
is  permitted  by  omnipotent  power  and  good- 
ness, and  must  issue  in  universal  good. 

Mr.  ROBERTS  said :  I  rise,  with  unfeigned  re- 
luctance, to  claim  the  indulgence  of  a  further 
hearing  from  the  Senate.  I  cannot,  however, 
reconcile  silence  with  what  I  deem  to  be  a  faith- 
ful discharge  of  duty.  I  have  listened,  with 
equal  surprise  and  regret,  to  hear  gentlemen, 
with  whom  in  this  place  I  have  long  been  grat- 
ified to  act  and  think,  deny  or  explain  away 
what  I  deem  to  be  the  sound  and  fundamental 
principles  of  political  truth.  The  gentleman 
who  has  just  preceded  me  (Mr.  BARBOUB)  has 
informed  us  there  is  much  public  excitement 
existing  relative  to  this  question.  The  same 
thing  has  frequently  been  alluded  to  by  others 
speaking  on  the  same  side.  They,  one  and  all, 
anticipate  the  most  fearful  consequences,  it"  the 
proposition  before  you  be  agreed  to.  We  have 
been  reminded  of  our  unratified  treaty  with 
Spain,  our  embarrassed  currency  and  deficient 
revenue,  as  reasons  why  we  should  forbear 
doing  what  we  find  to  be  right.  I  have  no  rev- 


erence for  that  wisdom  which  would  decide 
questions  of  the  highest  order — questions  inter- 
woven in  the  very  web  of  our  destiny,  by  a  ref- 
erence to  the  transitory  embarrassments  which 
may  beset  us  at  any  particular  moment.  The 
question  has  fairly  met  us,  whether  freedom  or 
slavery  is  to  be  the  lot  of  the  regions  beyond 
the  Mississippi.  It  ought  to  be  deliberately  de- 
cided, under  a  proper  exercise  of  authority, 
with  a  view  to  the  ultimate  consequences  the 
decision  we  come  to  may  produce.  It  is,  now, 
as  to  Missouri  only  we  are  called  upon  to  act ; 
but  it  will  yet  arise  in  Arkansas  and  other  ter- 
ritories, which,  in  the  fulness  of  time,  may  offer 
themselves  for  admission  into  this  Union. 

The  people  to  the  South,  says  the  gentleman 
just  sat  down,  (Mr.  BABBOUB,)  who  compose 
one-half  of  the  Union,  are  to  be  put,  by  this  pro- 
position, under  the  ban  of  the  empire,  as,  from 
its  operation,  they  cannot  settle  in  the  new 
State.  If  he  be  correct,  which  I  do  not  admit, 
reject  the  proposition,  and  you  put  the  other 
and  larger  half  under  the  ban.  A  man  who  is 
conscientiously  averse  to  holding  slaves,  and 
who  cannot,  therefore,  employ  the  slaves  of 
others,  is  forbidden  to  settle  in  a  land  where 
free  labor  cannot  be  procured.  Such  must  be 
the  case  where  slavery  exists  unrestricted.  Ad- 
mit Missourij  a  slaveholding  State,  without  lim- 
itation, and  you  place  the  citizens  of  the  non- 
slaveholding  States  under  an  interdict,  as  to 
settlement,  that  they  cannot  overcome.  Thus 
is  the  argument  brought  to  an  equation.  With 
this  dilemma  are  we  beset.  The  gentleman  has 
pronounced  an  eloquent  and  just  eulogium  on 
those  who,  in  doing  what  they  believe  to  be 
right,  breast  the  storm  of  public  opinion  at 
home.  To  gentlemen  who  act  thus,  I  am  ready 
to  afford  an  equal  tribute  of  applause.  Where 
the  gentleman  finds  the  supple  politicians,  who 
yield  so  obsequiously  to  every  breeze  of  public 
opinion  from  that  quarter  which  affords  him  so 
consoling  a  contrast,  I  cannot  so  well  conceive. 
In  this  part  of  his  compliment  I  can  take  no 
share.  I  have  been  glad  to  learn  the  opinion 
of  the  Legislature  of  Pennsylvania  accorded 
with  signal  unanimity.  Having  no  doubt  of 
my  duty  before,  I  still  hail  with  gladness  this 
strengthening  evidence  of  their  concurrence.* 
With  us,  there  can  be  no  recognition  of  slavery 
as  a  matter  of  right.  An  abhorrence  of  it,  on 
all  principles  but  those  of  supreme  necessity,  is 
interwoven  into  the  very  texture  of  our  hearts 
and  habits  of  thought. 

The  gentleman  from  South  Carolina  (Mr. 
SMITH)  has  asked,  why  we  did  not  propose  this 
restriction  earlier  ?  In  this  at  least  I  have  not 
been  wanting.  My  maiden  voice  was  ; 
in  the  House  of  Representatives,  in  favor  of  the 
inhibition  of  slavery  north  of  the  parallel  of 
latitude  which  passes  through  the  mouth  of  the 
Ohio,  in,  I  believe,  1811,  when  the  bill  estab- 
lishing the  present  Territorial  -government  was 
under  consideration.  We  were  not  then  told 
the  proposition  was  unconstitutional,  nor  in 
violation  of  the  treaty ;  but  that  we  were  on 


432 


ABRIDGMENT  OF  THE 


SENATE.] 


Missouri  Question, 


[FKBKUAUY,  1820. 


the  eve  of  a  war,  with  almost  one-half  of  the 
community  infatuated  with  the  spirit  of  opposi- 
tion to  the  Government;  that  further  dissen- 
sion at  that  time  might  be  fatal.  The  question 
was  thus  deferred  until  a  more  convenient 
season.  What  I  then  thought  right,  I  think 
so  now.  I  rejoice  to  see  this  question  excite 
public  interest.  Melancholy  would  be  our 
prospects,  if  it  did  not.  It  must  be  settled 
some  time,  and  better  now  than  later.  The 
gentleman  who  has  preceded  me  has  spoken  of 
intemperate  doctrine  brought  into  discussion  in 
a  Northern  State  Legislature.  Where,  let  me 
ask,  has  any  thing  more  intemperate  appeared 
than  in  the  resolutions  of  that  of  Virginia? 
Dictation  to  the  Congress  has  been  uttered 
there  without  qualification  or  reserve.  The 
gentleman  tells  us  he  has  heard,  too,  the  lan- 
guage of  reproach  where  he  had  hoped  that  of 
kindness.  He  has  been  good  enough  to  read 
me  a  lecture  on  moderation ;  but,  how  has  he 
observed  his  own  precepts.  He  charges  us, 
without  qualification,  of  wishing  to  do  an  act 
of  enormous  injustice — to  insult  Virginia  ;  and 
although  she  is  disposed  to  submit  to  much  in- 
sult and  injustice,  there  is  a  point  beyond 
which  submission  ceases  to  be  a  virtue.  As  to 
where  the  charge  of  inflicting  reproaches,  or  the 
merit  of  extending  kindnesses,  may  be  most 
justly  claimed,  it  is  not  for  me,  but  those  who 
hear  us  to  decide.  If  it  were  a  question,  says  the 
gentleman,  whether  or  not  we  should  multiply 
slaves,  he  should  be  as  much  against  it  as  any 
man ;  but,  he  adds,  it  is  not  a  question  of  this 
kind,  but  one  which  determines  only  if  they 
shall  be  confined  to  the  spot  where  they  now 
are.  We  do  soberly  hold,  that  it  is  a  question 
whether  slavery  shall  be  extended,  and  slaves 
increased.  No  art  nor  subtlety  in  the  use  of 
language  can  successfully  be  applied  to  make  it 
appear  otherwise.  Establish  slavery  over  this 
territory,  and  you,  of  consequence,  increase  the 
value  of  slave  property.  Extend  the  market, 
and  you  perpetuate  this  interest,  by  increasing 
the  power  of  the  holders  of  it.  Reject  this  pro- 
position, and  to  whose  benefit  does  the  conse- 
quence enure?  clearly  to  the  slaveholding  in- 
terest, pecuniarily  and  politically  The  scale  of 
•political  power  will  preponderate  in  favor  of 
the  slaveholding  States.  The  effect  of  such  an 
event  is  hardly  problematical.  While  the  gen- 
tleman tells  us  this  is  not  a  question  of  slavery, 
he  tells  us  that  all  sovereignty  possessed  on  this 
subject  is  in  the  States;  and  that,  so  far  as 
power  is  not  given  to  the  Federal  Government, 
or  withheld  from  the  States,  they  are  despotic 
sovereignties.  Despotic  indeed,  if  they  can 
transform  freemen  into  slaves.  We  have  heard 
from  gentlemen,  that  the  right  of  establishing 
slavery  is  a  legitimate  attribute  of  State  sover- 
eignty ;  that  the  States  northwest  of  the  Ohio 
may  now  constitutionally  and  lawfully  intro- 
duce it,  compact  notwithstanding :  that  it  was 
indulged  under  the  Jewish  theocracy,  which 
was  a  government  of  God;  that  Christianity 
does  not  forbid  it ;  that  the  constitution  of  this 


Government  sanctions  it,  and  recognizes  the 
sovereginty  of  the  State  laws  relating  to  it. 
Nay,  more,  the  gentleman  from  South  Carolina 
(Mr.  SMITH)  pronounces  it  right,  views  it  as  a 
benefit,  and  looks  for  its  perpetuity.  Without 
reserve,  I  deny  that  there  is  any  power  in  a 
State  to  make  slaves,  or  to  introduce  slavery 
where  it  has  been  abolished,  or  where  it  never 
existed,  or  even  to  permit  its  existence  only  as 
an  evil  admitting  of  no  immediate  remedy. 
The  gentlemen  have  further  alleged  the  ordi- 
nance of  1787  was  in  fraud  of  the  articles  of 
Confederation ;  that  it  was  sheer  assumption, 
and  even  downright  usurpation.  All  this  I 
must  also  deny,  without  reserve.  The  consti- 
tution provides  that  new  States  may  be  admit- 
ted into  this  Union,  and  that  the  United  States 
shall  gurantee  to  every  State  in  this  Union  a  re- 
publican form  of  government.  To  ascertain 
what  is  a  State  and  &  republican  form  of  govern- 
ment, we  shall  very  unprofitably  follow  gentle- 
men through  the  history  of  ancient  times,  the 
middle  ages,  or  periods  of  modern  date,  as  re- 
garding foreign  communities — even  Britain  her- 
self. We  must  search  for  their  meaning  in 
our  own  history  only ;  here  a  different  system 
of  political  morality  has  prevailed,  and  political 
truth  taught  without  corruption.  In  this  reply 
I  shall  assume  no  new  ground  of  defence ;  it 
will  only  be  necessary  to  take  that  trodden  be- 
fore a  little  more  closely — when  it  was  declar- 
ed, on  the  part  of  these  States,  that  all  men  are 
created  equal;  that  they  are  endowed  by  their 
Creator  with  certain  inalienable  rights,  among 
which  are  life,  liberty,  and  the  pursuit  of  hap- 
piness ;  that  to  secure  these  rights  governments 
are  instituted  among  men,  deriving  their  just 
powers  from  the  consent  of  the  governed.  Two 
conclusions  most  clearly  result  from  these  prem- 
ises ;  that  a  Government  founded  on  these 
principles  neither  make  slaves  nor  kings.  That 
is  to  put  some,  by  birth,  below,  and  some  above 
the  law.  The  exercise  of  creative  power  em- 
ployed on  one  principle  is  just  as  reasonable  as 
on  the  other. 

In  1780,  the  Congress  invited  the  States  to 
cede  their  wilderness  territory,  from  causes  I 
need  not  revert  to.  It  was  then  promised  such 
territory  should  be  formed  into  States,  and  ad- 
mitted into  the  Union,  with  the  same  rights  of 
sovereignty,  freedom,  and  independence,  as  the 
original  States.  Can  any  one  doubt  that  the 
freedom,  sovereignty,  and  independence,  here 
spoken  of,  meant  the  "  boon  of  making  slaves," 
as  it  is  called.  No;  it  most  clearly  results, 
that  what  of  these  rights  the  old  States  were 
held  to  possess  were  such  only  as  recognize  the 
inalienable  rights  of  man,  and  which  were  con- 
formable to  the  principle  that  government  was 
instituted  to  secure  those  rights,  not  to  effec- 
tuate their  violation.  When  the  Congress  of 
1784,  and  subsequently  in  1787,  came  to  apply 
these  principles  of  sovereignty,  freedom,  and 
independence,  to  the  Northwestern  Territory, 
they  evidently  acted  on  such  an  understanding. 
The  6th  article  of  compact  is  a  proof  too  strong 


DEBATES  OF  CONGRESS. 


433 


FEBRUARY,  1820.] 


Missouri  Question. 


[SENATE. 


of  this  to  admit  of  denial,  or  even  'doubt.  All 
the  articles  of  compact  are  prefaced  by  the 
most  unequivocal  declaration  by  the  Congress, 
that  they  contain  the  essential  principles  of  the 
governments  of  the  old  States,  and  what  they 
deemed  the  essential  principles  of  all  free  gov- 
ernments ;  that  is,  in  brief,  republican  govern- 
ment. We  first  find  the  phrases  "  Republican 
States,"  and  Republican  Government,"  used,  in 
reference  to  new  States,  in  the  resolutions  of 
Congress  in  1780  and  1784,  and  in  the  ordi- 
nance of  1787,  from  whence  the  phrase  has 
been  transplanted  into  the  constitution.  .A  new 
State  admitted  into  the  Union,  therefore,  must 
be  a  State  with  a  republican  government. 
Though  gentlemen  have  looked  abroad  to  de- 
fine this  phrase,  to  get  at  a  conveniently  en- 
larged definition,  it  follows,  most  clearly,  that  it 
stands  in  the  constitution  an  insuperable  inter- 
dict to  slave-making. 

We  have  been  told,  as  before  remarked,  that 
the  ordinance  of  1787  was  an  act  of  usurpation. 
The  Congress,  under  the  Confederation,  had  the 
power  of  making  treaties.  The  States  were  not 
forbidden  under  that  Government,  to  cede  ter- 
ritory to  the  United  States.  The  parties  to  the 
cession  of  the  Northwestern  Territory  were 
parties  competent  to  treat.  The  Congress  be- 
came vested,  by  virtue  of  their  several  cessions, 
with  all  the  powers  the  States  had  over  the 
ceded  territory,  excepting  so  far  as  the  stipula- 
tions abridged  that  power.  These  stipulations 
provided  that  the  said  territory  should  be  form- 
ed into  States,  and  admitted  into  the  Union. 
Nine  States  were  competent  to  admit  new 
members.  The  ordinance  of  1787  was  virtually 
an  admission  of  States  into  the  Union.  This 
vote  of  admission  was  unanimous.  The  ordi- 
nance was  supervised  by  Virginia — first  by  her 
delegates  in  the  Congress,  and  next  by  her 
Legislature,  who,  at  the  desire  of  Congress, 
modified  the  terms  of  cession.  It  is  thus  im- 
possible there  could  have  been  any  doubt,  on 
the  part  of  either  of  the  contracting  parties,  as 
to  the  meaning  of  what  was  termed  the  same 
rights  of  freedom,  sovereignty,  and  independ- 
ence, as  to  the  original  States,  as  well  as  to  the 
power  of  the  Congress  to  prescribe  terms  of 
admission. 

The  Congress  have  now  the  power  over  the 
Territory  of  Missouri  it  has  had  over  that  north- 
west of  the  Ohio,  restricted  alike  by  the  treaty 
of  cession.  That  treaty  certainly  does  not  re- 
quire the  unrestricted  introduction  of  slaves. 
We  admit  it  guarantees  the  property  in  those 
that  now  exist.  We  therefore  hold  Congress 


to  be  as  free  to  require  of  the  new  State  to  in- 
hibit their  further  introduction,  as  they  were 
formerly  to  forbid  the  existence  of  slavery  in 
the  States  northwest  of  the  Ohio. 

To  show  that  slavery  is  fruitful  of  elevation 
of   national   character,   the    achievement-;   <>t' 
Thermopyla),  Marathon,  Salamis,  and  Platsea, 
have  been  instanced.     Say,  was  Grecian  prow- 
ess less  in  the  Ten   Thousand,  and  at  Arbela?    turn  of  property  is  necessary  to  the  enjoyment 
Men  will  encounter  much  for  their  liberty;  they  I  of  the  elective  franchise,  and  that  the  white 
VOL.  VI.— 28 


will  sometimes  perform  bold  deeds  in  pursuit  of 
mere  glory,  or  through  attachment  to  a  leader. 
Generally,  I  admit  that  great  actions  are  the 
result  of  strong  moral  motives.  I  should  rather 
ascribe  the  memorable  exploits  of  the  ancient 
republics  to  the  free  principles  of  their  govern- 
ment, than  to  the  existence  of  slavery,  which 
seems  at  last  to  have  been  their  bane. 

In  depicting  the  effects  of  the  very  limited 
proposition  before  you,  gentlemen  have  in- 
dulged in  the  most  extravagant  figures  of  lan- 
guage. On  the  one  hand,  they  have  drawn 
Missouri  in  chains  prostrate  at  your  feet,  the 
limbs  of  her  sovereignty  mangled  by  a  sort  of 
political  surgery,  with  a  brand  on  her  face,  and 
the  .collar  of  servitude  about,  and  your  feet 
upon,  her  neck ;  the  victim  of  the  most  odious 
reproach,  with  her  spirit  broken ;  a  State 
squeezed  to  a  pigmy,  and  made  the  shadow  of 
a  shade,  and  the  scorn  of  every  tongue.  We 
are  next  warned  to  beware  of  awakening  the 
sturdy  spirit  of  Missouri;  she  is,  it  is  said, 
snuffing  oppression  in  every  breeze.  We  are 
called  upon  to  look  at  her,  filled  with  a  mighty 
population,  dissatisfied  and  rebellious ;  to  sow- 
not  such  seeds,  lest  we  reap  a  lamentable  har- 
vest. Really,  like  the  gentleman  from  Mary- 
land, I  want  intellect  to  comprehend  the  force 
of  such  reasoning,  if  it  be  to  be  called  by  so  sober 
a  name.  To  what  desperate  acts  of  folly  must 
this  compassionating  and  anon  terrifying  style 
of  address  lead,  if  it  be  allowed  to  have  any 
effect.  In  the  midst  of  the  tumult  of  the  pas- 
sions of  fear  and  pity,  reason  and  a  sense  of 
right  can  hardly  fail  to  be  obliterated.  Id  it, 
exclaims  the  gentleman  from  Maryland,  (Mr. 
PINKNEY,)  that  you  wish  to  force  manumission 
on  the  South  ?  I  answer,  not  at  all.  It  is  to 
do  nothing  more  nor  less  than  to  prevent,  as  far 
as  possible,  the  extension  of  slavery. 

Gentlemen  have  taken  much  offence  at  the 
pamphlets  which  have  been  published,  reason- 
ing against  the  extension  of  slavery  in  Missouri. 
Why  this  disturbance  ?  We  have  not  relied  on 
them,  nor  plead  them  in  the  argument.  I  &at 
aware  it  has  been  broadly  intimated  that  we 
have  found  it  cut  and  dried  to  our  hand.  If  it 
were  even  so,  it  is  still  argument,  and  gen- 
tlemen must  meet  it  for  what  it  is  worth.  We 
claim  no  merit  further  than  that  of  doing  what 
we  find  to  be  right  in  the  best  way  we  can,  and 
the  plain  course  for  gentlemen  is,  after  meeting 
us  here,  if  they  be  disturbed  by  what  is  said 
elsewhere,  to  sit  down  in  their  closets  and  re- 
fute these  offensive  publications.  I  should  be 
pleased  to  find  them  at  such  a  work.  It  would 


be  fairly  to  enter  the  lists  with  the  pam- 
phleteers, and  to  oppose  Pharsalia  to  Pharsalia. 
Perhaps,  however,  these  officious  authors  will 
be  sufficiently  noticed  in  gentlemen's  speeches. 
The  gentleman  from  Maryland  says,  if  slavery 
be  incompatible  with  republican  Government, 
that  State  must  retire  from  the  Union,  perhaps, 
for  her  sins.  In  some  States,  says  he,  a  quan- 


434 


ABRIDGMENT  OF  THE 


SENATE.] 


Ohio  Resolutions. 


[FEBRUARY,  1820. 


man  who  has  it  not  is  as  much  disfranchised  as 
the  slave  of  the  South.  How  strange  an  asser- 
tion !  Is  the  white  man  under  the  control  of 
a  master  whom  he  has  not  chosen,  liable  to 
punishment  at  his  will,  bound  to  labor  for  his 
exclusive  benefit,  and  to  receive  his  pittance 
of  food  and  raiment  from  the  hand  and  at  the 
discretion  of  him  who  holds  him  in  bondage  ? 
To  hear  observations  so  vague  and  unreasonable 
may  be  matter  of  surprise,  but  hardly  fit  sub- 
ject for  reply.  The  government  of  slaves,  we 
are  told,  is  a  patriarchal  one,  and  that,  in  nine 
cases  out  of  ten,  the  slaves  which  may  be  taken 
to  Missouri  will  go  with  their  masters.  At 
least,  then,  in  one  case  out  of  ten,  they  will  be 
taken  there  manacled,  under  the  lash  of  the 
driver,  who  holds  them  in  no  other  estimation 
than  as  property — the  creature  of  municipal 
law.  I  have  witnessed  such  exhibitions  from 
the  windows  of  this  Capitol.  But  more.  Though 
in  persons  so  degraded  the  severance  of  the  ties 
of  husband  and  wife  may  be  less  painful  to  the 
sufferers  than  if  the  parties  were  of  free  con- 
dition, but  ties  of  maternal  fondness  are  govern- 
ed by  other  laws.  Nor  can  it  be  necessary 
to  paint  to  your  imagination  the  distress  that 
a  severance  of  these  ties  by  violence  must 
awaken. 

Slaves,  says  the  gentleman  from  South  Caro- 
lina, (Mr.  SMITH,)  are  the  happiest  poor  people 
in  the  world,  and  the  gentleman  from  Virginia 
(Mr.  BAEBOUR)  tells  us  the  parting  of  a  slave 
from  his  master  is  not  like  parting  the  hired 
man  from  his  employer.  I  have  had  occasions 
to  listen  before  now  to  comparisons  drawn  by 
Southern  gentlemen  between  the  laborer  of  the 
North  and  the  Southern  slave.  In  ordinary 
cases  such  a  parallel  could  hardly  justify  a  re- 
ply. The  white  laborer  is  always  a  free  man, 
generally  an  honest  man ;  often  an  intelligent 
and  informed  man.  He  knows  his  rights,  and 
understands  his  duties.  Free  laborers,  who  are 
housekeepers,  are  seldom  without  their  news- 
papers and  means  of  information.  These  chan- 
nels of  intelligence  are  everywhere  established 
with  us.  It  is  a  successful  business  to  the  pub- 
lishers almost  always.  Can  there  be  a  stronger 
evidence  of  a  reading  people  ?  The  relation  be- 
tween laborer  and  employer,  where  the  latter 
is  a  free  man,  is  that  of  equals.  Each  looks  to 
the  other  for  the.  fulfilment  of  the  covenant  be- 
tween them.  They  often  stand  in  the  relation 
of  friends.  Their  intercourse  is  almost  always 
respectful  and  courteous.  I  have  been  forcibly 
struck  with  how  equal  a  share  of  happiness,  to 
say  the  least,  was  enjoyed  by  the  man  of  opu- 
lence and  the  cottager  in  the  Northern  States. 
The  later,  being  of  good  conduct,  always  has  the 
boon  of  substantial  freedom,  and  can  hardly 
want  the  comforts  of  life,  while  the  cares  and 
anxieties  of  the  former  seem  proportioned  to 
his  desire  of  increasing  his  wealth.  Under  any 
aspect,  however,  there  can  be  no  just  resem- 
blance, nor  any  comparison  of  advantages,  com- 
mon to  the  freeman  and  slave.  I  must  beg 
leave  to  correct  the  gentleman  from  South 


Carolina,  (Mr.  SMITH,)  when  he  says  that  the 
Colonization  Society  was  formed  to  rid  the 
non-slaveholding  States  of  their  free  people 
of  color.  The  associated  friends  of  African 
emancipation  in  those  States  have  explicitly 
published  to  the  world,  they  consider  the  pro- 
ject as  having  originated  in  the  South ;  that  its 
object  is  the  perpetuation  of  slavery ;  and  that 
they  can  neither  participate  in  it,  nor  counte- 
nance it. 

"When  gentlemen  claim  for  Missouri  this  boon 
of  slavery,  as  it  has  been  called,  and  paint  its 
advantages,  and  plead  for  its  legality,  let  them 
look  at  its  origin.  Whence  have  they  derived 
their  claims  as  owners  and  masters?  From  the 
violence  of  savage  warfare;  from  the  frauds 
and  crimes  of  the  man-stealer.  Here  is  the 
foundation  of  their  pretensions.  What  was 
originally  wrong  can  never  become  right,  while 
there  is  a  living  subject  to  suffer.  While  I  most 
readily  admit,  a  sudden  and  general  emancipa- 
tion in  a  large  portion  of  this  Union  would  be 
the  frenzy  of  madness,  I  hold  it  the  incumbent 
duty  of  all  to  believe  it  desirable,  and  to  look 
and  hope  for  its  consummation  in  the  fulness  of 
God's  providence. 

No  other  gentleman  rising  to  speak,  the  ques- 
tion was  taken  on  the  restrictive  amendment 
offered  by  Mr.  EOBEBTS,  which  is  in  the  follow- 
ing words:  "Provided,  also,  that  the  further 
introduction  into  the  said  State  of  persons  to  be 
held  in  slavery  or  involuntary  servitude  within 
the  same,  shall  be  absolutely  and  irrevocably 
prohibited;"  and  decided  in  the  negative,  by 
yeas  and  nays,  as  follows : 

YEAS. — Messrs.  Burrill,  Dana,  Dickerson,  King  of 
New  York,  Lowrie,  Mellen,  Morrill,  Noble,  Otis,  Rob- 
erts, Ruggles,  Sanford,  Taylor,  Tichenor,  Trimble, 
and  Wilson— 16. 

NAYS. — Messrs.  Barbour,  Brown,  Eaton,  Edwards, 
Elliot,  Gaillard,  Hunter,  Johnson  of  Kentucky,  John- 
son of  Louisiana,  King  of  Alabama,  Lanman,  Leake, 
Lloyd,  Logan,  Macon,  Palmer,  Parroti,  Pinkney, 
Pleasants,  Smith,  Stokes,  Thomas,  Van  Dyke,  Wal- 
ker of  Alabama,  Walker  of  Georgia,  Williams  of 
Mississippi,  and  Williams  of  Tennessee — 27. 


THURSDAY,  February  8. 

Ohio  Resolutions  against  the  existence  of  Slavery 
in  the  Territories  or  New  States. 

Mr.  KTJGGLES  communicated  the  following 
resolutions  of  the  State  of  Ohio,  which  were 
read: 

"  Whereas  the  existence  of  slavery  in  our  country 
must  be  considered  a  national  calamity,  as  well  as  a 
great  moral  and  political  evil ;  and  whereas  the  ad- 
mission of  slavery  within  the  new  States  or  Territo- 
ries of  the  United  States  is  fraught  with  the  most 
pernicious  consequences,  and  calculated  to  endanger 
the  peace  and  prosperity  of  our  country ;  therefore, 

Resolved,  That  our  Senators  and  Representatives  in 
Congress  be  requested  to  use  their  utmost  exertions 
to  prevent  the  admission  or  introduction  of  slavery 
into  any  of  the  Territories  of  the  United  States,  or 
any  new  State  that  may  hereafter  be  admitted  into 
the  Union." 


DEBATES  OF  CONGRESS. 


435 


FEBRUABY,  1820.] 


Restriction  on  the  State  of  Missouri. 


[SENATE. 


The  Compromise  Proposed. 

Mr.  THOMAS,  of  Illinois,  submitted  the  follow- 
ing additional  section,  as  an  amendment  to  the 
Missouri  bill,  (which,  it  was  proposed,  by  a  re- 
port of  the  Judiciary  Committee,  to  incorporate 
with  the  Maine  bill,)  viz  : 

"  And  be  it  further  enacted,  That  in  all  that  tract 
of  country 'ceded  by  France  to  the  United  States,  un- 
der the  name  of  Louisiana,  which  lies  north  of  thirty- 
six  degrees  and  thirty  minutes  north  latitude,  except- 
ing only  such  part  thereof  as  is  included  within  the 
limits  of  the  State  contemplated  by  this  act,  there 
shall  be  neither  slavery  nor  involuntary  servitude, 
otherwise  than  in  the  punishment  of  crimes  whereof 
the  party  shall  have  been  duly  convicted  :  Provided 
always,  That  any  person  escaping  into  the  same,  from 
whom  labor  or  service  is  lawfully  claimed  in  any 
State  or  Territory  of  the  United  States,  such  fugitive 
may  be  lawfully  reclaimed,  and  conveyed  to  the  per- 
son claiming  his  or  her  labor  or  service  as  aforesaid." 

The  amendment  having  been  read,  the  further 
consideration  of  the  subject  was,  on  motion  of 
Mr.  THOMAS,  postponed  to  Monday  next. 

FRIDAY,  February  11. 
Restriction  on  the  State  of  Missouri. 

The  Senate  resumed  the  consideration  of  the 
Maine  bill,  and  the  amendment  reported  thereto 
by  the  Judiciary  Committee,  (adding  provisions 
for  the  formation  of  a  State  government  in  Mis- 
souri.) 

Mr.  KING,  of  New  York,  agreeably  to  the  in- 
timation which  he  gave  on  Wednesday,  rose  and 
addressed  the  Senate  about  two  hours,  in  sup- 
port of  the  right  and  expediency  of  restricting 
the  contemplated  State  of  Missouri  from  per- 
mitting slavery  therein  ;  and  then,  on  motion  of 
Mr.  SMITH,  the  subject  was  postponed  to  Mon- 
day ;  to  which  day  the  Senate  adjourned. 

TUESDAY,  February  15. 
Restriction  on  the  State  of  Missouri. 

Mr.  PnrexEY,  of  Maryland,  rose  and  addressed 
the  Senate  nearly  three  hours  against  the  re- 
striction, and  in  reply  to  the  remarks  of  Mr. 
KING,  of  New  York.  His  speech  is  as  follows  :* 

Mr.  President :  As  I  am  not  a  very  frequent 
speaker  in  this  Assembly,  and  have  shown  a 
desire,  I  trust,  rather  to  listen  to  the  wisdom  of 
others  than  to  lay  claim  to  superior  knowledge 
by  undertaking  to  advise,  even  when  advice,  by 
being  seasonable  in  point  of  time,  might  have 
some  chance  of  being  profitable,  you  will,  per- 
haps, bear  with  me  if  1  venture  to  trouble  you 
once  more  on  that  eternal  subject  which  has 
lingered  here,  until  all  its  natural  interest  is  ex- 
hausted, and  every  topic  connected  with  it  is 
literally  worn  to  tatters.  I  shall,  I  assure  you, 
sir,  speak  with  laudable  brevity — not  merely  on 
account  of  the  feeble  state  of  my  health,  and 


*  Mr.  Pinkney  spoke  twice  on  this  subject— once  to  the 
restriction  itself,  before  Mr.  King  took  his  seat,  and  now  in 
reply  to  Mr.  King.  The  first  speech  of  Mr.  Pinkney  was 
not  reported,  nor  has  that  of  Mr.  King  been  .to  which  he 
replied. 


from  some  reverence  for  the  laws  of  good  taste 
which  forbid  me  to  speak  otherwise,  but  also 
from  a  sense  of  justice  to  those  who  honor  me 
with  their  attention.  My  single  purpose,  as  I 
suggested  yesterday,  is  to  subject  to  a  friendly, 
yet  close  examination,  some  portions  of  a  speech, 
imposing  certainly  on  account  of  the  distin- 
guished quarter  from  whence  it  came — not  very 
imposing,  if  I  may  so  say,  without  departing 
from  that  respect  which  I  sincerely  feel  and  in- 
tend to  manifest  for  eminent  abilities  and  long 
experience,  for  any  other  reason. 

I  believe,  Mr.  President,  that  I  am  about  as 
likely  to  retract  an  opinion  which  I  have  formed 
as  any  member  of  this  body,  who,  being  a  lover 
of  truth,  inquires  after  it  with  diligence  before 
he  imagines  that  he  has  found  it ;  but  I  suspect 
that  we  are  all  of  us  so  constituted  as  that 
neither  argument  nor  declamation,  levelled 
against  recorded  and  published  decision,  can 
easily  discover  a  practicable  avenue  through 
which  he  may  hope  to  reach  either  our  heads 
or  our  hearts.  I  mention  this  lest  it  may  excite 
surprise,  when  I  take  the  liberty  to  add,  that 
the  speech  of  the  honorable  gentleman  from 
New  York,  upon  the  great  subject  with  which 
it  was  principally  occupied,  has  left  me  as  great 
an  infidel  as  it  found  me.  It  is  possible,  indeed, 
that  if  I  had  had  the  good  fortune  to  hear  that 
speech  at  an  earlier  stage  of  this  debate,  when 
all  was  fresh  and  new,  although  I  feel  confident 
that  the  analysis  which  it  contained  of  the  con- 
stitution, illustrated  as  it  was  by  historical  anec- 
dote rather  than  by  reasoning,  would  have  been 
just  as  unsatisfactory  to  me  then  as  it  is  now,  I 
might  not  have  been  altogether  unmoved  by 
those  warnings  of  approaching  evil  which  it 
seemed  to  intimate,  especially  when  taken  in 
connection  with  the  observations  of  the  same 
honorable  gentleman  on  a  preceding  day,  "  that 
delays  in  disposing  of  this  subject  in  the  manner 
he  desires  are  dangerous,  and  that  we  stand  on 
slippery  ground."  I  must  be  permitted,  how- 
ever, (speaking  only  for  myself,)  to  say  that  the 
hour  of  dismay  is  passed.  I  have  heard  the 
tones  of  the  larum  bell  on  all  sides,  until  they 
have  become  familiar  to  my  ear,  and  have  lost 
their  power  to  appal,  if,  indeed,  they  ever  pos- 
sessed it.  Notwithstanding  occasional  appear- 
ances of  rather  an  unfavorable  description,  I 
have  long  since  persuaded  myself  that  the  Mis- 
souri question,  as  it  is  called,  might  be  laid  to 
rest,  with  innocence  and  safety,  by  some  con- 
ciliatory compromise  at  least,  by  which,  as  is 
our  duty,  we  might  reconcile  the  extremes  of 
views  and  feelings,  without  any  sacrifice  of  con- 
stitutional principle ;  and  in  any  event,  that  the 
Union  would  easily  and  triumphantly  emerge 
from  those  portentous  clouds  with  which  this 
controversy  is  supposed  to  have  environed  it. 

I  confess  to  you,  nevertheless,  that  s<  >me  of  the 
principles  announced  by  the  honorable  gentle- 
man from  New  York,  (Mr.  KINO,)  with  an  ex- 
plicitness  that  reflected  the  highest  credit  on  his 
candor,  did,  when  they  were  first  presented, 
startle  me  not  a  little.  They  were  not,  perhaps, 


436 


ABRIDGMENT  OF  THE 


SENATE.] 


Restriction  on  the  State  of  Missouri. 


[FEBRUARY,  1820. 


entirely  new.    Perhaps  I  had  seen  them  befdre 
in  some  shadowy  and  doubtful  shape, 

If  shape  it  might  be  called,  that  shape  had  none 
Distinguishable  in  member,  joint,  or  limb. 

Bat  in  the  honorable  gentleman's  speech  they 
were  shadowy  and  doubtful  no  longer.  He  ex- 
hibited them  in  forms  so  boldly  and  accurately 
denned,  with  contours  so  distinctly  traced,  with 
features  so  pronounced  and  striking,  that  I  was 
unconscious  for  a  moment  that  they  might  be  old 
acquaintances.  I  received  them  as  novi  hospites 
within  these  walls,  and  gazed  upon  them  with 
astonishment  and  alarm.  I  have  recovered,  how- 
ever, thank  God,  from  this  paroxysm  of  terror, 
although  not  from  that  of  astonishment.  I  have 
sought  and  found  tranquillity  and  courage  in  my 
former  consolatory  faith.  My  reliance  is  that 
these  principles  will  obtain  no  general  currency  ; 
for,  if  they  should,  it  requires  no  gloomy  imag- 
ination to  sadden  the  perspective  of  the  future. 
My  reliance  is  upon  the  unsophisticated  good 
sense  and  noble  spirit  of  the  American  people.  I 
have  what  I  may  be  allowed  to  call  a  proud  and 
patriotic  trust,  that  they  will  give  countenance 
to  no  principles  which,  if  followed  out  to  their 
obvious  consequences,  will  not  only  shake  the 
goodly  fabric  of  the  Union  to  its  foundation, 
but  reduce  it  to  a  melancholy  ruin.  The  people 
of  this  country,  if  I  do  not  wholly  mistake  their 
character,  are  wise  as  well  as  virtuous.  They 
know  the  value  of  that  Federal  association  which 
is  to  them  the  single  pledge  and  guarantee  of 
power  and  peace.  Their  warm  and  pious  affec- 
tions will  cling  to  it  as  to  their  only  hope  of  pros- 
perity and  happiness,  in  defiance  of  pernicious 
abstractions,  by  whomsoever  inculcated,  or  how- 
soever seductive  and  alluring  in  their  aspect. 

Sir,  it  is  not  an  occasion  like  this,  although 
connected,  as  contrary  to  all  reasonable  expec- 
tation it  has  been,  with  fearful  and  disorganiz- 
ing theories,  which  would  make  our  estimates, 
whether  fanciful  or  sound,  of  natural  law,  the 
measure  of  civil  rights  and  political  sovereignty 
in  the  social  state,  that  can  harm  the  Union. 
It  must  indeed  be  a  mighty  storm  that  can  push 
from  its  moorings  this  sacred  bark  of  the  com- 
mon safety.  It  is  not  every  trifling  breeze, 
however  it  may  be  made  to  sob  and  howl  in 
imitation  of  the  tempest,  by  the  auxiliary 
breath  of  the  ambitious,  the  timid,  or  the 
discontented,  that  can  drive  this  gallant  vessel, 
freighted  with  every  thing  that  is  dear  to  an 
American  bosom,  upon  the  rocks,  or  lay  it  a 
sheer  hulk  upon  the  ocean.  I  may,  perhaps, 
mistake  the  flattering  suggestions  of  hope,  (the 
greatest  of  all  flatterers,  as  we  are  told,)  for  the 
conclusions  of  sober  reason.  Yet  it  is  a  pleasing 
error,  if  it  be  an  error,  and  no  man  shall  take  it 
from  me.  I  will  continue  to  cherish  the  belief, 
in  defiance  of  the  public  patronage  given  by  the 
honorable  gentleman  from  New  York,  with 
more  than  his  ordinary  zeal  and  solemnity,  to 
deadly  speculations  which,  invoking  the  name 
of  God  to  aid  their  faculties  for  mischief,  strike 
at  all  establishments,  that  the  union  of  these 


States  is  formed  to  bear  up  against  far  greater 
shocks  than,  through  all  vicissitudes,  it  is  ever 
likely  to  encounter.  I  will  continue  to  cherish 
the  belief  that,  although  like  all  other  human 
institutions,  it  may  for  a  season  be  disturbed,  or 
sufier  momentary  eclipse  by  the  transit  across 
its  disk  of  some  malignant  planet,  it  possesses  a 
recuperative  force,  a  redeeming  energy  in  the 
hearts  of  the  people,  that  will  soon  restore  it  to 
its  wonted  calm,  and  give  it  back  its  accustomed 
splendor.  On  such  a  subject  I  will  discard  all 
hysterical  apprehensions,  I  will  deal  in  no  sinis- 
ter auguries,  I  will  indulge  in  no  hypochondriacal 
forebodings.  I  will  look  forward  to  the  future 
with  gay  and  cheerful  hope ;  and  I  will  make 
the  prospect  smile,  in  fancy  at  least,  until  over- 
whelming reality  shall  render  it  no  longer 
possible. 

I  have  said  thus  much,  sir,  in  order  that  I  may 
be  understood  as  meeting  the  constitutional 
question  as  a  mere  question  of  interpretation,  and 
as  disdaining  to  press  into  the  service  of  my 
argument  upon  it  prophetic  fears  of  any  sort, 
however  they  may  be  countenanced  by  an 
avowal,  formidable  by  reason  of  the  high  repu- 
tation of  the  individual  by  whom  it  has  been 
hazarded,  of  sentiments  the  most  destructive, 
which,  if  not  borrowed  from,  are  identical  with, 
the  worst  visions  of  the  political  philosophy  of 
France  when  all  the  elements  of  discord  and 
misrule  were  let  loose  upon  that  devoted  na- 
tion. I  mean  "  the  infinite  perfectibility  of  man 
and  his  institutions,"  u'ndthe  resolution  of  every 
thing  into  a  state  of  nature.  I  have  another 
motive  which,  at  the  risk  of  being  misconstrued, 
I  will  declare  without  reserve.  "With  my  con- 
victions, and  with  my  feelings,  I  never  will 
consent  to  hold  confederated  America  as  bound 
together  by  a  silken  cord,  which  any  instrument 
of  mischief  may  sever,  to  the  view  of  monarch- 
ical foreigners,  who  look  with  a  jealous  eye 
upon  that  glorious  experiment  which  is  now  in 
progress  amongst  us  in  favor  of  republican  free- 
dom. Let  them  make  such  prophecies  as  they 
will,  and  nourish  such  feelings  as  they  may:  I 
will  not  contribute  to  the  fulfilment  of  the 
former,  nor  minister  to  the  gratification  of  the 
latter. 

Sir,  it  was  but  the  other  day  that  we  were 
forbidden  (properly  forbidden,  I  am  sure,  for 
prohibition  came  from  you)  to  assume  that  there 
existed  any  intention  to  impose  a  prospective 
restraint  on  the  domestic  legislation  of  Missouri 
— a  restraint  to  act  upon  it  contemporaneously 
with  its  origin  as  a  State,  and  to  continue  ad- 
lesive  to  it  through  all  the  stages  of  its  political 
existence.  We  are  now,  however,  permitted  to 
f  now  that  it  is  determined  by  a  sort  of  political 
surgery  to  amputate  one  of  the  limbs  of  its  local 
sovereignty,  and  thus  mangled  and  disparaged, 
and  thus  only,  to  receive  it  into  the  bosom  of  the 
constitution.  It  is  now  avowed,  that  while  Maine 
s  to  be  ushered  into  the  Union  with  every  pos- 
sible demonstration  of  studious  reverence  on 
our  part,  and  on  hers  with  colors  flying,  aud  all 
:he  other  graceful  accompaniments  of  honorable 


DEBATES  OF  CONGRESS. 


437 


FEBRUARY,  1820.] 


Restriction  on  the  State  of  Mil 


[SENATE. 


triumph,  this  ill-conditioned  upstart  of  the 
West,  this  obscure  foundling  of  a  wilderness 
that  was  but  yesterday  the  hunting-ground  of 
the  savage,  is  to  find  her  way  into  the  American 
family  as  she  can,  with  a  humiliating  badge  of 
remediless  inferiority  patched  upon  her  gar- 
ments, with  the  mark  of  recent  qualified  manu- 
mission upon  her,  or  rather  with  a  brand  upon 
her  foreliead  to  tell  the  story  of  her  territorial 
vassalage,  and  to  perpetuate  the  memory  of  her 
evil  propensities.  It  is  now  avowed  that,  while 
the  robust  District  of  Maine  is  to  be  seated  by  the 
side  of  her  truly  respectable  parent,  co-ordinate 
in  authority  and  honor,  and  is  to  be  dandled 
into  that  power  and  dignity  of  which  she  does 
not  stand  in  need,  but  which  undoubtedly  she 
deserves,  the  more  infantine  and  feeble  Missouri 
is  to  be  repelled  with  harshness,  and  forbidden 
to  come  at  all,  unless  with  the  iron  collar  of 
servitude  about  her  neck,  instead  of  the  civic 
crown  of  republican  freedom  upon  her  brows, 
and  is  to  be  doomed  forever  to  leading  strings, 
unless  she  will  exchange  those  leading  strings 
for  shackles. 

I  am  told  that  you  have  the  power  to  establish 
this  odious  and  revolting  distinction,  and  I  am 
referred  for  the  proofs  of  that  power  to  various 
parts  of  the  constitution,  but  principally  to  that 
part  of  it  which  authorizes  the  admission  of  new 
States  into  the  Union.  I  am  myself  of  opinion 
that  it  is  in  that  part  only  that  the  advocates  for 
this  restriction  can,  with  any  hope  of  success, 
apply  for  a  license  to  oppose  it,  and  that  the 
efforts  which  have  been  made  to  find  it  in  other 
portions  of  that  instrument,  are  too  desperate 
to  require  to  be  encountered.  I  shall,  however, 
examine  those  other  portions  before  I  have 
done,  lest  it  should  be  supposed  by  those  who 
have  relied  upon  them,  that  what  I  omit  to 
answer  I  believe  to  be  unanswerable. 

The  clause  of  the  constitution  which  relates 
to  the  admission  of  new  States  is  in  these  words : 
"  The  Congress  may  admit  new  States  into  this 
Union,"  &c.,  and  the  advocates  for  restriction 
maintain  that  the  use  of  the  word  "may"  im- 
ports discretion  to  admit  or  to  reject ;  and  that  in 
this  discretion  is  wrapped  up  another — that  of 
prescribing  the  terms  and  conditions  of  admis- 
sion in  case  you  are  willing  to  admit  Cujus  est 
dare  ejus  est  disponere.  I  will  not  for  the  pres- 
ent inquire  whether  this  involved  discretion  to 
dictate  the  terms  of  admission  belongs  to  you 
or  not.  It  is  fit  that  I  should  first  look  to  the 
nature  and  extent  of  it. 

I  think  I  may  assume  that  if  such  a  power  be 
any  thing  but  nominal,  it  is  much  more  than 
adequate  to  the  present  object;  that  it  is  a 
power  of  vast  expansion,  to  which  human  sa- 
gacity can  assign  no  reasonable  limits ;  that  is 
a  capacious  reservoir  of  authority,  from  which 
you  may  take,  in  all  time  to  come,  as  occasion 
may  serve,  the  means  of  oppression  as  well  as 
of  benefaction.  I  know  that  it  professes  at  this 
moment  to  be  the  chosen  instrument  of  protect- 
ing mercy,  and  would  win  upon  us  by  its  benig- 
nant smiles;  but  I  know,  too,  it  can  frown  and 


play  the  tyrant,  if  it  be  so  disposed.  Notwith- 
standing the  softness  which  it  now  assumes, 
and  the  care  with  which  it  conceals  its  giant 
proportions  beneath  the  deceitful  drapery  of 
sentiment,  when  it  next  appears  before  yon  it 
may  show  itself  with  a  sterner  countenance  and 
in  more  awful  dimensions.  It  is,  to  speak  the 
truth,  sir,  a  power  of  colossal  size ;  if,  indeed, 
it  be  not  an  abuse  of  language  to  call  it  by  the 
gentle  name  of  a  power.  Sir,  it  is  a  wilderness 
of  powers,  of  which  fancy,  in  her  happiest  mood, 
is  unable  to  perceive  the  far  distant  and  shadowy 
boundary.  Armed  with  such  a  power,  with 
religion  in  one  hand  and  philanthropy  in  the 
other,  and  followed  with  a  goodly  train  of  pub- 
lic and  private  virtues,  you  may  achieve  more 
conquests  over  sovereignties,  not  your  own, 
than  falls  to  the  common  lot  of  even  uncommon 
ambition.  By  the  aid  of  such  a  power,  skilfully 
employed,  you  may  "  bridge  your  way"  over  the 
Hellespont  that  separates  State  legislation  from 
that  of  Congress ;  and  you  may  do  so  for  pretty 
much  the  same  purpose  with  which  Xerxes  once 
bridged  his  way  across  the  Hellespont,  that 
separates  Asia  from  Europe.  He  did  so,  in  the 
language  of  Milton,  "  the  liberties  of  Greece  to 
yoke."  You  may  do  so  for  the  analogous  pur- 
pose of  subjugating  and  reducing  the  sovereign- 
ties of  States,  as  your  taste  or  convenience 
may  suggest,  and  fashioning  them  to  your  im- 
perial will.  There  are  those  in  this  House  who 
appear  to  think,  and  I  doubt  not  sincerely,  that 
the  particular  restraint  now  under  consideration 
is  wise,  and  benevolent,  and  good  :  wise  as  re- 
spects the  Union,  good  as  respects  Missouri,  be- 
nevolent as  respects  the  unhappy  victims  whom", 
with  a  novel  kindness,  it  would  incarcerate  in 
the  South,  and  bless  by  decay  and  extirpation. 
Let  all  such  beware,  lest  in  their  desire  for  the 
effect  which  they  believe  the  restrictions  will 
produce,  they  are  too  easily  satisfied  that  they 
have  the  right  to  impose  it.  The  moral  beauty 
of  the  present  purpose,  or  even  its  political  re- 
commendations, (whatever  they  may  be,)  can. 
do  nothing  for  a  power  like  this,  which  claims 
to  prescribe  conditions  ad  libitum,  and  to  be 
competent  to  this  purpose,  because  it  is  com- 
petent to  all.  This  restriction,  if  it  be  not 
smothered  in  its  birth,  will  be  but  a  small  part 
of  the  progeny  of  that  prolific  power.  It  teems 
with  a  mighty  brood,  of  which  this  may  be  en- 
titled to  the  distinction  of  comeliness  as  well  as 
of  primogeniture.  The  rest  may  want  the 
boasted  loveliness  of  their  predecessor,  and  be 
even  uglier  than  "  Lapland  witches." 

Perhaps,  sir,  you  will  permit  me  to  remind 
you  that  it  is  almost  always  in  company  with 
those  considerations  that  interest  the  heart  in 
some  way  or  other,  that  encroachment  steals 
into  the  world.  A  bad  purpose  throws  no  veil 
over  the  licenses  of  power.  It  leaves  them  to 
be  seen  as  they  are.  It  affords  them  no  protec- 
tion from  the  inquiring  eye  of  jealousy.  The 
danger  is,  when  a  tremendous  discretion  like 
the  present  is  attempted  to  be  assumed,  .as  on 
this  occasion,  in  the  names  of  pity,  of  religion, 


438 


ABRIDGMENT  OF  THE 


SENATE.] 


Restriction  on  the  State  of  Missouri. 


[FEBRUARY,  1820. 


of  national  honor,  and  national  prosperity; 
when  encroachment  tricks  itself  out  in  the 
robes  of  piety  or  humanity,  or  addresses  itself 
to  pride  of  country,  with  all  its  kindred  passions 
and  motives.  It  is  then  that  the  guardians  of 
the  constitution  are  apt  to  slumber  on  their 
watch,  or,  if  awake,  to  mistake  for  lawful  rule 
some  pernicious  arrogation  of  power. 

I  would  not  discourage  authorized  legislation 
upon  those  kindly,  generous,  and  noble  feelings 
which  Providence  has  given  to  us  for  the  best 
of  purposes;  but  when  power  to  act  is  under 
discussion,  I  will  not  look  to  the  end  in  view, 
lest  I  should  become  indifferent  to  the  lawful- 
ness of  the  means.  Let  us  discard  from  this 
.high  constitutional  question  all  those  extrinsic 
considerations  which  have  been  forced  into  its 
discussion.  Let  us  endeavor  to  approach  it 
with  a  philosophic  impartiality  of  temper,  with 
a  sincere  desire  to  ascertain  the  boundaries  of 
our  authority,  and  a  determination  to  keep  our 
wishes  in  subjection  to  our  allegiance  to  the 
constitution. 

Slavery,  we  are  told  in  many  a  pamphlet, 
memorial,  and  speech,  with  which  the  press  has 
lately  groaned,  is  a  foul  blot  upon  our  otherwise 
immaculate  reputation.  Let  this  be  conceded 
— yet  you  are  no  nearer  than  before  to  the  con- 
clusion that  you  possess  power  which  may  deal 
with  other  subjects  as  effectually  as  with  this. 
Slavery,  we  are  further  told,  with  some  pomp 
of  metaphor,  is  a  canker  at  the  root  of  all  that 
is  excellent  in  this  republican  empire,  a  pestilent 
disease  that  is  snatching  the  youthful  bloom 
from  its  cheek,  prostrating  its  honor  and  with- 
ering its  strength.  Be  it  so — yet  if  you  have 
power  to  medicine  to  it  in  the  way  proposed, 
and  in  virtue  of  the  diploma  which  you  claim, 
you  have  also  power  in  the  distribution  of  your 
political  alexipharmics  to  present  the  deadliest 
drugs  to  every  Territory  that  would  become  a 
State,  and  bid  it  drink  or  remain  a  colony  for- 
ever. Slavery,  we  are  also  told,  is  now  "  rolling 
onward  with  a  rapid  tide  towards  the  boundless 
regions  of  the  West,"  threatening  to  doom  them 
to  sterility  and  sorrow,  unless  some  potent  voice 
can  say  to  it,  thus  far  shalt  thou  go  and  no  far- 
ther. Slavery  engenders  pride  and  indolence 
in  him  who  commands,  and  inflicts  intellectual 
and  moral  degradation  on  him  who  serves. 
Slavery,  in  fine,  is  unchristian  and  abominable. 
Sir,  I  shall  not  stop  to  deny  that  slavery  is  all 
this  and  more ;  but  I  shall  not  think  myself  the 
less  authorized  to  deny  that  it  is  for  you  to  stay 
the  course  of  this  dark  torrent,  by  opposing  to 
it  a  mound  raised  up  by  the  labors  of  this  por- 
tentous discretion  on  the  domain  of  others  ;  a 
mound  which  you  cannot  erect  but  through  the 
instrumentality  of  a  trespass  of  no  ordinary 
kind— not  the  comparatively  innocent  trespass 
that  beats  down  a  few  blades  of  grass  which  the 
first  kind  sun  or  the  next  refreshing  shower 
may  cause  to  spring  again — but  that  which  lev- 
els with  the  ground  the  lordliest  trees  of  the 
forest,  and  claims  immortality  for  the  destruc- 
tion which  it  inflicts. 


I  shall  not,  I  am  sure,  be  told  that  I  exagger- 
ate this  power.  It  has  been  admitted  here  and 
elsewhere  that  I  do  not  But  I  want  no  such 
concession.  It  is  manifest  that,  as  a  discretion- 
ary power,  it  is  every  thing  or  nothing ;  that 
its  head  is  in  the  clouds,  or  that  it  is  a  mere  fig- 
ment of  enthusiastic  speculation ;  that  it  has  no 
existence,  or  that  it  is  an  alarming  vortex  ready 
to  swallow  up  all  such  portions  of  the  sover- 
eignty of  an  infant  State  as  you  may  think  tit 
to  cast  into  it  as  preparatory  to  the  introduction 
into  the  Union  of  the  miserable  residue.  No 
man  can  contradict  me  when  I  say  that,  if  you 
have  this  power,  you  may  squeeze  down  a  new- 
born sovereign  State  to  the  size  of  a  pigmy, 
and  then  taking  it  between  finger  and  thumb, 
stuck  it  into  some  niche  of  the  Union,  and  still 
continue,  by  way  of  mockery,  to  call  it  a  State 
in  the  sense  of  the  constitution.  You  may 
waste  it  to  a  shadow,  and  then  introduce  it  into 
the  society  of  flesh  and  blood,  an  object  of  scorn 
and  derision.  You  may  sweat  and  reduce  it  to 
a  thing  of  skua  and  bone,  and  then  place  the 
ominous  skeleton  beside  the  ruddy  and  healthful 
members  of  the  Union,  that  it  may  have  leisure 
to  mourn  the  lamentable  difference  between 
itself  and  its  companions,  to  brood  over  its  dis- 
astrous promotion,  and  to  seek,  in  justifiable 
discontent,  an  opportunity  for  separation,  and 
insurrection,  and  rebellion.  "What  may  you 
not  do  by  dexterity  and  perseverance  with  this 
terrific  power?  You  may  give  to  a  new  State. 
in  the  form  of  terms  which  it  cannot  refuse,  (as 
I  shall  show  you  hereafter,)  a  statute  book  of  a 
thousand  volumes,  providing  not  for  ordinary 
cases  only,  but  even  for  possibilities ;  you  may 
lay  the  yoke,  no  matter  whether  light  or  heavy, 
upon  the  necks  of  the  latest  posterity ;  you  may 
send  this  searching  power  into  every  hamlet  for 
centuries  to  come,  by  laws  enacted  in  the  spirit 
of  prophecy,  and  regulating  all  those  dear  rela- 
tions of  domestic  concern  which  belong  to  local 
legislation,  and  which  even  local  legislation 
touches  with  a  delicate  and  sparing  hand.  This 
is  the  first  inroad.  But  will  it  be  the  last? 
This  provision  is  but  a  pioneer  for  others  of  a 
more  desolating  aspect.  It  is  that  fatal  bridge 
of  which  Milton  speaks,  and  when  once  firmly 
built,  what  shall  hinder  you  to  pass  it  when  you 
please  for  the  purpose  of  plundering  power  after 
power,  at  the  expense  of  new  States,  as  you  will 
still  continue  to  call  them,  and  raising  up  pros- 
pective codes  irrevocable  and  immortal,  which 
shall  leave  to  those  States  the  empty  shadows 
of  domestic  sovereignty,  and  convert  them  into 
petty  pageants,  in  themselves  contemptible,  but 
rendered  infinitely  more  so  by  the  contrast  of 
their  humble  faculties  with  the  proud  and  ad- 
mitted pretensions  of  those  who,  having  doomed 
them  to  the  inferiority  of  vassals,  have  conde- 
scended to  take  them  into  their  society  and  un- 
der their  protection  ? 

I  shall  be  told,  perhaps,  that  you  can  have  no 
temptation  to  'do  all  or  any  part  of  this,  and, 
moreover,  that  you  can  do  nothing  of  your- 
selves, or,  in  other  words,  without  the  concur- 


DEBATES  OF  CONGRESS. 


FEBRUARY,  1820.] 


Restriction  on  the  State  of  Missouri. 


[SENATE. 


rence  of  the  new  State.  The  last  of  these  sug- 
gestions I  shall  examine  by  and  by.  To  the 
first,  I  answer  that  it  is  not  incumbent  upon  me 
to  prove  that  this  discretion  will  be  abused. 
It  is  enough  for  me  to  prove  the  vastness  of  the 
power  as  an  inducement  to  make  us  pause  apon 
it,  and  to  inquire  with  attention  whether  there 
is  any  apartment  in  the  constitution  large 
enough  to  give  it  entertainment.  It  is  more 
than  enough  for  me  to  show  that  vast  as  is  this 
power,  it  is  with  reference  to  mere  Territories 
an  irresponsible  power.  Power  is  irresponsible 
•when  it  acts  upon  those  who  are  defenceless 
against  it ;  who  cannot  check  it,  or  contribute 
to  check  it  in  its  exercise ;  who  can  resist  it 
only  by  force.  The  Territory  of  Missouri  has 
no  check  upon  this  power.  It  has  no  share  in 
the  government  of  the  Union.  In  this  body  it 
has  no  representative.  In  the  other  House  it 
has,  by  courtesy,  an  agent,  who  may  remon- 
strate, but  cannot  vote.  That  such  an  irrespon- 
sible power  is  not  likely  to  be  abused,  who  will 
undertake  to  assert?  If  it  is  not,  "experience 
is  a  cheat,  and  fact  a  liar."  The  power  which 
England  claimed  over  the  colonies  was  such  a 
power,  and  it  was  abused ;  and  hence  the  Revo- 
lution. Such  a  power  is  always  perilous  to 
those  who  wield  it,  as  well  as  to  those  on 
whom  it  is  exerted.  Oppression  is  but  another 
name  for  irresponsible  power,  if  history  is  to  be 
trusted. 

The  free  spirit  of  our  constitution  and  of  our 
people  is  no  assurance  against  the  propension  of 
unbridled  power  to  abuse,  when  it  acts  upon 
colonial  dependents  rather  than  upon  ourselves. 
Free  States,  as  well  as  despots,  have  oppressed 
those  whom  they  were  bound  to  foster ;  and  it 
is  the  nature  of  man  that  it  should  be  so.  The 
love  of  power  and  the  desire  to  display  it  when 
it  can  be  done  with  impunity,  is  inherent  in  the 
human  heart.  Turn  it  out  at  the  door,  and  it 
will  in  again  at  the  window.  Power  is  dis- 
played in  its  fullest  measure,  and  with  a  capti- 
vating dignity,  by  restraints  and  conditions. 
The  pruritas  leges  ferendi  is  a  universal  dis- 
ease, and  conditions  are  laws  as  far  as  they  go. 
The  vanity  of  human  wisdom,  and  the  presump- 
tion of  human  reason,  are  proverbial.  This 
vanity  and  this  presumption  are  often  neither 
reasonable  nor  wise.  Humanity,  too,  sometimes 
plays  fantastic  tricks  with  power.  Time,  more- 
over, is  fruitful  in  temptations  to  convert  dis- 
cretionary power  to  all  sorts  of  purposes. 

Time,  that  withers  the  strength  of  man,  and 
"  strews  around  him,  like  autumnal  leaves,  the 
ruins  of  his  proudest  monuments,"  produces 
great  vicissitudes  in  modes  of  thinking  and  feel- 
ing. It  brings  along  with  it,  in  its  progress, 
new  circumstances,  new  combinations  and  mod- 
ifications of  the  old,  generating  new  views,  mo- 
tives, and  caprices,  new  fanaticisms  of  endless 
variety — in  short,  new  every  thing.  We  our- 
selves are  always  changing — and  what  to-day 
we  have  but  a  small  desire  to  attempt,  to-rnor- 
.  row  becomes  the  object  of  our  passionate  aspi- 
rations. 


There  is  such  a  thing  as  enthusiasm,  moral, 
religious,  or  political,  or  a  compound  of  all 
three ;  and  it  is  wonderful  what  it  will  attempt, 
and  from  what  imperceptible  beginnings  it 
sometimes  rises  into  a  mighty  agent.  Rising 
from  some  obscure  or  unknown  source,  it  first 
shows  itself  a  petty  rivulet,  which  scarcely 
murmurs  over  the  pebbles  that  obstruct  its 
way ;  then  it  swells  into  a  fierce  torrent,  bear- 
ing all  before  it ;  and  again,  like  some  mountain 
stream  which  occasional  rains  have  precipitated 
upon  the  valley,  it  sinks  once  more  into  a  rivu- 
let, and  finally  leaves  its  channel  dry.  Such  a 
thing  has  happened.  I  do  not  say  that  it  is  now 
happening.  It  would  not  become  me  to  say  so. 
But,  if  it  should  occur,  woe  to  the  unlucky  Ter- 
ritory that  should  be  struggling  to  make  its  way 
into  the  Union  at  the  moment  when  the  oppos- 
ing inundation  was  at  its  height,  and  at  the 
same  instant  this  wide  Mediterranean  of  discre- 
tionary powers,  which  it  seems  is  ours,  should 
open  up  all  its  sluices,  and  with  a  consentane- 
ous rush,  mingle  with  the  turbid  waters  of  the 
others!  *  *  *  *  * 

"  New  States  may  be  admitted  by  the  Con- 
gress into  this  Union."  It  is  objected  that  the 
word  "  may"  imports  power,  not  obligation — a 
right  to  decide — a  discretion  to  grant  or  refuse. 

To  this  it  might  be  answered,  that  power  is 
duty,  on  many  occasions.  But  let  it  be  con- 
ceded that  it  is  discretionary.  What  conse- 
quence follows?  A  power  to  refuse,  in  a  case 
like  this,  does  not  necessarily  involve  a  power 
to  exact  terms.  You  must  look  to  the  result, 
which  is  the  declared  object  of  the  power. 
Whether  you  will  arrive  at  it  or  not  may  de- 
pend on  your  will ;  but  you  cannot  compromise 
with  the  result  intended  and  professed. 

What,  then,  is  the  professed  result  ?  To  ad- 
mit a  State  into  this  Union. 

What  is  that  Union?  A  confederation  of 
States  equal  in  sovereignty,  capable  of  every 
thing  which  the  constitution  does  not  forbid, 
or  authorize  Congress  to  forbid.  It  is  an  equal 
Union  between  parties  equally  sovereign.  They 
were  sovereign,  independently  of  the  Union. 
The  object  of  the  Union  was  common  protection 
for  the  exercise  of  already  existing  sovereignty. 
The  parties  gave  up  a  portion  of  that  sover- 
eignty to  insure  the  remainder.  As  far  as  they 
gave  it  up  by  the  common  compact  they  have 
ceased  to  be  sovereign.  The  Union  provides 
the  means  of  defending  the  residue,  and  it  is 
into  that  Union  that  a  new  State  is  to  come. 
By  acceding  to  it  the  new  State  is  placed  on 
the  same  footing  with  the  original  States.  It 
accedes  for  the  same  purpose;  that  is,  protec- 
tion for  its  unsurrendered  sovereignty.  If  it 
comes  in  shorn  of  its  beams — crippled  and  dis- 
paraged beyond  the  original  States — it  is  not 
into  the  original  Union  that  it  comes.  For  it  is 
a  different  sort  of  Union.  The  first  was  Union 
inter  pares:  this  is  a  Union  between  disparates, 
between  giants  and  a  dwarf,  between  power 
and  feebleness,  between  full  proportioned  sov- 
ereignties and  a  miserable  image  of  power — a 


440 


ABRIDGMENT  OF  THE 


SENATE.] 


Restriction  on  the  State  of  Missouri. 


[FEBRUARY,  1820. 


thing  which  that  very  Union  has  shrunk  and 
shrivelled  from  its  just  size,  instead  of  preserv- 
ing it  in  ite  true  dimensions. 

It  is  into  "this  Union"— that  is,  the  Union  of 
the  Federal  Constitution — that  you  are  to  ad- 
mit or  refuse  to  admit.  You  can  admit  into  no 
other.  You  cannot  make  the  Union,  as  to  the 
new. State,  what  it  is  not  as  to  the  old;  for 
then  it  is  not  this  Union  that  you  open  for  the 
entrance  of  a  new  party.  If  you  make  it  enter 
into  a  new  and  additional  compact,  is  it  any 
longer  the  same  Union  ? 

We  are  told  that,  admitting  a  State  into  the 
Union  is  a  compact.  Yes ;  but  what  sort  of  a 
compact  ?  A  compact  that  it  shall  be  a  mem- 
ber of  the  Union,  as  the  constitution  has  made 
it.  You  cannot  new  fashion  it.  You  may 
make  a  compact  to  admit,  but  when  admitted 
the  original  compact  prevails.  The  Union  is  a 
compact,  with  a  provision  of  political  power 
and  agents  for  the  accomplishment  of  its  ob- 
jects. Vary  that  compact  as  to  a  new  State ; 
give  new  energy  to  that  political  power  so  as  to 
make  it  act  with  more  force  upon  a  new  State 
than  upon  the  old;  make  the  will  of  those 
agents  more  effectually  the  arbiter  of  the  fate 
of  a  new  State  than  of  the  old,  and  it  may  be 
confidently  said  that  the  new  State  has  not  en- 
tered into  this  Union,  but  into  another  Union. 
How  far  the  Union  has  been  varied  is  another 
question.  But  that  it  has  been  varied  is  clear. 

If  I  am  told  that,  by  the  bill  relative  to  Mis- 
souri, you  do  not  legislate  upon  a  new  State,  I 
answer  that  you  do ;  and  I  answer  further,  that 
it  is  immaterial  whether  you  do  or  not.  But  it 
is  upon  Missouri,  as  a  State,  that  your  terms 
and  conditions  are  to  act.  Until  Missouri  is  a 
State,  the  terms  and  conditions  are  nothing. 
You  legislate  in  the  shape  of  terms  and  condi- 
tions prospectively ;  and  you  so  legislate  upon 
it,  that  when  it  comes  into  the  Union  it  is 
bound  by  a  contract  degrading  and  diminishing 
its  sovereignty,  and  is  to  be  stripped  of  rights 
which  the  original  parties  to  the  Union  did  not 
consent  to  abandon,  and  which  that  Union  (so 
far  as  depends  upon  it)  takes  under  its  protec- 
tion and  guarantee. 

Is  the  right  to  hold  slaves  a  right  which  Mas- 
sachusetts enjoys?  If  it  is,  Massachusetts  is 
under  this  Union  in  a  different  character  from 
Missouri.  The  compact  of  the  Union  for  it  is 
different  from  the  same  compact  of  Union  for 
Missouri.  The  power  of  Congress  is  different — 
every  thing  which  depends  upon  the  Union  is, 
in  that  respect,  different. 

But  it  is  immaterial  whether  you  legislate  for 
Missouri  as  a  State  or  not.  The  effect  of  your 
legislation  is  to  bring  it  into  the  Union  with  a 
portion  of  its  sovereignty  taken  away. 

But  it  is  a  State  which  you  are  to  admit. 
What  is  a  State  in  the  sense  of  the  constitution? 
It  is  not  a  State  in  the  general,  but  a  State  as 
you  find  in  the  constitution.  A  State,  gener- 
ally, is  a  body  politic  or  independent  political 
society  of  men.  But  the  State  which  you  are 
to  admit  must  be  more  or  less  than  this  political 


entity.  What  must  it  be?  Ask  the  constitu- 
tion. It  shows  what  it  means  by  a  State  by 
reference  to  the  parties  to  it.  It  must  be  such 
a  State  as  Massachusetts,  Virginia,  and  the 
other  members  of  the  American  confederacy — 
a  State  with  full  sovereignty,  except  as  the  con- 
stitution restricts  it. 

It  is  said  that  the  word  may  necessarily  im- 
plies the  right  of  prescribing  the  terms  of  ad- 
mission. Those  who  maintain  this  are  aware 
that  there  are  no  express  words,  (such  as,  upon 
such  terms  and  conditions  as  Congress  shall 
think  fit,)  words  which  it  was  natural  to  expect 
to  find  in  the  constitution,  if  the  effect  contend- 
ed for  were  meant.  They  put  it,  therefore,  on 
the  word  may,  and  on  that  alone. 

Give  to  that  word  all  the  force  you  please, 
what  does  it  import?  That  Congress  is  not 
bound  to  admit  a  new  State  into  this  Union. 
Be  it  so  for  argument's  sake.  Does  it  follow 
that  when  you  consent  to  admit  into  this  Union 
a  new  State  you  can  make  it  less  in  sovereign 
power  than  the  original  parties  to  that  Union ; 
that  you  can  make  the  Union  as  to  it  what  it  is. 
not  as  to  them ;  that  you  can  fashion  it  to  your' 
liking  by  compelling  it  to  purchase  admission 
into  a  Union  by  sacrificing  a  portion  of  that 
power  which  it  is  the  sole  purpose  of  the  Union 
to  maintain  in  all  the  plenitude  which  the 
Union  itself  does  not  impair  ?  Does  it  follow 
that  you  can  force  upon  it  an  additional  com- 
pact not  found  in  the  compact  of  Union ;  that 
you  can  make  it  come  into  the  Union  less  a 
State,  in  regard  to  sovereign  power,  than  its 
fellows  in  that  Union ;  that  you  can  cripple  its 
legislative  competency  (beyond  the  constitution 
which  is  the  pact  of  Union,  to  which  you  make 
it  a  party  as  if  it  had  been  originally  a  party  to 
it)  by  what  you  choose  to  call  a  condition,  but 
which,  whatever  it  may  be  called,  brings  the 
new  government  into  the  Union  under  new 
obligations  to  it,  and  with  disparaged  power  to 
be  protected  by  it  ? 

In  a  word,  the  whole  amount  of  the  argument 
on  the  other  side  is,  that  you  may  refuse  to  ad- 
mit a  new  State,  and  that  therefore  if  you  ad- 
mit, you  may  prescribe  the  terms. 

The  answer  to  that  argument  is,  that  even  if 
you  can  refuse,  you  can  prescribe  no  terms 
which  are  inconsistent  with  the  act  you  are  to 
do.  You  can  prescribe  no  conditions  which,  if 
carried  into  effect,  would  make  the  new  State 
less  a  sovereign  State  than,  under  the  Union  as 
it  stands,  it  would  be.  You  can  prescribe  no 
terms  which  will  make  the  compact  of  Union 
between  it  and  the  original  States  essentially 
different  from  that  compact  among  the  original 
States.  You  may  admit,  or  refuse  to  admit; 
but  if  you  admit,  you  must  admit  a  State  in  the 
sense  of  the  constitution — a  State  with  all  such 
sovereignty  as  belongs  to  the  original  parties ; 
and  it  must  be  into  this  Union  that  you  are  to 
admit  it,  not  into  a  Union  of  your  own  dictat- 
ing, formed  out  of  the  existing  Union  by  quali- 
fications and  new  compacts,  altering  its  charter 
and  effect,  and  making  it  fall  short  of  its  pro- 


DEBATES  OF  CONGRESS. 


441 


FEBRUARY,  1820.] 


Restriction  on  the  State  of  Missouri 


[SENATE. 


tecting  energy  in  reference  to  the  new  State, 
whilst  it  requires  an  energy  of  another  sort — 
the  energy  of  restraint  and  destruction. 

I  have  thus  endeavored  to  show  that  even  if 
you  have  a  discretion  to  refuse  to  admit,  you 
have  no  discretion,  if  yon  are  willing  to  admit, 
to  insist  upon  any  terms  that  impair  the  sover- 
eignty of  the  admitted  State  as  it  would  other- 
wise stand  in  the  Union  by  the  constitution 
which  receives  it  into  its  bosom.  To  admit  or 
not  is  for  you  to  decide.  Admission  once  con- 
ceded, it  follows  as  a  corollary  that  you  must 
take  the  new  State  as  an  equal  companion  with 
its  fellows ;  that  you  cannot  recast  or  new- 
model  the  Union  pro  hoc  nice;  but  that  you 
must  receive  it  into  the  actual  Union,  and  re- 
cognize it  as  a  parcener  in  the  common  inherit- 
ance, without  any  other  shackles  than  the  rest 
have,  by  the  constitution,  submitted  to  bear, 
without  any  other  extinction  of  power  than  is 
the  work  of  the  constitution  acting  indifferently 
upon  all. 

I  may  be  told,  perhaps,  that  the  restriction, 
in  this  case,  is  the  act  of  Missouri  itself;  that 
your  law  is  nothing  without  its  consent,  and 
derives  its  efficacy  from  that  alone.  I  shall 
have  a  more  suitable  occasion  to  speak  on  this 
topic  hereafter,  when  I  come  to  consider  the 
treaty  which  ceded  Louisiana  to  the  United 
States.  But  I  will  say  a  few  words  upon  it 
now,  of  a  more  general  application  than  it  will 
in  that  branch  of  the  argument  be  necessary  to 
use. 

A  Territory  cannot  surrender  to  Congress  by 
anticipation  the  whole  or  a  part  of  the  sover- 
eign power,  which,  by  the  constitution  of  the 
Union,  will  belong  to  it  when  it  becomes  a 
State  and  a  member  of  the  Union.  Its  consent 
is  therefore  nothing.  It  is  in  no  situation  to 
make  this  surrender.  It  is  under  the  govern- 
ment of  Congress ;  if  it  can  barter  away  a  part 
of  its  sovereignty,  by  anticipation,  it  can  do  so 
as  to  the  whole ;  for  where  will  you  stop  ?  If 
it  does  not  cease  to  be  a  State,  in  the  sense  of 
the  constitution,  with  only  a  certain  portion  of 
sovereign  power,  what  other  smaller  portion 
will  have  that  effect?  If  you  depart  from  the 
standard  of  the  constitution— that  is,  the  quan- 
tity of  domestic  sovereignty  left  in  the  first 
contracting  States,  and  secured  by  the  original 
compact  of  Union,  where  will  you  get  another 
standard  ?  Consent  is  no  standard ;  for  consent 
may  be  gained  to  a  surrender  of  all. 

No  State,  or  Territory,  in  order  to  become  a 
State,  can  alienate  or  surrender  any  portion  of 
its  sovereignty  to  the  Union,  or  to  a  sister 
State,  or  to  a  foreign  nation.  It  is  under  an  in- 
capacity to  disqualify  itself  for  all  the  purposes 
of  government  left  to  it  in  the  constitution,  by 
stripping  itself  of  attributes  which  arise  from 
the  natural  equality  of  States,  and  which  the 
constitution  recognizes,  not  only  because  it  does 
not  deny  them,  but  presumes  them  to  remain  as 
they  exist  by  the  law  of  nature  and  nations. 
Inequality  in  the  sovereignty  of  States  is  un- 
natural, and  repugnant  to  all  the  principles  of 


that  law.  Hence  we  find  it  laid  down  by  the 
text- writers  on  public  law,  that  "  Nature  has 
established  a  perfect  equality  of  rights  between 
independent  nations :"  and  that,  "  whatever  the 
quality  of  a  free  sovereign  nation  gives  to  one, 
it  gives  to  another."*  The  Constitution  of  the 
United  States  proceeds  upon  the  truth  of  this 
doctrine.  It  takes  the  States  as  it  finds  them, 
free  and  sovereign  alike  oy  nature.  It  receives 
from  them  portions  of  their  power  for  the  gen- 
eral good,  and  provides  for  the  exercise  of  it  by 
organized  political  bodies.  It  diminishes  the  • 
individual  sovereignty  of  each,  and  transfers 
what  it  subtracts  to  the  Government  which  it 
creates ;  it  takes  from  all  alike,  and  leaves 
them  relatively  to  each  other  equal  in  sovereign 
power. 

The  honorable  gentleman  from  New  York 
has  put  the  constitutional  argument  altogether 
upon  the  clause  relative  to  admission  of  new 
States  into  the  Union.  He  does  not  pretend 
that  you  can  find  the  power  to  restrain,  in  any 
extent,  elsewhere.  It  follows  that  it  is  not  a 
particular  power  to  impose  this  restriction,  but 
a  power  to  impose  restrictions  ad  libitum.  It 
is  competent  to  this,  because  it  is  competent  to 
every  thing.  But  he  denies  that  there  can  be  * 
any  power  in  man  to  hold  in  slavery  his  fellow- 
creature,  and  argues,  therefore,  that  the  prohi- 
bition is  no  restraint  at  all,  since  it  does  not  in- 
terfere with  the  sovereign  powers  of  Missouri. 

One  of  the  most  signal  errors  with  which  the 
argument  on  the  other  side  has  abounded,  is  this 
of  considering  the  proposed  restriction  as  if  lev- 
elled at  the  introduction  or  establishment  of 
slavery.  And  hence  the  vehement  declamation 
which,  among  other  things,  has  informed  us  that  • 
slavery  originated  in  fraud  or  violence. 

The  truth  is,  that  the  restriction  has  no  rela- 
tion, real  or  pretended,  to  the  right  of  making 
slaves  of  those  who  are  free,  or  of  introducing 
slavery  where  it  does  not  already  exist.  It  ap- 
plies to  those  who  are  admitted  to  be  already 
slaves,  and  who,  with  their  posterity,  would 
continue  to  be  slaves  if  they  should  remain 
where  they  are  at  present ;  and  to  a  place  where 
slavery  already  exists  by  the  local  law.  Their 
civil  condition  will  not  be  altered  by  their  re- 
moval from  Virginia. or  Carolina  to  Missouri. 
They  will  not  be  more  slaves  than  they  now 
are.  Their  abode,  indeed,  will  be  different,  but 
their  bondage  the  same.  Their  numbers  may 
possibly  be  augmented  by  the  diffusion,  and  I 
think  they  will.  But  this  can  only  happen  be- 
cause their  hardships  will  be  mitigated,  and  their 
comforts  increased.  The  checks  to  population, 
which  exist  in  the  older  States  will  be  diminish- 
ed. The  restriction,  therefore,  does  not  prevent 
the  establishment  of  slavery,  either  with  refer- 
ence to  persons  or  place ;  but  simply  inhibits 
the  removal  from  place  to  place  (the  law  in 
each  being  the  same)  of  a  slave,  or  make  his 
emancipation  the  consequence  of  that  removal. 
It  acts  professedly  merely  on  slavery  as  it  exists, 


•  Vattel,  Droit  <fc«  Gent,  liy.  2,  c.  3,  s.  86. 


442 


ABRIDGMENT  OF  THE 


SENATE.] 


Restriction  on  the  State  of  Missouri. 


[FEBRUARY,  1820. 


and  thus  acting  restrains  its  present  lawful  ef- 
fects. That  slavery,  like  many  other  human 
institutions,  originated  in  fraud  or  violence,  may 
be  conceded ;  but  however  it  originated,  it  is 
established  among  us,  and  no  man  seeks  a  fur- 
ther establishment  of  it  by  new  importations  of 
freemen  to  be  converted  into  slaves.  On  the 
contrary,  all  are  anxious  to  mitigate  its  evils, 
by  all  the  means  within  the  reach  of  the  appro- 
priate authority,  the  domestic  legislatures  of  the 
different  States. 

It  can  be  nothing  to  the  purpose  of  this  argu- 
ment, therefore,  as  the  gentlemen  themselves 
have  shaped  it,  to  inquire  what  was  the  origin 
of  slavery.  What  is  it  now,  and  who  are  they 
that  endeavor  to  innovate  upon  what  it  now  is, 
(the  advocates  of  this  restriction  who  desire 
change  by  unconstitutional  means,  or  its  oppo- 
nents who  desire  to  leave  the  whole  matter  to 
local  regulation  ?)  are  the  only  questions  worthy 
of  attention. 

Sir,  if  we  too  closely  look  to  the  rise  and  pro- 
gress of  long-sanctioned  establishments  and  un- 
questioned rights,  we  may  discover  other  subjects 
than  that  of  slavery,  with  which  fraud  and  vio- 
lence may  claim  a  fearful  connection,  and  over 
•  which  it  may  be  our  interest  to  throw  the  man- 
tle of  oblivion.  What  was  the  settlement  of  our 
ancestors  in  this  country  but  an  invasion  of  the 
rights  of  the  barbarians  who  inhabited  it  ?  That 
settlement,  with  slight  exceptions,  was  effected 
by  the  slaughter  of  those  who  did  no  more  than 
defend  their  native  land  against  the  intruders 
of  Europe,  or  by  unequal  compacts  and  pur- 
chases, in  which  feebleness  and  ignorance  had 
to  deal  with  power  and  cunning.  The  savages 
»  who  once  built  their  huts  where  this  proud 
Capitol,  rising  from  its  recent  ashes,  exemplifies 
the  sovereignty  of  the  American  people,  were 
swept  away  by  the  injustice  of  our  fathers,  and 
their  domain  usurped  by  force,  or  obtained  by 
artifices  yet  more  criminal.  Our  continent  was 
full  of  those  aboriginal  inhabitants.  Where  are 
they  or  their  descendants  ?  Either  "  with  years 
beyond  the  flood,"  or  driven  back  by  the  swell- 
ing tide  of  our  population  from  the  borders  of 
the  Atlantic  to  the  deserts  of  the  West.  You 
follow  still  the  miserable  remnants,  and  make 
contracts  with  them  that  seal  their  ruin.  You 
purchase  their  lands,  of  which  they  know  not 
the  value,  in  order  that  you  may  sell  them  to 
advantage,  increase  your  treasure,  and  enlarge 
your  empire.  Yet  further ;  you  pursue  as  they 
retire ;  and  they  must  continue  to  retire  until 
the  Pacific  shall  stay  their  retreat,  and  compel 
them  to  pass  away  as  a  dream.  Will  you  recur 
to  those  scenes  of  various  iniquity  for  any  other 
purpose  than  to  regret  and  lament  them  ?  Will 
you  £iy  into  them  with  a  view  to  shake  and 
impair  yonr  rights  of  property  and  dominion  ? 

But  the  broad  denial  of  the  sovereign  right  of 
Missouri,  if  it  shall  become  a  sovereign  State,  to 
recognize  slavery  by  its  laws,  is  rested  upon  a 
variety  of  grounds,  all  of  which  I  will  examine. 

It  is  an  extraordinary  fact,  that  they  who  urge 
this  denial  with  such  ardent  zeal,  stop  short  of 


it  in  their  conduct.  There  are  now  slaves  in 
Missouri  whom  they  do  not  insist  upon  deliver- 
ing from  their  chains.  Yet,  if  it  is  incompetent 
to  sovereign  power  to  continue  slavery  in  Mis- 
souri, in  respect  of  slaves  who  may  yet  be  car- 
ried thither,  show  me  the  power  that  can 
continue  it  in  respect  of  slaves  who  are  there 
already.  Missouri  is  out  of  the  old  limits  of  the 
Union,  and  beyond  those  limits,  it  is  said,  we 
can  give  no  countenance  to  slavery,  if  we  can 
countenance  or  tolerate  it  anywhere.  It  is 
plain  that  there  can  be  no  slaves  beyond  the 
Mississippi  at  this  moment,  but  in  virtue  of  some 
power  to  make  or  keep  them  so.  What  sort  of 
power  was  it  that  has  made  or  kept  them  so  ? 
Sovereign  power  it  could  not  be,  according  to 
the  honorable  gentlemen  from  Pennsylvania, 
and  New  Hampshire,  (Messrs.  ROBERTS,  LOWEIE, 
and  MOEEILL  ;)  and  if  sovereign  power  is  unequal 
to  such  a  purpose,  less  than  sovereign  power  is 
yet  more  unequal  to  it.  The  laws  of  Spain  and 
France  could  do  nothing ;  the  laws  of  the  ter- 
ritorial government  of  Missouri  could  do  nothing 
towards  such  a  result,  if  it  be  a  result  which  no 
laws,  in  other  words,  no  sovereignty  could  ac- 
complish. The  treaty  of  1803  could  do  no  more 
in  this  view,  than  the  laws  of  France,  or  Spain, 
or  the  territorial  government  of  Missouri.  A 
treaty  is  an  act  of  sovereign  power,  taking  the 
shape  of  a  compact  between  the  parties  to  it ; 
and  that  which  sovereign  power  cannot  reach 
at  all,  it  cannot  reach  by  a  treaty.  Those  who 
are  now  held  in  bondage,  therefore,  in  Missouri, 
and  their  issue,  are  entitled  to  be  free,  if  there 
be  any  truth  in  the  doctrine  of  the  honorable 
gentlemen ;  and  if  the  proposed  restriction 
leaves  all  such  in  slavery,  it  thus  discredits  the 
very  foundation  on  which  it  reposes.  To  be  in- 
consistent is  the  fate  of  false  principles ;  but 
this  inconsistency  is  the  more  to  be  remarked, 
since  it  cannot  be  referred  to  mere  considera- 
tions of  policy,  without  admitting  that  such  con- 
siderations may  be  preferred  without  a  crime, 
to  what  is  deemed  a  paramount  and  indispen- 
sable duty. 

It  is  here,  too,  that  I  must  be  permitted  to 
observe,  that  the  honorable  gentlemen  have 
taken  great  pains  to  show  that  this  restriction 
is  a  mere  work  of  supererogation  by  the  princi- 
pal argument  on  which  they  rest  the  proof  of  its 
propriety.  Missouri,  it  is  said,  can  have  no 
power  to  do  what  the  restriction  would  prevent. 
It  would  be  void,  therefore,  without  the  restric- 
tion. Why,  then,  I  ask,  is  the  restriction  in- 
sisted upon?  Restraint  implies  that  there  is 
something  to  be  restrained ;  but  the  gentlemen 
justify  the  restraint,  by  showing  that  there  is 
nothing  upon  which  it  can  operate !  They 
demonstrate  the  wisdom  and  necessity  pf  re- 
straint, by  demonstrating  that,  with  or  without 
restraint,  the  subject  is  in  the  same  predicament. 
This  is  to  combat  with  a  man  of  straw,  and  to 
put  fetters  upon  a  shadow. 

The  gentlemen  must  therefore  abandon  either 
their  doctrine  or  their  restriction — their  argu- 
ment or  their  object — for  they  are  directly  in 


DEBATES  OF  CONGRESS. 


443 


FEBEUABY,  1820.] 


Restriction  on  the  State  of  Missouri. 


[SENATE. 


conflict,  and  reciprocally  destroy  each  other. 
It  is  evident  that  they  will  not  abandon  their 
object,  and,  of  course,  I  must  believe  that  they 
hold  their  argument  in  as  little  real  estimation 
as  I  myself  do.  The  gentlemen  can  scarcely  be 
sincere  believers  in  their  own  principle.  They 
have  apprehensions  which  they  endeavor  to 
conceal,  that  Missouri,  as  a  State,  will  have  the 
power  to  continue  slavery  within  its  limits; 
and,  if  they  will  not  be  offended,  I  will  venture 
to  compare  them,  in  this  particular,  with  the 
duellist  in  Sheridan's  comedy  of  the  Rivals,  who, 
affecting  to  have  no  fear  whatever  of  his  adver- 
sary, is,  nevertheless,  careful  to  admonish  Sir 
Lucius  to  hold  him  fast. 

Let  us  take  it  for  granted,  however,  that  they 
are  in  earnest  in  their  doctrine,  and  that  it  is 
very  necessary  to  impose  what  they  prove  to  be 
an  unnecessary  restraint :  how  do  they  support 
that  doctrine  ? 

The  honorable  gentleman  on  the  other  side 
(Mr.  KING)  has  told  us,  as  a  proof  of  his  great 
position,  that  man  cannot  enslave  his  fellow 
man,  in  which  is  implied  that  all  laws  upholding 
slavery  are  absolute  nullities ;  that  the  nations 
of  antiquity,  as  well  as  of  modern  times,  have 
concurred  in  laying  down  that  position  as  in- 
controvertible. 

He  refers  us,  in  the  first  place,  to  the  Roman 
law,  in  which  he  finds  it  laid  down  as  a  maxim : 
Jure  naturali  omnes  homines  ab  initio  liberi 
nascebantur.  From  the  manner  in  which  this 
maxim  was  pressed  upon  us,  it  would  not  readily 
have  been  conjectured  that  the  honorable  gen- 
tleman who  used  it  had  borrowed  it  from  a 
slaveholding  Empire,  and  still  less  from  a  book 
of  the  Institutes  of  Justinian,  which  treats  of 
slavery,  and  justifies  and  regulates  it.  Had  he 
given  us  the  context,  we  should  have  had  the 
modifications  of  which  the  abstract  doctrine 
was,  in  the  judgment  of  the  Roman  law,  suscep- 
tible. We  should  have  had  an  explanation  of 
the  competency  of  that  law,  to  convert,  whether 
justly  or  unjustly,  freedom  into  servitude,  and 
to  maintain  the  right  of  a  master  to  the  service 
and  obedience  of  his  slave. 

The  honorable  gentleman  might  also  have 
gone  to  Greece  for  a  similar  maxim  and  a  simi- 
lar commentary,  speculative  and  practical. 

He  next  refers  us  to  Magna  Charta.  I  am 
somewhat  familiar  with  Magna  Charta,  and  I  am 
confident  that  it  contains  no  such  maxim  as  the 
honorable  gentleman  thinks  he  has  discovered 
in  it.  The  great  charter  was  extorted  from 
John,  and  his  feeble  son  and  successor,  by 
haughty  slaveholding  barons,  who  thought  only 
of  themselves  and  the  commons  of  England, 
(then  inconsiderable,)  whom  they  wished  to  en- 
list in  their  efforts  against  the  Crown.  There 
is  not  in  it  a  single  word  which  condemns  civil 
slavery.  Freemen  only  are  the  objects  of  its 
protecting  care.  " Nullus  liber  homo"  is  its 
phraseology.  The  serfs  who  were  chained  to 
the  soil,  the  villeins  regardant  and  in  gross, 
were  left  as  it  found  them.  All  England  was 
then  full  of  slaves,  whose  posterity  would  by 


law  remain  slaves  as  with  us,  except  only  that 
the  issue  followed  the  condition  of  the  father 
instead  of  the  mother.  The  rule  was  "  Partu* 
sequitur  patrem" — a  rule  more  favorable  un- 
doubtedly, from  the  very  precariousness  of  its 
application,  to  the  gradual  extinction  of  slavery, 
than  ours,  which  has  been  drawn  from  the  Ro- 
man law,  and  is  of  sure  and  unavoidable  effect. 

Still  less  has  the  Petition  of  Right,  presented 
to  Charles  I.,  by  the  Long  Parliament,  to  do 
with  the  subject  of  civil  slavery.  It  looked 
merely,  as  Magna  Charta  had  done  before  it, 
to  the  freemen  of  England;  and  sought  only 
to  protect  them  against  royal  prerogative  and 
the  encroaching  spirit  of  the  Stuarts. 

As  to  the  Bill  of  Rights,  enacted  by  the  Con- 
vention Parliament  of  1688,  it  is  almost  a  dupli- 
cate of  the  Petition  of  Right,  and  arose  out  of 
the  recollection  of  that  political  tyranny  from 
which  the  nation  had  just  escaped,  and  the  re- 
currence of  which  it  was  intended  to  prevent. 
It  contains  no  abstract  principles.  It  deals  only 
with  practical  checks  upon  the  power  of  the 
monarch,  and  in  safeguards  for  institutions  es- 
sential to  the  preservation  of  the  public  liberty. 
That  it  was  not  designed  to  anathematize  civil 
slavery  may  be  taken  for  granted,  since  at  that 
epoch  and  long  afterwards,  the  English  Govern- 
ment inundated  its  foreign  plantations  with 
slaves,  and  supplied  other  nations  with  them  as 
merchandise,  under  the  sanction  of  solemn  trea- 
ties negotiated  for  that  purpose.  And  here  I 
cannot  forbear  to  remark  that  we  owe  it  to  that 
same  Government,  when  it  stood  towards  us  in 
the  relation  of  parent  to  child,  that  involuntary 
servitude  exists  in  our  land,  and  that  we  are 
now  deliberating  whether  the  prerogative  of 
correcting  its  evils  belongs  to  the  National  or 
the  State  Governments.  In  the  early  periods 
of  our  colonial  history  every  thing  was  done  by 
the  mother  country  to  encourage  the  importa- 
tion of  slaves  into  North  America,  and  the 
measures  which  were  adopted  by  the  Colonial 
Assemblies  to  prohibit  it  were  uniformly  nega- 
tived by  the  Crown.  It  is  not  therefore  our 
fault,  nor  the  fault  of  our  ancestors,  that  this 
calamity  has  been  entailed  upon  us ;  and,  not- 
withstanding the  ostentation  with  which  the 
loitering  abolition  of  the  slave  trade  by  the 
British  Parliament  has  been  vaunted,  the  prin- 
cipal consideration  which  at  last  reconciled  it  to 
that  measure  was,  that,  by  suitable  care,  the 
slave  population  in  their.  West  India  islands, 
already  fully  stocked,  might  be  kept  up  and 
even  increased  without  the  aid  of  importation. 
In  a  word,  it  was  cold  calculations  of  interest, 
and  not  the  suggestions  of  humanity,  or  a  re- 
spect for  the  philanthropic  principles  of  Mr. 
Wilberforce,  which  produced  their  tardy  aban- 
donment of  that  abominable  trafiic. 

Of  the  Declaration  of  our  Independence, 
which  has  also  been  quoted  in  support  of  the 
perilous  doctrines  now  urged  upon  us,  I  need 
not  now  speak  at  large.  I  have  shown  on  a 
former  occasion,  how  idle  it  is  to  rely  upon  that 
instrument  for  such  a  purpose,  and  I  will  not 


444 


ABRIDGMENT  OF  THE 


SENATE.] 


Restriction  on  the  State,  of  Missouri. 


[FEBBUARY,  1820. 


fatigue  you  by  mere  repetition.  The  self-evi- 
dent truths  announced  in  the  Declaration  of 
.Independence,  are  not  truths  at  all,  if  taken 
literally;  and  the  practical  conclusions  con- 
tained in  the  same  passage  of  that  declaration 
prove  that  they  were  never  designed  to  be  so 
received. 

The  Articles  of  Confederation  contain  nothing 
on  the  subject;  whilst  the  actual  constitution 
recognizes  the  legal  existence  of  slavery  by 
various  provisions.  The  power  of  prohibiting 
the  slave  trade  is  involved  in  that  of  regulating 
commerce,  but  this  is  coupled  with  an  express 
inhibition  to  the  exercise  of  it  for  twenty 
years.  How,  then,  can  that  constitution  which 
expressly  permits  the  importation  of  slaves, 
authorize  the  National  Government  to  set  on 
foot  a  crusade  against  slavery  ? 

The  clause  respecting  fugitive  slaves  is  af- 
firmative and  active  in  its  effects.  It  is  a  direct 
sanction  and  positive  protection  of  the  right  of 
the  master  to  the  services  of  his  slave,  as  de- 
rived under  the  local  laws  of  the  States.  The 
phraseology  in  which  it  is  wrapped  up,  still 
leaves  the  intention  clear,  and  the  words, 
"  persons  held  to  service  or  labor  in  one  State 
under  the  laws  thereof,"  have  always  been  in- 
terpreted to  extend  to  the  case  of  slaves,  in 
the  various  acts  of  Congress  which  have  been 
passed  to  give  efficacy  to  the  provision,  and  in 
the  judicial  application  of  those  laws.  So  also 
in  the  clause  prescribing  the  ratio  of  represen- 
tation— the  phrase,  "three-fifths  of  all  other 
persons,"  is  equivalent  to  slaves,  or  it  means 
nothing.  And  yet  we  are  told  that  those  who 
are  acting  under  a  constitution  which  sanctions 
the  existence  of  slavery  in  those  States  which 
choose  to  tolerate  it,  are  at  liberty  to  hold  that 
no  law  can  sanction  its  existence ! 

It  is  idle  to  make  the  rightfulness  of  an  act 
the  measure  of  sovereign  power.  The  distinc- 
tion between  sovereign  power  and  the  moral 
right  to  exercise  it,  has  always  been  recognized. 
All  political  power  may  be  abused,  but  is  it  to 
stop  where  abuse  may  begin?  The  power  of 
declaring  war  is  a  power  of  vast  capacity  for 
mischief,  and  capable  of  inflicting  the  most 
wide-spread  desolation.  But  it  is  given  to  Con- 
gress without  stint  and  without  measure.  Is  a 
citizen,  or  are  the  courts  of  justice,  to  inquire 
whether  that,  or  any  other  law,  is  just,  before 
they  obey  or  execute  it?  And  are  there  any 
degrees  of  injustice,  which  will  withdraw  from 
sovereign  power  the  capacity  of  making  a  given 
law? 

But  sovereignty  is  said  to  be  deputed  power. 
Deputed — by  whom?  By  the  people,  because 
the  power  is  theirs.  And  if  it  be  theirs,  does 
not  the  restriction  take  it  away?  Examine 
the  Constitution  of  the  Union,  and  it  will  be 
seen  that  the  people  of  the  States  are  regarded 
as  well  as  the  States  themselves.  The  consti- 
tution was  made  by  the  people,  and  ratified  by 
the  people. 

Is  it  fit,  then,  to  hold  that  all  the  sovereignty 
of  a  State  is  in  the  government  of  the  State? 


So  much  is  there  as  the  people  grant :  and  the 
people  can  take  it  away,  or  give  more,  or  new 
model  what  they  have  already  granted.  It  is 
this  right  which  the  proposed  restriction  takes 
from  Missouri.  You  give  them  an  immortal 
constitution,  depending  on  your  will,  not  on 
theirs.  The  people  and  their  posterity  are 
to  be  bound  forever  by  this  restriction ;  and 
upon  the  same  principle,  any  other  restriction 
may  be  imposed.  Where,  then,  is  their  power 
to  change  the  constitution,  and  to  devolve  new 
sovereignty  upon  the  State  government  ?  You 
limit  their  sovereign  capacity  to  do  it;  and 
when  you  talk  of  a  State,  you  mean  the  people 
as  well  as  the  Government.  The  people  are  the 
source  of  all  power — you  dry  up  that  source. 
They  are  the  reservoir — you.  take  out  of  it  what 
suits  you. 

It  is  said  that  this  Government  is  a  Govern- 
ment of  deputed  powers.  So  is  every  govern- 
ment— and  what  power  is  not  deputed  remains. 
But  the  people  of  the  United  States  can  give  it 
more  if  they  please,  as  the  people  of  each  State 
can  do  in  respect  to  its  own  government.  And 
here  it  is  well  to  remember  that  this  is  a  Gov- 
ernment of  enumerated,  as  well  as  deputed 
powers ;  and  to  examine  the  clause  as  to  the 
admission  of  new  States,  with  that  principle  in 
view.  Now  assume  that  it  is  a  part  of  the 
sovereign  power  of  the  people  of  Missouri  to 
continue  slavery,  and  to  devolve  that  power 
upon  its  Government,  and  then  to  take  it  away, 
and  then  to  give  it  again.  The  Government  is 
their  creature — the  means  of  exercising  their 
sovereignty,  and  they  can  vary  those  means  at 
their  pleasure.  Independently  of  the  Union, 
their  power  would  be  unlimited.  By  coming 
into  the  Union,  they  part  with  some  of  it,  and 
are  thus  less  sovereign. 

Let  us,  then,  see  whether  they  part  with 
this  power. 

If  they  have  parted  with  this  portion  of  sov- 
ereign power,  it  must  be  under  that  clause  of 
the  national  constitution  which  gives  to  Con- 
gress "power  to  admit  new  States  into  this 
Union."  And  it  is  said  that  this  necessarily 
implies  the  authority  of  prescribing  the  condi- 
tions upon  which  such  new  States  shall  be  ad- 
mitted. This  has  been  put  into  the  form  of  a 
syllogism,  which  is  thus  stated  : 

Major.  Every  universal  proposition  includes 
ah1  the  means,  manner,  and  terms,  of  the  act  to 
which  it  relates. 

Minor.    But  this  is  a  universal  proposition. 

Conclusion.  Therefore,  the  means,  manner, 
and  terms,  are  involved  in  it. 

But  this  syllogism  is  fallacious,  and  any  thing 
else  may  be  proved  by  it,  by  assuming  one  of 
its  members  which  involves  the  conclusion. 
The  minor  is  a  mere  postulate. 

Take  it  in  this  way : 

Major.  None  but  a  universal  proposition  in- 
cludes in  itself  the  terms  and  conditions  of  the 
act  to  be  done. 

Minor.  But  this  is  not  such  a  universal 
proposition. 


DEBATES  OF  CONGRESS. 


445 


FEBRUARY,  1820.] 


Restriction  on  the  Slate  of  Missouri. 


[SENATE. 


Conclusion.  Therefore,  it  does  not  contain, 
in  itself,  the  terms  and  conditions  of  the  act. 

In  both  cases,  the  minor  is  a  gratuitous  pos- 
tulate. 

But  I  deny  that  a  universal  proposition,  as 
to  a  specific  act,  involves  the  terms  and  con- 
ditions of  that  act,  so  as  to  vary  it  and  substi- 
tute another  and  a  different  act  in  its  place. 
The  proposition  contained  in  the  clause,  is 
universal  in  one  sense  only.  It  is  particular  in 
another.  It  is  universal  as  to  the  power  to  ad- 
mit or  refuse.  It  is  particular  as  to  the  being 
or  thing  to  be  admitted,  and  the  compact  by 
which  it  is  to  be  admitted.  The  sophistry  con- 
sists in  extending  the  universal  part  of  the 
proposition  in  such  a  manner  as  to  make  out 
of  it  another  universal  proposition.  It  consists 
in  confounding  the  right  to  produce  or  to  refuse 
to  produce  a  certain  defined  effect,  with  a  right 
to  produce  a  different  effect  by  refusing  other- 
wise to  produ.ce  any  effect  at  all.  It  makes  the 
actual  right  the  instrument  of  obtaining  another 
right  with  which  the  actual  right  is  incompati- 
ble. It  makes,  in  a  word,  lawful  power  the 
instrument  of  unlawful  usurpation.  The  result 
is  kept  out  of  sight  by  this  mode  of  reasoning. 
The  discretion  to  decline  that  result,  whichtis 
called  a  universal  proposition,  is  singly  obtruded 
upon  us.  But,  in  order  to  reason  correctly, 
you  must  keep  in  view  the  defined  result,  as 
well  as  the  discretion  to  produce  or  to  decline 
to  produce  it.  The  result  is  the  particular  part 
of  the  proposition ;  therefore,  the  discretion  to 

Eroduce  or  decline  it,  is  the  universal  part  of  it. 
ut,  because  the  last  is  found  to  be  universal, 
it  is  taken  for  granted  that  the  first  is  also  uni- 
versal. This  is  a  sophism  too  manifest  to  im- 
pose. 

But,  discarding  the  machinery  of  syllogisms 
as  unfit  for  such  a  discussion  as  this,  let  us  look 
at  the  clause  with  a  view  of  interpreting  it  by 
the  rules  of  sound  logic  and  common  sense. 

The  power  is,  "  to  admit  new  States  into  this 
Union ; "  and  it  may  be  safely  conceded  that 
here  is  discretion  to  admit  or  refuse.  The 
question  is,  what  must  we  do,  if  we  do  any 
thing  ?  What  must  we  admit,  and  into  what  ? 
The  answer  is,  a  State — and  into  this  Union. 

The  distinction  between  federal  rights  and 
local  rights,  is  an  idle  distinction.  Because  the 
new  State  acquires  federal  rights,  it  is  not, 
therefore,  in  this  Union.  The  Union  is  a  com- 
pact ;  and  is  it  an  equal  party  to  that  compact, 
because  it  has  equal  federal  rights?  How  is 
the  Union  formed  ?  By  equal  contributions  of 
power.  Make  one  member  sacrifice  more  than 
another,  and  it  becomes  unequal.  The  compact 
is.of  two  parts : 

1.  The  thing  obtained — federal  rights. 

2.  The  price  paid — local  sovereignty. 

You  may  disturb  the  balance  of  the  Union, 
either  by  diminishing  the  thing  acquired,  or 
increasing  the  sacrifice  paid. 

What  were  the  purposes  of  coming  into  the 
Union  among  the  original  States  ?  The  States 
were  originally  sovereign,  without  limit,  as  to 


foreign  and  domestic  concerns.  But,  being  in- 
capable of  protecting  themselves  singly,  they 
entered  into  the  Union  to  defend  themselves 
against  foreign  violence.  The  domestic  con- 
cerns of  the  people  were  not,  in  general,  to  be 
acted  on  by  it.  The  security  of  the  power  of 
managing  them  by  domestic  legislature,  is  one 
of  the  great  objects  of  the  Union.  The  Union 
is  a  means  not  an  end.  By  requiring  greater 
sacrifices  of  domestic  power,  the  end  is  sacri- 
ficed to  the  means.  Suppose  the  surrender  of 
all,  or  nearly  all,  the  domestic  powers  of  legis- 
lation were  required ;  the  means  would  there 
have  swallowed  up  the  end. 

The  argument  that  the  compact  may  be  en 
forced,  shows  that  the  federal  predicament  is 
changed.  The  power  of  the  Union  not  only 
acts  on  persons  and  citizens,  but  on  the  faculty 
of  the  Government,  and  restrains  it  in  a  way 
which  the  constitution  nowhere  authorizes. 
This  new  obligation  takes  away  a  right  which 
is  expressly  "reserved  to  the  people  or  the 
States,"  since  it  is  nowhere  granted  to  the 
Government  of  the  Union.  You  cannot  do 
indirectly  what  you  cannot  do  directly.  It  is 
said  that  this  Union  is  competent  to  make 
compacts.  Who  doubts  it?  But  can  you 
make  this  compact  ?  I  insist  that  you  cannot 
make  it,  because  it  is  repugnant  to  the  thing  to 
be  done. 

The  effect  of  such  a  compact  would  be  to 
produce  that  inequality  in  the  Union,  to  which 
the  constitution,  in  all  its  provisions,  is  averse. 
Every  thing  in  it  looks  to  equality  among  the 
members  of  the  Union.  Under  it  you  cannot 
produce  inequality.  Nor  can  you  get  before- 
hand of  the  constitution,  and  do  it  by  anticipa- 
tion. Wait  until  a  State  is  in  the  Union,  and 
you  cannot  do  it;  yet  it  is  only  upon  the 
State  in  the  Union  that  what  you  do  begins 
to  act. 

But  it  seems,  that,  although  the  proposed 
restriction  may  not  be  justified  by  the  clause 
of  the  constitution  which  gives  power  to  admit 
new  States  into  the  Union,  separately  consid- 
ered, there  are  other  parts  of  the  constitution 
which,  combined  with  that  clause,  will  warrant 
it.  And  first,  we  are  informed  that  there  is  a 
clause  in  this  instrument  which  declares  that 
Congress  shall  guarantee  to  every  State  a  re- 
publican form  of  government;  that  slavery 
and  such  a  form  of  government  are  incompati- 
ble; and,  finally,  as  a  conclusion  from  these 
premises,  that  Congress  not  only  have  a  right, 
but  are  bound  to  exclude  slavery  from  a  new 
State.  Here,  again,  sir,  there  is  an  edifying 
inconsistency  between  the  argument  and  the 
measure  which  it  professes  to  vindicate.  By 
the  argument,  it  is  maintained  that  Missouri 
cannot  have  a  republican  form  of  government, 
and  at  the  same  time  tolerate  negro  slavery; 
By  the  measure  it  is  admitted  that  IGworn^ 
may  tolerate  slavery,  as  to  persons  already  in 
bondage  there,  and  be  nevertheless  fit  to  be  re- 
ceived into  the  Union.  What  sort  of  consti- 
tutional mandate  is  this,  which  can  thus  be 


446 


ABRIDGMENT  OF  THE 


SENATE.] 


Restriction  on  the  State  of  Missouri. 


[FEBRUARY,  1820. 


made  to  bond,  and  truckle,  and  compromise,  as 
if  it  were  a  simple  rule  of  expediency  that 
might  admit  of  exceptions  upon  motives  of 
countervailing  expediency  ?  There  can  be  no 
such  pliancy  in  the  peremptory  provisions  of 
the  constitution.  They  cannot  be  obeyed  by 
moieties  and  violated  in  the  same  ratio.  They 
must  be  followed  out  to  their  full  extent,  or 
treated  with  that  decent  neglect  which  has  at 
least  the  merit  of  forbearing  to  render  contu- 
macy obtrusive  by  an  ostentatious  display  of 
the  very  duty  which  we  in  part  abandon.  If 
the  Decalogue  could  be  observed  in  this  casuis- 
tical manner,  we  might  be  grievous  sinners, 
and  yet  be  liable  to  no  reproach.  We  might 
persist,  in  all  our  habitual  irregularities,  and 
still  be  spotless.  We  might,  for  example,  con- 
tinue to  covet  our  neighbors'  goods,  provided 
they  were  the  same  neighbors  whose  goods  we 
had  before  coveted;  and  so  of  all  the  other 
commandments. 

Will  the  gentlemen  tell  us  that  it  is  the  quan- 
tity of  slaves,  not  the  quality  of  slavery,  which 
takes  from  a  government  the  republican  form  ? 
Will  they  tell  us  (for  they  have  not  yet  told 
tis)  that  there  are  constitutional  grounds,  (to 
say  nothing  of  common  sense,)  upon  which  the 
slavery  which  now  exists  in  Missouri  may  be 
reconciled  with  a  republican  form  of  govern- 
ment, while  any  addition  to  the  number  of  its 
slaves,  (the*  quality  of  slavery  remaining  the 
same,)  from  the  other  States,  will  be  repugnant 
to  that  form,  and  metamorphose  it  into  some 
nondescript  government  disowned  by  the  con- 
stitution ?  They  cannot  have  recourse  to  the 
treaty  of  1803  for  such  a  distinction,  since,  in- 
dependently of  what  I  have  before  observed  on 
that  head,  the  gentlemen  have  contended  that 
the  treaty  has  nothing  to  do  with  the  matter. 
They  have  cut  themselves  off  from  all  chance 
of  a  convenient  distinction  in  or  out  of  that 
treaty,  by  insisting  that  slavery  beyond  the  old 
United  States  is  rejected  by  the  constitution, 
and  by  the  law  of  God,  as  discoverable  by  the 
aid  of  either  reason  or  revelation ;  and,  more- 
over, that  the  treaty  does  not  include  the  case, 
and  if  it  did,  could  not  make  it  better.  They 
have,  therefore,  completely  discredited  their 
own  theory  by  their  own  practice,  and  left  us 
no  theory  worthy  of  being  seriously  contro- 
verted. This  peculiarity  in  reasoning,  of  giving 
out  a  universal  principle,  and  coupling  with  it 
a  practical  concession  that  it  is  wholly  fallacious, 
has,  indeed,  run  through  the  greater  part  of  the 
arguments  on  the  other  side ;  but  it  is  not,  as  I 
think,  the  more  imposing  on  that  account,  or 
the  less  liable  to  the  criticism  which  I  have 
here  bestowed  upon  it. 

There  is  a  remarkable  inaccuracy  on  this 
branch  of  the  subject  into  which  gentlemen 
have  fallen,  and  to  which  I  will  give  a  moment's 
attention,  without  laying  unnecessary  stress 
upon  it.  The  government  of  a  new  State,  as 
well  as  of  an  old  State,  must,  I  agree,  be  re- 
publican in  its  form.  But  it  has  not  been  very 
clearly  explained  what  the  laws  which  such  a 


government  may  enact  can  have  to  do  with  its 
form.  The  form  of  the  government  is  material 
only  as  it  furnishes  a  security  that  those  laws 
will  protect  and  promote  the  public  happiness, 
and  be  made  in  a  republican  spirit.  The  peo- 
ple being,  in  such  a  Government,  the  fountain 
of  all  power,  and  their  servants  being  period- 
ically responsible  to  them  for  its  exercise,  the 
Constitution  of  the  Union  takes  for  granted, 
(except  so  far  as  it  imposes  limitations,)  that 
every  such  exercise  will  be  just  and  salutary. 
The  introduction  or  continuance  of  civil  slavery 
is  manifestly  the  mere  result  of  the  power  of 
making  laws.  '  It  does  not,  in  any  degree,  enter 
into  the  form  of  the  government.  It  presup- 
poses that  form  already  settled,  and  takes  its 
rise  not  from  the  particular  frame  of  the  gov- 
ernment, but  from  the  general  power  which 
every  government  involves.  Make  the  govern- 
ment what  you  will  in  its  organization  and  in 
the  distribution  of  its  authorities,  the  introduc- 
tion or  continuance  of  involuntary  servitude  by 
the  legislative  power  which  it  has  created,  can 
have  no  influence  on  its  pre-established  form, 
whether  monarchial,  aristocratical,  or  repub- 
lican. The  form  of  government  is  still  one 
thing,  and  the  law,  being  a  simple  exertion  of 
the  ordinary  faculty  of  legislation  by  those  to 
whom  that  form  of  government  has  intrusted 
it,  another.  The  gentlemen,  however,  identify 
an  act  of  legislation  sanctioning  involuntary 
servitude  with  the  form  of  government  itself, 
and  they  assure  us  that  the  latter  is  changed 
retroactively  by  the  first,  and  is  no  longer  re- 
publican. 

But  let  us  proceed  to  take  a  rapid  glance  at 
the  reasons  which  have  been  assigned  for  this 
notion  that  involuntary  servitude  and  a  repub- 
lican form  of  government  are  perfect  antip- 
athies. The  gentleman  from  New  Hampshire 
(Mr.  MOEEILL)  has  defined  a  republican  govern- 
ment to  be  that  in  which  all  the  men  participate 
in  its  power  and  privileges;  from  whence  it 
follows  that  where  there  are  slaves  it  can  have 
no  existence.  A  definition  is  no  proof,  how- 
ever, and  even  if  it  be  dignified  (as  I  think  it 
was)  with  the  name  of  a  maxim,  the  matter  is 
not  much  mended.  It  is  Lord  Bacon  who  says 
that  "nothing  is  so  easily  made  as  a  maxim ;  " 
and,  certainly,  a  definition  is  manufactured  with 
equal  facility.  A  political  maxim  is  the  work 
of  induction,  and  cannot  stand  against  expe- 
rience, or  stand  on  any  thing  but  experience. 
But  the  maxim,  or  definition,  or  whatever  else 
it  may  be,  sets  fact  at  defiance.  If  you  go  back 
to  antiquity,  you  will  obtain  no  countenance 
for  this  hypothesis ;  and  if  you  look  at  home 
you  will  gain  still  less.  I  have  read  that  Sparta, 
and  Kome,  and  Athens,  and  many  others  of  the 
ancient  family,  were  Republics.  They  were  so 
in  form,  undoubtedly— the  last  approaching 
nearer  to  a  perfect  Democracy  than  any  other 
Government  which  has  yet  been  known  to  the 
world.  Judging  of  them,  also,  by  their  fruits, 
they  were  of  the  highest  order  of  Republics. 
Sparta  could  scarcely  be  any  other  than  a  Re- 


DEBATES  OF  CONGRESS. 


447 


FEBRUARY,  1820.] 


Restriction  on  the  State  of  Missouri. 


[SENATE. 


public,  when  a  Spartan  matron  could  say  to  her 
son  just  marching  to  battle,  '•'•Return  victo- 
rious, or  return  no  more  !  "  It  was  the  uncon- 
querable spirit  of  liberty,  nurtured  by  repub- 
lican habits  and  institutions,  that  illustrated 
the  Pass  of  Thermopylae.  Yet  slavery  was  not 
only  tolerated  in  Sparta,  but  was  established  by 
one  of  the  fundamental  laws  of  Lycurgus,  hav- 
ing for  its  object  the  encouragement  of  that 
very  spirit.  Attica  was  full  of  slaves,  yet  the 
love  of  liberty  was  its  characteristic.  What 
else  was  it  that  foiled  the  whole  power  of  Per- 
sia at  Marathon  and  Salamis  ?  What  other  soil 
than  that  which  the  genial  sun  of  Republican 
freedom  illuminated  and  warmed,  could  have 
produced  such  men  as  Leonidas  and  Miltiades, 
Themistocles  and  Epaminondas  ?  Of  Rome  it 
would  be  superfluous  to  speak  at  large.  It  is 
sufficient  to  name  the  mighty  mistress  of  the 
world,  before  Sylla  gave  the  first  stab  to  her 
liberties,  and  the  great  dictator  accomplished 
their  final  ruin,  to  be  reminded  of  the  practi- 
cability of  union  between  civil  slavery  and  an 
ardent  love  of  liberty  cherished  by  republican 
establishments. 

If  we  return  home  for  instruction  upon  this 
point,  we  perceive  that  same  union  exemplified 
in  many  a  State  in  which  "  Liberty  has  a  tem- 
ple in  every  house,  an  altar  in  every  heart," 
while  involuntary  servitude  is  seen  in  every  di- 
rection. Is  it  denied  that  those  States  possess 
a  republican  form  of  government?  If  it  is, 
why  does  our  power  of  correction  sleep  ?  Why 
is  the  constitutional  guarantee  suffered  to  be  in- 
active? Why  am  I  permitted  to  fatigue  you, 
as  the  representative  of  a  slaveholding  State, 
with  the  discussion  of  the  nugw  canorce  (for  so 
I  think  them)  that  have  been  forced  into  this 
debate  contrary  to  all  the  remonstrances  of 
taste  and  prudence  ?  Do  gentlemen  perceive 
the  consequences  to  which  their  arguments 
must  lead,  if  they  are  of  any  value  ?  Do  they 
reflect  that  they  lead  to  emancipation  in  the 
old  United  States — or  to  an  exclusion  of  Dela- 
ware, Maryland,  and  all  the  South,  and  a  great 
portion  of  the  West,  from  the  Union  ? 

My  honorable  friend  from  Virginia,  sir,  has 
no  business  here,  if  this  disorganizing  creed  be 
the  production  of  any  thing  but  a  heated  brain. 
The  State  to  which  I  belong  must  "  perform  a 
lustration  " — must  purge  and  purify  herself  from 
the  feculence  of  civil  slavery,  and  emulate  the 
States  of  the  North  in  their  zeal  for  throwing 
down  the  gloomy  idol  which  we  are  said  to 
worship,  before  her  Senators  can  have  any  title 
to  appear  in  this  high  assembly.  It  will  be  in 
vain  to  urge  that  the  old  United  States  are  ex- 
ceptions to  the  rule ;  or,,  rather,  (as  the  gentle- 
men express  it,)  that  they  have  no  disposition 
to  apply  the  rule  to  them.  There  can  be  no 
exceptions,  by  implication  only,  to  such  a  rule ; 
and  expressions  which  justify  the  exemption  of 
the  old  States  by  inference,  will  justify  the  ex- 
emption of  Missouri,  unless  they  point  exclu- 
sively to  them,  as  I  have  shown  they  do  not. 
The  guarded  manner,  too,  in  which  some  of  the 


gentlemen  have  occasionally  expressed  them- 
selves on  this  subject,  is  somewhat  alarming. 
They  have  no  disposition  to  meddle  with  sla- 
very in  the  old  United  States.  Perhaps  not ; 
but  who  shall  answer  for  their  successors? 
Who  shall  furnish  a  pledge  that  the  principle, 
once  ingrafted  into  the  constitution,  will  not 
grow,  and  spread,  and  fructify,  and  overshadow 
the  whole  land  ?  '  It  is  the  natural  office  of  such 
a  principle  to  wrestle  with  slavery,  wheresoever 
it  finds  it.  New  States,  colonized  by  the  apos- 
tles of  this  principle,  will  enable  it  to  set  on 
foot  a  fanatical  crusade  against  all  who  still 
continue  to  tolerate  it,  although  no  practicable 
means  are  pointed  out  by  which  they  can  get 
rid  of  it  consistently  with  their  own  safety. 
At  any  rate,  a  present  forbearing  disposition,  in 
a  few  or  in  many,  is  not  a  security  upon  which 
much  reliance  can  be  placed,  upon  a  subject  as 
to  which  so  many  selfish  interests  and  ardent 
feelings  are  connected  with  the  cold  calculations 
of  policy.  Admitting,  however,  that  the  old 
United  States  are  in  no  danger  from  this  prin- 
ciple, why  is  it  so  ?  There  can  be  no  other 
answer,  (which  these  zealous  enemies  of  slavery 
can  use,)  than,  that  the  constitution  recognizes 
slavery  as  existing,  or  capable  of  existing  in 
those  States.  The  constitution,  then,  admits 
that  slavery  and  a  republican  form  of  govern- 
ment are  not  incongruous.  It  associates  and 
binds  them  up  together,  and  repudiates  this 
wild  imagination  which  the  gentlemen  have 
pressed  upon  us  with  such  an  air  of  triumph. 
But,  sir,  the  constitution  does  more,  as  I  have 
heretofore  proved.  It  concedes  that  slavery 
may  exist  in  a  new  State,  as  well  as  in  an  old 
one,  since  the  language  in  which  it  recognizes 
slavery  comprehends  new  States  .as  well  as 
actual.  I  trust,  then,  that  I  shall  be  forgiven 
if  I  suggest  that  no  eccentricity  in  argument 
can  be  more  trying  to  human  patience  than  a 
formal  assertion  that  a  constitution,  to  which 
slaveholding  States  were  $he  most  numerous 
parties,  in  which  slaves  are  treated  as  property 
as  well  as  persons,  and  provision  is  made  for 
the  security  of  that  property,  and  even  for  an 
augmentation  of  it,  by  a  temporary  importation 
from  Africa,  a  clause  commanding  Congress  to 
guarantee  a  republican  form  of  government  to 
those  very  States,  as  well  as  to  others,  author- 
izes you  to  determine  that  slavery  and  a  repub- 
lican form  of  government  cannot  co-exist. 

But  if  a  republican  form  of  government  is 
that  in  which  all  the  men  have  a  share  in  the 
public  power,  the  slaveholding  States  will  not 
alone  retire  from  the  Union.  The  constitutions 
of  some  of  the  other  States  do  not  sanction 
universal  suffrage,  or  universal  eligibility.  They 
require  citizenship,  and  age,  and  a  certain 
amount  of  property,  to  give  a  title  to  vote  or  to 
be  voted  for;  and  they  who  have  not  those 
(jualitications  are  just  as  much  disfranchised, 
with  regard  to  the  Government  and  its  power, 
as  if  they  were  slaves.  They  have  civil  rights, 
indeed,  (and  so  have  slaves,  in  a  less  degree,) 
but  they  have  no  share  in  the  Government. 


448 


ABRIDGMENT  OF  THE 


SENATE.] 


Restriction  on  the  State  of  Missouri. 


[FEBRUARY,   1820. 


Their  province  is  to  obey  the  laws,  not  to  assist 
in  making  them.  All  such  States  must,  there- 
fore, be  forisfamiliated  with  Virginia  and  the 
rest,  or  change  their  system ;  for  the  consti- 
tution, being  absolutely  silent  on  those  subjects, 
will  afford  them  no  -protection.  The  Union 
might  thus  be  reduced  from  a  Union  to  a 
unit.  -Who  does  not  see  that  such  conclusions 
flow  from  false  notions ;  that  the  true  theory 
of  a  republican  Government  is  mistaken ;  and 
that,  in  such  a  Government,  rights,  political  and 
civil,  may  be  qualified  by  the  fundamental  law, 
upon  such  inducements  as  the  freemen  of  the 
country  deem  sufficient  ?  That  civil  rights  may 
be  qualified,  as  well  as  political,  is  proved  by  a 
thousand  examples.  Minors,  resident  aliens, 
who  are  in  a  course  of  naturalization — the  other 
sex,  whether  maids,  or  wives,  or  widows,  fur- 
nish sufficient  practical  proof  of  this. 

Again,  if  we  are  to  entertain  these  hopeful  ab- 
stractions, and  to  resolve  all  establishments  into 
their  imaginary  elements,  in  order  to  recast 
them  upon  some  Utopian  plan,  and  if  it  be  true 
that  all  the  men  in  a  republican  Government 
must  help  to  wield  its  power,  and  be  equal  in 
rights,  I  beg  leave  to  ask  the  honorable  gentle- 
man from  New  Hampshire — and  why  not  all 
the  women?  They,  too,  are  God's  creatures, 
and  not  only  very  fair,  but  very  rational  crea- 
tures ;  and  our  great  ancestor,  if  we  are  to  credit 
Milton,  accounted  them  the  "  wisest,  virtuous- 
est,  discreetest,  best ;"  although,  to  say  the 
truth,  he  had  but  one  specimen  from  which  to 
draw  his  conclusion,  and,  possibly,  if  he  had 
had  more,  would  not  have  drawn  it  at  all.  They 
have,  moreover,  acknowledged  civil  rights  in 
abundance,  and,  upon  abstract  principles,  more 
than  their  masculine  rulers  allow  them,  in  fact. 
Some  monarchies,  too,  do  not  exclude  them 
from  the  throne.  We  have  all  read  of  Eliza- 
beth of  England,  of  Catharine  of  Russia,  of  Se- 
miramis,  and  Zenobia,  and  a  long  list  of  royal 
and  imperial  dames,  about  as  good  as  an  equal 
list  of  royal  and  imperial  lords.  Why  is  it  that 
their  exclusion  from  the  power  of  a  popular 
Government  is  not  destructive  of  its  republican 
character  ?  I  do  not  address  this  question  to 
the  honorable  gentleman's  gallantry,  but  to  his 
abstraction,  and  his  theories,  and  his  notions  of 
the  infinite  perfectibility  of  human  institutions, 
borrowed  from  Godwin,  and  the  turbulent 
philosophers  of  France.  For  my  own  part,  sir, 
if  I  may  have  leave  to  say  so  much  in  the 
presence  of  this  mixed,  uncommon  audience,  I 
confess  I  am  no  friend  to  female  government, 
unless,  indeed,  it  be  that  which  reposes  on  gen- 
tleness, add  modesty,  and  virtue,  and  feminine 
grace  and  delicacy ;  and  how  powerful  a  gov- 
ernment that  is,  we  have  all  of  us,  as  I  suspect, 
at  some  time  or  other,  experienced.  But  if  the 
ultra  republican  doctrines  which  have  now  been 
broached  should  ever  gain  ground  among  us,  I 
should  not  be  surprised  if  some  romantic  re- 
former, treading  in  the  footsteps  of  Mrs.  Wol- 
stonecraft,  should  propose  to  repeal  our  repub- 
lican law  salique,  and  claim  for  our  wives  and 


daughters  a  full  participation  in  political  power, 
and  to  add  to  it  that  domestie  power  which,  in 
some  families,  as  I  have  heard,  is  as  absolute  and 
unrepublican  as  any  power  can  be. 

I  have  thus  far  allowed  the  honorable  gen- 
tlemen to  avail  themselves  of  their  assumption 
that  the  constitutional  command  to  guarantee 
to  the  States  a  republican  form  of  government, 
gives  power  to  coerce  those  States  in  the  ad- 
justment of  the  details  of  their  constitutions 
upon  theoretical  speculations.  But,  surely,  it 
is  passing  strange  that  any  man,  who  thinks  at 
all,  can  view  this  salutary  command  as  the 
wer  so  monstrous  ;  or  look  at  it  in 


any  other  light  than  as  a  protecting  mandate  to 
Congress  to  interpose  with  the  force  and  author- 
ity of  the  Union  against  that  violence  and  usur- 
pation by  which  a  member  of  it  might  other- 
wise be  oppressed  by  profligate  and  powerful 
individuals,  or  ambitious  and  unprincipled  fac- 
tions. 

In  a  word,  the  resort  to  this  portion  of  the 
constitution  for  an  argument  in  favor  of  the 
proposed  restriction,  is  one  of  those  extrava- 
gances (I  hope  L  shall  not  offend  by  this  ex- 
pression) which  may  excite  our  admiration,  but 
cannot  call  for  a  very  rigorous  refutation.  I 
have  dealt  with  it  accordingly,  and  have  now 
done  with  it. 

We  are  next  invited  to  study  that  clause  of 
the  constitution  which  relates  to  the  migration 
or  importation,  before  the  year  1808,  of  such 
persons  as  any  of  the  States  then  existing  should 
think  proper  to  admit.  It  runs  thus  .  "  The  mi- 
gration or  importation  of  such  persons,  as  any  of 
the  States  now  existing  shall  think  proper  to 
admit,  shall  not  be  prohibited  by  the  Congress 
prior  to  the  year  one  thousand  eight  hundred 
and  eight,  but  a  tax  or  duty  may  be  imposed  on 
such  importation  not  exceeding  ten  dollars  for 
each  person." 

It  is  said  that  this  clause  empowers  Congress, 
after  the  year  1808,  to  prohibit  the  passage  of 
slaves  from  State  to  State,  and  the  word  "  mi- 
gration" is  relied  upon  for  that  purpose. 

I  will  not  say  that  the  proof  of  the  existence 
of  a  power  by  a  clause  which,  as  far  as  it  goes 
denies  it,  is  always  inadmissible  ;  but  I  will  say- 
that  it  is  always  feeble.  On  this  occasion,  it 
is  singularly  so.  The  power,  in  an  affirmative 
shape,  cannot  be  found  in  the  constitution  ;  or, 
if  it  can,  it  is  equivocal  and  unsatisfactory. 
How  do  the  gentlemen  supply  this  deficiency  ? 
By  the  aid  of  a  negative  provision  in  an  article 
of  the  constitution,  in  which  many  restrictions 
are  inserted  ex  abundanti  cautela,  from  which 
it  is  plainly  impossible  to  infer  that  the  power 
to  which  they  apply  would  otherwise  have  ex- 
isted. Thus  —  "  No  bill  of  attainder  or  ex  post 
facto  law  shall  be  passed."  Take  away  the  re- 
striction, could  Congress  pass  a  bill  of  attainder, 
the  trial  by  jury  in  criminal  cases  being  ex- 
pressly secured  by  the  constitution  ?  The  infer- 
ence, therefore,  from  the  prohibition  in  ques- 
tion, whatever  may  be  its  meaning,  to  the 
power  which  it  is  supposed  to  restrain,  but 


DEBATES  OF  CONGRESS. 


449 


FEBRUARY,  1820.] 


Restriction  on  the  State  of  Missouri. 


[SENATE. 


which  you  cannot  lay  your  finger  upon  with 
any  pretensions  to  certainty,  must  he  a  very 
doubtful  one.  But  the  import  of  the  prohibi- 
tion is  also  doubtful,  as  the  gentlemen  them- 
selves admit.  So  that  a  doubtful  power  is  to  be 
made  certain  by  a  yet  more  doubtful  negative 
upon  power — or  rather,  a  doubtful  negative, 
where  .there  is  no  evidence  of  corresponding 
affirmative,  is  to  make  out  the  affirmative  and 
to  justify  us  in  acting  upon  it,  in  a  matter  of 
such  high  moment,  that  questionable  power 
should  not  dare  to  approach  it.  If  the  negative 
were  perfectly  clear  in  its  import,  the  conclu- 
sion which  has  been  drawn  from  it  would  he 
rash,  because  it  might  have  proceeded,  as  some 
of  the  negatives  in  whose  company  it  is  found 
evidently  did  proceed,  from  great  anxiety  to 
prevent  such  assumptions  of  authority  as  are 
now  attempted.  But,  when  it  is  conceded  that 
the  supposed  import  of  this  negative  (as  to  the 
term  migration)  is  ambiguous,  and  that  it  may 
have  been  used  in  a  very  different  sense  from 
that  which  is  imputed  to  it,  the  conclusion  ac- 
quires a  character  of  boldness,  which,  however 
some  may  admire,  the  wise  and  reflecting  will 
not  fail  to  condemn. 

In  the  construction  of  this  clause,  the  first  re- 
mark that  occurs  is,  that  the  word  migration 
is  associated  with  the  word  importation.  I  do 
not  insist  that  noscitur  a  sociis  is  as  good  a  rule 
in  matters  of  interpretation  as  in  common  life ; 
but  it  is,  nevertheless,  of  considerable  weight 
when  the  associated  words  are  not  qualified  by 
any  phrases  that  disturb  the  effect  of  their  fel- 
lowship ;  and  unless  it  announces,  (as  in  this 
case  it  does  not,)  by  specific  phrases  combined 
with  the  associated  term,  a  different  intention. 
Moreover,  the  ordinary  unrestricted  import  of 
the  word  migration  is  what  I  have  here  sup- 
posed. A  removal  from  district  to  district, 
within  the  same  jurisdiction,  is  never  denomi- 
nated a  migration  of  persons.  I  will  concede  to 
the  honorable  gentlemen,  if  they  will  accept  the 
concession,  that  ants  may  he  said  to  migrate 
when  they  go  from  one  ant-hill  to  another  at  no 
great  distance  from  it.  But  even  then  they  could 
not  be  said  to  migrate,  if  each  ant-hill  was  their 
home  in  virtue  of  some  federal  compact  with 
insects  like  themselves.  But,  however  this 
may  be,  it  should  seem  to  be  certain  that  hu- 
man beings  do  not  migrate,  in  the  sense  of  the 
constitution,  simply  because  they  transplant 
themselves  from  one  place,  to  which  that  con- 
stitution extends,  to  another  which  it  equally 
covers. 

If  this  word  migration  apply  to  freemen,  and 
not  to  slaves,  it  would  be  clear  that  removal 
from  State  to  State  would  not  be  comprehended 
within  it.  "Why,  then,  if  you  choose  to  apply 
it  to  slaves,  does  it  take  another  meaning  as  to 
the  place  from  whence  they  are  to  come? 

Sir,  if  we  once  depart  from  the  usual  accepta- 
tion of  this  term,  fortified  as  it  is  by  its  union 
with  another  in  which  there  is  nothing  in  this 
respect  equivocal,  will  gentlemen  please  to  in- 
timate the  point  at  which  we  are  to  stop  ?  Mi- 
VOL.  VL— 29 


[  gration  means,  as  they  contend,  a  removal  from 
State  to  State,  within  the  pale  of  the  common 
Government.  Why  not  a  removal,  also,  from 
county  to  county  within  a  particular  State — 
from  plantation  to  plantation — from  farm  to 
farm — from  hovel  to  hovel  ?  Why  not  any  ex- 
ertion of  the  power  of  locomotion?  I  protest 
I  do  not  see,  if  this  arbitrary  limitation  of  the 
natural  sense  of  the  term  migration^  warrant- 
able, that  a  person  to  whom  it  applies  may  not 
be  compelled  to  remain  immovable  all  the  days 
of  his  life  (which  could  not  well  be  many)  in 
the  very  spot,  literally  speaking,  in  which  it 
was  his  good  or  his  bad  fortune  to  be  born. 

Whatever  may  be  the  latitude  in  which  the 
word  "  persons"  is  capable  of  being  received,  it 
is  not  denied  that  the  word  "  importation"  in- 
dicates a  bringing  in  from  a  jurisdiction  foreign 
to  the  United  States.  The  two  termini  of  the 
importation,  here  spoken  of,  are  a  foreign  coun- 
try and  the  American  Union — the  first  the  ter- 
minus a  quo,  the  second  the  terminus  ad  quern. 
The  word  migration  stands  in  simple  connec- 
tion with  it,  and,  of  course,  is  left  to  the  full  in- 
fluence of  that  connection.  The  natural  con- 
clusion is,  that  the  same  termini  belong  to 
each,  or,  in  other  words,  that  if  the  importation 
must  be  abroad,  so  also  must  be  the  migration 
— no  other  termini  being  assigned  to  the  one 
which  are  not  manifestly  characteristic  of  the 
other.  This  conclusion  is  so  obvious,  that  to 
repel  it,  the  word  migration  requires,  as  an  ap- 
pendage, explanatory  phraseology,  giving  to  it 
a  different  beginning  from  that  of  importation. 
To  justify  the  conclusion  that  it  was  intended 
to  mean  a  removal  from  State  to  State,  each 
within  the  sphere  of  the  constitution  in  which 
it  is  used,  the  addition  of  the  words  from  one 
to  another  Slate  in  this  Union,  were  indispensa- 
ble. By  the  omission  of  these  words,  the  word 
"  migration"  is  compelled  to  take  every  sense 
of  which  it  is  fairly  susceptible  from  its  immedi- 
ate neighbor  "  importatiqn."  In  this  view  it 
means  a  coming,  as  "importation"  means  a 
bringing,  from  a  foreign  jurisdiction  into  the 
United  States.  That  it  is  susceptible  of  this 
meaning,  nobody  doubts.  I  go  further.  It  can 
have  no  other  meaning  in  the  place  in  which 
it  is  found.  It  is  found  in  the  Constitution  of 
this  Union — which,  when  it  speaks  of  migra- 
tion as  of  a  general  concern,  must  be  supposed 
to  have  in  view  a  migration  into  the  domain 
which  itself  embraces  as  a  General  Govern- 
ment. 

Migration,  then,  even  if  it  comprehends 
slaves,  does  not  mean  the  removal  of  them  from 
State  to  State,  but  means  the  coming  of  slaves 
from  places  beyond  their  limits  and  their 
power.  And  if  this  be  so,  the  gentlemen  gain 
nothing  for  their  argument  by  showing  that 
slaves  were  the  objects  of  this  term. 

An  honorable  gentleman  from  Rhode  Island, 
(Mr.  BURRILL,)  whose  speech  was  distinguished 
for  its  ability,  and  for  an  admirable  force  of 
reasoning,  as  well  as  by  the  moderation  and 
mildness  of  its  spirit,  informed  usr  with  less 


450 


ABRIDGMENT  OF  THE 


SENATE.] 


The  Compromise  Offered. 


[FEBBUARY,  1820. 


discretion  than  in  general  he  exhibited,  that  the 
word  "migration"  was  introduced  into  this 
clause  at  the  instance  of  some  of  the  Southern 
States,  who  wished  by  its  instrumentality  to 
guard  against  a  prohibition  by  Congress  of  the 
passage  into  those  States  of  slaves  from  other 
States.*  He  has  given  us  no  authority  for  this 
supposition,  and  it  is,  therefore,  a  gratuitous 
one.  How  improbable  it  is,  a  moment's  reflec- 
tion will  convince  him.  The  African  slave 
trade  being  open  during  the  whole  of  the  time 
to  which  the  entire  clause  in  question  referred, 
such  a  purpose  could  scarcely  be  entertained ; 
but  if  it  had  been  entertained,  and  there  was 
believed  to  be  a  necessity  for  securing  it,  by  a 
restriction  upon  the  power  of  Congress  to  in- 
terfere with  it,  is  it  possible  that  they  who 
deemed  it  important  would  have  contented 
themselves  with  a  vague  restraint,  which  was 
calculated  to  operate  in  almost  any  other  man- 
ner than  that  which  they  desired  ?  If  fear  and 
jealousy,  such  as  the  honorable  gentleman  has 
described,  had  dictated  this  provision,  a  better 
term  than  that  of  "  migration,"  simple  and  un- 
qualified, and  joined,  too,  with  the  word  "  im- 
portation," would  have  been  found  to  tranquillize 
those  fears  and  satisfy  that  jealousy.  Fear  and 
jealousy  are  watchful,  and  are  rarely  seen  to 
accept  a  security  short  of  their  object,  and  less 
rarely  to  shape  that  security,  of  their  own  ac- 
cord, in  such  a  way  as  to  make  it  no  security  at 
all.  They  always  seek  an  explicit  guarantee ; 
and  that  this  is  not  such  a  guarantee  this  de- 
bate has  proved,  if  it  has  proved  nothing  else. 

Sir,  I  shall  not  be  understood,  by  what  I  have 
said,  to  admit  that  the  word  migration  refers  to 
slaves.  I  have  contended,  only,  that  if  it  did 
refer  to  slaves,  it  is,  in  this  clause,  synonymous 
with  importation  ;  and  that  it  cannot  mean  the 
mere  passage  of  slaves,  with  or  without  their 
masters,  from  one  State  in  the  Union  to  an- 
other. 

But  I  now  deny  that  it  refers  to  slaves  at  all. 
I  am  not  for  any  man's  opinions  or  his  histories 
upon  this  subject.  I  am  not  accustomed  jurare 
in  verba  magistri.  I  shall  take  the  clause  as  I 
find  it,  and  do  my  best  to  interpret  it.  *  * 

[NOTE. — After  going  through  with  that  part  of  his 
argument  relating  to  this  clause  of  the  constitution, 
which  it  is  impossible  to  restore  from  the  imperfect 
notes,  Mr.  Pinkney  concluded  hy  expressing  a  hope 
that  (what  he  deemed)  the  perilous  principles  urged 
by  those  in  favor  of  the  restriction  upon  the  new 


*  Mr.  Madison  has  told  the  reason— told  it  in  that  letter  to 
Mr.  Robert  Walsh,  which  has  been  mentioned.  It  was  put 
in  for  the  ease  of  some  consciences  in  the  convention— men 
who  could  not  tolerate  the  word  slave,  in  the  constitution ; 
and,  by  an  easy  extension  of  that  feeling,  equally  objected 
to  any  equivalent  phrase.  For  their  ease,  "  migration'"  was 
Added  to  "  importation" — while  persons  imported  were  the 
only  ones  intended,  but  whose  importation  they  could  un- 
derstand as  a  species  of  migration ;  and  so  find  in  an  exple- 
tive a  relief  for  their  consciences.  It  was  a  designed,  but  a 
forced  ambiguity,  the  only  one  in  the  constitution,  and 
which  has  been  a  puzzle  to  many. 


State  would  he  disavowed  or  explained,  or  that,  at  all 
events,  the  application  of  them  to  the  subject  under 
discussion  would  not  be  pressed,  but  that  it  might  be 
disposed  of  in  a  manner  satisfactory  to  all,  by  a  pros  • 
pective  prohibition  of  slavery  in  the  territory  to  the 
north  and  west  of  Missouri.] 

When  Mr.  PINKXEY  had  concluded,  the  sub- 
ject was  postponed,  on  the  motion  of  Mr.  OTIS. 


"WEDNESDAY,  February  16. 
The  Missouri  Question. 

The  Senate  resumed,  as  in  Committee  of  the 
Whole,  (Mr.  BXJBRILL  in  the  Chair,)  the  consid- 
eration of  the  Missouri  question. 

Mr.  KING,  of  New  York,  again  rose,  and 
spoke  more  than  one  hour  in  support  of  the 
opinions  which  he  had  previously  advanced  on 
the  right  and  expediency  of  restricting  Missouri 
as  to  slavery,  and  in  answer  to  the  gentlemen 
who  had  replied  to  his  previous  remarks. 

Mr.  LOGAN,  of  Kentucky,  followed,  and  spoke 
a  short  time  in  reply  to  Mr.  KING. 

Mr.  SMITH,  of  South  Carolina,  spoke  an  hour 
in  reply  to  Mr.  KING. 

Mr.  LLOYD  likewise  spoke  a  short  time  in 
reply  to  Mr.  KING. 

Mr.  KING,  of  New  York,  Mr.  PINKNEY,  Mr. 
BARBOUR,  and  Mr.  MELLEN,  respectively  added 
a  few  remarks ;  when  the  question  was  taken 
on  concurring  in  the  amendment  reported  by 
the  Judiciary  Committee,  (to  unite  the  Maine 
and  Missouri  bills  in  one  bill,)  and  decided  in 
the  affirmative,  by  yeas  and  nays,  as  follows  : 

For  uniting  the  bills. — Messrs.  Barhour,  Brown, 
Eaton,  Edwards,  Elliot,  Gaillard,  Johnson  of  Ken- 
tucky, Johnson  of  Louisiana,  King  of  Alabama, 
Leake,  Lloyd,  Logan,  Macon,  Pinkney,  Pleasants, 
Smith,  Stokes,  Taylor,  Thomas,  Walker  of  Alabama, 
Walker  of  Georgia,  Williams  of  Mississippi,  and  Wil- 
liams of  Tennessee — 23. 

Against  uniting  the  bills. — Messrs.  Burrill,  Dana, 
Dickerson,  Horsey,  Hunter,  King  of  New  York,  Lan- 
man,  Lowrie,  Mellen,  Morrill,  Noble,  Otis,  Palmer, 
Parrott,  Roberts,  Ruggles,  Sanford,  Tichenor,  Trim- 
ble, Van  Dyke,  and  Wilson— 21. 

The  Compromise  Offered. 

Mr.  THOMAS,  of  Illinois,  then  offered  an 
amendment  to  the  Missouri  branch  of  the  bill, 
proposing,  in  substance,  to  prohibit  slavery  in 
all  the  territory  beyond  the  Mississippi,  north 
of  thirty-six  and  a  half  degrees  of  north  lati- 
tude, excepting  within  the  limits  of  the  pro- 
posed State  of  Missouri. 

Mr.  BARBOUE,  of  Virginia,  moved  to  amend 
the  amendment  by  striking  out  thirty-six  and  a 
half  degrees,  and  inserting,  as  the  line  north  of 
which  slavery  should  hereafter  be  excluded,  the 
fortieth  degree  of  north  latitude. 

The  motion  was  supported  by  the  mover,  and 
opposed  by  Mr.  EDWARDS,  of  Illinois ;  and  after 
a  short  discussion,  the  motion  was  negatived — 
three  or  four  only  rising  in  favor  of  it. 

Mr.  EATON  then  offered,  as  a  substitute  to 
Mr.  THOMAS'S  amendment,  a  section  prescribing 
the  same  limits  beyond  which  slavery  shall  not 


DEBATES  OF  CONGRESS. 


451 


FEBRUARY,  1820.] 


Missouri  State  Bill. 


[SENATE. 


be  allowed,  but  made  applicable  to  the  same, 
only  "  while  said  portion  of  country  remains  a 
Territory."  A  substitute  for  the  amendment 
not  being  in  order,  according  to  the  rules  of  the 
Senate,  Mr.  EATON  withdrew  his  proposition. 

Mr.  TRIMBLE,  of  Ohio,  next  proposed  to 
amend  Mr.  THOMAS'S  amendment,  substantially, 
by  making  it  to  apply  to  all  the  country  west 
of  the  Mississippi,  except  so  much  as  is  com- 
prehended within  the  State  of  Louisiana  and 
the  proposed  State  of  Missouri. — Kejected. 

After  considerable  discussion,  but  before  the 
question  was  put  on  the  amendment  of  Mr. 
THOMAS,  the  subject  was  postponed  until  to- 
morrow ;  and  the  Senate  adjourned. 

THURSDAY,  February,  17. 
Missouri  State  Bill. 

THE   COMPROMISE. 

The  following  amendment,  offered  by  Mr. 
THOMAS,  and  pending  when  the  Senate  ad- 
journed yesterday,  being  still  under  considera- 
tion : 

"  And  be  it  further  enacted,  That  the  sixth  article 
of  compact  of  the  ordinance  of  Congress,  passed  on 
the  thirteenth  day  of  July,  one  thousand  seven  hun- 
dred and  eighty-seven,  for  the  government  of  the 
territory  of  the  United  States  northwest  of  the  river 
Ohio,  shall,  to  all  intents  and  purposes,  be,  and  hereby 
is,  deemed  and  held  applicable  to,  and  shall  have  full 
force  and  effect  in  and  over,  all  that  tract  of  country 
ceded  by  France  to  the  United  States,  under  the  name 
of  Louisiana,  which  lies  north  of  thirty-six  degrees 
and  thirty  minutes  north  latitude,  excepting  only  such 
part  thereof  as  is  included  within  the  limits  of  the 
State  contemplated  by  this  act." 

Mr.  THOMAS  withdrew  this  amendment,  and 
offered  the  following  as  a  new  section : 

"  And  be  it  further  enacted,  That,  in  all  that  terri- 
tory ceded  by  France  to  the  United  States,  under  the 
name  of  Louisiana,  which  lies  north  of  thirty-six  de- 
grees and  thirty  minutes  north  latitude,  excepting 
only  such  part  thereof  as  is  included  within  the  lim- 
its of  the  State  contemplated  by  this  act,  slavery  and 
involuntary  servitude,  otherwise  than  in  the  punish- 
ment of  crimes  whereof  the  party  shall  have  been 
duly  convicted,  shall  be  and  is  hereby  forever  pro- 
hibited :  Provided,  always,  That  any  person  escaping 
into  the  same,  from  whom  labor  or  service  is  lawfully 
claimed  in  any  State  or  Territory  of  the  United 
States,  such  fugitive  may  be  lawfully  reclaimed  and 
conveyed  to  the  person  claiming  his  or  her  labor  or 
service  as  aforesaid." 

Mr.  TRIMBLE  moved  to  amend  said  proposed 
amendment,  by  striking  out  after  the  word 
"  that,"  in  the  first  line,  the  following  :  "  terri- 
tory ceded  by  France  to  the  United  States,  un- 
der the  name  of  Louisiana,  which  lies  north  of 
thirty-six  degrees  and  thirty  minutes  north  lat- 
itude, excepting  only  such  part  thereof  as  is 
included  within  the  limits  of  the  State  con- 
templated by  this  act ; "  and  inserting  in  lieu 
thereof  the  following :  "All  that  part  of  Louis- 
iana (as  ceded  by  France  to  the  United  States) 
which  lies  west  of  the  Mississippi  River,  except 
that  part  which  is  contained  in  the  State  of 


Louisiana,  and  except  that  part  of  the  territory 
which  lies  north  of  the  State  of  Louisiana,  and 
east  of  the  seventeenth  or  ninety-fourth  degree 
of  west  longitude,  agreeably  to  Melish's  map, 
and  south  of  the  line  which  may  be  established 
for  the  northern  boundary  for  the  proposed 
State  of  Missouri ; "  (in  substance,  to  exclude 
slavery  from  the  whole  country  west  of  the 
Mississippi,  except  in  Louisiana,  Arkansas,  and 
Missouri.) 

This  motion  was,  after  some  discussion,  de- 
cided in  the  negative,  by  yeas  and  nays,  as  fol- 
lows: 

For  Mr.  Trimble's  amendment. — Messrs.  Burrill, 
Dana,  Dickerson,  Horsey,  Hunter,  King  of  New 
York,  Lanman,  Lowrie,  Mellen,  Morrill,  Otis,  Palm- 
er, Parrott,  Roberts,  Ruggles,  Sanford,  Tichenor, 
Trimble,  Van  Dyke,  and  Wilson— 20. 

Against  zV.— Messrs.  Barbour,  Brown,  Eaton,  Elliot, 
Edwards,  Gaillard,  Johnson  of  Kentucky,  Johnson  of 
Louisiana,  King  of  Alabama,  Leake,  Lloyd,  Logan, 
Macon,  Noble,  Pinkney,  Pleasants,  Smith,  Stokes, 
Taylor,  Thomas,  Walker  of  Alabama,  Walker  of 
Georgia,  Williams  of  Mississippi,  and  Williams  of 
Tennessee — 24. 

The  question  then  recurred  on  Mr.  THOM- 
AS'S amendment,  which  is  in  the  following 
words : 

"  And  be  it  further  enacted,  That  in  all  that  terri- 
tory ceded  by  France  to  the  United  States,  under  the 
name  of  Louisiana,  which  lies  north  of  thirty-six  de- 
grees and  thirty  minutes  north  latitude,  excepting 
only  such  part  thereof  as  is  included  within  the  lim- 
its of  the  State  contemplated  by  this  act,  slavery  and 
involuntary  servitude,  otherwise  than  in  the  punish- 
ment of  crimes  whereof  the  party  shall  have  been 
duly  convicted,  shall  be  and  is  hereby  forever  pro- 
hibited :  Provided,  always,  That  any  person  escaping 
into  the  same,  from  whom  labor  or  service  is  lawfully 
claimed  in  any  State  or  Territory  of  the  United 
States,  such  fugitive  may  be  lawfully  reclaimed,  and 
conveyed  to  the  person  claiming  .his  or  her  labor  or 
service  as  aforesaid."  ^ 

On  the  adoption  of  this  amendment  the  ques- 
tion was  taken  by  yeas  and  nays,  and  deter- 
mined in  the  affirmative,  as  follows : 

For  the  amendment. — Messrs.  Brown,  Bnrrill,  Dana, 
Dickerson,  Eaton,  Edwards,  Horsey,  Hunter,  John- 
son of  Kentucky,  Johnson  of  Louisiana,  King  of  Ala- 
bama, King  of  New  York,  Lanman,  Leake,  Lloyd, 
Logan,  Lowrie,  Mellen,  Morrill,  Otis,  Palmer,  Parrott, 
Pinkney,  Roberts,  Ruggles,  Sanford,  Stokes,  Thomas, 
Tichenor,  Trimble,  Van  Dyke,  Walker  of  Alabama, 
Williams  of  Tennessee,  and  Wilson— 34. 

Against  the  amendment.—  Messrs.  Barbour,  Elliot, 
Gaillard,  Macon,  Noble,  Pleasants,  Smith,  Taylor, 
Walker  of  Georgia,  and  Williams  of  Mississippi — 10. 

Mr.  TRIMBLE  then  moved  to  amend  the  bill, 
so  as  to  bring  the  north  line  of  the  State  of 
Missouri  about  half  a  degree  south  of  the  line 
proposed ;  with  the  view,  as  he  stated,  sub- 
stantially, to  give  to  the  State  which  shall  here- 
after be  formed  north  of  the  Missouri,  a  share 
of  the  fine  valley  of  the  Des  Moines,  of  which 
he  spoke  from  personal  knowledge,  particularly 
as  the  Missouri  State  will  possess  both  sides  of 
the  Missouri  Kiver,  which  runs  nearly  through 


452 


ABRIDGMENT  OF  THE 


SENATE.] 


The  Missouri  Bill. 


[MAKOH,  1820. 


its  middle,  from  its  east  to  its  western  boun- 
dary. 

This  motion  was  negatived ;  and,  after  some 
other  amendments  necessary  to  make  the  parts 
of  the  bill  conform  to  each  other,  the  question 
was  taken  on  ordering  the  bill,  as  amended,  to 
be  engrossed  and  read  a  third  time,  and  decided 
by  yeas  and  nays,  as  follows  : 

YEAS. — Messrs.  Barbonr,  Brown,  Eaton,  Edwards, 
Elliot,  Gaillard,  Horsey,  Hunter,  Johnson  of  Ken- 
tucky, Johnson  of  Louisiana,  King  of  Alabama, 
Leake,  Lloyd,  Logan,  Parrott,  Pinkney,  Pleasants, 
Stokes,  Thomas,  Van  Dyke,  Walker  of  Alabama, 
Walker  of  Georgia,  Williams  of  Mississippi,  Williams 
of  Tennessee — 24. 

NAYS. — Messrs.  Burrill,  Dana,  Dickerson,  King  of 
New  York,  Lanman,  Lowrie,  Macon,  Mellen,  Morrill, 
Noble,  Otis,  Palmer,  Roberts,  Ruggles,  Sanford, 
Smith,  Taylor,  Tichenor,  Trimble,  and  Wilson— 20. 

So  the  bill  was  ordered  to  be  engrossed  and 
read  a  third  time  to-morrow. 

MONDAY,  February  28. 
The  Maine  Mil. 

The  House  disagrees  to  the  Senate's  amend- 
ments to  the  Maine  bill,  and  a  motion  had  been 
made  in  the  Senate  to  recede. 

[These  amendments  embrace  two  distinct 
measures ;  the  one  admitting  Missouri  into  the 
Union,  the  other  prohibiting  the  future  trans- 
portation of  slaves  into  the  Territories  of  the 
United  States.] 

The  question  of  order,  depending  on  the  last 
adjournment,  was,  after  a  few  remarks  on  it  by 
Mr.  WILSON,  by  a  vote  of  22  to  17,  decided  in 
favor  of  the  divisibility  of  the  question  of  re- 
cession from  the  amendments  of  the  Senate. 

The  question  was  then  taken,  without  debate, 
on  receding  from  so  much  of  the  amendments 
of  the  Senate  as  provides  for  the  admission  of 
Missouri  into  the  Union,  and  decided  as  fol- 
lows: 

For  receding. — Messrs.  Burrill,  Dana,  Dickerson, 
Horsey,  Hunter,  King  of  New  York,  Lanman,  Low- 
rie, Mellen,  Morrill,  Noble,  Otis,  Palmer,  Parrott, 
Roberts,  Ruggles,  Sanford,  Tichenor,  Trimble,  Van 
Dyke,  and  Wilson— 21. 

Against  receding. — Messrs.  Barbour,  Brown,  Eaton, 
Edwards,  Elliot,  Gaillard,  Johnson  of  Kentucky, 
Johnson  of  Louisiana,  King  of  Alabama,  Leake, 
Lloyd,  Logan,  Macon,  Pinkney,  Pleasants,  Smith, 
Stokes,  Taylor,  Thomas,  Walke'r  of  Alabama,  Walk- 
er of  Georgia,  Williams  of  Mississippi,  and  Williams 
of  Tennessee— 23. 

So  the  Senate  refused  (every  member  of  the 
Senate  being  in  his  seat)  to  recede  from  this 
part  of  its  amendments. 

The  question  was  then  taken,  also  without 
debate,  on  the  receding  from  so  much  as  regards 
the  inhibition  of  slavery  in  the  Territories  of 
the  United  States  north  of  86  degrees  30  min- 
utes north  latitude,  and  decided  as  follows : 

YEAS. — Messrs.  Barbour,  Elliot,  Gaillard,  Macon, 
Noble,  Pleasants,  Sanford,  Smith,  Taylor,  Walker  of 
Georgia,  and  Williams  of  Mississippi — 11. 


NATS. — Messrs.  Brown,  Burrill,  Dana,  Dickerson, 
Eaton,  Edwards,  Horsey,  Hunter,  Johnson  of  Ken- 
tucky, Johnson  of  Louisiana,  King  of  Alabama,  King 
of  New  York,  Lanman,  Leake,  Lloyd,  Logan,  Low- 
rie, Mellen,  Morrill,  Otis,  Palmer,  Parrott,  Pinkney, 
Roberts,  Ruggles,  Stokes,  Thomas,  Tichenor,  Trim- 
ble, Van  Dyke,  Walker  of  Alabama,  Williams  of 
Tennessee,  and  Wilson— 33. 

So  the  Senate  refused  to  recede  from  this  or 
any  part  of  its  amendments  to  the  bill  for  the 
admission  of  Maine  into  the  Union. 

On  motion  of  Mr.  BARBOUR,  the  Senate  then 
determined  to  insist  on  the  first  clause  of  its 
amendments ;  and,  on  motion  of  Mr.  EGBERTS, 
it  determined,  in  like  manner,  to  insist  on  the 
latter  clause  of  its  amendments.  And  the  Sec- 
retary was  instructed  to  inform  the  House  of 
Representatives  accordingly. 

The  Senate  was  about  to  adjourn,  when  the 
Clerk  of  the  House  of  Representatives  pre- 
sented himself  at  the  door,  with  a  message,  that 
the  House  of  Representatives  had  insisted  on 
their  disagreement  to  the  amendments  of  the 
Senate  to  the  Maine  bill. 

Mr.  THOMAS  then  moved  that  a  committee  of 
conference  be  appointed,  to  confer  with  the 
House  of  Representatives  on  the  subject. 

Hereupon  commenced  a  debate,  character- 
ized by  some  vehemence  and  warm  feeling. 

Mr.  KING,  of  Alabama,  and  Mr.  SMITH,  were 
in  favor  of  adhesion,  which  forecloses  confer- 
ence ;  Mr.  KING,  of  New  York,  spoke  in  expla- 
nation, and  Messrs.  BARBOUR,  THOMAS,  JOHN- 
SON, of  Kentucky,  LOWRIE,  MORRILL,  DANA, 
EATON,  MAOON,  and  MELLEN,  successively  sup- 
ported the  conference. 

The  debate  resulted  in  this :  that  a  motion 
for  deferring  the  question  was  negatived,  and 
the  Senate  voted,  not  without  opposition,  but 
without  dividing,  to  request  a  conference  with 
the  House  of  Representatives. 

The  Senate  then  balloted  for  managers  there- 
of on  their  part,  and  Messrs.  THOMAS,  PINKNEY, 
and  BARBOUR,  were  duly  elected. 


THURSDAY,  March  2. 
The  Missouri  Bill— The  Restriction  agreed  to 

by  the  House;  motion  in  ihe  Senate  to  strike 

it  out. 

The  bill  was,  on  motion  of  Mr.  BARBOTTR,  im- 
mediately taken  up,  and  read  a  first  and  second 
time  ;  and,  at  his  instance  also,  was  then  forth- 
with taken  up  as  in  Committee  of  the  Whole. 

Mr.  BARBOUR  moved  to  strike  out  of  section 
fonr,  line  twenty-two,  after  the  word  "  and  " 
where  it  first  occurs  in  this  line,  to  the  end  of 
the  thirtieth  line,  the  following : 

"  And  shall  ordain  and  establish,  that  there  shall 
be  neither  slavery  nor  involuntary  servitude  in  the 
said  State,  otherwise  than  in  the  punishment  of 
crimes,  whereof  the  party  shall  have  been  duly  con- 
victed :  Provided,  always,  That  any  person  escaping 
into  the  same,  from  whom  labor  or  service  is  lawfully 
claimed  in  any  other  State,  such  fugitive  may  be 
lawfully  reclaimed,  and  conveyed  to  the  person  claim- 


DEBATES  OF  CONGRESS. 


453 


MARCH,  1820.] 


The  Missouri  Bill. 


[SENATE. 


ing  his  or  her  lubor  or  service,  as  aforesaid :  Provided, 
nevertheless,  That  the  said  provision  shall  not  be  con- 
strued to  alter  the  condition  or  civil  rights  of  any 
person  now  held  to  service  or  labor  in  the  said  Ter- 
ritory. A  nd  pt-ovided  also." 

The  subject,  Mr.  B.  said,  had  been  so  fully 
discussed,  and  so  often  passed  upon,  and  the 
yeas  anxl  nays  recorded  on  it,  that  he  thought 
it  unnecessary  to  say  any  thing  on  the  subject ; 
and  he  should  forbear  even  the  asking  for  the 
yeas  and  nays  upon  it. 

Mr.  KIXG,  of  New  York,  said  he  was  per- 
fectly ready  to  concur  in  the  sentiment  expressed 
by  the  gentleman  from  Virginia.  He  had  no 
idea  of  producing  delay  in  bringing  this  matter 
to  a  conclusion,  which  only  would  be  the  effect 
of  discussion ;  but  was  ready  to  concur  in  any 
course  which  would  lead  to  its  speedy  termina- 
tion. 

Mr.  HORSEY  said,  that,  having  been  necessa- 
rily absent  when  this  question  was  before  de- 
cided, he  wished  now  to  be  indulged  with  an 
opportunity  of  recording  his  vote. 

The  yeas  and  nays  were  accordingly  ordered 
to  be  taken,  and  stood — yeas  27,  nays  15,  as 
follows : 

YEAS. — Messrs.  Barbonr,  Brown,  Eaton,  Edwards, 
Elliot,  Gaillard,  Horsey,  Hunter,  Johnson  of  Ken- 
tucky, Johnson  of  Louisiana,  King  of  Alabama,  Lau- 
ra an,  Leake,  Lloyd,  Logan,  Macon,  Parrott.,  Pinkney, 
Pleasants,  Smith,  Stokes,  Thomas,  Van  Dyke,  Walk- 
er of  Alabama,  Walker  of  Georgia,  Williams  of  Mis- 
sissippi, and  Williams  of  Tennessee. 

NAYS. — Messrs.  Burrill,  Dana,  Dickerson,  King  of 
New  York,  Lowrie,  Mellen,  Morrill,  Noble,  Otis, 
Roberts,  Ruggles,  Sanford,  Taylor,  Trimble,  and 
Wilson. 

On  motion  by  Mr.  THOMAS,  it  was  agreed 
further  to  amend  the  bill,  by  adding  thereto 
the  following  section : 

"  SEC.  8.  And  be  it  further  enacted,  That,  in  all 
that  territory  ceded  by  France  to  the  United  States, 
under  the  name  of  Louisiana,  which  lies  north  of 
thirty-six  degrees  and  thirty  minutes  north  latitude, 
not  included  within  the  limits  of  the  State  contem- 
plated by  this  act,  slavery  and  involuntary  servitude, 
otherwise  than  in  the  punishment  of  crimes,  whereof 
the  party  shall  have  been  duly  convicted,  shall  be, 
and  is  hereby,  forever  prohibited :  Provided,  always, 
That  any  person  escaping  into  the  same,  from  whom 
labor  or  service  is  lawfully  claimed  in  any  State  or 
Territory  of  the  United  States,  such  fugitive  may  be 
lawfully  reclaimed,  and  conveyed  to  the  person  claim- 
ing his  or  her  labor  or  service  as  aforesaid." 

The  bill  having  been  thus  amended,  it  was 
reported  to  the  House  accordingly ;  and,  the 
first  amendment  being  concurred  in, 

Mr.  TKIMBLK  moved  to  amend  the  new  section 
agreed  to,  as  in  Committee  of  the  Whole,  by 
striking  out  therefrom — 

"All  that  territory  ceded  by  France  to  the  United 
States,  under  the  name  of  Louisiana,  which  lies  north 
of  thirty-six  degrees  and  thirty  minutes  north  lati- 
tude, not  included  within  the  limits  of  the  State  con- 
templated by  this  act,"  and  inserting  in  lien  thereof 
the  following  :  "  All  that  part  of  Louisiana  west  of 


the  Mississippi,  ceded  by  France  to  the  United  States, 
except  the  State  of  Louisiana,  the  territory  included 
in  the  proposed  State  of  Missouri,  and  the  Arkansas 
Territory,  east  of  the  seventeenth  or  ninety-fourth 
degree  of  longitude,  (agreeably  to  Melish's  map.") 

Mr.  TRIMBLE  said  he  would  not  have  offered 
this  amendment,  but  with  the  hope  that  some 
agreement  might  take  place  between  the  two 
Houses,  and  in  the  belief  that  that  amendment 
embraced  principles  on  which  the  two  Houses 
might  unite  on  this  subject.  When  we  go  into 
the  territory  which  was  uninhabited  at  the  date 
of  the  Louisiana  treaty,  and  is  yet  uninhabited, 
very  few,  he  believed,  entertained  scruples  as  to 
the  constitutionality  of  the  restriction.  For 
his  part,  he  did  not  see  on  what  principle  the 
constitution  could  be  brought  to  bear  on  the 
subject.  He  had  offered  this  amendment  with 
a  view,  should  it  succeed,  to  vote  for  the  bill  in 
its  present  form.  He  had  little  doubt  that  it 
contained  principles  on  which,  were  it  agreed  to, 
the  bill  would  psiss  the  other  House ;  and  he  was 
under  the  impression  that  it  would  not  succeed 
on  the  principle  of  the  amendment  of  the  gentle- 
man from  Illinois,  as  it  now  stood. 

The  question  was  then  taken,  without  debate, 
on  Mr.  TRIMBLE'S  motion  to  amend  the  amend- 
ment, as  above  stated,  and  decided  as  follows : 

YEAS.— Messrs.  Bnrrill,  Dana,  Dickerson,  King  of 
New  York,  Lanman,  Mellen,  Morrill,  Otis,  Ruggles, 
Sanford,  Trimble,  and  Wilson— 12. 

NATS — Messrs.  Barbour,  Brown,  Eaton,  Edwards, 
Elliot,  Gaillard,  Horsey,  Johnson  of  Kentucky,  John- 
son of  Louisiana,  King  of  Alabama,  Leake,  Lloyd, 
Logan,  Lowrie,  Macon,  Noble,  Palmer,  Parrott, 
Pinkney,  Pleasants,  Roberts,  Smith,  Stokes,  Taylor, 
Thomas,  Van  Dyke,  Walker  of  Alabama,  Walker  of 
Georgia,  Williams  of  Mississippi,  Williams  of  Ten- 


Mr.  THOMAS'S  amendment  was  then  concurred 
in,  as  agreed  to  in  Committee  of  the  Whole. 

It  was  agreed  to  amend  the  title  by  adding 
thereto,  "  and  to  prohibit  slavery  in  certain  ter- 
ritories." 

And  the  amendments  were  then  ordered  to 
be  engrossed,  and,  with  the  bill,  to  be  read  a 
third  time :  it  was  read  a  third  time  accordingly, 
passed,  and  sent  to  the  House  of  Representa- 
tives, requesting  their  concurrence  in  the  amend- 
ments.* 


*  The  debates  and  proceedings  on  the  compromise  were 
brief;  and  free  from  acerbity,  and  the  vote  largely  in  ito 
favor :  it  was  the  proposed  restriction  on  the  State  of  Mis- 
souri which  so  long  occupied,  and  embittered  the  two  Houses, 
and  on  which  the  vote  was  always  close,  and  strongly  marked 
by  a  geographical  line.  No  two  measures  could  be  more 
distinct  in  their  natures,  or  opposite  in  their  features.  The 
restriction  applied  to  a  State,  the  compromise  to  Territories. 
The  restriction  was  to  prevent  the  State  of  Missouri  from 
e  verpossessing  slaves :  the  compromise  was  to  divide  territory 
between  the  free  and  the  slave  States.  The  attempted  restric- 
tion raised  the  storm  of  the  Missouri  controversy  ;  the  com- 
promise allayed  it.  Yet  the  two  measures,  in  these  later 
times,  have  often  been  confounded,  and  eminent  public 
men  misplaced  with  respect  to  them— among  the  rest,  Mr. 
Madison,  in  his  letter  of  Nov.  27th,  1819,  in  reply  to  Mr. 


454 


ABRIDGMENT  OF  THE 


SENATE.] 


The  Public  Lands. 


[MARCH,    1820. 


FEIDAY,  March  3. 
Maine  Bill 

Mr.  THOMAS,  from  the  managers  on  the  part 
of  the  Senate,  at  the  conference  on  the  subject 
of  the  disagreeing  votes  of  the  two  Houses,  on 
the  amendments  proposed  by  the  Senate,  to  the 
bill,  entitled  "  An  act  for  the  admission  of  the 
State  of  Maine  into  the  Union,"  made  the  fol- 
lowing report : 

The  Committee  of  Conference  of  the  Senate  and 
of  the  House  of  Eepresentatives,  on  the  subject  of 
the  disagreeing  votes  of  the  two  Houses,  upon  the 
bill,  entitled  "  An  act  for  the  admission  of  the  State  of 
Maine  into  the  Union,"  report  the  following  resolution : 

Resolved,  1st.  That  they  recommend  to  the  Senate 
to  recede  from  their  amendments  to  the  said  bill. 

2d.  That  they  recommend  to  the  two  Houses  to 
agree  to  strike  out  of  the  fourth  section  of  the  bill 
from  the.  House  of  Representatives  now  pending  in 
the  Senate,  entitled  "  An  act  to  authorize  the  people 
of  the  Missouri  Territory  to  form  a  constitution  and 
State  government,  and  for  the  admission  of  such 
State  into  the  Union  upon  an  equal  footing  with  the 
original  States,"  the  following  proviso,  in  the  follow- 
ing words :  "  And  shall  ordain  and  establish,  that 
there  shall  be  neither  slavery  nor  involuntary  servi- 
tude otherwise  than  in  the  punishment  of  crimes, 
whereof  the  party  shall  have  been  duly  convicted : 
Provided,  always,  That  any  person  escaping  into  the 
same,  from  whom  labor  or  service  is  lawfully  claimed 
in  any  other  State,  such  fugitive  may  be  lawfully  re- 
claimed, and  conveyed  to  the  person  claiming  his  or 
her  labor  or  service  as  aforesaid :  Provided,  neverthe- 
less, That  the  said  provision  shall  not  be  construed  to 
alter  the  condition  or  civil  rights  of  any  person  now 
held  to  service  or  labor  in  the  said  territory."  And 
that  the  following  provision  be  added  to  the  bill : 

And  be  it  further  enacted,  That  in  all  that  terri- 
tory ceded  by  France  to  the  United  States,  under  the 
name  of  Louisiana,  which  lies  north  of  thirty-six  de- 
grees and  thirty  minutes  north  latitude,  not  included 
within  the  limits  of  the  State  contemplated  by  this 
act,  slavery  and  involuntary  servitude,  otherwise 
than  in  the  punishment  of  crimes,  whereof  the  party 
shall  have  been  duly  convicted,  shall  be,  and  is  here- 
by, forever  prohibited :  Provided,  always,  That  any 
person  escaping  into  the  same,  from  whom  labor  or 
service  is  lawfully  claimed  in  any  other  State  or  Ter- 
ritory of  the  United  States,  such  "fugitive  maybe  law- 
fully reclaimed,  and  conveyed  to  the  person  claiming 
his  or  her  labor  or  service  as  aforesaid. 

The  report  was  read. 

On  motion  by  Mr.  THOMAS, 

Resolved,  That  a  further  conference  be  asked 
on  the  disagreeing  votes  of  the  two  Houses  on 
the  said  bill. 

Ordered,   That  Messrs.  THOMAS,   BABBOFB, 

Kobert  Walsh.  That  letter  has  been  highly  quoted  as  a 
letter  against  the  compromise :  by  looking  at  its  date,  it 
will  be  seen  to  have  been  written  three  months  before  the 
compromise  had  been  mentioned  in  either  House  of  Con- 
gress :  by  looking  at  its  terms,  it  will  be  seen  that  the  word 
compromise  is  not  in  it,  nor  any  allusion  to  such  a  thing  :  by 
following  its  argument,  it  will  be  seen  to  apply  wholly  to 
the  removal  of  slaves  to  States.  And  the  style  of  the 
letter  was  precisely  that  of  the  arguments  in  Congress 
against  the  restriction. 


and  PnraxT,  be  the  managers  on  the  part  of 
the  Senate. 

Maine  Bill 

Mr.  THOMAS,  from  the  managers  on  the  part 
of  the  Senate,  at  the  conference  on  the  disagree- 
ing votes  of  the  two  Houses  on  the  bill,  entitled 
"  An  act  for  the  admission  of  the  State  of  Maine 
into  the  Union,"  made  the  following  report : 

That  the  Committee  of  Conference  recommend  to 
the  two  Houses  that  the  word  "  next"  be  stricken  out 
of  the  said  bill,  and  the  words  "  in  the  year  one 
thousand  eight  hundred  and  twenty,"  be  inserted  in 
lieu  thereof. 

Whereupon,  it  was 

Besoloed,  That  the  Senate  concur  in  both  the 
reports  of  the  Committee  of  Conference ;  that 
they  recede  from  their  amendment  to  the  said 
bill,  and  that  it  be  amended  by  striking  out  of 
line  the  third  the  word  "  next,"  and  inserting 
in  lieu  thereof  "  one  thousand  eight  hundred 
and  twenty,"  accordingly. 

Ordered,  That  the  Secretary  notify  the  House 
of  Eepresentatives  accordingly,  and  request  their 
concurrence  in  the  said  amendment. 


MONDAY,  March  6. 
The  Public  Lands. 

The  Senate  resumed,  as  in  Committee  of  the 
Whole,  the  consideration  of  the  bill  making  fur- 
ther provision  for  the  sale  of  public  lands,  to- 
gether with  the  amendments  proposed  thereto 
by  Mr.  WALKEE,  of  Alabama,  as  follows : 

And  be  it  further  enacted,  That  purchasers  of  pub- 
lic lands,  which  have  been  sold  prior  to  the day 

of  next,  shall  be  permitted  to  forfeit  and  sur- 
render the  same  before  the  day  of  final  payment,  by 
delivering  their  certificates  to  the  register,  and  endors- 
ing thereon  their  consent  that  the  land  therein  de- 
scribed shall  be  re-sold  :  whereupon,  the  said  certifi- 
cates shall  be  considered  as  cancelled  ;  and  the  land 
shall  be  deemed  and  taken  to  have  reverted  to  the 
United  States,  and  shall  be  disposed  of,  in  all  re- 
spects, like  other  reverted  or  forfeited  lands,  accord- 
ing to  the  provisions  of  the  fourth  section  of  this  act ; 
but,  if  such  lands  should  be  sold  for  more  than  one 

dollar  and cents  per  acre,  the  excess  shall  be 

paid  over  to  the  former  certificate-holder :  Provided, 
That  such  excess  shall  not  be  greater  than  the  amount 
previously  paid  on  such  certificate. 

Mr.  WALKER  submitted  a  number  of  argu- 
ments in  support  of  his  amendment,  and  enter- 
ed into  particular  statements  of  the  amount  of 
sales,  the  prices  given  in  Alabama  and  else- 
where, for  public  lands,  the  great  amount  of 
debt  due  and  becoming  due,  &c.,  to  show  the 
propriety  of  affording  the  relief  which  his 
amendment  contemplated ;  but,  as  the  Senate 
was  this  morning  thin,  and  the  subject  before  it 
of  great  importance,  he  hoped  its  consideration 
might  for  the  present  be  postponed. 

Mr.  WILSON,  though  uniformly  friendly  to  the 
principle  of  the  bill,  was  willing  to  defer  its  con- 
sideration until  the  Senate  should  be  full,  and 
moved  to  postpone  it  till  to-morrow. 


DEBATES  OF  CONGRESS. 


455 


MARCH,  1820.] 


The.  Public  Lands. 


[SEJATK. 


Mr.  THOMAS  proposed  a  postponement  to  Wed- 
nesday next. 

Mr.  OTIS  was  opposed  to  so  distant  a  post- 
ponement, as  he  feared  it  might  endanger  the 
bill,  which  had  already  been  postponed  through 
all  the  moods  and  tenses.  It  had  been  lost  in 
the  other  House,  at  the  last  session,  after  pass- 
ing this,  for  want  of  time.  Should  it  be  again 
defeated  from  the  same  cause,  it  was  to  be  fear- 
ed that  they  might  bid  adieu  to  all  hope  of  the 
measure.  Mr.  O.  made  a  remark  or  two  on  the 
subject  of  the  amendment,  to  show  that,  how- 
ever equitable  the  relief,  it  was  doubtful  whe- 
ther the  measure  would  be  proper  before  the 
debt  for  which  the  sales  were  pledged  had  been 
paid  off. 

Mr.  WALKER  replied,  to  obviate  the  objec- 
tion of  Mr.  OTIS;  and  the  postponement  was 
supported  by  Mr.  NOBLE,  and  opposed  by  Mr. 
RUGGLES. 

The  motion  to  postpone  to  "Wednesday  was 
lost,  and  the  motion  for  to-morrow  prevailed — 
18  to  14 ;  but  a  reconsideration  of  the  vote  was 
subsequently  moved  and  agreed  to,  and  the  mo- 
tion to  postpone  being  then  negatived,  the  Sen- 
ate resumed  the  consideration  of  the  bill  and 
amendment. 

Mr.  KING,  of  Alabama,  had  no  hope,  from  the 
indications  which  he  saw,  that  the  amendment 
would  be  adopted ;  but,  if  the  change  proposed 
by  the  bill  should  take  place,  he  had  no  doubt 
the  Legislature  would  see  the  necessity  of  some 
such  relief  as  the  amendment  offered.  He 
would  now  merely  call  for  the  yeas  and  nays  on 
the  question. 

The  amendment  was  supported  by  Messrs. 
EDWARDS  and  KING  of  Alabama,  and  was  op- 
posed by  Messrs.  TEIMBLE,  LANMAN,  and  KING 
of  New  York,  not  because  opposed  to  affording 
the  relief  contemplated,  but  from  an  unwilling- 
ness to  connect  it  with  the  present  bill,  &c. 

The  question  being  taken  on  the  amendment, 
it  was  decided  by  yeas  and  nays,  as  follows: 

YEAS. — Messrs.  Edwards,  Johnson  of  Kentucky, 
King  of  Alabama,  Logan,  Noble,  Smith,  Thomas, 
and  Walker  of  Alabama— 8. 

NAYS. — Messrs.  Brown,  Burrill,  Dana,  Dickerson, 
Eaton,  Elliot,  Gaillard,  Hunter,  Johnson  of  Louisiana, 
King  of  New  York,  Lanman,  Leake,.  Lowrie,  Macon, 
Mellen,  Morrill,  Otis,  Palmer,  Parrott,  Pleasants, 
Ruggles,  Sanford,  Stokes,  Taylor,  Trimble,  Van 
Dyke,  Williams  of  Mississippi,  Williams  of  Ten- 
nessee, and  Wilson — 29. 

Mr.  EDWABDS  said,  although  he  was  decid- 
edly opposed  to  the  change  in  the  mode  of  dis- 
posing of  the  public  lands,  which  is  provided 
for  by  the  bill  now  under  consideration,  from 
the  strongest  convictions,  that,  while  it  is  cal- 
culated to  operate  with  peculiar  hardship  upon 
those  who  have  not  the  good  fortune  to  have 
the  present  command  of  money,  and  to  retard 
the  settlement  and  check  the  prosperity  of  the 
State  which  he  has  the  honor,  in  part,  to  repre- 
sent, it  was  also  inexpedient,  on  the  part  of  the 
Government  itself,  to  place  its  own  intcrc-st  so 
much  in  the  power  of  moneyed  capitalists,  who, 


owing  to  the  present  temporary  scarcity  of 
money,  can,  by  combinations  for  that  purpose, 
with  the  utmost  facility,  put  down  competition 
at  the  public  sales,  and  engross  as  much  of  the 
best  lands  as  they  please,  upon  the  lowest  terms 
or  minimum  price ;  yet,  if  the  bill  must  pass, 
and  I  see  (said  Mr.  E.)  no  prospect  of  opposing 
it  with  success,  in  this  House,  I  do  most  sin- 
cerely hope  it  will  be  with  such  modifications 
as  will  produce  the  least  individual  hardships 
and  the  most  general  satisfaction ;  for,  what- 
ever may  have  been  the  zeal  with  which  I  have 
hitherto  opposed  the  measure,  I  can  assure  gen- 
tlemen that  it  has  been  no  part  of  my  object  to 
excite  discontents  elsewhere,  and  that  there  is 
no  man  living  who  has  been  more  uniformly 
disposed  to  discountenance  local  jealousies,  and 
to  cherish  a  spirit  of  concord  and  harmony 
throughout  every  part  of  our  common  country, 
than  I  myself  have  been. 

My  judgment  may  have  deceived  me ;  my  per- 
sonal interest,  however,  I  well  know,  cannot  have 
misled  me ;  for  that  would  have  been  promot- 
ed by  the  contemplated  change,  which  cannot 
fail  to  be  beneficial  to  all  those  who  have  here- 
tofore purchased  lands  which  they  wish  to  dis- 
pose of,  or  who  have  money  to  purchase,  with 
that  view ;  and  hence  it  is,  probably,  that  we 
have  seen  letters  from  large  landholders  in  th« 
West  to  members  of  this  body,  exhibited  as  dis- 
interested testimony  in  favor  of  the  proposed 
change,  and  passing  from  seat  to  seat,  for  the 
purpose  of  convincing  our  minds,  not  only  of 
its  propriety,  but  of  the  absolute  necessity  for 
its  speedy  adoption. 

Mr.  E.  contended,  that  the  present  system  of 
disposing  of  the  public  lands  had  been  success- 
fully tested  by  the  experience  of  many  years ; 
that  Ohio  and  Indiana,  in  particular,  had  flour- 
ished under  its  operation,  and,  without  any  in- 
jury to  the  Union,  had  increased  their  popula- 
tion and  prosperity  with  unparalleled  rapidity. 
But,  said  he,  like  all  other  human  institutions,  it 
seems  that  the  system  had  not  the  necessary 
perfection  to  suit  it  to  all  times  and  circum- 
stances; and  it  is  alleged,  as  a  reason  demand- 
ing the  proposed  change,  that  excessive  pur- 
chases were  made,  during  a  period  of  universal 
delusion,  which  equally  operated  upon  every 
thing  else,  and  which  no  one  believes  is  likely 
to  recur,  for  a  long  time  to  come  at  least.  But, 
said  he,  can  it  be  a  dictate  of  wisdom  to  predi- 
cate a  general  system  upon  a  particular  and  ex- 
traordinary case,  which  is  gone  by,  and  in  all 
probability  will  never  again  occur?  Can  it  be 
wise  to  select  that  moment  for  abolishing  all 
credit  upon  the  sale  of  public  lands  when  mo- 
ney is  scarcer  than  it  has  ever  heretofore  been, 
and  thereby  to  retard  the  settlement  of  those 
lands,  at  the  very  time  when  the  state  of  thing* 
which  produced  the  supposed  evils  of  the  credit 
system  is  rapidly  disappearing,  which  is  now 
most  certainly  the  case,  as  far  as  I  am  informed 
on  the  subject?  Can  it  be  just  to  withhold 
from  our  fellow-citizens,  who  have  not  here- 
tofore purchased  any  public  lands,  the  oppor- 


456 


ABRIDGMENT  OF  THE 


SENATE.] 


The  Public  Lands. 


[MARCH,  1820. 


tunity  of  doing  so  upon  the  same  terms  that 
have  been  allowed  to  others?  Can  it  be  right, 
merely  because  others  have  heretofore  pur- 
chased injudiciously,  during  a  period  of  general 
delusion,  to  refuse  credit  to  those  who  may 
hereafter  wish  to  purchase  discreetly,  lest  they 
should  be  tempted  to  injure  themselves,  in  like 
manner,  when  no  such  delusion  exists  ? 

But,  said  he,  it  is  not  my  purpose  to  discuss, 
at  large,  the  merits  of  the  proposed  change.  I 
will,  at  present,  content  myself  with  an  effort, 
merely,  to  shield  the  present  settlers  upon  pub- 
lic lands  from  merciless  speculators,  whose  cu- 
pidity and  avarice  would  unquestionably  be 
tempted  by  the  improvements  which  those 
settlers  have  made  with  the  sweat  of  their 
brows,  and  to  which  they  have  been  encour- 
aged by  the  conduct  of  the  Government  itself; 
for,  though  they  might  be  considered  as  em- 
braced by  the  letter  of  the  law  which  provides 
against  intrusions  on  public  lands,  yet,  that 
then-  case  has  not  been  considered  by  the  Gov- 
ernment as  within  the  mischiefs  intended  to  be 
prevented  is  manifest,  not  only  from  the  for- 
bearance to  enforce  the  law,  but  from  the  posi- 
tive rewards  which  others,  in  their  situation, 
have  received,  by  the  several  laws  which  have 
heretofore  granted  to  them  the  same  right  of 
pre-emption  which  I  now  wish  extended  to  the 
present  settlers. 

The  settlements  which  have  been  made  by 
this  description  of  our  population,  so  far  from 
injuring  in  any  way  the  interest  of  the  Govern- 
ment, have  in  all  cases  with  which  I  have  been 
acquainted,  (and  few  have  had  an  opportunity  of 
knowing  more  upon  the  subject  than  myself,) 
actually  benefited  it,  by  enhancing  the  value  of 
the  adjoining  lands,  and  increasing  the  facilities 
of  settling  them. 

Those  settlements  have  been  made  with  the 
expectation  of  acquiring  the  lands  including 
them,  under  the  existing  law.  The  number  and 
value  of  such  improvements  are  much  greater 
than  they  would  have  been  had  not  certain 
lands  been  kept  out  of  market  much  longer  than 
was  reasonably  anticipated.  None  of  those 
settlers  have  supposed  that  they  would  have  to 
pay  down  more  than  one-fourth  of  the  purchase 
money  upon  the  tracts  which  they  wish  to  buy ; 
few  of  them  will  be  able  to  pay  more ;  the  most 
of  them  have  already  opened  farms,  from  which 
they  could  reasonably  calculate  upon  paying  the 
future  instalments  as  they  would  become  due. 
And  it  does  appear  to  me  that  it  would  be  both 
cruel  and  impolitic  to  disappoint  such  expecta- 
tions, by  placing  those  people,  so  completely  as 
the  proposed  change  would  do,  in  the  power  of 
moneyed  speculators.  To  guard  against  which, 
and  to  prevent  those  serious  discontents,  if  not 
commotions,  which  otherwise  must  take  place, 
I  offer  the  amendment  which  I  now  hold  in  my 
hand,  and  which,  so  far  from  being  calculated 
to  defeat  the  bill,  cannot,  if  adopted,  fail  to  con- 
tribute greatly  to  its  success,  by  removing  some 
of  the  most  serious  and  important  objections  to 
its  passage. 


The  amendment  is  as  follows : 

"  Be  it  enacted,  £c.,  That  every  person,  or  the  legal 
representatives  of  every  person,  who  has  actually  in- 
habited and  cultivated,  and  who  now  resides  upon 
any  tract  of  land  lying  in  any  district  established  for 
the  sale  of  public  lands,  which  tract  is  not  rightfully 
claimed  by  any  other  person,  such  person,  so  residing 
as  aforesaid,  or  his  legal  representative,  shall  be  en- 
titled to  a  preference  in  becoming  the  purchaser  from 
the  United  States  of  such  tract  of  land,  at  private 
sale,  upon  the  same  terms  and  conditions,  in  every 
respect,  as  have  heretofore  been  provided,  by  law, 
for  the  sale  of  other  lands  sold  at  private  sale  :  Pro- 
vided, That  no  more  than  one  quarter  section  of 
land  shall  be  sold  to  any  one  individual  in  virtue  of 
this  act,  and  the  same  shall  be  bounded  by  the  sec- 
tional and  divisional  lines  run,  or  to  be  run,  accord- 
ing to  law :  Provided,  also,  That  no  lands  reserved 
from  sale  by  former  acts,  or  lands  which  have  been 
directed  to  be  sold  in  town  lots,  shall  be  sold  under 
this  act. 

"  Be  it  further  enacted,  That  every  person  claiming 
a  preference  in  becoming  the  purchaser  of  a  tract  of 
land  in  virtue  of  this  act,  shall  make  known  his  claim 
by  delivering  a  notice,  in  writing,  to  the  register  of 
the  land  office  for  the  flistrict  in  which  the  land  may 
lie,  wherein  he  shall  particularly  designate  the  quar- 
ter section  he  claims ;  which  notice  the  register  shall 
file  in  his  office,  on  receiving  twenty -five  cents  from 
the  person  delivering  the  same.  And,  in  every  case 
where  it  shall  appear  to  the  satisfaction  of  the  regis- 
ter and  receiver  of  public  moneys  of  the  land  office, 
that  any  person,  who  has  delivered  his  notice  of  claim, 
is  entitled,  according  to  the  provisions  of  this  act,  to 
a  preference  in  becoming  the  purchaser  of  a  quarter 
section  of  land,  such  person  so  entitled  shall  have  a 
right  to  enter  the  said  quarter  section,  or  half  thereof, 
with  the  register  of  the  land  office,  on  producing  his 
receipt  from  the  receiver  of  public  moneys  for  at  least 
one-twentieth  part  of  the  purchase  money,  as  in  case 
of  other  lands  sold  at  private  sale  :  Provided,  That 
all  lands  to  be  sold  under  this  act,  which  shall  not 
have  been  previously  exposed  to  public  sale,  shall  be 
entered  with  the  register  at  least  two  weeks  before 
the  time  which  may  be  appointed  for  the  commence- 
ment of  the  public  sale  thereof.  And -every  person, 
having  a  right  of  preference  in  becoming  the  pur- 
chaser of  a  tract  of  land,  who  shall  fail  so  to  make  his 
entry  with  the  register  within  the  time  prescribed, 
his  right  shall  be  forfeited,  and  the  land,  by  him 
claimed,  shall  be  offered  at  public  sale  with  the  other 
public  lands  in  the  district  to  which  it  belongs." 

Mr.  KING,  of  New  York,  observed  that,  if  the 
change  of  system  were  favorable  to  speculators, 
he  should  be  found  in  ^  the  negative.  But,  so 
far  from  this  being  the'  fact,  he  considered  the 
change  as  highly  favorable  to  the  poor  man ; 
and  he  argued  at  some  length,  that  it  was  cal- 
culated to  plant  in  the  new  country  a  popula- 
tion of  independent,  unembarrassed  freeholders ; 
that  by  offering  the  lands  in  eighty-acre  lots,  it 
would  place  it  in  the  power  of  almost  every 
man  to  purchase  a  freehold,  the  price  of  which 
could  be  cleared  in  three  years ;  that  it  would 
cut  up  speculation  and  monopoly;  that  the 
money  paid  for  the  lands  would  be  carried  from 
the  State  or  country  from  which  the  purchaser 
should  remove ;  that  it  would  prevent  the  ac- 
cumulation of  an  alarming  debt,  which  ex- 


DEBATES  OF  CONGRESS. 


457 


MARCH,  1820.] 


The  Public  Lands. 


[SENATE. 


perience  proved  never  would  and  never  could 
be  paid. 

Mr.  JOHNSON,  of  Louisiana,  was  decidedly  op- 
posed to  the  bill,  because  he  conceived  it  would 
be  injurious  to  the  interests  of  Louisiana,  and 
of  the  nation  at  large.  He  argued  that  the 
present  system  had  been  in  existence  twenty 
years;  that  the  people  were  satisfied  with  it; 
that  the  country  had  thriven  and  prospered  un- 
der it;  that  the  change  would  operate  oppres- 
sively on  a  large  class  of  actual  settlers  in 
Louisiana  and  elsewhere,  who  ought  to  be  se- 
cured by  some  provisions,  &c. 

Mr.  RUGGLES  had  no  objection  to  the  amend- 
ment ;  but  he  spoke  to  show  that,  if  the  change 
took  place  at  all,  it  ought  to  be  total ;  that  he 
should  oppose  the  change  unless  the  price  was 
reduced,  and  the  land  offered  in  half-quarter 
sections,  &c. 

Mr.  JOHNSON,  of  Kentucky,  despaired  of  de- 
feating the  bill  here,  but  expressed  his  hopes 
that  it  would  meet  its  fate  in  the  other  House. 
Mr.  J.  supported  the  amendment,  and  argued 
at  some  length  against  the  bill.  He  contended 
that  no  system  which  the  Government  had 
ever  adopted  had  been  productive  of  so  much 
benefit  to  the  nation  as  that  under  which  the 
public  lands  had  heretofore  been  disposed  of, 
&c. 

Mr.  TBIMBLE  replied  to  certain  remarks  of 
Mr.  EDWAEDS  and  Mr.  JOHNSON,  of  Louisiana, 
in  reference  to  the  operation  of  the  land  system 
in  Ohio,  and  also  in  support  of  the  proposed 
change. 

Mr.  NOBLE  next  rose,  and  entered  into  a  very 
particular  examination  of  the  system,  from  its 
commencement,  twenty-five  years  ago,  up  to 
the  present  time,  to  show  the  impolicy  of  the 
contemplated  change,  and  the  propriety  of  the 
amendment.  He  replied  at  large  to  Mr.  KING 
and  others,  to  show  that  it  would  be  easy  for 
speculators  and  monopolists  to  combine  and 
destroy  competition  at  the  public  sale,  to  pur- 
chase up  the  best  lands,  and  afterwards  to  ex- 
tort from  the  poor  an  exorbitant  price,  to  bring 
their  purchases  into  competition  with  the  Gov- 
ernment lands,  &c. 

Mr.  KING,  of  New  York,  replied,  and  Mr. 
NOBLE  rejoined ;  after  which — 

The  question  was  taken  on  Mr.  EDWARDS' 
amendment,  and  negatived  as  follows : 

YEAS. — Messrs.  Brown,  Edwards,  Johnson  of  Ken- 
tucky, Johnson  of  Louisiana,  Logan,  Noble,  Smith, 
and  Thomas— 8. 

NAYS. — Messrs.  Bnrrill,  Dana,  Dickerson,  Eaton, 
Elliot,  Gaillard,  Hunter,  King  of  Alabama,  King  of 
New  York,  Lanman,  Leake,  Lowrie,  Macon,  Miller, 
Morrill,  Otis,  Palmer,  Parrott,  Pleasants,  Haggles, 
Sandford,  Taylor,  Trimble,  Van  Dyke,  Walker  of 
Alabama,  Williams  of  Mississippi,  Williams  of 
Tennessee,  and  Wilson— 28. 

Mr.  NOBLE  then  moved  to  amend  the  bill  by 
striking  out  all  that  part  thereof  which  pro- 
vides that  the  sales  shall  be  made  for  cash; 
and  leaving  that  part  of  the  bill  which  directs 


the  lands  to  be  offered  for  sale  in  half-quarter 
sections. 

This  motion  was  negatived,  by  yeas  and  nays, 
28  to  8,  the  members  present  voting  precisely 
as  on  the  preceding  question. 

Mr.  JOHNSON,  of  Louisiana,  offered  to  amend 
the  bill  by  inserting  a  clause,  providing  sub- 
stantially that  such  lands  as  should  not  bring 
the  minimum  price,  should,  after  remaining  un- 
sold a  certain  number  of  years,  be  offered  at  a 
less  price,  and,  after  the  lapse  of  further  time, 
at  a  still  less  price,  &c. ;  which  motion  he  offer- 
ed on  the  ground  that  there  was  in  Louisiana, 
and  elsewhere,  a  great  deal  of  land  which 
would  never  bring  the  minimum  price,  and 
that  it  ought,  in  due  time,  to  be  offered  at  such 
a  price  as  would  induce  its  purchase  and  settle- 
ment. 

The  motion  was  opposed  by  Messrs.  MELLEJT 
and  LANMAN,  for  the  reason  chiefly  that  it 
would  be  premature  legislation;  and  that,  even 
if  the  provision  were  now  necessary,  it  would 
be  better  to  bring  it  forward  in  a  distinct  bill, 
«fec.  Mr.  LEAKE  concurred  in  the  expediency 
of  the  provision,  but  not  connected  with  the 
present  bill. 

The  motion  was  negatived  by  a  large  major- 
ity. 

The  Senate  then  proceeded  to  fill  the  blanks. 
The  first  being  that  left  for  fixing  the  period 
when  the  new  system  shall  go  into  operation — 

Mr.  WILLIAMS,  of  Mississippi,  (chairman  of 
the  Land  Committee,)  moved  to  fill  the  blank 
with  the  first  of  July  next. 

Mr.  JOHNSON,  of  Louisiana,  moved  to  fill  it 
with  the  first  of  July,  1821.  This  motion  was 
negatived;  and  the  blank  was  then  filled,  as 
moved  by  Mr.  WILLIAMS. 

Mr.  WILLIAMS  next  moved  to  fill  the  blank 
left  for  fixing  the  minimum  price  of  lands,  with 
the  sum  of  one  dollar  and  twenty -five  cents ; 
which  sum  had  been  agreed  on  by  the  Land 
Committee,  as,  nnder  existing  circumstances, 
the  most  fair  and  reasonable. 

Mr.  EATON  moved  to  fill  the  blank  with  one 
dollar  and  fifty  cents. 

Mr.  JOHNSON,  of  Louisiana,  would  prefer  fix- 
ing the  price  at  one  dollar  only. 

Mr.  KING,  of  New  York,  was  opposed  to 
$1  50,  and  in  favor  of  $1  25 ;  and,  after  some 
remarks  from  each  of  the  gentlemen  in  support 
of  their  different  opinions — 

The  blank  was  filled  with  one  dollar  and 
twenty-five  cents,  by  a  large  majority. 

The  bill  was  then  ordered  to  be  engrossed 
and  read  a  third  time  as  amended. 

The  bill  further  suspending  the  sale  or  for- 
feiture of  lands,  for  non-payment,  was  also 
taken  up,  and  ordered  to  be  engrossed  for  a 
third  reading. 

Mr.  THOMAS  gave  notice  that  he  should,  on 
Thursday  week,  ask  leave  to  introduce  a  bill 
for  giving  the  right  of  pre-emption  to  actual 
settlers  on  the  public  lands. 


458 


ABRIDGMENT  OF  THE 


SENATE.] 


District  of  Columbia. 


[MAECH,   1820. 


THTJESDAY,  March  9. 
Public  Lands. 

The  bill  making  further  provision  for  the 
sale  of  public  lands  was  read  a  third  time ;  and, 
on  the  question,  "  Shall  this  bill  pass?  "  it  was 
determined  in  the  affirmative — yeas  31,  nays  7, 
as  follows : 

YEAS. — Messrs.  Burrill,  Dana,  Dickerson,  Eaton, 
Elliot,  Gaillard,  Hunter,  King  of  Alabama,  King  of 
New  York,  Lanman,  Leake,  Lowrie,  Macon,  Mellen, 
Morrill,  Otis,  Palmer,  Parrott,  Pleasants,  Roberts, 
Ruggles,  Sanford,  Stokes,  Taylor,  Tichenor,  Trimble, 
Van  Dyke,  Walker  of  Alabama,  Williams  of  Missis- 
sippi, Williams  of  Tennessee,  and  Wilson. 

NAYS. — Messrs.  Brown,  Edwards,  Johnson  of  Ken- 
tucky, Johnson  of  Louisiana,  Logan,  Noble,  and 
Smith. 

So  it  was  resolved  that  this  bill  pass,  and 
that  the  title  thereof  be,  "  An  act  making  fur- 
ther provision  for  the  sale  of  public  lands." 

The  bill  further  to  suspend,  for  a  limited 
time,  the  sale  or  forfeiture  of  lands,  for  failure 
in  completing  the  payment  thereon,  was  read  a 
third  time,  and  passed. 

The  Senate  resumed,  as  in  Committee  of  the 
"Whole,  the  consideration  of  the  bill  for  the  re- 
lief of  John  Harding,  Giles  Harding,  John 
Shute,  and  John  Nicholls,  and  the  blank  having 
been  filled  with  "  900,"  it  was  reported  to  the 
House ;  and,  being  concurred  in,  the  Senate  ad- 
journed. 

MONDAY,  March  27. 
Relations  with  Spain. 

The  following  Message  was  received  from  the 
PBESIDENT  OF  THE  UNITED  STATES  : 

To  the  Senate  of  the  United  States  : 

I  transmit  to  Congress  an  extract  of  a  letter  from 
the  Minister  Plenipotentiary  of  the  United  States  at 
St.  Petersburg,  of  the  1st  of  November  last,  on  the 
subject  of  our  relations  with  Spain,  indicating  the 
sentiments  of  the  Emperor  of  Russia  respecting  the 
non-ratification,  by  his  Catholic  Majesty,  of  the 
treaty  lately  concluded  between  the  United  States 
and  Spain,  and  (he  strong  interest  which  His  Im- 
perial Majesty  takes  in  promoting  the  ratification  of 
that  treaty.  Of  this  friendly  disposition,  the  most 
satisfactory  assurance  has  been  since  given,  directly, 
to  this  Government,  by  the  Minister  of  Russia  resid- 
ing^ here. 

I  transmit  also  to  Congress  an  extract  of  a  letter 
from  the  Minister  Plenipotentiary  of  the  United 
States  at  Madrid,  of  a  later  date  than  those  hereto- 
fore communicated,  by  which  it  appears,  that,  at  the 
instance  of  the  Charge  des  Affaires  of  the  Emperor 
of  Russia,  a  new  pledge  had  been  given  by  the  Span- 
ish Government,  that  the  Minister  who  had  been 
lately  appointed  to  the  United  States  should  set  out 
on  his  mission  without  delay,  with  full  power  to  set- 
tle all  differences,  in  a  manner  satisfactory  to  the 
parties. 

I  have  further  to  state,  that  the  Governments  of 
France  and  Great  Britain  continue  to  manifest  the 
sentiments  heretofore  communicated,  respecting  the 


non-ratification  of  the  treaty  by  Spain,  and  to  inter- 
pose their  good  offices  to  promote  its  ratification.* 

It  is  proper  to  add,  that  the  Governments  of 
France  and  Russia  have  expressed  an  earnest  desire 
that  the  United  States  would  take  no  step,  for  the 
present,  on  the  principal  of  reprisal,  which  might 
possibly  tend  to  disturb  the  peace  between  the  United 
States  and  Spain.  There  is  good  cause  to  presume, 
from  the  delicate  manner  in  which  this  sentiment 
has  been  conveyed,  that  it  is  founded  in  a  belief,  as 
wall  as  a  desire,  that  our  just  objects  may  be  ac- 
complished without  the  hazard  of  such  an  extremity. 

On  full  consideration  of  all  these  circumstances,  I 
have  thought  it  my  duty  to  submit  to  Congress,  whe- 
ther it  will  not  be  advisable  to  postpone  a  decision  on 
the  questions  now  depending  with  Spain,  until  the 
next  session.  The  distress  of  that  nation,  at  this 
juncture,  affords  a  motive  for  this  forbearance,  which 
cannot  fail  to  be  duly  appreciated.  Under  such  cir- 
cumstances, the  attention  of  the  Spanish  Government 
may  be  diverted  from  its  foreign  concerns,  and  the 
arrival  of  a  Minister  here  be  longer  delayed.  I  am 
the  more  induced  to  suggest  this  course  "of  proceed- 
ing, from  a  knowledge  that,  while  we  shall  thereby 
make  a  just  return  to  the  powers  whose  good  offices 
have  been  acknowledged,  and  increase,  by  a  new 
and  signal  proof  of  moderation,  our  claims  on  Spain, 
our  attitude,  in  regard  to  her,  will  not  be  less  favor- 
able at  the  next  session  than  it  is  at  the  present. 

JAMES  MONROE. 

MARCH  27,  1820. 

The  Message  and  accompanying  documents 
were  read,  and  one  thousand  copies  thereof  or- 
dered to  be  printed  for  the  use  of  the  Seriate. 

MONDAY,  April  3. 
District  of  Columbia. 

The  Senate  took  up  the  resolution  submitted 
by  Mr.  JOHNSON  of  Kentucky,  on  the  28th 
ultimo,  to  inquire  into  the  expediency  of  giving 
to  the  District  of  Columbia  a  Delegate  on  the 
floor  of  Congress. 

Mr.  JOHNSON  added  a  few  remarks  to  what 
he  had  said  in  support  of  his  motion  when  first 
submitted. 

Mr.  KING,  of  New  York,  briefly  stated  his 
objection  to  the  motion,  founded  principally  on 
the  opinion  that  this  was  an  inquiry  which  it 
was  proper,  from  motives  of  delicacy,  to  leave 
to  the  other  House,  as  a  Delegate,  if  authorized, 
would  take  his  seat  there ;  that  the  people  of 
the  District  had  not  asked  of  Congress  this 
privilege ;  that  it  had  been  given  to  territories 
only  which  looked  forward  to  become  independ- 


*  This  interposition  on  the  part  of  the  great  powers— 
Russia,  France,  and  Great  Britain— to  prevent  a  rupture  be- 
tween the  United  States  and  Spain,  and  to  induce  the  latter 
to  ratify  the  treaty  which  had  been  signed  since  February, 
1819,  presents  one  of  those  green  spots  in  history  on  which 
the  eye  of  philanthropy  delights  to  dwell  It  marks  the 
progress  of  humane  and  liberal  ideas,  and  does  honor  to  the 
powers  which  thus  interposed.  At  the  same  time,  it  is  due 
to  Spain  to  say,  that  her  long  delay  to  ratify  the  treaty 
which  she  had  concluded  was  occasioned  by  the  lawless  ex- 
peditions fitted  out  in  the  United  States,  in  aid  of  her  re- 
volted colonies  in  the  two  Americas. 


DEBATES  OF  CONGRESS. 


459 


APRIL,  1820.] 


Duelling. 


[SENATE. 


ent  members  of  the  Union,  and  might  sanction 
or  give  color  to  an  impression  that  Congress 
contemplated  a  similar  result,  at  some  time,  in 
this  instance. 

Mr.  JOHXSOK  replied,  to  obviate  the  objec- 
tions of  Mr.  KJXG,  and  enforce  his  reasons  in 
favor  of  the  motion ;  after  which  the  resolution 
was  agreed  to — ayes  15,  noes  14. 


WED:ST:SDAY,  April  19. 
The  Navy— Seven,  Small  Vessels. 

The  bill  authorizing  the  building  of  a  certain 
number  of  small  vessels  of  war  was  taken  up  in 
Committee  of  the  Whole,  where  the  object  of 
the  bill  and  the  necessity  of  this  kind  of  force 
was  explained  by  Mr.  PLEASANTS,  and  the  blanks 
being  filled,  and  the  bill  amended,  it  was  re- 
ported to  the  Senate  in  the  following  shape  : 

Be  it  enacted,  fyc.,  That  the  President  of  the  United 
States  is  hereby  authorized  to  cause  to  be  built  and 
equipped  any  number  of  small  vessels  of  war  (not  ex- 
ceeding feven)  which,  in  his  judgment,  the  public  ser- 
vice may  require  ;  the  said  vessels  to  be  of  a  force  not 
more  than  twelve  guns  each,  according  to  the  discre- 
tion of  the  President.  And,  for  carrying  this  act  into 
effect,  the  sum  of  $60,000  is  hereby  appropriated,  to 
be  paid  out  of  any  money  in  the  Treasury  not  other- 
wise appropriated. 

The  bill  was  ordered  to  be  engrossed  and 
read  a  third  time,  and  the  Senate  adjourned. 


THURSDAY,  April  20. 
Duelling. 

The  following  resolutions,  submitted  by  Mr. 
MOEKILL  on  the  12th  instant,  were  taken  up  for 
consideration : 

Resolved,  That  the  practice  of  duelling  is  inhuman, 
immoral,  and  censurable. 

Resolved,  That  the  President  of  the  United  States 
would  be  justifiable  in  striking  from  the  rolls  of  the 
Army  and  Navy  the  names  of  all  persons  thereon, 
who  have  been,  or  hereafter  may  be,  directly  or  in- 
directly engaged  in  a  duel,  or  who  may  have  been, 
or  hereafter  may  be,  in  any  way  or  manner  accessory 
thereto. 

Mr.  MOEEILL  addressed  the  Chair  as  follows : 
Mr.  President,  it  is  with  deep  regret  that  I 
feel  myself  compelled  to  ask  the  attention  of 
the  Senate  to  the  consideration  of  the  resolu- 
tions which  I  have  had  the  honor  to  present. 
Nothing  but  an  irresistible  conviction  of  pro- 
priety, and  solemn  sense  of  duty  to  my  God  and 
country,  would  induce  me  to  offer  my  views  on 
this  occasion  ;  because,  I  am  not  insensible  of  a 
diversity  of  opinion,  and  the  reluctance  of  many 
to  agitate  the  subject.  But,  when  I  reflect  upon 
the  attributes  of  that  Divine  Being  who  has 
created  and  sustains  all  worlds  and  creatures, 
on  whom  we  are  dependent,  and  unto  whom 
we  are  under  infinite  obligations  of  love  and 
obedience,  I  cannot  persuade  myself  to  refrain^ 
The  obvious  purposes  of  our  existence  as  rational 
beings  are  too  apparent  to  admit  a  doubt. 
For  what  end  were  we  created  ?  Certainly 


not  to  annoy,  murder,  and  massacre  one  an- 
other ;  but  to  aid  and  assist  one  another,  and, 
by  kind  offices  and  paternal  acts,  to  promote 
our  peace,  prosperity,  and  happiness.  Mankind 
are  created  moral  beings,  with  capacious  powers 
and  faculties  of  mind,  by  which  they  are  ren- 
dered capable  of  contemplating  sublime  subjects, 
entering  into  connections,  and  forming  impor- 
tant associations,  by  which  individual  and  general 
happiness  may  be  enjoyed  and  extensively 
diffused.  These  being  the  powers  and  abilities 
of  the  human  race,  the  idea  of  dependence 
irresistibly  connects  with  them  those  of  duty 
and  obligation,  not  only  to  the  Supreme  Parent 
of  the  Universe,  but  the  several  members  of  the 
great  family  of  man,  of  which  we  are  component 
parts.  These  are  immutable  in  their  nature  and 
eternal  in  their  duration,  and  cannot  be  cancel- 
led by  pride,  ambition,  nor  caprice. 

These  being  my  views,  I  hope  the  Senate  will 
pardon  me  for  again  introducing  the  subject — 
unpleasant  in  itself,  and  unpleasant  in  its  conse- 
quences. It  cannot  be  forgotten  that,  some  one 
or  two  years  ago,  I  had  the  honor  to  offer  a 
resolution  not  materially  different  from  that  on 
your  table,  which  rose  from  an  event  similar  to 
that  which  has  given  rise  to  the  resolutions  now 
before  the  Senate.  With  an  accommodating 
disposition  on  my  part,  I  consented  to  vary  that 
resolution  to  suit  the  views  of  honorable  gentle- 
men; but,  being  committed,  it  unexpectedly 
passed  off  without  particular  consideration. 

During  the  last  session  of  Congress,  at  the 
door  of  your  Capitol,  another  event  of  the  kind 
occurred,  though  not  precisely  of  the  same  mag- 
nitude :  some  of  inferior  grade,  having  caught 
the  fire  of  honor,  must  resort  to  the  devoted 
ground,  and  there  settle  the  great  question  of 
private  controversy  by  single  combat,  which, 
fortunately,  from  agitation  or  want  of  skill, 
terminated  gloriously,  without  wound  or  blood- 
shed. 

But,  Mr.  President,  at  this  time  something 
more  serious  has  attracted  our  attention  and 
excited  our  feelings.  The  recent  duel  between 
Commodore  Decatur  and  Commodore  Barron 
is  the  only  apology  I  offer  for  again  introducing 
this  subject. 

The  sentiments  which  I  entertain  are  ex- 
pressed in  the  resolutions  before  you,  and  their 
connection  will  induce  me,  as  I  proceed,  to 
apply  my  remarks  to  them  both.  That  the  first 
resolution  contains  abstract  propositions  I  ad- 
mit, and  needs  but  little  illustration ;  but  they 
are  no  less  true  and  important  in  themselves, 
and  their  bearings  upon  individuals  and  com- 
munity. 

Humanity  is  an  exercise  of  tenderness,  bene- 
volence, and  kindness,  toward  our  fellow-crea- 
tures, by  which  their  wants  are  relieved,  their 
persons  protected,  and  their  prosperity  pro- 
moted. 

The  exercise  of  these  is  essential  to  that  de- 
gree of  felicity  for  which  we  are  completely 
competent  in  this  life,  and  which  is  our  duty, 
and  ought  to  be  our  object,  to  attain.  These,  I 


460 


ABRIDGMENT  OF  THE 


SENATE.] 


Duelling. 


[APRIL,  1820. 


presume,  are  principles  which  no  contemplative 
mind  will  deny. 

What  is  the  character  of  the  act  by  which  the 
life,  perhaps  the  most  useful  life,  is  \vantouly 
taken  by  a  fellow-citizen  ?  The  tender  feelings 
of  the  human  kind  many  times  recoil  to  see  the 
tremors  of  an  expiring  brute,  but  what  must 
be  their  sensations  to  behold  the  agonies  of 
death  upon  one  of  Heaven's  fairest  sons,  strug- 
gling under  the  pains  of  dissolution  occasioned 
by  the  fatal  act  of  a  brother  of  the  same  family? 
Callous,  indeed,  must  be  the  heart,  and  indif- 
ferent those  feelings,  which  do  not  burst  forth 
in  abhorrence  and  indignation. 

Keason,  the  handmaid  of  the  best  faculties  of 
the  polished  and  improved  mind,  revolts  at  this 
act  of  violence;  she  retires  from  the  scene, 
laments  the  depravity  of  the  human  race,  and 
desires  to  cast  the  mantle  of  oblivion  over  the 
barbarous  acts  of  deluded  man. 

Conscience,  that  judicious  inquisitor,  enthron- 
ed in  the  breast  of  our  species,  unreservedly 
pronounces  guilt,  with  all  its  concomitant  conse- 
quences. No  well-informed  faculty  of  the  hu- 
man mind,  unbiased  by  prepossession,  will 
volunteer  its  aid  to  sustain  the  rude  deed  of 
violence. 

Its  only  support,  then,  is  found  in  fallacious 
arguments,  arising  from  misconceived  opinions 
of  human  honor. 

But,  sir,  it  is  contrary  to  the  laws  of  your 
army  and  navy.  If  it  be  no  crime,  nor  improp- 
er, why  have  you  laws  against  it,  and  regula- 
tions to  prevent  it  ?  Is  it  not  repugnant  to  the 
universal  voice  of  community  ?  Does  not  the 
nation  speak  one  language  on  this  subject  ?  The 
country  proclaims  a  law  irresistible  in  this  case. 
Where  can  you  find  a  sentence  on  the  practice, 
in  any  of  your  periodical  publications,  which 
does  not,  directly  or  indirectly,  pronounce  a 
censure  on  the  crime  ?  Some  of  the  States,  to 
arrest  the  progress  of  an  evil  so  unjustifiable, 
have  passed  laws  well  calculated  to  suppress  it. 
Among  these  is  the  State  of  Virginia ;  and,  to 
the  immortal  honor  of  the  gentleman  (Mr. 
BAEBOUR)  whom  I  now  have  in  my  eye,  was 
that  bill  introduced — an  act  which  I  shall  ever 
revere,  and  which,  I  hope,  will  never  be  for- 
gotten by  his  State  nor  his  country. 

Let  the  opinion  of  the  Senate,  then,  be  ex- 
pressed in  accordance  with  that  of  the  civilized 
world,  and  thereby  aid  the  cause  of  humanity 
and  reformation. 

The  immutable  principles  of  morality  repro- 
bate the  practice.  Every  pernicious  indulgence, 
which  tends  to  corrupt  society,  weakens  that 
community,  and  enervates  the  Government. 
This  Government,  more  than  any  other,  needs 
the  cement  of  those  great  moral  principles  which 
connects  individuals,  and  unites  and  binds  in 
one  solid  fabric  the  great  political  body.  Knowl- 
edge and  virtue  form  the  grand  basis  on  which 
a  prosperous  republic  is  erected,  and  the  only 
ground  on  which  its  perpetuity  can  be  justly 
anticipated;  and,  in  the  same  proportion,  if 
these  are  disregarded  and  neglected,  the  body 


politic  is  contaminated,  its  vigor  reduced,  and 
its  existence  endangered. 

But  this  practice  demoralizes  society,  as  it 
obscures  human  reason,  darkens  the  understand- 
ing, stupefies  the  conscience,  and  sets  at  defiance 
the  laws  of  God  and  man.  It  undervalues  hu- 
man life,  and,  by  its  demoralizing  consequences, 
prepares  the  way  for  the  commission  of  murder, 
assassination,  and  that  train  of  evils  which  is 
the  natural  result  of  the  worst  passions,  nourish- 
ed by  pernicious  sentiments  and  habits. 

Permit  me  to  bring  to  your  view  a  remark 
made  respecting  the  assassination  of  the  Duke 
de  Berri :  "  Our  readers  will  agree  in  opinion 
with  the  Count  de  Labourdonnaye,  that  the 
atrocious  crime  is  clearly  to  be  traced  to  those 
liberal  writings,  which,  in  France  and  England, 
have  aimed  at  the  extinction  of  all  just  and 
moral  feelings." 

What  better  can  be  expected  from  those  who 
pursue  a  course  in  direct  violation  both  of  di- 
vine and  human  laws?  "Thou  shalt  not  kill," 
is  a  divine  command ;  and  "  Whoso  sheddeth 
man's  blood,  by  man  shall  las  blood  be  shed." 

I  am  not  insensible,  sir,  that  a  disquisition  on 
ethics  may  be  cold,  insipid,  and  unpleasant ;  but, 
according  to  my  views  of  the  subject,  I  hope  to 
be  indulged  to  express  an  opinion. 

But,  sir,  I  am  disposed  to  examine  the  subject 
in  another,  and  perhaps  more  acceptable  point 
of  light.  I  wish  to  have  the  practice  suppress- 
ed, because  many  times  the  most  useful  and 
valuable  men  are  sacrificed.  It  prevails  more 
generally  in  the  army  and  navy,  and  among 
men  high  in  rank  and  estimation.  Their  native 
talents  have  been  cherished  and  expanded  in 
the  school  of  their  country,  by  which  they  are 
identified  with  the  property,  prosperity,  and 
interest  of  the  nation. 

The  nation  has  taught  and  employed  them, 
by  which  they  have  acquired  that  knowledge 
and  skill  which  render  them  respected  and  use- 
ful. For  this  aid,  protection,  and  honor,  they 
are  indebted  to  their  country  ;  and  this  country 
has  a  claim  to  their  services,  to  whom  they  owe 
a  duty  that  cannot  be  cancelled  by  pride  nor 
vanity.  The  life  and  talents  of  a  public  officer, 
thus  situated,  are  not  at  his  own  disposal — they 
are  pledged  to  his  country. 

These  are  the  men  the  nation  wants — men  of 
tried  courage  and  bravery — that  confidence  may 
be  inspired  in  those  whom,  in  the  hour  of  danger, 
they  may  command ;  "  a  name  is  often  but  an- 
other word  for  victory."  Are  talents  thus  en- 
larged and  improved  the  property  of  the  nation ; 
is  it  not  the  highest  duty  of  the  nation  to  pro- 
tect this  property,  and  secure  it  against  inva- 
sion ?  Is  not  the  Government  bound  to  arrest 
the  progress  of  an  evil  by  which  its  best  blood 
is  lost,  and  its  most  important  interests  threat- 
ened ?  Let  the  practice  continue  unmolested, 
and  it  acquires  countenance,  and  its  votaries 
strength ;  and,  by  imperceptible  progress,  be- 
comes the  common  law  of  the  country. 

But  there  is  another  reason  which  ought  to 
have  influence  in  this  case :  The  vilest  charac- 


DEBATES  OF  CONGRESS. 


461 


APHIL,  1820.] 


Duelling. 


[SENATE. 


ters  may  destroy  the  best  of  men.  For,  on  the 
principles  assumed,  they  are  no  more  exempt 
than  the  most  base  of  the  human  race.  The 
false  rules  of  honor  apply  with  equal  force  to 
the  useful  and  the  brave,  as  to  him  who  is 
worthless  and  a  mere  nuisance  in  society.  There 
is,  then,  neither  safety  nor  protection  where 
false  principles  predominate,  and  are  controlled 
by  passion,  prejudice,  or  caprice.  Unimportant 
things,  under  such  influence,  impel  to  the  fatal 
•  contest ;  and  even  things  not  true,  by  perver- 
sion and  misapplication,  are  made  the  occasion 
of  dreadful  consequences.  This  is  true  in  the 
instance  to  which  I  have  referred.  Barren 
charged  Decatur  with  using  certain  improper 
expressions;  which,  however,  Decatur  imme- 
diately disclaimed;  but  they  were  made  the 
occasion  of  their  unhappy  meeting.  Hence  the 
necessity  of  the  interposition  of  some  effectual 
remedy  to  prevent  occurrences  so  destructive 
and  censurable ;  otherwise  you  prostrate,  at  the 
mercy  of  the  rudest  passions  which  can  predom- 
inate in  the  depraved  breast,  the  lives  of  your 
most  valuable  and  useful  citizens. 

If  my  remarks  are  not  correct,  why  have  you 
laws  and  regulations  on  the  subject  ?  And  if 
they  are,  is  it  not  proper  to  interpose  and  make 
those  regulations  effectual  to  accomplish  their 
object  ?  The  safety,  the  interest,  and  the  honor 
of  the  country  require  the  adoption  of  a  course 
which  shall  bring  into  contempt  the  practice  of 
duelling.  "  For,  as  a  fool  dieth,  so  they  die." 

It  may  be  said  it  is  not  necessary,  because  the 
President  has  power  already  to  strike  from  the 
rolls  of  the  army  and  navy  such  offenders  as  he 
may  think  proper.  Admit  the  fact ;  but  we 
are  taught  from  experience  that  this  does  not 
render  the  expression  of  an  opinion  on  the  sub- 
ject unimportant.  "We  are  too  well  acquainted 
with  human  nature,  and  the  frailty  of  man,  to 
believe  any  one  will  take  a  responsibility  upon 
himself  that  he  can  possibly  avoid.  Merely 
from  this  circumstance,  then,  there  is  no  reason 
to  calculate  upon  any  important  reform.  The 
connection  subsisting  between  the  commander- 
in-chief  and  the  subordinate  officers,  is  of  such 
a  nature  as  to  preclude  a  probability  of  a  radical 
amendment. 

Resolutions  on  the  subject  present  to  the 
world  our  views  of  the  practice,  at  the  same 
time  they  tend  to  sustain  the  President  in  any 
course  he  may  be  disposed  to  pursue.  This,  by 
dividing  the  responsibility,  relieves  the  com- 
mander-in-chief  of  a  burden,  which  he  must 
otherwise  endure,  arising  from  the  discharge  of 
a  duty  that  he  owes  to  himself  and  his  coun- 
try. 

This  object  cannot  be  effected  by  punishment. 
It  is  a  ;rain  thing  to  think  about  shooting  or 
hanging  persons  for  this  offence,  (more  especially 
if  never  performed ;)  death,  in  any  of  its  most 
hideous  forms,  is  altogether  insufficient  to  deter 
him  who  can  be  impelled,  under  any  circum- 
stances, to  present  himself  a  mark  in  single 
combat.  No,  sir,  the  practice  must  be  rendered 
disgraceful ;  this,  and  this  alone,  will  be  suffi- 


cient to  preponderate  against  the  fallacious 
arguments  and  absurd  notions  of  false  honor. 

But,  Mr.  President,  I  have  an  additional  in- 
ducement to  revive  this  subject  at  this  time. 
Decatur  is  sacrificed — he  is  gone  1  And  lamen- 
table to  relate,  he  has  fallen  a  martyr  at  the 
shrine  of  false  honor ;  a  victim  to  principles 
founded  on  mistaken  notions  of  true  greatness, 
of  real  magnanimity  of  soul.  Yes,  sir,  he  who, 
before  the  walls  of  Tripoli,  the  British  Mace- 
donian, and  in  every  instance  where  skill  and 
courage  could  be  displayed,  maintained  the  in- 
dependence and  glory  of  the  American  eagle; 
he  who  ranked  among  the  first  sons  of  Neptune, 
high  in  his  country's  esteem,  calm  and  unmoved 
in  danger,  collected,  manly,  and  noble  in  vic- 
tory, is  fallen !  But,  sir,  he  considered  himself 
bound  by  his  own  rules.  Fatal  error !  "  I  do 
not  think  that  fighting  duels,  under  any  circum- 
stances, can  raise  the  reputation  of  any  man, 
and  have  long  since  discovered  that  it  is  not 
even  an  unerring  criterion  of  personal  courage. 
I  should  regret  the  necessity  of  fighting  with 
any  man ;  but,  in  my  opinion,  the  man  who 
makes  arms  his  profession,  is  not  at  liberty  to 
decline  an  invitation  from  any  person  who  is 
not  so  far  degraded  as  to  be  beneath  his  notice. 
Having  incautiously  said  I  would  meet  you,  I 
will  not  consider  this  to  be  your  case,  although 
many  think  so ;  and  if  I  had  not  pledged  myselfj 
I  might  reconsider  the  case."  * 

Here  we  see,  with  reluctance  and  regret  he 
repaired  to  the  fatal  spot,  the  devoted  field  of 
slaughter ;  being  under  an  imaginary  obligation, 
by  the  incautious  adoption  of  erroneous  princi- 
ples, no  affection  to  his  family,  no  love  of  coun- 
try, nor  attachment  to  life,  with  all  its  enjoy- 
ments, was  sufficient  to  outweigh  his  precon- 
ceived opinions :  "  I  am  bound  by  my  own  rules, 
to  them  I  must  submit."  "  In  my  opinion,  the 
man  who  makes  arms  his  profession  is  not  at 
liberty  to  decline  an  invitation  from  any  person 
who  is  not  so  far  degraded  as  to  be  beneath  his 
notice." 

Decatur  is  no  more — he  sleeps  in  silence! 
His  trophies  fade  with  his  countenance,  and 
wither  in  his  death  1  He  is  borne  to  the  tomb, 
the  asylum  of  the  dead!  The  navy  and  the 
country  sustain  a  loss  which  possibly  might 
have  been  avoided,  if  such  measures  had  been 
seasonably  adopted  as  were  within  the  power 
of  the  Government. 

For  a  moment  reflect  on  the  consequences. 
See  the  rolling  tears  and  heart-rending  grief  of 
a  bosom  companion !  Imagine  the  distress  of  a 
disconsolate  family!  Behold  the  crowd  of 
weeping  connections,  mourning  around  the  pale, 
the  lifeless  corpse ! 

Is  this  all?  See  a  weeping  country!  Behold 
the  footsteps  of  thousands,  watered  with  tears, 
marching  to  the  receptacle  of  the  dead !  See 
your  ships  clad  in  mourning,  and  their  officers 
with  the  badges  of  lamentation !  All  this,  and 
more  than  this,  growing  out  of  an  event  repug- 


*  Decatur's  letter  to  Barren. 


462 


ABRIDGMENT  OF  THE 


SENATE.] 


nant  to  all  moral  feeling,  and  censured  by  every 
reflecting  mind  acting  in  its  individual  capacity. 

Sir,  shall  we  be  silent,  and  not  attempt  to 
arrest  the  progress  of  an  evil  thus  destructive ; 
an  act  which  fastens  reproach  upon  survivors, 
and  a  stigma  on  posterity  ?  Will  you  stand  an 
indifferent  spectator,  and  see  your  officers  swept 
from  your  army  and  navy  in  this  ruthless  man- 
ner, and  not  say  to  the  devouring  despot,  "  Thou 
shalt  go  no  further  ?" 

Sir,  let  a  man  believe  duelling  justifiable  on 
any  principle,  or  under  any  circumstances,  and 
no  military  glory,  no  lustre  of  character,  no 
ardor  of  friendship,  no  conjugal  affection,  no 
attachment  to  life,  no  love  of  country,  and  de- 
sire to  promote  its  honor  and  prosperity,  will 
shield  him  from  the  deadly  combat. 

Mr.  WILLIAMS,  of  Tennessee,  moved  to  lay 
the  resolutions  on  the  table,  believing,  in  regard 
to  the  first  resolution,  that  it  was  a  waste  of 
time  to  be  arguing  abstract  propositions ;  that 
in  regard  to  the  second,  the  President  already 
had  the  power  vested  in  him  by  law  to  do  what 
was  proposed ;  and  that  if  he  had  neglected  to 
execute  the  law,  and  it  was  intended  to  take 
any  step  in  relation  to  it,  he  ought  to  be  ap- 
proached in  a  different  way. 

The  motion  prevailed,  without  a  division,  and 
the  resolutions  were  ordered  to  lie  on  the  table 
accordingly. 


SATURDAY,  May  13. 
Kidnapping,  and  Slave  Trade,  Piracy. 

The  Senate  proceeded  to  the  consideration  of 
the  amendments  of  the  House  of  Representa- 
tives to  the  bill  "to  continue  in  force  the  act  to 
protect  the  commerce  of  the  United  States,  and 
punish  the  crime  of  piracy,  and  also  to  make 
further  provision  for  punishing  the  crime  of 
piracy." 

The  amendments  (which  were  reported  in 
the  other  House,  by  Mr.  MERCEB,  from  the  Com- 
mittee on  the  Slave  Trade)  are  as  follows : 

And  be  it  further  enacted,  That,  if  any  citizen  of 
the  United  States,  being  of  a  crew  or  ship's  company 
of  any  foreign  ship  or  vessel  engaged  in  the  slave 
trade,  or  any  person  -whatever,  being  of  the  crew  or 
ship's  company  of  any  ship  or  vessel  owned  in  whole 
or  in  part,  or  navigated  for,  or  in  behalf  of,  any  citi- 


Adjournment, [MAY,  1820. 

zen  of  the  United  States,  shall  land,  from  any  such 
ship  or  vessel,  and,  on  any  foreign  shore,  seize  any 
negro  or  mulatto,  not  held  to  service  or  labor  by  the 
laws  of  either  of  the  States  or  Territories  of  the 
United  States,  with  intent  to  make  such  negro  or 
mulatto  a  slave,  or  shall  decoy  or  forcibly  bring  or 
carry,  or  shall  receive,  such  negro  or  mulatto  on 
board  any  such  ship  or  vessel,  with  intent,  as  afore- 
said, such  citizen  or  person  shall  be  adjudged  a  pirate, 
and,  on  conviction  thereof,  before  the  circuit  court  of 
the  United  States  for  the  district  wherein  he  may  be 
brought  or  found,  shall  suffer  death. 

And  be  it  further  enacted,  That,  if  any  citizen  of 
the  United  States,  being  of  the  crew  or  ship's  com- 
pany of  any  foreign  ship  or  vessel  engaged  in  the 
slave  trade,  or  any  person  whatever,  being  of  the 
crew  or  ship's  company  of  any  ship  or  vessel  owned 
wholly,  or  in  part,  or  navigated  for,  or  in  behalf  of, 
any  citizen  or  citizens  of  the  United  States,  shall  for- 
cibly confine  or  detain,  or  aid  and  abet  in  forcibly 
confining  or  detaining,  on  board  such  ship  or  vessel, 
any  negro  or  mulatto,  not  held  to  service  by  the  laws 
of  either  of  the  States  or  Territories  of  the  United 
States,  with  intent  to  make  such  negro  or  mulatto  a 
slave,  or  shall,  on  board  any  such  ship  or  vessel,  offer 
or  attempt  to  sell,  as  a  slave,  any  negro  or  mulatto, 
not  held  to  service,  as  aforesaid,  or  shall,  on  tbe  high 
seas,  or  anywhere  on  tide  water,  transfer  or  deliver 
over  to  any  other  ship  or  vessel,  any  negro  or  mu- 
latto, not  held  to  service,  as  aforesaid,  with  intent  to 
make  such  negro  or  mulatto  a  slave,  or  shall  land  or 
deliver  on  shore  from  on  board  any  such  ship  or  ves- 
sel, any  such  negro  or  mulatto,  with  intent  to  make 
sale  of,  or  having  previously  sold,  such  negro  or  mu- 
latto, as  a  slave,  such  citizen  or  person  shall  be  ad- 
judged a  pirate,  and,  on  conviction  thereof,  before  the 
circuit  court  of  the  United  States  for  the  district 
wherein  he  shall  be  brought  or  found,  shall  suffer 
death. 

After  some  discussion,  rather  on  the  form 
than  the  substance  of  these  amendments,  they 
were  agreed  to,  without  a  division. 


MONDAY,  May  15. 

The  Senate  having  finished  the  business  be- 
fore them,  or  rather  so  much  thereof  as  had 
been  reported  by  the  joint  committee  as  neces- 
sary to  be  acted  on ;  and,  having  been  informed 
by  the  committee  appointed  to  wait  on  the  Pres- 
ident, that  he  had  no  further  communication 
to  make,  the  Senate  adjourned  to  the  second 
Monday  in  November  next. 


DEBATES  OF  CONGRESS. 


463 


DECEMBER,  1819.] 


Proceedings. 


[H.  OF  R. 


SIXTEENTH  CONGRESS-FIRST  SESSION. 


PROCEEDINGS  AND  DEBATES 


THE    HOUSE    OF    REPRESENTATIVES.* 


MONDAY,  December  6,  1819. 

This  being  the  day  appointed  by  the  Consti- 
tution of  the  United  States  for  the  meeting  of 
Congress,  the  following  members  of  the  House 
of  Representatives  appeared,  produced  their 
credentials,  and  took  their  seats,  to  wit : 

From  New  Hampshire — Joseph  Buffiim,  jr.,  Josiah 
Butler,  Clifton  Clagett,  Arthur  Livermore,  William 
Plumer,  jr.,  and  Nathaniel  Upham. 

From  Massachusetts — Benjamin  Adams,  Samuel  C. 


Allen,  Joshua  Cushman,  Edward  Dowse,  Walter  Fol- 
ger,  jr.,  Mark  L.  Hill,  John  Holmes,  Jonas  Kendall, 
Martin  Kinsley,  Samuel  Lathrop,  Enoch  Lincoln, 
Jonathan  Mason,  Marcus  Morton,  Jeremiah  Nelson, 
James  Parker,  Gabriel  Sampson,  Henry  Shaw,  Na- 
thaniel Silsbee,  and  Ezekiel  Whitman. 

From  Rhode  Island—  Samuel  Eddy,  and  Nathaniel 
Hazard. 

From  Connecticut— Henry  W.  Edwards,  Samuel  A. 
Foot,  Jonathan  0.  Mosely,  Elisha  Phelps,  John 
Russ,  James  Stevens,  and  Gideon  Tomlinson. 


*  LIST  OF  REPRESENTATIVES. 

New  Hampshire.— Joseph  Buffom,  jr.,  Josiah  Butler, 
Clifton  Clagett,  Arthur  Livermore,  William  Plumer,  jr., 
Nathaniel  Upham. 

Massachusetts.— Benjamin  Adams,  Samuel  C.  Allen, 
Joshua  Cushman,  Edward  Dowse,  "Walter  Folger,  jr.,  Timo- 
thy Fuller,  Mark  Langdon  Hill,  John  Holmes,  Jonas  Ken- 
dall, Martin  Kinsley,  Samuel  Lathrop,  Enoch  Lincoln,  Jona- 
than Mason,  Marcus  Morton,  Jeremiah  Nelson,  James  Par- 
ker, Gabriel  Sampson,  Henry  Shaw,  Nathaniel  Silsbee, 
Ezekiel  Whitman. 

Rhode,  Island.— Samuel  Eddy,  Nathaniel  Hazard. 

Connecticut.— Henry  W.  Edwards,  Samuel  A.  Foot,  Jona- 
than O.  Mosely,  Elisha  Phelps,  John  Euss,  James  Stevens, 
Gideon  Tomlinson. 

Vermont.— Samuel  C.  Crafts,  Ezra  Meech,  Orsamns  C. 
Merrill,  Charles  Rich,  Mark  Richards,  William  Strong. 

New  For*.— Nathaniel  Allen,  Caleb  Baker,  Walter  Case, 
Robert  Clark,  Jacob  H.  Dewitt,  John  D.  Dickinson,  John 
Fay,  William  D.  Ford,  Ezra  C.  Gross,  Aaron  Hackley,  jr., 
George  Hall,  Joseph  8.  Lyman,  Henry  Meigs,  Robert  Mo- 
nell,  Harmanus  Peek,  Nathaniel  Pitcher,  Solomon  Van 
Rensselaer,  Jonathan  Richmond,  Henry  R.  Storrs,  Randall 
A.  Street,  James  Strong,  John  W.  Taylor,  Caleb  Tompkins, 
Albert  H.  Tracy,  Peter  H.  Wendovcr,  Silas  Wood. 

New  Jersey. — Ephralm  Batcman,  Joseph  Bloomfleld, 
Charles  Kinsey,  John  Linn,  Bernard  Smith,  Henry  Southard. 

Pennsylvania. — Henry  Baldwin,  Andrew  Boden,  William 
Darlington,  George  Dennison,  Samuel  Edwards,  Thomas 
Forrest,  David  Fullerton,  Samuel  Gross,  Joseph  Hcister, 
Joseph  Hemphill, Jacob  Hibshman, Jacob  Hostetter,  William 
P.  Maclay,  David  Marchand,  Robert  Moore,  Samuel  Moore, 
John  Murray,  Thomas  Patterson,  Robert  Philson,  Thomas 
J.  Rogers,  John  Sergeant,  Christian  Tarr,  James  Wallace. 

Delaware.— Willard  Hall,  Louis  McLane. 


Maryland. — Stephenson  Archer,  Thomas  Bayley,  Thomas 
Culbreth,  Joseph  Kent,  Peter  Little,  Raphael  Neale,  Samuel 
Ringgold,  Samuel  Smith,  Henry  W.  Warfield. 

Virginia.— Mark  Alexander,  William  Lee  Ball,  Philip  P. 
Barbour,  William  A.  Burwell,  John  Floyd,  Robert  S.  Gur- 
nett,  James  Johnson,  James  Jones,  William  McCoy,  Charles 
Fenton  Mercer,  Hugh  Nelson,  Thomas  Newton,  Severn  E. 
Parker,  James  Pindall,  James  Pleasants,  John  Randolph, 
Alexander  Smyth,  Ballard  Smith,  George  F.  Strother, 
George  Tucker,  John  Tyler,  Thomas  Van  Swearingen,  Jared 
Williams. 

North  Carolina.— Hutchins  G.  Burton,  John  Culpeper, 
William  Davidson,  Weldon  N.  Edwards,  Charles  Fisher, 
Thomas  H.  Hall,  Charles  Hooks,  Lemuel  Sawyer,  Thomas 
Settle,  Jesse  Slocumb,  James  8.  Smith,  Felix  Walker,  Lewis 
Williams. 

South  Carolina.— Joseph  Brevard,  Elias  Earle,  James 
Ervin,  William  Lowndes,  John  McCreary,  James  Over- 
street,  Charles  Pinckney,  Eldred  Simkins,  Sterling  Tucker. 

Georgia.— Joel  Abbott,  Thomas  W.  Cobb,  Joel  Crawford, 
John  A.  Cuthbert,  Robert  W.  Reid,  William  Terrell 

Kentucky.— Richard  C.  Anderson,  jr.,  William  Brown, 
Henry  Clay,  Benjamin  Hardin,  Alncy  McLean,  Thomas  Met- 
calfc,  Tunstall  Quarles,  George  Robertson,  David  Trimble, 
David  Walker. 

Tennessee.— Robert  Allen,  Henry  H.  Bryan,  Newton  Can- 
non, John  Cocke,  Francis  Jones,  John  Rhea. 

Ohio.— Philemon  Beecher,  Henry  Brush,  John  W.  Camp- 
bell, Samuel  Herrick,  Thomas  R.  Ross,  John  Sloan. 

Louisiana.— Thomas  Butler. 

Indiana.— William  Hendrlcks. 

Mississippi.— Christopher  Rankin. 

Alabama.— John  CrowelL 

Illinois.— Daniel  P.  Cook. 

Missouri  Territory.— John  Scott,  Delegate. 

Michigan  Territory.— William  W.  Woodbridge,  Delegate. 


464 


ABRIDGMENT  OF  THE 


H.  OF  R.] 


Proceedings. 


[DECEMBER,  1819. 


From  Vermont—  Samuel  C.  Crafts,  Orsamus  C. 
Merrill,  Charles  Rich,  Mark  Richards,  and  William 
Strong. 

From  New  For*— Nathaniel  Allen,  Caleb  Baker, 
Walter  Case,  Robert  Clark,  Jacob  H.  Dewitt,  John 
D.  Dickinson,  John  Fay,  William  D.  Ford,  Ezra  C. 
Gross,  Aaron  Hackley,  jun.,  George  Hall,  Joseph  S. 
Lyman,  Henry  Meigs,  Robert  Monell,  Harmanus 
Peek,  Nathaniel  Pitcher,  Jonathan  Richmond,  Henry 
R.  Storrs,  Randall  A.  Street,  James  Strong,  John 
W.  Taylor,  Caleb  Tompkins,  Albert  H.  Tracy, 
Solomon  Van  Rensselaer,  Peter  H.  Wendover,  and 
Silas  Wood. 

From  New  Jersey — Ephraim  Bateman,  Joseph 
Bloomfield,  John  Linn,  Bernard  Smith,  and  Henry 
Southard. 

From  Pennsylvania— Henry  Baldwin,  William  Dar- 
lington, Samuel  Edwards,  Thomas  Forrest,  David 
Fullerton,  Samnel  Gross,  Joseph  Hemphill,  Jacob 
Hibshman,  Joseph  Heister,  Jacob  Hostetter,  William 
P.  Maclay,  David  Marchand,  Robert  Moore,  Samuel 
Moore,  John  Murray,  Thomas  Patterson,  Thomas  J. 
Rogers,  John  Sergeant,  Christian  Tarr,  and  James 
Wallace. 

From  Delaware — Louis  McLane. 

From  Maryland — Stevenson  Archer,  Thomas  Cul- 
breth,  Joseph  Kent,  Peter  Little,  Raphael  Neale, 
Samuel  Ringgold,  Samuel  Smith,  and  Henry  R.  War- 
field. 

From  Virginia — Mark  AlexAnder,  William  Lee 
Ball,  Philip  P.  Barbour,  William  A.  Burwell,  John 
Floyd,  Robert  S.  Garnett,  James  Jones,  William 
McCoy,  Charles  F.  Mercer,  Hugh  Nelson,  Thomas 
Newton,  Severn  E.  Parker,  James  Pindall,  James 
Pleasants,  Alexander  Smyth,  George  F.  Strother, 
George  Tucker,  John  Tyler,  Thomas  Van  Swear- 
ingen,  and  Jared  Williama 

From  North  Carolina — Hutchins  G.  Burton,  John 
Cnlpeper,  Charles  Fisher,  Thomas  H.  Hall,  James  S. 
Smith,  Felix  Walker,  and  Lewis  Williams. 

From  South  Carolina — Joseph  Brevard,  John  Mc- 
Creary,  James  Overstreet,  Charles  Pinckney,  Eldred 
Simkins,  and  Sterling  Tucker. 

From  Georgia— Joel  Abbot,  Thomas  W.  Cobb,  Joel 
Crawford,  and  Robert  W.  Reid. 

From  Kentucky — Richard  C.  Anderson,  jun.,  Wil- 
liam Brown,  Henry  Clay,  Alney  McLean,  Thomas 
Metealfe,  Tunstall  Quarles,  George  Robertson,  David 
Trimble,  and  David  Walker. 

From  Tennessee — Robert  Allen,  Henry  H.  Bryan, 
Newton  Cannon,  John  Cocke,  Francis  Jones,  and 
John  Rhea. 

From  Ohio — Philemon  Beecher,  Henry  Brush, 
John  W.  Campbell,  Samuel  Herrick,  Thomas  R. 
Ross,  and  John  Sloan. 

From  Indiana— William  Hendricks. 

From  Mississippi — Christopher  Rankin. 

From  Illinois— Daniel  P.  Cook. 

The  House  then  proceeded  to  the  choice  of  a 
Speaker,  by  ballot ;  and  the  ballots  having  been 
counted  by  Mr.  PLEASANTS  and  Mr.  MOSELT, 
it  appeared  that  the  whole  number  of  votes 
given  in  was  155,  of  which  there  were, 
For  HEXEY  CLAY,  of  Kentucky         -        147 
Scattering  rotes       -  8 

So  that  Mr.  CLAY  was  duly  elected  Speaker 
of  the  House  of  Representatives.  He  was  ac- 
cordingly conducted  to  the  Chair  by  Mr. 
PLEASANTS  and  Mr.  MOSELY,  and  the  oath 


of   office  was    administered  to    him  by  Mr. 
NEWTON. 

When  Mr.  CLAY,  the  Speaker  elect,  addressed 
the  House  as  follows : 

GENTLEMEN  :  Again  called,  by  your  favorable 
opinion,  to  the  distinguished  station  to  which  I  have 
been  frequently  assigned  by  that  of  your  predeces- 
sors, I  owe  to  you  the  expression  of  my  most  respect- 
ful thanks ;  and  I  pray  you  to  believe  that  I  feel  inex- 
pressible gratitude,  as  well  for  the  honor  itself,  as  for 
the  flattering  manner  in  which  it  has  been  conferred. 
In  our  extensive  Confederacy,  gentlemen,  embracing 
such  various  and  important  relations,  it  must  neces- 
sarily happen  that  each  successive  session  of  the 
House  of  Representatives  will  bring  with  it  subjects 
of  the  greatest  moment.  During  that  which  we  are 
now  about  to  open,  we  have  every  reason  to  antici- 
pate that  the  matters  which  we  shall  be  required  to 
consider,  and  to  decide,  possess  the  highest  degree 
of  interest.  To  give  effect  to  our  deliberations  ;  to 
enable  us  to  command  the  respect  of  those  who  may 
witness  or  be  affected  by  them ;  and  to  entitle  us  to 
the  affection  and  confidence  of  our  constituents,  the 
maintenance  of  order  and  decorum  is  absolutely 
necessary.  Being  quite  sure  that  your  own  comfort, 
your  sense  of  propriety,  and  the  just  estimate  which 

S)u  must  make  of  the  dignity  which  belongs  to  this 
ouse,  will  induce  you  to  render  to  the  Chair  your 
cordial  co-operation ;  I  proceed  to  discharge  its  duties 
with  the  sincere  assurance  of  employing  my  best  ex- 
ertions to  merit  the  choice  which  you  have  been 
pleased  to  make.  And  it  will  be  to  me  the  greatest 
happiness,  if  I  should  be  so  fortunate  as  to  satisfy,  in 
this  respect,  your  expectations. 

The  members  were  then  called  over  by  States, 
and  severally  sworn  to  support  the  Constitu- 
tion of  the  United  States. 

The  House  proceeded  to  the  choice  of  a 
Clerk,  and,  on  motion,  THOMAS  DOUGHERTY 
was  appointed,  nem.  con. 

In  like  manner,  THOMAS  Duira  was  appointed 
Sergeant-at-Arms,  THOMAS  CLAXTON  Doorkeep- 
er, and  BENJAMIN  BUECH  Assistant  Doorkeeper 
to  the  House. 

JOHN  SCOTT  appeared,  produced  his  creden* 
tials,  was  qualified,  and  took  his  seat  as  the 
delegate  from  the  Territory  of  Missouri. 


TUESDAY,  December  7. 

Several  other  members,  to  wit :  from  Penn- 
sylvania, GEORGE  DENNISON;  from  Virginia, 
BALLARD  SMITH  ;  and  from  Georgia,  WILLIAM 
TERRILL,  appeared,  produced  their  credentials, 
were  qualified,  and  took  their  seats. 


WEDNESDAY,  December  8. 
Several  other  members,  to  wit:  from  Vir- 
ginia, JAS.  JOHNSON  and  JOHN  RANDOLPH; 
from  North  Carolina,  WILLIAM  DAVIDSON, 
CHARLES  HOOKS,  JESSE  SLOOUMB,  and  1  IIOMAS 
SETTLE;  and  from  South  Carolina,  WILLIAM 
LOWNDES,  appeared,  produced  their  credentials, 
were  qualified,  and  took  their  seats. 


DEBATES  OF  CONGRESS. 


465 


DECEMBER,  1819.] 


Report  on  the  Finances. 


[H.  OF  R. 


Missouri  State  Government. 

On  motion  of  Mr.  SOOTT,  the  several  memo- 
rials of  the  Legislature  of  the  Territory  of  Mis- 
souri, and  of  the  inhabitants  of  the  said  Terri- 
tory, presented  to  the  House  at  the  last  session 
of  Congress,  relative  to  the  admission  of  that 
Territory  into  the  Union  as  a  separate  and  in- 
dependent State,  were  referred  to  a  select  com- 
mittee; and  Messrs.  SCOTT,  ROBERTSON,  TEB- 
EILL,  STROTHER,  and  DEWITT,  were  appointed 
the  said  committee. 

Mr.  STRONG,  of  New  York,  gave  notice  that 
on  to-morrow  he  should  ask  leave  to  introduce 
a  bill  to  prohibit  the  further  extension  of 
slavery  within  the  Territories  of  the  United 
States. 

State  of  Alabama. 

The  resolution  from  the  Senate,  declaring  the 
admission  of  the  State  of  Alabama  into  the 
Union  on  an  equal  footing  with  the  original 
States,  was  twice  read.  With  considerable  op- 
position as  to  the  day  on  which  it  should  be 
read  a  third  time,  to-day  was  determined  on, 
and  it  was  read  a  third  time,  finally  passed  with- 
out a  division,  and  returned  to  the  Senate. 
[The  yeas  and  nays  were  required  on  its  pass- 
age, but  the  requisition  was  not  sustained  by 
one-fifth  of  the  House,  the  necessary  number.] 


THURSDAY,  December  9. 

Two  other  members,  to  wit :  from  Pennsyl- 
vania, ANDREW  BODEN,  and  from  North  Caro- 
lina, WELDON  N.  EDWARDS,  appeared,  produced 
there  credentials,  were  qualified,  and  took  their 


The  SPEAKER  presented  a  memorial  and  peti- 
tion of  Matthew  Lyon,  formerly  a  Representa- 
tive in  Congress  from  the  State  of  Vermont, 
detailing  the  circumstances  attending  his  prose- 
cution for  sedition  in  the  year  1798,  and  com- 
plaining of  the  unconstitutionality  of  the  act 
under  which  he  was  prosecuted ;  of  illegality 
in  the  proceedings  of  the  court  before  whom  he 
was  tried  and  convicted;  of  the  fine^he  was 
compelled  to  pay,  and  the  imprisonment  lie 
suffered ;  and  also  setting  forth  the  iniquity  of 
the  motives  which  prompted  the  said  prose- 
cution, which  he  declares  was  solely  occasion- 
ed by  the  honest  expression  of  his  political  sen- 
timents ;  and  praying  that  the  amount  of  the 
fine,  with  the  interest  thereon,  may  be  repaid 
to  him,  together  with  such  sum  as  Congress 
may  think  a  just  and  proper  indemnity  for  his 
being  dragged  from  his  home,  his  family,  friend*, 
and  business,  and  thrown  into  a  dark  and  loath- 
some dungeon,  where  he  suffered  for  four 
months  every  species  of  hardship,  cruelty,  and 
indignity,  which  could  be  devised  by  the  unre- 
lenting and  persecuting  spirit  of  those  by  whom 
he  was  persecuted.  Referred  to  the  Commit- 
tee on  the  Judiciary. 


FRIDAY,  December  10. 

Another  member,  to  wit,  from  Massachu- 
setts, TIMOTHY  FULLER,  appeared,  produced 
his  credentials,  was  qualified,  and  took  his 
seat. 

WILLIAM  W.  WOODBRIDGK  also  appeared,  pro- 
duced his  credentials,  was  qualified,  and  took 
his  seat,  as  the  delegate  from  the  Territory  of 
Michigan. 

MONDAY,  December  13. 

Two  other  members,  to  wit :  from  South  Caro- 
lina, ELI  AS  EARLE,  and  from  Georgia,  JOHN  A. 
CUTHBERT,  appeared,  produced  their  credentials, 
were  qualified,  and  took  their  seats. 

Report  on  the  Finances. 
The  SPEAKER  laid  before  the  House  a  letter 
from  the  Secretary  of  the  Treasury,  transmitting 
his  annual  report  upon  the  state  of  the  finances ; 
which  was  read,  and  ordered  to  lie  on  the  table. 
The  report  is  as  follows : 

TREASURY  DEPARTMENT,  Dec.  10,  1819. 
SIR  :  I  have  the  honor  to  transmit  herewith  a  re- 
port, prepared  in  obedience  to  the  act,  entitled  "  An 
act  to  establish  the  Treasury  Department." 
I  have  the  honor  to  be,  very  respectfully,  &c. 

WM.  H.  CRAWFORD. 
The  Hon.  the  PRESIDENT  of  the  Senate. 

In  obedience  to  the  directions  of  the  "  Act  supple- 
mentary to  the  act  to  establish  the  Treasury  Depart- 
ment," the  Secretary  of  the  Treasury  respectfully 
submits  the  following  report : 

1st.  Of  the  Revenue. 

The  net  revenue  arising  from  duties  upon  imposts 
and  tonnage,  internal  duties,  direct  tax,  public  lands, 
postage,  and  other  incidental  receipts,  during  the  year 
1815,  amounted  to  849,556,642  76,  viz  : 
Customs,  (see  statement  A.)  -  -  $36,306,022  50 
Internal  duties  -  5,963,225  88 

Direct  tar 5,723,152  25 

Public  lands         -  1,287,959  28 

Postage,  and  other  incidental  receipts       275,282  84 

That  which  accrued  from  the  same  sources  during 
the  year  1816,  amounted  to  $36,657,904  72,  viz : 
Customs,  (see  statement  A.)  -        -  $27,484,100  36 
Internal  duties     -  4,396,133  25 

Direct  tax 2,786,343  20 

Public  lands         ...        -       1,754,487  38 
Postage,  and  other  incidental  receipts      237,840  53 

That  which  accrued  from  the  same  sources  during 
1817,  amounted  to  $24,365,227  34,  viz : 
Customs,  (see  statement  A.)  -        -  $17,524,775  15 
Internal  duties      -  2,676,882  77 

Direct  tax 1,833,737  04 

Public  lands,  (exclusive  of  Mississippi 

stock) 2,015,977  00 

Postage,  and  other  incidental  receipts       313,855  38 

And  that  which  accrued  from  the  same  sources 
during  the  year  1818,  amounted  to  $26,095,200  65, 
viz: 


VOL,  VI.— 30 


466 


ABRIDGMENT  OF  THE 


H.  OF  R.] 


Report  on  the  Finances. 


[DECEMBER,  1819 


Customs,  (eee  statement  A.)  -        -  $21,828,451  48 

Arrears  of  internal  duties,  (see  state- 
ment B.)  -  -  -  -  -  947,946  33 

Arrears  of  direct  tax,  (see  statement 

B.)  -  -  263,926  01 

Public  lands,  exclusive  of  Mississippi 

stock,  (see  statement  C.)  -  -  2,464,527  90 

Postage,  dividends  on  bank  stock,  and 
other  incidental  receipts,  (see  state- 
ment B.)  -----  590,348  93 


It  is  ascertained  that  the  gross  amount  of  duties  on 

merchandise  and  tonnage,  which  have  accrued  during 

the  three  first  quarters  of  the  present  year,  exceeds 

$18,000,000. 

Aud  the  sales  of  public  lands  during  the  same  pe- 
riod, have  exceeded  $8,700,000. 

The  payments  into  the  Treasury  during  the  three  first 
quarters  of  the  year,  are  estimated  to  amount  to, 
(inclusive  of  $169,594  07  in  Treasury  notes)— 

$19,550,607  17 

Customs-        -         -$15,604,081  58 

Public  lands,  (exclu- 
sive of  Mississippi 
stock)  -  -  -  2,858,556  61 

Arrears    of   internal 

duties  -         -        -        195,531  02 

Arrears  of  direct  tax          72,880  24 

First  instalment  pay- 
able by  U.  S.  Bank  500,000  00 

First  dividend  on  the 
U.  S.  shares  in  the 
U.  S.  Bank  -  -  175,000  00 

Incidental  receipts   -  59,095  43 

Repayments    -        -  85,462  29 


And  the  payments  into  the  Treasury 
during  the  4th  quarter  of  the  year, 
from  the  same  sources,  are  esti- 


mated  at    - 


-     5,000,000  00 


Making  the  whole  amount  estimated 

to  be  received  into  the  Treasury, 

during  the  year  1819,  (exclusive  of 

$169,694  07  in  Treasury  notes)    -  24,381,013  10 
Which,  added  to  the  balance  in  the 

Treasury  on  the  1st  day  of  January 

last,  (exclusive   of  $32,155  51  in 

Treasury  notes,)  amounting  to      -     1,446,371  23 


Makes  the  aggregate  amount  of         $25,827,384  33 


The  application  of  this  sum  for  the 
year  1819,  is  estimated  as  follows, 
viz : 

To  the  30th  of  September  the  pay- 
ments, (exclusive  of  $81,161  79  in 
Treasury  notes,  which  had  been 
drawn  from  the  Treasury  and  can- 
celled,) amounted  to  -  $18,192,387  43 

Civil,  diplomatic,  and  miscellaneous 
expenses  -  -  2,544,612  98 

Military  service,  (in- 
cluding arrearage)  -  7,665,961  72 

Naval  service,  (includ- 
ing the  permanent 
appropriation  for  the 
gradual  increase  of 
the  navy)  -  -  3,527,640  42 

Public  debt,  (exclusive 


of  $81,161  79  in 
Treas'y  notes,  above 
mentioned)  -  -  4,454,172  31 

During  the  fourth  quarter  it  is  estima- 
ted that  the  payments,  (exclusive  of 
$120,587  79  in  Treasury  notes, 
which  will  be  drawn  from  the  Treas- 
ury and  cancelled,)  will  amount  to  7,300,000  00 
Viz: 

Civil,  diplomatic,  and  miscellaneous 
expenses    -         -         -      $500,000 

Military  service     -        -    $1,530,000 

Naval  service         -         -         300,000 

Puhlic  debt  to  the  1st 
of  Jan.,  1820,  (exclu- 
sive of  $120,587  79  in 
Treasury  notes,  above 
mentioned)  -  -  4,970,000 


Making  the  aggregate  amount,  (ex- 
clusive of  $201,749  58  in  Treasury 
notes,  drawn  from  the  Treasury 
and  cancelled,)  of  25,492,387  43 

And  leaving  on  the  1st  of  Jan.,  1820, 
a  balance  in  the  Treasury,  esti- 


mated at 


$334,996  90 


2d.  Of  the  Public  Debt. 
The  funded  debt  which  was  contracted  before  the 

year  1812,  and  which  was  unredeemed  on  the  first 

day  of  Oct.,  1818,  (as  appears  by  statement  I,) 

amounted  to  $29,681,280  07 

And  that  contracted  subsequently  to 

the  1st  day  of  January,  1812,  and 

unredeemed  on  the  1st  of  October, 

1818,  as  appears  by  the  same  state- 

ment, amounted  to  68,146,039  84 


Making  the  aggregate  amount  of      -  97,827,319  91 
Which  sum  agrees  with  the  amount 

stated  in  the  last  annual  report,  as  un- 
redeemed on  the  1st  October,  1818, 

excepting  the  sum  of  $1,885  13,  which 

was  then  short  estimated,  and  which 

has  since  been  corrected  by  actual 

settlement. 

On  the  1st  day  of  January  there  was 
added  to  the  amount,  for  Treasury 
notes  iJrought  into  the  Treasury  and 
cancelled,  and  for  which  the  follow- 
ing stock  was  issued : 

In  6  per  cent,  stock       -  $49,024  71 

In  7  per  cent,  stock       -       2,646  00 

51,670  71 


Making        -         $97,878,990  62 
From  which  deduct  Louisiana  six  per 

cent,  stock,  reimbursed  on  the  21st 

of  October,  1818  -  $4,977,950  00 
And  deferred  stock  re- 
imbursed between 

the  1st  Oct,  1818, 

and  1st.  Jan.,  1819        252,863  27 

5,230,813  27 

Making  the  public  debt,  which  was 

unredeemed  on  the  1st  Jan.,  1819, 

(as  appears  by  statement  2,)  am't 

to       -        -        -        -        -        -  92,648,177  35 


DEBATES  OF  CONGKESS. 


467 


DECEMBER,  1819.] 


Report  on  the  Finances. 


[H.  OF  R. 


From  the  1st  of  January  to  the  30th 
September  inclusive,  there  was,  hy 
funding  Treasury  notes,  and  issuing 
3  per  cent,  stock,  for  interest  on 
old  registered  debt,  added  to  the 
public  debt,  (as  appears  by  state- 
ment 3,)  the  amount  of 


36,135  59 


$92,684,312  94 


From  which  deduct  the  amount  of 
stock  purchased  during  that  period, 
(as  appears  by  statement  4)— 

$711,957  55 

And  the  estimated  reim- 
bursement of  deferred 
stock  -  -  -  243,827  88 


955,785  43 


Making,  on  the  1st  of  October,  1819, 
(as  appears  by  statement  3,)  the 


sum  of 


Since  the  30th  of  September  there  has 
been  redeemed,  or  provision  made 
for  the  redemption  of  54  per  cent 
of  the  Louisiana  stock,  unpaid  on 
the  1st  October,  1819,  amounting 
to  -  -  $2,601,817  15 

And  there  will  be  reim- 
bursed of  the  princi- 
pal of  the  deferred  6 
per  cent,  stock,  on 
the  1st  Jan.,  1820  241,506  70 

Leaving  the  public  debt  unredeemed 
on  the  1st  January,  1820,  by  esti- 


$91,728,527  51 


2,843,323  85 


The  Treasury  notes  in  circulation  are 
estimated,  (as  appears  by  statement 


5,)  at 


-     $181,821  00 


The  whole  of  the  awards  made  by  the  commissioners 
appointed  under  the  several  acts  of  Congress  for 
indemnifying  certain  claimants  of  public  lands,  (as 
appears  by  statement  6,)  amounts  to  $4,282,151  12 

Of  which  there  has  been  received  at 
the  office  of  the  Commissioner  of 
the  General  Land  Office,  (as  ap- 
pears by  statement  C,)  the  sum  of  2,372,574  31 


Leaving  outstanding,  at  the  dates  of 
the  several  returns  from  the  land 
districts  -  ...  $1,909,576  81 


3.  Of  the  Estimates  of  the  Public  Revenue  and  Ex- 
penditures for  the  year  1820. 

In  presenting  the  estimate  for  the  year  1820,  it 
may  be  proper  to  observe,  that,  when  the  internal 
duties  were  repealed,  on  the  31st  of  December,  1817, 
the  permanent  revenue,  including  those  duties,  was 
estimated  at  $24,525,000,  while  the  annual  author- 
ized expenditure  was  ascertained  to  be  less  than  the 
sum  of  $22,000,000.  The  repeal  of  the  internal 
duties  reduced  the  former  to  $22,625,000,  while  the 
payments  from  the  Treasury,  during  the  year  1818, 
exceeded  $26,000,000 ;  and  those  of  the  present  year 
will,  probably,  i'all  but  little  short  of  $25,500,000. 

In  the  annual  report  of  the  Treasury  of  the  21st  of 
November,  1818,  the  receipts  for  the  present  year 


were  estimated  at  $24,220,000.  Although  this  esti- 
mate will  be  realized  in  its  general  result,  deficiencies 
have  been  ascertained  in  the  customs,  the  internal 
duties  and  direct  tax,  the  bank  dividends  and  the 
postage  of  letters.  The  deficiency  which  has  occurred 
in  the  customs,  internal  duties,  and  direct  taxes,  will 
probably  augment,  in  nearly  the  same  degree,  the 
receipts  from  those  sources  in  the  year  1820,  by  the 
payment  of  the  revenue  bonds,  and  of  that  portion  of 
the  internal  duties  and  direct  taxes,  which,  if  the  ac- 
customed punctuality  had  been  observed,  would  have 
been  received  during  the  present  year.  But  it  is 
probable  that  the  receipts  of  that  year  will  be  dimin- 
ished by  the  non-payment  of  the  bank  dividends,  and 
by  the  application  of  a  portion  of  the  proceeds  of  the 
public  lands  to  the  redemption  of  the  outstanding 
Mississippi  stock.  The  receipts  for  the  year  1820, 
applicable  to  the  ordinary  and  current  demands  upon 
the  Treasury,  may  therefore  be  estimated  at  twenty- 
two  millions  of  dollars,  viz  : 

Customs $19,000,000  00 

Public  lands 2,000,000  00 

Arrears  of  internal  duties  and  direct 

tax 450,000  00 

Second  instalment  due  by  the  United 

States  Bank        -        ...         500,000  00 
Incidental  receipts  -  50,000  00 

Which,  with  the  sum  estimated  to  be 
in  the  Treasury  on  the  1st  of  Jan- 
uary, 1820  -  -  -  -  334,996  90 


Make  the  aggregate  amount  of      $22,334,996  90 

The  estimates  of  the  expenditure  for  the  year  1820 
arc  not  yet  complete  ;  but  it  is  ascertained  from  those 
which  have  already  been  received,  that  a  sum  not 
less  than  $27,000,000  will  be  required  for  the  service 
of  that  year.  This  deficit  of  nearly  $5,000,000,  re- 
sulting from  the  excess  of  expenditure  beyond  the  re- 
ceipts, cannot  be  supplied  by  any  application  of  the 
ordinary  revenue.  After  paying  the  interest  and  re- 
imbursement of  the  public  debt,  and  redeeming  the 
remainder  of  the  Louisiana  stock,  about  $2,500,000 
of  the  Sinking  Fund  will  remain  without  application, 
if  the  price  of  the  public  stocks  should  continue  above 
the  prices  at  which  the  Commissioners  of  the  Sinking 
Fund  are  authorized  to  purchase.  During  the  years 
1821,  1822,  and  1823,  the  average  sum  of  $5,000,000 
of  the  Sinking  Fund  will  also  remain  without  appli- 
cation, if  the  price  of  the  public  stock  should  prevent 
its  purchase.  Any  application  of  that  portion  of  the 
Sinking  Fund,  which,  on  account  of  the  price  of  the 
public  stock,  may  remain  unemployed  in  the  hands 
of  the  Commissioners  of  the  Sinking  Fund,  to  other 
branches  of  the  public  service,  if  allowable  under  the 
provisions  of  the  act  making  the  appropriation,  would 
only  postpone  the  period  at  which  additional  imposi- 
tions would  be  required  to  meet  the  public  expendi- 
ture. Such  an  application  would  also  have  the  effect 
of  ultimately  retarding  the  redemption  of  the  public 
debt. 

It  may  be  proper  to  add,  that,  although  some  of 
the  items  in  the  estimate  for  the  ensuing  year  may  be 
considered  in  their  nature  temporary,  yet  it  is  prob- 
able that  the  estimate  for  succeeding  years  will  ex- 
ceed rather  than  fall  below  it 

Under  all  the  circumstances,  it  is  respectfully  sub- 
mitted, that  the  public  interest  requires  that  the  rev 
enue  be  augmented,  or  that  the  expenditure  be  di- 
minished. 


468 


ABRIDGMENT  OP  THE 


H. 


R.] 


Restriction  of  Slavery  in  Territories. 


[DECEMBER,  1819. 


Should  an  increase  of  the  revenue  be  deemed  expe- 
dient, a  portion  of  the  deficit  may  be  supplied  by  an 
addition  to  the  duties  now  imposed  upon  various  arti- 
cles of  foreign  merchandise,  and  by  a  reasonable  duty 
upon  sales  at  public  auction  ;  but  it  is  not  probable 
that  any  modification  of  the  existing  tariff  can  super- 
sede the  necessity  of  resorting  to  internal  taxation  if 
the  expenditure  is  not  diminished.  Should  Congress 
deem  it  expedient  to  modify  the  present  rate  of  duties, 
with  a  view  to  afford  that  protection  to  our  cotton, 
woollen,  and  iron  manufactures,  which  is  necessary 
to  secure  to  them  the  domestic  market,  the  necessity 
of  resorting  to  a  system  of  internal  taxation  will  be 
augmented.  It  is  believed  that  the  present  is  a  favor- 
able moment  for  affording  efficient  protection  to  that 
increasing  and  important  interest,  if  it  can  be  done 
consistently  with  the  general  interest  of  the  nation. 
The  situation  of  the  countries  from  whence  our  foreign 
manufactures  have  been  principally  drawn,  authorizes 
the  expectation,  that,  in  the  event  of  a  monopoly  of 
the  home  market  being  secured  to  our  cotton  and 
woollen  manufactures,  a  considerable  portion  of  the 
manufacturing  skill  and  capital  of  those  countries  will 
be  promptly  transferred  to  the  United  States,  and  in- 
corporated into  the  domestic  capital  of  the  Union. 
Should  this  expectation  be  realized,  the  disadvantages 
resulting  from  such  a  monopoly  would  quickly  disap- 
pear. In  the  mean  time,  it  is  believed  that  a  system 
of  internal  taxation  would  be  severely  felt  by  the 
great  mass  of  our  citizens. 

Whether  the  revenue  be  augmented,  or  the  expen- 
diture be  diminished,  a  loan  to  some  extent  will  be 
necessary.  The  augmentation  of  the  one,  or  the 
diminution  of  the  other,  cannot  be  effected  in  suf- 
ficient time  to  prevent  this  necessity.  As  the  six  per 
cent,  stock  of  the  United  States  is  considerably  above 
par,  the  sum  required  to  be  raised  by  loan  can  be 
conveniently  and  advantageously  obtained  by  the  sale 
of  stock  of  that  description,  or  it  may  be  obtained  by 
the  issue  of  Treasury  notes.  If  the  revenue  and  ex- 
penditure shall  be  equalized,  the  issue  of  Treasury 
notes,  not  bearing  interest,  is  recommended  in  pre- 
ference to  the  creation  or  sale  of  stock,  as  the  loan,  in 
that  event,  will  be  small  in  amount,  and  temporary 
in  its  nature. 

All  which  is  respectfully  submitted. 

WM.  H.  CRAWFORD. 


TUESDAY,  December  14. 

Another  member,  to  wit,  from  Kentucky, 
BENJAMIN  HABDIN,  appeared,  produced  his  cre- 
dentials, and  took  his  seat. 

Mr.  JOHN  CBOWELL,  the  Representative  from 
the  State  of  Alabama,  also  appeared,  produced 
his  credentials,  was  qualified,  and  took  his  seat. 

Restriction  of  Slavery  in  Territories. 
Mr.  TAYLOB,  of  New  York,  said  he  rose  to  in- 
vite the  attention  of  the  House  to  a  subject  of 
very  great  moment.  The  question  of  slavery  in 
the  territories  of  the  United  States  west  of  the 
Mississippi,  it  was  well  known,  had  at  the  last 
session  of  Congress  excited  feelings,  both  in  the 
House  and  out  of  it,  the  recurrence  of  which  he 
sincerely  deprecated.  All  who  love  our  coun- 
try, and  consider  the  Union  of  these  States  as 
the  ark  of  its  safety,  must  ever  view  with  deep 
regret  sectional  interests  agitating  our  national 


councils.  Mr.  T.  said  he  could  not  himself,  nor 
would  he  ask  others,  to  make  a  sacrifice  of  prin- 
ciple to  expediency.  He  could  never  sanction 
the  existence  of  slavery  where  it  could  be  ex- 
cluded consistently  with  the  constitution  and 
public  faith.  But  it  ought  not  to  be  forgotten 
that  the  American  family  is  composed  of  many 
members ;  if  their  interests  are  various,  they 
mutually  must  be  respected ;  if  their  prejudices 
are  strong,  they  must  be  treated  with  forbear- 
ance. He  did  not  know  whether  conciliation 
were  practicable,  but  he  considered  the  attain- 
ment worthy  of  an  effort.  He  was  desirous 
that  the  question  should  be  settled  in  that  spirit 
of  amity  and  brotherly  love  which  carried  us 
through  the  perils  of  a  Revolution,  and  produ- 
ced the  adoption  of  our  Federal  Constitution. 
If  the  resolution  he  was  about  to  introduce 
should  be  sanctioned  by  the  House,  it  was  his 
purpose  to  move  a  postponement  of  the  Mis- 
souri bill  to  a  future  day,  that  this  interesting 
subject,  in  relation  to  the  whole  Western  terri- 
tory, may  be  submitted  to  the  consideration  of 
a  committee.  Mr.  T.  then  introduced  the  fol- 
lowing resolution : 

"  Resolved,  That  a  committee  be  appointed  to  in- 
quire into  the  expediency  of  prohibiting  by  law  the 
introduction  of  slaves  into  the  territories  of  the  United 
States  west  of  the  Mississippi." 

Mr.  STBOTHEB  made  a  few  remarks,  the  pur- 
port of  which  was,  that,  although  the  question 
was  already  before  the  House,  as  involved  in 
the  bill  for  the  admission  of  the  Missouri  Terri- 
tory into  the  Union,  yet,  when  a  proposition 
was  made  having  for  its  object  a  compromise  of 
conflicting  opinions,  it  became  members  to  meet 
it  in  a  spirit  of  harmony.  He  proposed,  how- 
ever, that  the  proposition  should  lie  on  the 
table  till  to-morrow,  to  give  time  for  reflection 
on  it. 

Mr.  TATLOE  assenting  to  this  course,  the  mo- 
tion was  ordered  to  lie  on  the  table. 

WEDNESDAY,  December  15. 

Two  other  members,  to  wit :  from  Maryland, 
THOMAS  BAYLY,  and  from  South  Carolina,  JAMES 
EEVIN,  appeared,  produced  their  credentials, 
were  qualified,  and  took  their  seats. 

A  message  was  received  from  the  PEESIDENT 
OF  THE  UNITED  STATES,  which  was  read,  and  is 
as  follows : 
To  the  Senate  of  the  United  States  : 

In  conformity  with  the  resolution  of  the  House  of 
Representatives  of  the  24th  of  February  last,  I  now 
transmit  a  report  of  the  Secretary  of  State,  with  ex- 
tracts and  copies  of  several  letters,  touching  the  causes 
of  the  imprisonment  of  William  White,  an  American 
citizen,  at  Buenos  Ayres. 

JAMES  MONROE. 

WASHINGTON,  Uth  December,  1819. 

Restriction  of  Slavery  in  Territories. 
On  motion  of  Mr.  TAYLOB,  of  New  York,  the 
House  proceeded  to  the  consideration  of  the 
resolution  yesterday    offered  by  him,   in  the 
words  following,  to  wit : 


DEBATES   OF  CONGRESS. 


DECEMBER,  1819.] 


Restriction  of  Slavery  in  Territories. 


[H.  OF  E. 


Resolved,  That  a  committee  be  appointed  to  inquire 
into  the  expediency  of  prohibiting  by  law  the  intro- 
duction of  slaves  into  the  territories  of  the  United 
States  west  of  the  Mississippi. 

Mr.  TATI.OE  said  it  was  not  his  purpose  to  go 
into  any  discussion  of  the  merits  of  this  propo- 
sition; "nor,  he  believed,  would  any  discussion 
assist  the  end  he  had  in  view.  If  a  compromise 
of  opposite  opinions  was  to  he  effected,  it  ap- 
peared to  him  better  that  a  committee  should  be 
appointed  to  examine  into  it,  and  make  their 
report;  and  that  the  question  should  not  be 
moved  in  this  House  until  that  committee 
should  have  expended  their  best  efforts  on  this 
object. 

The  question  was  then  taken,  without  debate, 
on  agreeing  to  the  resolution,  and  decided  in 
the  affirmative,  without  a  division.  A  com- 
mittee of  seven  members  was  ordered  to  be  ap- 
pointed accordingly  ;  and  Messrs.  TAYLOR,  Liv- 
EBMOBE,  BAEBOUR?  LOWNDES,  FTJLLEB,  HARDIN, 
and  CUTHBEBT,  were  appointed  a  committee 
pursuant  to  the  said  resolution. 

Mr.  TAYLOR  then  moved  to  postpone,  until 
the  first  Monday  in  February  next,  the  order  of 
the  day  on  the  bill  authorizing  a  convention  of 
the  people  of  Missouri  for  the  purpose  of  form- 
ing a  constitution  and  State  government. 

Mr.  LOWDNES  said  he  thought  the  day  which 
was  proposed  for  the  postponement  was  too  dis- 
tant ;  and  that  the  question  whether  any  com- 
promise could  be  efiected.  might  be  decided  in  a 
much  less  time  than  that.  He  could  hardly  sup- 
pose that  the  glimpse  of  the  possibility  of  a 
compromise,  which  had  appeared,  ought  to  in- 
duce the  House  so  long  to  postpone  the  consid- 
eration of  this  measure.  He  did  not  desire  to 
act  on  the  subject  immediately,  but  wished  it 
to  lie  on  the  list  of  orders  of  the  day  until  the 
House  was  ready  to  take  it  up. 

Mr.  SCOTT,  delegate  from  Missouri,  said  he 
hoped  that  the  proposition  to  postpone  till  the 
first  Monday  of  February  would  not  succeed.  It 
was  of  vast  importance  to  the  people  of  Mis- 
souri that  an  immediate  decision  should  be  made 
on  this  question.  If  the  bill  passed  at  an  early 
day,  the  people  would  then  have  time  to  meet 
in  convention,  form  their  constitution,  organize 
their  government,  elect  members  to  a  general 
assembly,  on  whom  it  would  devolve  to  choose 
Senators  to  the  Congress  of  the  United  States. 
If,  on  the  other  hand,  the  bill  ultimately  was 
lost,  it  was  equally  necessary  that  the  people 
should  be  soon  apprised  of  its  failure,  that  they 
might  have  time  to  act  for  themselves,  and 
frame  a  form  of  government,  which  he  was  con- 
vinced they  would  do,  without  waiting  to  again 
apply  to  Congress  for  the  mere  means  of  organ- 
ization. The  resolution  which  had  been  adopt- 
ed furnished  no  good  reason  for  the  postpone- 
ment^ because  it  only  proposed  an  inquiry  into 
the  expediency  of  the  measure  in  relation  to 
the  Territories,  and  could  not  control  the  con- 
stitutional inquiry  and  right  of  the  people  of 
Missouri  to  form  their  constitution  as  a  State. 

Mr.  TATLOE  replied.     With  regard  to  the 


prospect  of  success  to  his  proposition,  he  could 
only  say,  without  knowing  the  opinion  of  any 
other  member,  that  he  had  a  sincere  disposition 
to  accomplish  the  object  of  the  proposition  he 
had  submitted.  And,  should  he  fail  of  his  ob- 
ject, it  appeared  to  him  the  first  Monday  in 
February  would  be  time  enough  to  commence 
what  he  feared  would  be  a  most  unprofitable 
and  unproductive  discussion.  With  respect  to 
the  people  of  Missouri,  Mr.  T.  said  it  would  be 
time  enough  for  them,  he  presumed,  after  the 
first  Monday  in  February,  or  even  after  they 
learnt  the  decision  of  this  House,  to  elect  a  con- 
vention and  form  a  constitution  without  the 
authority  of  Congress. 

Mr.  MEBCEB,  of  Virginia,  was  opposed  to  so 
long  a  postponement  as  was  proposed ;  because, 
the  Territory  possessing  the  requisite  population, 
&c.,  every  moment's  delay,  considering  the  prac- 
tice of  the  Government  heretofore,  was  an  in- 
fraction of  its  rights.  Mr.  M.  particularly  de- 
sired, when  this  question  was  taken  up,  that  it 
should  not  be  by  surprise,  in  such  manner  as  to 
deprive  gentlemen  of  the  opportunity  of  express- 
ing their  opinions  on  it.  He  himself  had,  he 
said,  at  the  last  Congress,  taken  some  pride  in 
recording  his  vote  against  the  introduction  of 
slaves  into  the  Territories  of  the  United  States, 
because  that  measure  was  within  the  fair  scope 
of  the  legislative  power.  At  the  same  time,  he 
considered  it  inconsistent  with  the  most  solemn 
obligations  to  respect  the  constitution,  for  Con- 
gress to  clog  the  admission  of  any  independent 
State  into  the  Union  with  any  condition  what- 
ever, except  that  the  constitution  formed  for  its 
government  should  be  republican.  He  conclud- 
ed by  moving  the  2d  Monday  of  January  as  the 
day  to  which  the  bill  should  be  postponed. 

And,  on  the  question,  the  order  of  the  day  on 
the  Missouri  bill  was  postponed  to  the  second 
Monday  in  January. 


THURSDAY,  December  16. 
Two  other  members,  to  wit :  from  Vermont, 
EZEA  MEEOH,  and  from  Delaware,   WILLABD 
HALL,   appeared,  produced   their    credentials, 
were  qualified,  and  took  their  seats. 

WEDNESDAY,  December  22. 
Another  member,  to  wit,  from  Pennsylvania, 
ROBEBT  PHILSON,  appeared,  produced  his  creden- 
tials, was  qualified,  and  took  his  seat. 

MONDAY,  December  27. 
Another  member,  to  wit,  from  Louisiana, 
THOMAS  BUTLEB,  appeared,  produced  his  cre- 
dentials, was  qualified,  and  took  his  seat. 

WEDNESDAY,  December  29. 

Restriction  of  Slavery  in  Territories. 

Mr.  TAYLOB,  of  New  York,  rose  and  stated, 

that  he  was  instructed  by  the  committee  to 

whom  had  been  referred  the  resolution  of  the 


470 


ABRIDGMENT  OF  THE 


H.  OF  R.] 


Restriction  of  Slavery  in  Territories. 


[DECEMBER,  1819. 


15th  instant,  directing  an  inquiry  into  the  ex- 
pediency of  prohibiting  the  extension  of  slavery 
in  the  Territories  of  the  United  States,  to  ask 
to  be  discharged  from  the  further  consideration 
of  the  subject.  Mr.  T.  gave  as  a  reason  for  his 
motion,  that  the  committee  had  found  that, 
after  a  free  interchange  of  opinions,  they  could 
not,  consistently  with  their  ideas  of  public  duty, 
come  to  any  conclusion,  or  agree  to  any  report 
which  could  promise  to  unite  in  any  degree  the 
conflicting  views  of  the  House  on  this  question. 

The  question  was  taken  on  discharging  the 
committee  from  the  further  consideration  of  the 
subject,  and  agreed  to. 

Mr.  TAYLOR  then,  as  he  observed,  to  bring 
the  question  before  the  House,  at  a  proper  time 
and  in  a  distinct  shape,  and  not  with  a  view 
to  invite  a  discussion  on  it  at  this  time,  moved 
the  following  resolution : 

"Resolved,  That  a  committee  be  appointed  with 
instructions  to  report  a  bill  prohibiting  the  further  ad- 
mission of  slaves  into  the  Territories  of  the  United 
States  west  of  the  river  Mississippi." 

Mr.  LOWNDES  said  he  should  have  no  objec- 
tion to  the  resolution,  if  its  effect  would  be 
nothing  more  than  was  stated  by  the  mover; 
but  it  surely  ought  not  to  be  expected  that  the 
House  would  pass  without  discussion  a  resolu- 
tion expressed  in  terms  such  as  the  one  before 
them.  Before  the  House  should  agree  to  in- 
struct a  committee  to  bring  in  a  bill  embracing 
a  principle  on  which  there  were  varying  opin- 
ions, it  would  certainly  discuss  the  preliminary 
question.  He  suggested,  therefore,  that  the 
phraseology  be  modified  so  as  not  to  express  any 
opinion  of  the  House  in  adopting  it.  If  a  com- 
mittee could  not  agree,  as  had  just  been  stated, 
it  certainly  could  not  be  expected  that  the 
House  would  adopt  such  a  form  of  expression, 
without  debate,  as  should  indicate  an  agree- 
ment of  opinion  on  this  subject. 

Mr.  TAYLOR  did  not  understand  the  resolution 
in  the  same  way  as  Mr.  LOWNDES.  The  House 
could  not  get  at  the  question  unless  it  was  on  a 
bill ;  and,  in  directing  the  committee  to  prepare 
a  bill,  he  did  not  intend  to  express  any  opinion 
on  the  principle  of  the  bill,  or  intend  that  the 
House  should  decide  on  the  abstract  question. 
Had  such  been  his  object,  he  would  have  stated 
in  the  resolution  that  it  was  expedient.  He 
presumed  there  were  no  members,  he  knew  of 
none,  who  doubted  the  constitutional  power  of 
Congress  to  impose  such  a  restriction  on  the 
Territories,  and  the  only  question  which  the 
bill  could  present,  was  one  of  expediency.*  The 
resolution  would  not  commit  any  member  as 
to  the  abstract  question  referred  to. 

Mr.  RHEA  was  opposed  to  the  resolution,  be- 


*  This  is  a  remarkable  declaration,  and  would  seem  to 
have  been  heard  with  general  acquiescence.  The  question 
of  restricting  the  State  of  Missouri  had  then  been  before 
Congress,  and  the  public,  for  a  year,  and  its  constitutionality 
vehemently  contested,  but  the  constitutionality  of  restrict- 
ing a  Territory  had  not  then  been  disputed,  and  that  ques- 
tion rose  no  higher  than  one  of  expediency. 


cause  he  considered  it  not  a  very  fair  way  of 
coming  at  the  question.  He  wished  gentlemen 
would  exercise  a  little  of  the  candor  they  talked 
about  so  much,  and  not  endeavor  to  force  the  dis- 
cussion on  the  House  unexpectedly.  The  adop- 
tion of  such  a  resolution  by  the  House  would 
have  the  effect  to  spread  an  opinion  through  the 
country,  that  the  House  approved  of  the  bill 
they  ordered  to  be  brought  in,  and  that  it  would 
become  a  law ;  and  he  wished  no  such  opinion 
to  go  forth.  The  resolution  was  worded  as  if 
the  question  of  expediency  was  settled,  and  took 
every  thing  for  granted.  This  he  was  opposed 
to.  There  was  a  great  deal  to  be  said  on  that 
question ;  and  he  would  not  agree  to  a  resolu- 
tion which  should  have  the  appearance  of  ad- 
mitting principles  which  had  not  been  discussed 
or  conceded  fairly. 

Mr.  SMITH,  of  Maryland,  was  sure  the  mover 
of  the  resolution  did  not  wish  to  take  the  House 
by  surprise ;  and,  as  many  members  were  ab- 
sent, it  would  not  be  proper  to  press  a  decision 
on  the  resolution  now.  The  proper  course  was 
the  usual  one — to  refer  the  inquiry  to  a  com- 
mittee. Let  them  consider  it ;  if  they  should 
report  a  bill,  let  that  bill  go  to  a  Committee  of 
the  Whole,  when  the  House  would  be  apprised 
of  it,  and  would  be  prepared  to  discuss  and  act 
on  it.  He  moved  that  the  resolution  be  com- 
mitted to  the  Committee  of  the  Whole,  and 
made  the  order  for  the  second  Monday  in  Jan- 
uary ;  because  the  members  had  been  prepared 
to  anticipate,  on  that  day,  the  discussion  of  the 
subject  in  another  form. 

Mr.  MERGER  was  sure,  from  the  first,  that 
nothing  like  compromise  would  grow  out  of  the 
adoption  and  reference  of  the  former  resolution, 
because  one  party  founded  their  opinions,  hon- 
estly, he  had  no  doubt,  on  what  they  conceived 
the  solemn  obligations  of  justice ;  and  the  other 
party  founded  theirs  on  the  solemn  obligations 
of  an  oath.  As  respected  the  discussion  of  this 
subject,  it  had  been  referred  to  the  second  Mon- 
day in  January,  and  it  was  considered  settled 
that  it  would  not  come  up  before.  It  was, 
therefore,  improper  to  take  up  the  discussion 
now,  in  the  absence  of  many  members,  who  had 
left  here  in  confidence  that  the  subject  would 
not  be  discussed  until  a  fixed  day ;  and,  in  a 
way,  too,  which  would  commit  the  House  on 
the  question.  Whenever  a  member  wished  to 
bring  in  a  bill,  he  always  gave  notice,  and  was 
required  to  do  so ;  because  a  solemn  character 
was  given  to  a  subject  when  once  entertained 
by  the  House,  and  it  was  considered  fair  to  give 
notice.  Mr.  M.  observed  that  his  objections  to 
the  resolution  grew  out  of  no  hostility  to  its 
object.  When  the  question  proposed  should 
come  fairly  before  the  House,  he  should  support 
the  proposition.  Standing  here  as  a  Represent- 
ative of  the  people  west  of  the  Mississippi,  he 
should  record  his  vote  against  suffering  the  dark 
cloud  of  calamity,  which  now  darkened  his 
country,  from  rolling  on  beyond  the  peaceful 
shores  of  the  Mississippi. 
Mr.  HOLMES,  of  Massachusetts,  did  not  agree 


DEBATES  OF  CONGRESS. 


471 


DECEMBER,  1819.] 


State  of  Maine. 


[H.  OF  R. 


with  the  mover  of  this  resolution.  It  proposed 
to  instruct  a  committee  to  bring  in  a  bill  for  a 
particular  object.  This  proposition  tested  the 
opinion  of  the  House  on  the  measure  ;  because, 
if  he  voted  for  instructing  a  committee  for  any 
object,  it  would  be  expected  of  him  to  vote  for 
the  bill,  when  it  should  be  reported,  pursuant  to 
the  instruction — unless  he  wished  to  be  thought 
inconsistent.  To  vote  for  the  instruction  would 
certainly  be  considered  as  a  pledge  to  support 
the  object  of  the  bill.  He  was  not  prepared  to 
say  whether  he  would  vote  for  such  a  bill  as 
the  one  proposed  or  not — he  inclined  to  think  ho 
should  not.  But  he  was  satisfied  of  one  thing, 
and  that  was,  that  this  question  was  very  different 
from  that  of  the  Missouri  bill ;  and  he  thought 
that  bill  ought  to  be  first  acted  on — it  had  been 
once  already  discussed,  and  had  priority  of  the 
proposition  now  before  the  House.  Mr.  H.  ob- 
served that,  whatever  he  might  think  about 
prohibiting  slavery  in  the  Territories  of  the 
United  States,  he  could  entertain  no  doubt  on 
the  other  question.  His  mind  was  fully  made 
up  and  settled  that  the  House  had  no  right  to 
inhibit  a  State  in  this  particular.  The  constitu- 
tion of  the  country,  the  treaty  of  cession,  settled 
his  opinion  on  this  question,  and  forbade  him 
to  hesitate  in  declaring  that  Congress  had  no 
power  to  prohibit  the  exercise  of  this  privilege 
by  the  State  of  Missouri. 

The  question  was  then  taken  on  postponing 
the  question,  and  decided  in  the  affirmative,  by 
a  vote  of  83  to  62. 


THURSDAY,  December  30. 
State  of  Maine. 

The  House  then,  according  to  the  orders  of 
the  day,  resolved  itself  into  a  Committee  of  the 
Whole,  (Mr.  HILL  in  the  chair,)  on  the  bill  for 
the  admission  of  the  State  of  Maine  into  the 
Union. 

The  question  being  stated  that  the  committee 
do  rise  and  report  the  bill — 

Mr.  CLAY  (Speaker)  said  he  was  not  yet  pre- 
pared for  this  question.  He  was  not  opposed 
to  the  admission  of  the  State  of  Maine  into  the 
Union.  The  intelligence  and  numerical  strength 
of  her  population,  her  extent  of  territory,  her 
separation  from  old  Massachusetts  by  interven- 
ing territory,  her  position  in  relation  to  the 
other  members  of  the  Confederacy,  all  concur- 
red to  recommend  the  measure  now  proposed. 
But,  before  it  was  finally  acted  on,  he  wished 
to  know,  he  said,  whether  certain  doctrines  of 
an  alarming  character — which,  if  persevered 
in,  no  man  could  tell  where  they  would  end — 
with  respect  to  a  restriction  on  the  admission 
into  the  Union  of  States  west  of  the  Mississippi, 
were  to  be  sustained  on  this  floor.  He  wished 
to  know  what  was  the  character  of  the  condi- 
tions which  Congress  had  a  right  to  annex  to 
the  admission  of  new  States ;  whether,  in  fact, 
in  admitting  a  new  State,  there  could  be  a  par- 
tition of  its  sovereignty,  lie  wished  to  know 
the  extent  of  the  principles  which  gentlemen 


meant  to  defend  in  this  respect ;  and  particu- 
larly the  extent  to  which  they  meant  to  carry 
these  principles  in  relation  to  the  country  west 
of  the  Mississippi.  On  this  subject,  he  said, 
there  should  be  a  serious  pause ;  the  question 
should  be  maturely  weighed  before  this  new 
mode  of  acquiring  power  was  resorted  to, 
which  was  proposed  in  regard  to  the  State  to 
be  formed  out  of  the  present  Territory  of  Mis- 
souri. Heretofore,  when  the  population  and 
extent  of  a  territory  had  been  such  as  to  entitle 
a  territory  to  the  privilege  of  self-government, 
and  the  rank  of  a  State,  the  single  question  had 
presented  itself  to  admit  or  reject  it,  without 
qualification.  But  new  doctrines  had  sprung 
up  on  this  subject ;  and,  said  he,  before  we  take 
a  single  step  to  change  the  present  relations  of 
the  members  of  the  Confederation,  there  should 
be  a  distinct  understanding  between  the  Repre- 
sentatives from  the  various  parts  of  the  country, 
as  to  the  extent  to  which  they  are  to  be  carried. 
If  beyond  the  mountains  Congress  can  exert  the 
power  of  imposing  restrictions  on  new  States, 
can  they  not  also  on  this  side  of  them  ?  If, 
there,  they  can  impose  hard  conditions — condi- 
tions which  strike  vitally  at  the  independence 
and  power  of  the  States — can  they  not  also 
here  ?  If,  said  he,  the  States  of  the  West  are 
to  be  subject  to  restrictions  by  Congress,  whilst 
the  Atlantic  States  are  free  from  them,  pro- 
claim the  distinction  at  once ;  announce  your 
privileges  and  immunities :  let  us  have  a  clear 
and  distinct  understanding  of  what  we  are  to 
expect.  He  would  not,  however,  he  said,  press 
this  part  of  the  subject,  but  proceed  to  notice 
another  point  which  presented  itself  in  respect 
to  this  bill ;  wishing  the  honorable  gentleman, 
under  whose  auspices  this  bill  had  been  intro- . 
duced  into  the  House,  distinctly  to  understand 
that  he  had  not  the  slightest  indisposition  to 
the  reception  of  Maine  into  the  Union  on  the 
footing  of  the  other  States  of  the  Union. 

Mr.  C.  then  adverted  to  the  section,  which 
had  been  stricken  out  of  the  bill,  respecting  the 
representation  of  Maine  on  this  floor.  Looking 
back  to  1791,  what  then  took  place  on  a  similar 
subject  with  this  ?  The  State  of  Kentucky,  if 
he  was  not  egregiously  mistaken  in  the  history 
of  the  times,  was  delayed  eighteen  months  be- 
fore she  was  permitted  to  come  in,  until  Ver- 
mont also  was  ready ;  and  the  two  States  would 
be  found  connected  together  in  the  act  provid- 
ing for  their  representation  in  Congress.  He 
asked  whether  this  precedent  from  the  statute 
book  might  not  be  advantageously  followed  in 
regard  to  the  two  States  now  claiming  admis- 
sion into  the  Union  ;  one  being  from  the  North- 
east, the  other  from  the  West,  as  was  the  case 
in  1791  ?  This,  he  said,  was  worthy  of  consid- 
eration. The  precedent  was  from  the  early, 
and,  as  far  at  least  as  regards  the  construction 
of  the  constitution  under  which  we  act,  the 
best  times  of  the  Republic.  Whether  such  a 
union  of  the  two  States  took  place  now,  or  not, 
Mr.  C.  said  he  wished  to  know  what  was  to  be 
done  on  the  subject  of  the  representation  of 


472 


ABRIDGMENT  OF  THE 


H.  OF  R.] 


State  of  Maine. 


[DECEMBER,  1819. 


Maine  ?  Did  the  gentleman  mean  to  follow  up 
this  bill  by  another,  providing  specially  for  that 
object?  The  committee,  he  thought,  ought  not 
to  rise  and  report  the  bill  in  its  present  shape, 
without  satisfactory  information  on  that  point. 
Mr.  HOLMES  rose  in  reply.  The  application 
from  the  people  of  Maine  to  be  admitted  into 
the  Union  as  one  of  the  States,  he  said,  was  a 
distinct  subject  presented  to  the  consideration 
of  the  committee  ;  and  the  question  was,  shall 
Maine  be  or  not  be  admitted  into  the  Union  ? 
Upon  that  question,  he  was  prepared  to  sup- 
port the  affirmative.  The  other  question,  rela- 
tive to  the  apportionment  of  representation  be- 
tween Maine  and  Massachusetts,  he  was  ready 
to  discuss  now  or  at  any  other  time ;  and  the 
only  reason  why  he  had  wished  to  expunge  the 
section  relative  to  that  point  from  the  present 
bill,  was  that  there  was  some  uncertainty,  from 
the  practice  which  had  hitherto  prevailed  on 
the  admission  of  new  States,  as  to  the  appor- 
tionment of  the  representation.  For  himself, 
he  said,  he  had.  entertained  no  doubt  on  the 
subject,  until  he  saw  the  precedent  to  which 
the  gentleman  had  alluded.  He  had  felt,  no 
doubt,  that  when  a  State  is  formed  from  a  por- 
tion of  another  State,  and  the  relative  propor- 
tion of  the  territory  and  population  known,  the 
representation  should  stand  as  at  present,  until 
anew  census  was  taken.  But,  he  said,  this 
precedent,  with  regard  to  Kentucky,  had  stag- 
gered him.  That  State  had  been  formed  from 
a  portion  of  the  territory  of  Virginia,  and  two 
representatives  on  this  floor  were  given  to  Ken- 
tucky, without  diminishing  the  number  of  rep- 
resentatives from  the  State  of  Virginia.  This 
was  a  precedent  which  he  thought  did  not  ex- 
actly accord  with  the  principles  of  the  consti- 
tution, which  laid  down  a  different  rule  for  the 
apportionment  of  representation.  It  was  pos- 
sible, he  said,  there  was  some  reason,  which  we 
do  not  know,  which  induced  the  course  pursued 
on  that  occasion.  Possibly  it  was  then  deter- 
mined that,  if  a  State  sending  fifty  representa- 
tives should  be  divided  into  two  States,  the 
original  State  should  continue  to  send  her  fifty 
members,  and  the  new  State  should  send  twenty- 
five.  If  Congress  had  so  determined,  he  appre- 
hended they  had  determined  against  the  provi- 
sions of  the  constitution.  Probably  Congress 
then  thought  they  had  the  power  which  they 
exercised,  inasmuch  as  the  existing  apportion- 
ment of  representatives  among  the  States  had 
been  made  by  the  framers  of  the  constitution, 
and  not  according  to  an  exact  enumeration  of 
the  people.  Probably  the  people  in  that  por- 
tion of  the  Territory  had  increased  so  much 
faster  than  the  rest  as,  hi  the  opinion  of  Con- 
gress, to  entitle  them  to  the  two  representatives 
which  were  thus  additionally  given.  But  this 
precedent  proved  that,  between  one  apportion- 
ment and  another,  the  Congress  have  a  right 
to  modify  that  apportionment,  where  circum- 
stances make  it  necessary.  However  it  might 
be  settled  in  matter  of  form  in  the  present  case, 
Mi\  II.  said  that  the  parties  concerned  would 


be  satisfied  that  Maine  has  the  seven  represent- 
atives, which  according  to  the  last  enumeration 
that  portion  of  the  territory  of  Massachusetts 
is  entitled  to,  and  Massachusetts  would  be  con- 
tent to  have  the  remaining  thirteen  representa- 
tives to  which  her  population  entitled  her.  If 
the  doctrine  established  in  the  case  of  Kentucky 
should  be  sustained  on  this  occasion,  Massachu- 
setts would  still  have  her  twenty  representa- 
tives, and  Maine  would  be  entitled  to  seven. 
That  doctrine,  he  said,  would  be  monstrous, 
and  he  should  not  claim  for  Massachusetts  the 
the  advantage  of  the  precedent. 

Mr.  LIVEBMOBE,  of  New  Hampshire,  said,  the 
question  before  the  committee  he  took  to  be 
simply  this  :  whether  the  committee  should 
rise,  and  report  the  bill  now  before  them.  He 
asked  the  honorable  gentleman  from  Kentucky, 
whether  he  was  of  opinion  that  Congress  could 
impose  any  restriction  on  Maine  ?  That  ques- 
tion the  gentleman  would,  he  knew,  answer  in 
the  negative.  Why,  then,  was  the  time  of  the 
House  taken  up  in  an  unnecessary  discussion  ? 
It  had  been  said  that,  if  restrictions  were  pro- 
posed on  Missouri,  Maine  and  Missouri  ought  to 
come  into  the  Union,  hand  and  hand  together. 
Now,  Mr.  L.  said,  it  was  very  well  known,  that 
every  one  who  contended  for  the  restriction  on 
the  new  States,  beyond  the  Mississippi,  had  gone 
on  the  ground  that  the  territory  acquired  by 
France  stood  on  a  distinct  footing,  and  not  on 
the  same  footing  as  the  old  States.  Why  did 
not  the  gentleman,  when  the  State  of  Alabama 
was  admitted  in  the  Union  by  a  bill  passed  at 
this  session,  make  the  objections  which  he  had 
now  raised  to  the  admission  of  Maine  ?  That 
bill,  however,  had  passed  through  this  House 
with  as  much  celerity  as  was  usual  with  bills 
of  a  public  nature,  to  say  no  more  of  it.  If  no 
difference  of  opinion  existed  as  to  the  propriety 
of  admitting  Maine  into  the  Union,  why  was 
the  House  impeded  in  its  progress  through  the 
bill  by  arguments  which  applied  to  another 
question,  and  not  this  ? 

Mr.  CLAY  remarked  that,  since  the  question 
was  put,  he  would  say  at  once  to  the  gentleman 
from  Massachusetts,  and  his  worthy  friend  the 
chairman  of  the  Committee  on  the  Post  Office 
and  Post  Eoads,  with  that  frankness  which  per- 
haps too  much  belonged  to  his  character,  that 
he  did  not  mean  to  give  his  consent  to  the  ad- 
mission of  the  State  of  Maine  into  the  Union, 
as  long  as  the  doctrines  were  upheld  of  annex- 
ing conditions  to  the  admission  of  States  into 
the  Union  from  beyond  the  mountains.  Equal- 
ity, said  he,  is  equity.  If  we  have  no  right  to 
impose  conditions  on  this  State,  we  have  none 
to  impose  them  on  the  State  of  Missouri.  Al- 
though, Mr.  C.  said,  he  did  not  mean  to  antici- 
pate the  argument  on  this  subject,  the  gentle- 
man from  New  Hampshire  would  find  himselt 
totally  to  fail  in  the  attempt  to  establish  the 
position  that,  because  the  Territory  of  Missouri 
was  acquired  by  purchase,  she  is  our  vassal,  and 
we  have  a  right  to  affix  to  her  admission  condi- 
tions not  applicable  to  the  States  on  this  side  of 


DEBATES  OF  CONGKESS. 


473 


DECEMBER,  1819.] 


State  of  Maine. 


[H.  OF  R. 


the  Mississippi.  The  doctrine,  said  Mr.  C.,  is  an 
alarming  one,  and  I  protest  against  it  now,  and 
whenever  or  wherever  it  may  be  asserted,  that 
there  are  no  rights  attaching  in  the  one  case 
which  do  not  in  the  other ;  or  that  any  line  of 
distinction  is  to  be  drawn  between  the  Eastern 
and  the  Western  States.  It  is  a  distinction 
which  neither  exists  in  reason,  nor  can  you 
carry  it  into  effect  in  practice.  But,  Mr.  C. 
said,"  he  did  not  mean  to  go  into  this  subject. 
It  was  proper  and  fitting,  however,  in  his  opin- 
ion, that  this  bill  should  be  delayed;  that  the 
House  should  not  act  on  the  one  bill  until  it 
could  also  act  on  the  other  for  the  admission  of 
a  State  in  the  West.  But  it  seemed  there  was 
a  particular  aversion  to  the  connection  of  Maine 
and  Missouri.  If  he  was  not  much  mistaken, 
Mr.  C.  said,  those  who  now  objected  to  such  an 
alliance,  were  the  advocates  of  the  alliance  in 
the  case  which  he  had  quoted  in  the  precedent, 
and  had  succeeded  in  keeping  Kentucky  out  of 
the  Union  for  some  twelve  or  eighteen  months, 
because  Vermont  was  not  ready  to  come  in  ; 
and,  when  ready,  connected  them  in  the  same 
bill.  I  am  glad  to  hear,  said  he,  from  the 
gentleman  from  Massachusetts,  that  that  old  and 
venerable  Commonwealth  has  given  to  Maine 
till  the  3d  of  March  to  come  into  the  Union,  or 
rather  has  allowed  to  Congress  till  the  3d  of  j 
March  to  admit  her.  It  is  a  good  long  time  to 
the  3d  of  March,  at  least  sixty  days,  and  in  that 
time  much  light  may  be  shed  on  the  principles 
which  are  to  govern  us  in  the  admission  of  new 
States  into  the  Union.  What  occasion,  then, 
for  haste  ?  The  gentleman  from  Massachusetts, 
Mr.  C.  said,  was  not  unwilling  to  follow  a  part 
of  the  precedent  of  1791 ;  but,  when  the  other 
part  of  it  was  suggested  for  his  imitation,  it  was 
most  unreasonable  !  The  gentleman  had  him- 
self shown  that  it  was  not  now  proper  to  act 
conclusively  on  this  bill ;  for  has  he  not  told 
the  House,  asked  Mr.  C.,  that  he  has  not  pre- 
pared a  proposition  respecting  the  representa- 
tion of  Maine?  When  will  he  do  it?  Suppos- 
ing we  have  a  right  to  take  seven  Kepresenta- 
tives  from  Massachusetts,  and  give  them  to 
Maine,  what  will  be  the  condition  of  the  gentle- 
men who  now  represent  those  seven  districts 
of  Massachusetts  ?  But  it  was  a  question,  he 
said,  whether  it  was  in  the  power  of  Congress  I 
to  disfranchise  Massachusetts,  by  taking  from  I 
her  seven,  or  any  other  number  of  her  Repre- 
sentatives. These  matters  ought  to  be  duly 
considered,  and  gentlemen  should  be  prepared 
to  act  on  them. 

Mr.  WHITMAN,  of  Massachusetts,  said,  that 
the  gentleman  had  avowed  his  object  in  oppos- 
ing the  progress  of  this  bill,  with  his  usual  and 
characteristic  frankness ;  which  he  hoped  would 
constitute  a  sure  pledge  that  he  would  give  up 
his  opposition,  if  it  should  appear  not  to  be 
well  founded.  The  gentleman  had  expressed 
his  wish  to  unite  the  two  questions  of  Maine 
and  Missouri.  It  had  sometimes  occurred,  Mr. 
W.  said,  when  one  branch  of  a  Legislature  re- 
fused its  assent  to  a  measure  which  had  passed 


the  other,  that  the  object  of  the  latter  was  ob- 
tained by  tacking  the  obnoxious  proposition  to 
some  favorite  measure  of  the  former :  and,  as 
Mr.  W.  understood  the  honorable  Speaker,  he 
had  declared  that  he  would  go  on  this  principle 
in  the  admission  of  new  States  into  the  Union ; 
and  that,  in  this  case,  he  would  not  admit  Maine 
unless  tacked  to  Missouri — he  would  admit  both 
at  the  same  time,  and  both  on  the  same  princi- 
ple. Now,  Mr.  W.  said,  he  held  that  there  was 
no  similarity  in  the  two  cases.  The  Speaker 
would  certainly  do  the  gentlemen  who  were 
opposed  to  the  admission  of  Missouri  uncondi 
tionally  into  the  Union,  the  justice  to  believe, 
that  they  were  honest  and  sincere  in  their  op- 
position to  it,  and  that  they  did  believe  that 
Congress  have  a  right  to  impose  conditions  on 
her  admission,  and  they  did  further  believe  the 
proposed  condition  to  be  expedient.  Here,  then, 
was  a  part,  perhaps  a  majority,  of  Congress 
believing  in  the  right  of  annexing  conditions 
to  the  admission  of  Missouri  into  the  Union. 
How  was  it  with  regard  to  Maine  ?  Why,  not 
one  individual  member  in  this  House — not  the 
honorable  Speaker  himself,  supposed  that  any 
condition  ought  to  be  annexed  to  her  admis- 
sion :  on  the  contrary,  he  had  avowed  his  be- 
lief that  she  ought  to  be  admitted  without  con- 
dition. Ought  not  every  case  to  stand  on  its 
own  bottom?  Would  the  Speaker  consider  it 
consistent  with  sound  principles  to  say  that  he 
believed  Maine  ought  to  be  admitted,  and  yet 
refuse  to  admit  her  unless  Missouri  should  also 
be  received,  as  he  wishes,  unconditionally  into 
the  Union?  Such  a  refusal  would  be  a  mere 
political  expedient ;  it  would  be  to  accomplish, 
by  improper  means,  what  could  not  otherwise 
be  accomplished  ;  a  contrivance  to  get  the 
House  to  do  what  they  do  not  approve,  or  leave 
them  the  alternative  of  omitting  to  do  what, 
even  according  to  the  Speaker's  own  position, 
ought  to  be  done.  Was  it  proper,  Mr.  W. 
asked,  to  make  the  interest  of  Maine  a  sacrifice 
to  such  a  policy  ?  Was  it  Maine,  he  asked,  who 
stood  in  the  way  of  the  admission  of  Missouri, 
or  was  it  something  else  ?  And,  if  not,  ought 
Maine  to  fall  a  sacrifice  to  a  scheme  for  compel- 
ling Congress  to  admit  Missouri  without  any 
condition?  He  hoped  the  honorable  Speaker 
would  revise  his  decision ;  and,  if  he  did,  Mr. 
W.  was  sure  he  would  decide  differently. 

Mr.  HOLMES  again  rose.  The  honorable 
Speaker,  in  the  course  of  his  remarks,  had 
said,  that  equality  is  equity.  So  it  is,  said  Mr. 
H.  I  am  disposed  to  proceed,  and  apply  that 
principle  to  the  present  case,  and  I  ask  the 
gentleman  to  go  with  me  and  do  likewise. 
The  United  States  were  thirteen  in  number 
when  they  formed  the  present  compact ;  and 
among  its  provisions  was  one,  that  new  States 
may  be  admitted  into  the  Union,  to  be  formed 
out  of  the  original,  with  the  consent  of  the 
States  and  of  Congress.  And  how  had  equality 
proceeded  since  the  adoption  of  the  constitu- 
tion ?  A  State  had  been  formed  from  a  part 
of  the  territory  of  Virginia,  and  one  from 


474 


ABRIDGMENT  OF  THE 


H.  OF  R.] 


[DECEMBER,  1819. 


North  Carolina ;  and  Ohio,  Louisiana,  Indiana, 
Mi<>issippi,  Illinois,  and  Alabama,  had  been 
successively  admitted  from  the  Territories.  No 
division  of  any  State  had  in  the  mean  time 
taken  place  in  the  North  or  East,  nor  had  any 
new  State  been  erected  there.  He  trusted,  he 
paid,  that  he  should  not  be  accused  of  ever 
acting  contrary  to  the  principles  of  equality  or 
equity ;  he  had  no  wish  that  the  North  and 
East  should  have  privileges  not  enjoyed  by  the 
South  and  West — a  doctrine  against  which  he 
had  protested  in  dangerous  times,  and  against 
which  he  now  protested.  We  are  now  told 
that  our  application  is  just,  and  we  have  cer- 
tainly not  been  importunate;  yet,  unless  we 
will  do  towards  another  section  of  the  Union 
what  we  ourselves  believe  to  be  wrong,  you 
will  not  do  what  in  your  consciences  you  be- 
lieve to  be  right.  The  honorable  Speaker  was 
mistaken,  Mr.  H.  said,  he  believed,  with  re- 
spect to  the  union  of  Kentucky  with  Vermont, 
in  their  admission.  Vermont,  Mr.  H.  said, 
was  a  separate  State  during  the  war;  raised 
her  own  troops  and  paid  them,  and  had  a  claim 
to  admission  wholly  independent  of  any  other 
State.  Two  Representatives,  however,  were 
given  to  each  State;  the  same  representation 
being  given  to  Kentucky,  who  was  already 
represented,  as  to  Vermont,  who  was  before 
unrepresented.  This  certainly  showed  no  par- 
ticular partiality  or  favoritism  to  the  East. 

Mr.  CLAY  said  that,  with  respect  to  uniting 
the  two  States  of  Maine  and  Missouri  in  one 
act,  he  had  not  intimated  any  intention,  at 
present,  to  connect  them.  But"  in  reference  to 
the  case  which  he  had  referred  to  as  a  prece- 
dent for  such  a  connection,  the  gentleman  from 
Massachusetts  had  professed  his  ignorance  of  it. 
The  gentleman,  Mr.  C.  said,  might  never  have 
heard  of  it,  and,  as  he  had  so  said,  doubtless 
never  had  heard  of  it ;  but,  if  the  gentleman 
was  not  informed  on  the  subject,  he  (Mr.  C.) 
hoped  he  would  allow  to  him  the  benefit  he 
had  derived  from  having  participated,  in  some 
degree,  in  the  transactions  of  that  day.  I  can 
assure  him,  said  Mr.  C.,  that  the  proposition 
came  from  the  North,  to  delay  the  admission 
of  Kentucky  into  the  Union,  until  Vermont 
was  ready  to  come  in.  But  the  gentleman 
perceived  great  injustice  in  such  a  proceeding 
at  the  present  day ;  on  that  head,  Mr.  C.  said, 
he  would  recommend  to  his  recollection  the 
old  anecdote  of  the  parson  and  the  bull.  He 
professed  that  he  could  not  see  the  great  injus- 
tice of  a  proposition,  if  now  made,  to  connect 
the  admission  of  the  two  States  together.  A 
State  in  the  quarter  of  the  country  from  which 
I  come,  said  Mr.  C.,  asks  to  be  admitted  into 
the  Union.  What  say  the  gentlemen  who  ask 
the  admission  of  this  State  of  Maine  into  the 
Union?  Why,  they  will  not  admit  Missouri 
without  a  condition  which  strips  it  of  an  es- 
sential attribute  of  sovereignty.  What  then 
do  I  say  to  them  ?  That  justice  is  due  to  all 
parts  of  the  Union ;  your  State  shall  be  admit- 
ted free  of  condition;  but,  if  you  refuse  to 


admit  Missouri  also  free  of  condition,  we  see 
no  reason  why  you  shall  take  to  yourselves 
privileges  which  you  deny  to  her, — and,  until 
you  grant  them  also  to  her,  we  will  not  admit 
you.  This  notion  of  an  equivalent,  Mr.  C. 
said,  was  not  a  new  one;  it  was  one  upon 
which  Commonwealths  and  States  had  acted 
from  time  immemorial.  But  he  did  not  mean 
to  press  this  part  of  the  subject — he  would  put 
it  aside,  and  confine  himself  to  the  single  point, 
whether  it  was  proper  to  pass  this  bill,  without 
incorporating  in  it  some  provision  on  the  sub- 
ject of  the  representation  of  Maine  ?  This  was 
the  point  on  which  he  desired  a  decision  before 
the  bill  passed.  Were  he  to  permit  himself 
again  to  glance  at  the  case  of  Missouri,  he 
would  say,  there  was  a  wide  difference,  in  one 
respect,  between  that  case  and  the  case  of 
Maine ;  and  that  the  former  most  urgently  re- 
quired the  attention  of  the  House.  The  one 
was  in  the  actual  enjoyment  of  the  advantages 
of  self-government — was  already  in  the  Con- 
federacy as  a  component  part  of  a  highly  re- 
spectable State — was  heard  and  represented  by 
a  phalanx  of  seven  members  on  this  floor. 
Whilst  Missouri  was  subjected  to  arbitrary 
government— for  he  held  that,  whenever  a 
people  are  subject  to  a  government  under  an 
authority  which  is  as  to  them  foreign,  they 
being  unrepresented,  that  government  is  arbi- 
trary, whatever  be  the  character  of  its  meas- 
ures— no  boon  from  Heaven,  in  his  estimation, 
being  more  inestimable  than  the  privilege  of  a 
people  to  govern  themselves — and  no  political 
state  more  intolerable  than  that  of  having  laws, 
and  those  most  solemn  of  all  laws,  constitu- 
tions, imposed  upon  a  people  without  their 
consent.  Precedents  might  be  found  for  such 
proceedings,  but,  happily  for  the  New  World, 
not  in  this  part  of  the  globe,  but  in  the  other 
hemisphere,  and  recently,  too,  at  the  close  of 
one  of  the  most  memorable  struggles  in  which 
any  portion  of  the  human  race  had  ever  been 
engaged.  Missouri  was  unheard  on  this  floor ; 
she  had  not  twenty  votes  to  spring  up  in  vin- 
dication of  her  rights  and  defence  of  her  inter- 
ests; this  infant,  distant  Territory,  without  a 
vote  on  this  floor,  was  in  no  condition  com- 
parable to  that  in  which  Maine  now  stood. 
But,  he  said,  he  would  not  press  this  subject 
further. 

Mr.  STOEBS,  of  New  York,  said,  besides  the 
difficulty  already  stated,  there  was  another 
point  on  which  he  wished  some  information; 
at  the  same  time  that  he  thought  it  proper  to 
declare  that  he  was  in  favor  of  the  admission 
of  Maine  into  the  Union,  without  reference  to 
Missouri.  The  constitution  declared  that  no 
State  shall  enter  into  any  compact  without  the 
assent  of  Congress.  There  had  been  certain 
articles  of  stipulations  agreed  upon  between 
Massachusetts  and  the  people  of  Maine,  among 
which  was  one,  for  example,  securing  to  Maine 
her  proportion  of  all  moneys  which  should  be 
received  from  the  Government  of  the  United 
States,  under  the  claims  of  the  commonwealth, 


DEBATES  OF  CONGRESS. 


475 


DECEMBER,  1819.] 


State  of  Maine. 


[H.  OF  R. 


for  militia  services,  during  the  late  war,  &c. 
Ought  not  the  consent  of  Congress  be  given  to 
these  stipulations  ? 

Mr.  HOLMES  said  that  the  clause  of  the  con- 
stitution which  had  been  alluded  to,  obviously 
referred  to  compacts  or  treaties  with  foreign 
powers,  and  not  to  agreements  between  States. 
But,  if  otherwise,  the  consent  of  Congress  could 
be  given  after,  as  well  as  before,  the  making  of 
the  compact. 

Mr.  FOOT,  of  Connecticut,  said  he  rejoiced 
that  the  question  on  this  bill  was  now  nar- 
rowed down  to  one  point — a  difficulty  in  re- 
spect to  the  representation.  Would  it  not,  he 
asked,  be  in  the  power  of  the  two  States  to 
settle  this  question  between  themselves,  with- 
out agitating  it  on  this  floor  ?  Can  we,  said  he, 
deprive  Massachusetts  of  any  part  of  her  repre- 
sentation ?  She  has  twenty  representatives  on 
this  floor,  and  will  continue  to  have  them.  Is 
the  objection  to  her  keeping  them,  to  come 
from  Kentucky?  No;  it  is  to  come  from 
Maine.  If  she  has  no  objection,  are  we  to  ob- 
ject? Certainly  not.  "Was  there,  Mr.  F.  asked, 
any  difficulty  in  regard  to  the  right  of  a  repre- 
sentative, after  his  election,  to  remove  out  of 
the  State  which  he  represents,  into  another? 
He  presumed  not ;  for  such  cases  had  occurred, 
and  no  exception  had  been  taken  to  the  right 
in  those  persons  to  retain  their  seats.  If  Maine 
be  willing,  and  Massachusetts  be  satisfied,  said 
Mr.  H.,  ought  not  we  to  be  ?  He  could  see  no 
necessity  for  stumbling  here  for  hours  over  this 
objection.  He  was  happy,  he  remarked,  that 
the  question  was  now  stripped  of  every  exte- 
rior consideration,  and  the  House  had  to  decide 
only  on  the  plain  question,  whether  Maine 
should  be  admitted  or  not. 

Mr.  STORES  said  he  had  merely  thrown  out 
the  suggestion  respecting  the  constitutional 
provision  regarding  compacts,  for  the  gentle- 
man from  Massachusetts  to  consider  it.  Mr.  S. 
added,  he  was  the  more  induced  to  do  it,  from 
the  earnest  desire  that  Maine  should  not  lose 
the  benefit  of  her  share  of  the  moneys  to  be 
received  from  the  United  States  under  the 
Massachusetts  claims ! 


FRIDAY,  December  81. 
State  of  Maine. 

The  House  then  proceeded  to  the  order  of  the 
day,  and  again  resolved  itself  into  a  Committee 
of  the  Whole,  (Mr.  MASK  LANGDON  HILL  in  the 
chair,)  on  the  bill  providing  for  the  admission  of 
the  District  of  Maine  into  the  Union,  as  an  in- 
dependent State. 

And,  no  further  debate  arising — 

The  committee  rose  and  reported  the  bill  and 
amendments  to  the  House. 

After  much  debate  on  the  question  arising 
out  of  the  representation  of  Massachusetts  and 
of  Maine  in  Congress,  and  the  best  mode  of  ar- 
ranging ir,  if  Congress  interposes  at  all  respect- 
ing it,  the  amendment  made  in  Committee  of 


the  Whole,  to  strike  out  of  the  bill  so  much  as 
relates  to  this  subject,  was  agreed  to. 

Various  other  amendments  were  proposed  to 
the  bill;  among  which  were  the  following: 

Mr.  STORES  moved  to  amend  the  bill  by  add- 
ing a  new  section,  in  the  following  words : 

"And  be  it  further  enacted,  That,  until  a  new  enu- 
meration shall  be  made  of  the  inhabitants  of  said 
Commonwealth  of  Massachusetts  and  said  State  of 
Maine,  and  a  new  apportionment  of  Representatives 
in  the  Congress  of  the  United  States,  to  be  elected  in 
said  Massachusetts  and  Maine,  the  said  Common- 
wealth of  Massachusetts  shall  be  entitled  to  and  may 
be  represented  in  Congress  by  thirteen  Representa- 
tives; and  the  said  State  of  Maine  shall  be  entitled 
to,  and  may  be  represented  in  Congress  by  seven 
Representatives." 

Mr.  WHITMAN  moved  to  amend  the  proposed 
amendment  by  adding,  after  the  enacting  clause, 
these  words :  "  from  and  after  the  15th  of  March 
next,  and." 

This  motion  was  negatived,  as  also  was  the 
main  motion  of  Mr.  STOEES. 

Mr.  WHITMAN  then  moved  to  strike  out  the 
preamble  of  the  said  bill,  which  is  in  the  fol- 
lowing words,  viz : 

"  Whereas,  by  an  act  of  the  State  of  Massachusetts, 
passed  on  the  19th  day  of  June,  1819,  entitled  '  An 
act  relating  to  the  separation  of  the  District  of  Maine 
from  Massachusetts  proper,  and  forming  the  same 
into  a  separate  and  independent  State ;'  the  people 
of  that  part  of  Massachusetts  heretofore  known  as 
the  District  of  Maine,  did,  with  the  consent  of  the 
Legislature  of  said  State  of  Massachusetts,  form 
themselves  into  a  separate  and  independent  State,  and 
did  establish  a  constitution  for  the  government  of  the 
same,  agreeably  to  the  provisions  of  the  said  act ; 
therefore." 

And,  in  lieu  of  the  said  preamble,  to  insert 
one  in  the  words  following,  to  wit : 

"  Whereas  the  Legislature  of  the  Commonwealth 
of  Massachusetts,  by  an  act,  entitled  'An  act  relating 
to  the  separation  of  the  District  of  Maine  from  Mas- 
sachusetts proper,  and  forming  the  same  into  a  sepa- 
rate and  independent  State,'  passed  on  the  19th  day 
of  June  last,  declared  the  consent  of  said  Common- 
wealth, that  the  District  of  Maine  (being  that  part 
of  said  Commonwealth  lying  east  of  the  State  of  New 
Hampshire)  might  be  formed  and  erected  into  a  sepa- 
rate and  independent  State,  upon  certain  terms  and 
conditions  in  the  said  act  particularly  specified: 
And,  provided,  the  Congress  of  the  United  States 
should  give  its  consent  thereto,  before  the  fourth  day 
of  March  next : 

"  And  whereas  it  appears  that  the  terms  and  con- 
ditions proposed  by  said  Legislature,  on  the  part  of 
said  Commonwealth,  to  the  people  of  said  District  of 
Maine,  have  been  by  them  agreed  to  and  accepted, 
and  on  their  part  complied  with : 

"And  whereas  a  convention  of  delegates,  duly 
chosen  by  the  people  of  said  District,  have  formed  a 
constitution  and  frame  of  government,  which  is  re- 
publican, and  conformable  to  the  principles  and  pro- 
visions of  the  act  aforesaid;  and  have  petitioned 
Congress  that  its  consent  may  be  given  that  the  said 
District,  by  the  style  and  title  of  the  State  of  Maine, 
may  be  admitted  into  the  Union  as  a  separate  and 


476 


ABRIDGMENT  OF  THE 


H.  OF  R.] 


Admission  of  Missouri. 


[JANUABY,  1820. 


independent  State,  and  on  the  footing  of  an  original 
State;  therefore." 

And  on  the  question,  "  Shall  the  preamble  be 
changed  as  aforesaid?"  it  was  determined  in 
the  negative. 

Mr.  SMITH,  of  North  Carolina,  then  moved  to 
strike  out  the  preamble  prefixed  to  the  said 
bill,  which  was  rejected ;  and  the  bill  was  then 
ordered  to  be  engrossed,  and  read  a  third  time 
on  Monday  next. 

MONDAY,  January  17,  1820. 
Civilization  of  the  Indiana. 

The  SPEAKER  laid  before  the  House  a  letter 
from  the  Secretary  of  War,  transmitting  a  re- 
port of  the  progress  which  has  been  made  in 
the  civilization  of  the  Indian  tribes,  and  the 
sums  which  have  been  expended  on  that  ob- 
ject, prepared  in  obedience  to  the  resolution  of 
the  6th  instant ;  which  letter  and  report  were 
ordered  to  lie  on  the  table.  The  letter  is  as 
follows : 

DEPARTMENT  OF  WAR,  January  15. 

SIR  :  In  compliance  with  the  resolution  of  the 
House  of  Representatives  of  the  6th  instant,  "that 
the  Secretary  of  War  be  directed  to  report  whether 
any,  and  if  any,  what  progress  has  heen  made  in 
the  civilization  of  the  Indian  tribes,  and  the  sums  of 
money,  if  any,  have  been  expended  on  that  object, 
under  the  act  of  the  last  session,"  I  have  the  honor 
to  make  the  following  statement : 

No  part  of  the  appropriation  of  ten  thousand  dol- 
lars annually,  made  at  the  last  session,  for  the  civili- 
zation of  the  Indians,  has  yet  been  applied.  The 
President  was  of  opinion,  that  the  object  of  the  act 
would  be  more  certainly  effected,  by  applying  the 
sum  appropriated  in  aid  of  the  efforts  of  societies,  or 
individuals,  who  might  feel  disposed  to  bestow  their 
time  and  resources  to  effect  the  object  contemplated 
by  it ;  and  a  circular  (of  which  the  enclosed  is  a 
copy)  was  addressed  to  those  individuals  and  socie- 
ties who  have  directed  their  attention  to  the  civiliza- 
tion of  the  Indians.  The  objects  of  the  circular  were 
to  obtain  information,  and  disclose  the  views  of  the 
President,  in  order  to  concentrate  and  unite  the  ef- 
forts of  individuals  and  societies,  in  the  mode  contem- 
plated by  the  act  of  the  last  session.  The  informa- 
tion collected  will  enable  the  President  to  apply,  early 
in  this  year,  the  sum  appropriated.  The  economy 
and  intelligence  with  which  it  will  be  applied,  under 
the  superintendence  of  zealous  and  disinterested  in- 
dividuals, will,  it  is  hoped,  carry  into  effect,  as  far  as 
practicable,  the  views  of  Congress. 

While  many  of  the  Indian  tribes  have  acquired  only 
the  vices  with  which  a  savage  people  usually  become 
tainted,  by  their  intercourse  with  those  who  are  civil- 
ized, others  appear  to  be  making  gradual  advances  in 
industry  and  civilization.  Among  the  latter  descrip- 
tion may  be  placed  the  Cherokees,  Choctaws, 
Chickasaws,  and  perhaps  the  Creeks,  most  of  the 
remnants  of  the  Six  Nations,  hi  the  State  of  New 
York,  the  Wyandots,  Senecas,  and  Shawanese,  at 
Upper  Sandusky,  and  Wapakonetta.  The  Cherokees 
exhibit  a  more  favorable  appearance  than  any  other 
tribe  of  Indians.  There  are  already  established  two 
flourishing  schools  among  them.  One  at  Brainard 
tinder  the  superintendence  of  the  American  Board  for 


Foreign  Missions,  at  which  there  are  at  present  about 
one  hundred  youths  of  both  sexes.  The  institution 
is  on  the  Lancasterian  plan,  and  is  in  a  very  nourish- 
ing condition.  Besides  reading,  writing,  and  arith- 
metic, the  boys  are  taught  agriculture,  and  the  or- 
dinary mechanic  arts,  and  the  girls,  sewing,  knitting, 
and  weaving.  At  Spring  Place,  in  the  same  nation, 
there  is  a  school  on  a  more  limited  scalp,  under  the 
superintendence  of  the  United  Brethren,  or  Mora- 
vians. Two  other  schools  are  projected  in  the  same 
nation,  one  by  the  American,  and  the  other  by  the 
Baptist  Board,  for  Foreign  Missions ;  and  arrange- 
ments are  making  to  establish  two  other  schools 
among  that  portion  of  the  Cherokee  nation  which  re- 
side on  the  Arkansas.  The  Choctaws  and  Chick- 
asaws  have  recently  evinced  a  strong  desire  to  have 
schools  established  among  them,  and  measures  have 
been  taken  by  the  American  Board  for  Foreign  Mis- 
sions for  that  purpose.  A  part  of  the  former  nation 
have  appropriated  two  thousand  dollars  annually, 
out  of  their  annuity,  for  seventeen  years,  as  a  school 
fund.  A  part  of  the  Six  Nations,  in  New  York, 
have,  of  late,  made  considerable  improvements ;  and 
the  Wyandots,  Senecas,  and  Shawanese,  at  Upper 
Sandusky,  and  Wapakonetta,  have,  under  the  super- 
intendence of  the  Society  of  Friends,  made  consider- 
able advance  in  civilization. 

•Although  partial  advances  may  be  made,  under 
the  present  system,  to  civilize  the  Indians,  I  am  of 
opinion,  that,  until  there  is  a  radical  change  in  the 
system,  any  efforts,  which  may  be  made,  must  fall 
short  of  complete  success.  They  must  be  brought 
gradually  under  our  authority  and  laws,  or  they  will 
insensibly  waste  away  in  vice  and  misery.  It  is  im- 
possible, with  their  customs,  that  they  should  exist 
as  independent  communities,  in  the  midst  of  civilized 
society.  They  are  not,  in  fact,  an  independent  peo- 
ple, (I  speak  of  those  surrounded  by  our  population,) 
nor  ought  they  to  be  so  considered.  They  should  be 
taken  under  our  guardianship ;  and  our  opinion,  and 
not  theirs,  ought  to  prevail,  in  measures  intended  for 
their  civilization  and  happiness.  A  system  less  vig- 
orous may  protract,  but  cannot  arrest  their  fate. 
I  have  the  honor  to  be,  &c., 

J.  C.  CALHOUN. 

HON.  H.  CLAY, 

Speaker  House  of  Reps. 


MONDAY,  January  24. 
Admission  of  Missouri. 

The  bill  to  authorize  the  people  of  Missouri 
Territory  to  form  a  constitution  and  State  gov- 
ernment, and  providing  for  the  admission  of 
such  State  into  the  Union,  being  the  first  order 
of  the  day,  was  announced  by  the  SPEAKER. 

Mr.  TAYLOR  moved  that  the  consideration  of 
the  bill  be  postponed  to  this  day  week,  with 
the  view  of  waiting  the  decision  of  the  Senate 
on  the  bill  now  before  them  on  this  subject. 

This  motion  brought  on  an  animated  debate 
of  considerable  length,  in  which  the  propriety 
of  waiting  the  movements  of  the  other  House, 
or  of  proceeding  now  to  consider  this  bill,  in 
which  there  were  various  details  to  be  consid- 
ered and  decided,  besides  the  principle  now  un- 
der debate  in  the  Senate,  &c.,  were  discussed. 

The  motion  to  postpone  the  bill  was  supported 


DEBATES  OF  CONGRESS. 


477 


JANUARY,  1820.] 


Missouri  State  BUI— Compromise  Proposed. 


[H.  OF  R. 


by  the  mover,  and  Messrs.  LIVERMORE,  CLAGETT, 
and  CUSUMAN  ;  and  the  postponement  was  op- 
posed by  Messrs.  SCOTT,  LOWNDES,  BRUSH,  COOK, 
FLOYD,  and  CAMPBELL. 

The  question  was  at  length  decided  in  the 
negative,  by  yeas  and  nays :  For  postponement 
87,  against  "it  88,  as  follows: 

YEAS. — Messrs.  Adams,  Allen  of  Massachusetts, 
Allen  of  New  York,  Baker,  Bateman,  Boden,  Butler 
of  New  Hampshire,  Case,  Clagett,  Clark,  Crafts, 
Cushman,  Darlington,  Dennison,  Dewitt,  Dowse, 
Eddy,  Edwards  of  Connecticut,  Fay,  Folger,  Ford, 
Forrest.  Fuller,  Gross  of  New  York,  Gross  of  Penn- 
sylvania, Guyon,  Hackley,  Hall  of  New  York,  Hall  of 
Delaware,  Hazard,  Hemphill,  Hendricks,  Herrick, 
Hibshman,  Heister,  Hostetter,  Kendall,  Kinsley,  La- 
throp,  Lincoln,  Linn,  Livennore,  Lyman,  Maclay, 
Mallary,  Marchand,  Mercer,  R.  Moore,  S.  Moore, 
Monell,  Morton,  Mosely,  Murray,  Nelson  of  Massa- 
chusetts, Patterson,  Peek,  Phelps,  Philson,  Pitcher, 
Plumer,  Rich,  Richards,  Richmond,  Rogers,  Ross, 
Russ,  Sampson,  Silsbee,  Sloan,  Smith  of  New  Jersey, 
Southard,  Storrs,  Street,  Strong  of  Vermont,  Strong 
of  New  York,  Tarr,  Taylor,  Tomlinson,  Tompkins, 
Tracy,  Upham,  Van  Rensselaer,  Wallace,  Wendover, 
Whitman,  and  Wood. 

NAYS.— Messrs.  Abhott,  Alexander,  Allen  of  Ten- 
nessee, Anderson,  Archer  of  Maryland,  Archer  of 
Virginia,  Baldwin,  Ball,  Barbour,  Bayley,  Bcecher, 
Bloomfield,  Brevard,  Brown,  Brush,  Bryan,  Bnffum, 
Burwell,  Butler  of  Louisiana,  Campbell,  Cannon, 
Cobb,  Cocke,  Cook,  Crawford,  Crowell,  Culbreth, 
Culpeper,  Cuthbert,  Davidson,  Earle,  Edwards  of 
North  Carolina,  Floyd,  Foot,  Fullerton,  Garnett,  Hall 
of  North  Carolina,  Hardin,  Hill,  Holmes,  Hooks, 
Johnson,  Jones  of  Virginia,  Jones  of  Tennessee, 
Kent,  Little,  Lowndes,  McCoy,  McCreary,  McLane 
of  Delaware,  McLean  of  Kentucky,  Mason,  Meigs, 
Metcalfe,  Neale,  Nelson  of  Virginia,  Newton,  Over- 
street,  Parker  of  Virginia,  Pinckney,  Pindall,  Quarles, 
Randolph,  Rankin,  ReeJ.,  Rhea,  Ringgold,  Robertson, 
Settle,  Shaw,  Simkins,  Slocnmb,  Smith  of  Maryland, 
B.  Smith  of  Virginia,  A.  Smyth  of  Virginia,  Smith 
of  North  Carolina,  Stevens,  Strother,  Swearingen, 
Terrell,  Trimble,  Tucker  of  Virginia,  Tucker  of 
South  Carolina,  Tyler,  Walker  of  North  Carolina, 
Warfield,  Williams  of  Virginia,  and  Williams  of 
North  Carolina. 

It  was  then  moved  by  Mr.  HOLMES  that  the 
House  go  into  Committee  of  the  Whole  on  the 
said  bill ;  but,  before  the  question  was  put  on 
this  motion,  the  House,  about  4  o'clock,  ad- 
journed. 


TUESDAY,  January  25. 
Admission  of  Missouri. 

The  House,  then,  on  the  motion  of  Mr.  SCOTT, 
resolved  itself  into  a  Committee  of  the  Whole, 
on  the  bill  authorizing  the  people  of  the  Mis- 
souri Territory  to  form  a  constitution  and  State 
government,  &c. 

Several  important  propositions  were  succes- 
sively made  in  the  course  of  the  sitting  to  amend 
the  bill,  and  a  great  deal  of  discussion  took 
place.  The  committee  rose  without  deciding  on 
any  question,  and  obtained  leave  to  sit  again. 


WEDNESDAY,  January  26. 
Missouri  State  Bill — Compromise  Proposed. 

The  House  then  again  went  into  Committee 
of  the  Whole  on  the  bill  for  the  admission  of 
Missouri. 

The  proposition  under  consideration  was  an 
amendment  offered  yesterday,  to  the  second 
section  of  the  bill,  by  Mr.  STORES,  substantially 
to  alter  the  limits  of  the  proposed  State,  so  as 
to  make  the  Missouri  Kiver  the  northern  boun- 
dary thereof,  with  the  view  of  drawing  a  line 
on  which  those  in  favor  of,  and  those  opposed 
to  the  slave  restriction,  might  compromise  their 
views. 

Mr.  STORRS  rose  and  withdrew  the  amend- 
ment which  he  had  offered  yesterday,  and  in 
b'eu  thereof  submitted  the  following : 

A  nd  provided  further,  and  it  is  hereby  enacted,  That, 
forever  hereafter,  neither  slavery  nor  involuntary 
servitude,  (except  in  the  punishment  of  crimes, 
whereof  the  party  shall  have  been  duly  convicted,) 
shall  exist  in  the  Territory  of  the  United  States,  lying 
north  of  the  38th  degree  of  north  latitude,  and  west 
of  the  river  Mississippi,  and  the  boundaries  of  the 
State  of  Missouri,  as  established  by  this  act:  Provided, 
That  any  person  escaping  into  the  said  Territory, 
from  whom  labor  or  service  is  lawfully  claimed  in 
any  of  the  States,  such  fugitive  may  be  lawfully  re- 
claimed, and  conveyed,  according  to  the  laws  of  the 
United  States  in  such  case  provided,  to  the  person 
claiming  his  or  her  labor  or  service  as  aforesaid. 

On  this  motion,  a  debate  ensued,  of  a  desul- 
tory character.  Messrs.  RANDOLPH,  LOWNDES, 
MERCER,  BRUSH,  SMITH  of  Maryland,  STORRS, 
and  CLAY,  successively  followed  each  other  in 
debate. 

Mr.  S.  SMITH,  of  Maryland,  said,  that  he  rose 
principally  with  a  view  to  state  his  understand- 
ing of  the  proposed  amendment,  viz:  That  it 
retained  the  boundaries  of  Missouri,  as  delinea- 
ted in  the  bill ;  that  it  prohibited  the  admission 
of  slaves  west  of  the  west  line  of  the  Missouri, 
and  north  of  the  north  line ;  that  it  did  not  in- 
terfere with  the  Territory  of  Arkansas,  or  the 
uninhabited  land  west  thereof.  He  thought  the 
proposition  not  exceptionable,  but  doubted  the 
propriety  of  its  forming  a  part  of  the  bill.  He 
considered  the  power  of  Congress  over  the  Ter- 
ritory as  supreme,  unlimited,  before  its  admis- 
sion; that  Congress  could  impose  on  its  territo- 
ries any  restriction  it  thought  proper ;  and  the 
people,  when  they  settled  therein,  did  so  under 
a  full  knowledge  of  the  restriction.  If,  said  he, 
citizens  go  into  the  Territory  thus  restricted, 
they  cannot  carry  with  them  slaves.  They 
will  be  without  slaves,  and  will  be  educated 
with  prejudices  and  habits  such  as  will  exclude 
all  desire  on  their  part  to  admit  slavery  when 
they  shall  become  sufficiently  numerous  to  be 
admitted  as  a  State.  And  this  is  the  advan- 
tage proposed  by  the  amendment ;  for,  when 
admitted  as  a  State,  they  can,  under  the  con- 
stitution, be  subjected  to  no  other  restriction 
than  is  imposed  by  that  instrument  on  all  the 
other  States  of  the  Union. 

Mr.  MEIGS,  of  New  York,  spoke  as  follows: 


478 


ABRIDGMENT  OF  THE 


H.  OF  R.] 


Missouri  State  Bill — Compromise  Proposed. 


[JANUAKY,    1820. 


Mr.  Chairman,  I  assure  the  committee  that  I 
shall  not  detain  them  long  by  iny  observations 
upon  this  question ;  nor  should  I  now  under- 
take to  consume  the  fifteen  or  twenty  minutes 
which  I  shall  allot  to  myself,  if  it  was  not  for 
the  somewhat  peculiar  situation  in  which  I  am 
placed. 

It  is  well  known  that  the  Legislature  of  the 
respectable  State  which  I  have  the  honor  in 
part  to  represent,  has  requested  the  Represent- 
atives of  that  State,  upon  this  floor,  to  vote  for 
the  restriction  upon  Missouri,  now  under  con- 
sideration. 

I  have  examined,  attentively,  the  mass  of  ar- 
gument which  has  been  so  laboriously  accu- 
mulated on  this  question ;  and  never,  perhaps, 
was  there  on  any  occasion  so  much  exhausted 
as  on  this.  But,  sir,  I  freely  own  that  I  cannot, 
in  conscience  or  judgment,  consent  to  impose 
this  restriction  upon  Missouri. 

There  is  a  wonderful  singularity  in  the  pres- 
ent controversy,  which  destroys  all  confidence 
in  the  weight  and  value  of  that  process  of  mind 
which  we  so  proudly  dignify  with  the  title  of 
reasoning.  Sir,  I  never  yet  knew  that  reason 
and  logic  were  to  be  found  on  this  side  or  that 
of  a  parallel  of  latitude  or  longitude.  What  is 
the  fact  in  this  case  ?  Why,  sir,  the  parallel  of 
latitude  of  39  degrees  almost  precisely  marks 
the  division  between  the  reason  and  argument 
of  the  North  and  South.  That  line  of  demar- 
cation separates  the  slaveholding  from  the  non- 
slaveholding  States.  On  the  south  side  of  that 
line  we  find  the  climate  and  soil  adapted  to 
slaves,  and  there  are  the  slaves ;  on  the  north 
side  of  that  line  we  discover  that  the  soil  and 
climate  require  no  slaves,  and,  therefore,  few 
or  no  slaves  are  found.  What,  sir !  is  it  possi- 
ble, then,  that  one-half  of  us  can  be  rationally 
and  argumentatively  on  one  side  of  the  parallel 
of  latitude,  and  the  other  half  of  us  upon  the 
other  ?  I  did  believe  that  the  truths  of  philos- 
ophy, that  reason,  that  the  Principia  of  New- 
ton, were  the  same  in  every  latitude,  in  every 
climate,  and  on  every  soil  of  this  globe.  Sir, 
there  must  be  some  mistake  among  us  upon  this 
occasion,  and  from  the  reflections  which  I  have 
made,  I  think  I  can  point  it  out. 

It  is  now  at  least  twenty  years,  that  I  have, 
with  some  pain  and  apprehension,  remarked 
the  increasing  spirit  of  local  and  sectional  envy 
and  dislike  between  the  North  and  South.  A 
continued  series  of  sarcasms  upon  each  other's 
circumstances,  modes  of  living,  and  manners, 
so  foolishly  persevered  in,  has  produced  at 
length  that  keen  controversy  which  now  enlists 
us  in  masses  against  each  other  on  the  opposite 
sides  of  the  line  of  latitude.  Gentlemen  may 
dignify  it  by  whatever  titles  they  please.  They 
may  flatter  themselves  that  all  is  logic,  reason, 
pure  reason.  But  certain  I  am,  that  it  is  neither 
more  nor  less  than  sectional  feeling.  Feeling,  sir, 
however  gravely  dignified,  has  brought  us  in 
hostility  to  this  singular  line  of  combat,  and  we, 
who  are,  you  know  sir,  "but  children  of  a 
larger  growth,"  are  now  most  aptly  comparable 


to  those  celebrated  and  eternal  factions  of  Up 
Town  and  Down  Town  Boys.  I  put  this  obser- 
vation to  every  one  who  hears  me,  witli  the 
wish  that  he  may  apply  his  own  recollections 
and  reflections  to  it.  Gentlemen  may  exhaust 
ah1  their  arguments,  all  their  eloquence  upon 
the  question  before  us;  they  may  pour  out 
every  flower  of  rhetoric  upon  it ;  but,  sir,  I 
view  their  labors  as  wholly  vain,  and  I  fear  that 
their  flowers  will  be  found  to  be  the  most  dele- 
terious and  most  poisonous  in  the  whole  range 
of  botany.  They  poison  national  affection. 

Eeason  divided  by  parallels  of  latitude !  Why, 
sir,  it  is  easy  for  prejudice  and  malevolence,  by 
aid  of  ingenuity,  to  erect  an  eternal  impenetrable 
wall  of  brass  between  the  North  and  South,  at 
the  latitude  of  thirty-nine  degrees !  But,  in 
the  view  of  reason,  there  is  no  other  line  be- 
tween them  than  that  celestial  arc  of  thirty- 
nine  degrees  which  offers  no  barrier  to  the 
march  of  liberal  and  rational  men.  Is  it  for- 
gotten that  the  enlightened  high  priest,  the 
archbishop  of  one  belligerent,  goes  to  the  tem- 
ple of  the  Almighty  and  chants  "  Te  Deum 
laudamus,"  for  the  victory  obtained  -by  his 
country,  with  carnage  and  devastation,  over 
the  enemy;  while  the  archbishop  of  another 
belligerent  is  at  the  same  time  entering  the 
house  of  God,  and  singing  also  "Te  Deura 
laudamus  pro  victoria,"  upon  the  other  side  of 
the  line,  the  creek,  or  the  river  ?  We,  who 
know  these  things,  should  profit  by  our  knowl- 
edge, learn  liberality,  and  practise  it.  It  is 
true,  and  I  glory  in  the  knowledge  of  the  truth, 
that,  in  matters  of  religion,  this  country  has,  in 
its  constitutions,  attained  a  high  point  of  reason 
and  liberality. 

Men,  after  forty  or  sixty  years  of  religious  in- 
tolerance, here,  at  last,  may  worship  the  Cre- 
ator in  their  own  way.  What  a  privilege! 
how  dearly  acquired !  how  much  to  be  prized  1 
It  fills  us  with  astonishment  when  we  reflect 
how  hard  it  is  for  us  to  refrain  from  forcing  by 
power  our  opinions  upon  our  brother  men! 
how  readily  each  individual  imagines  that  the 
light  is  alone  in  his  own  breast,  and  how  en- 
thusiastically he  engages  in  propagating  it 
among  mankind  by  all  possible  means,  fancy- 
ing, dreaming  that  he  is  a  prophet,  a  vicegerent 
of  Almighty  God. 

Sir,  we  have  been  now  for  a  long  time  occu- 
pied in  this  debate,  mis-spending  our  time  and 
the  public  money.  I  feel  well  assured  that  the 
body  of  the  people  will  judge  our  conduct 
rightly.  They  are  able  critics.  Yes,  sir,  even 
in  matters  of  sublime  art,  even  in  those  works 
which  none  can  execute,  all  are  critics  I  .  They 
determine,  at  a  glance  of  the  eye,  what  is  good 
and  beautiful  in  architecture,  in  statuary,  in 
painting,  and  what  is  to  them  still  more  easy, 
what  is  good  in  governments  and  constitutions. 
They  will  soon  ask  us,  what  is  the  controversy 
about  ?  Did  you,  from  motives  of  policy  and 
regard  for  the  welfare  of  the  whites,  propose  to 
remove  the  growing  black  race  from  this  coun- 
try ?  No.  Did  you,  actuated  by  humane  con- 


DEBATES  OF  CONGRESS. 


479 


JAXTJARY,  1820.J 


Missouri  State  Bill— Restriction  on  the  State. 


[H.  OP  R. 


siderations  for  the  unfortunate  slaves,  propose 
to  redeem  them  from  their  bondage,  and  restore 
them  to  liberty  and  the  land  of  their  fathers  ? 
No.  What  then  ?  Did  you  propose  to  draw 
such  lines  of  restriction  around  the  slave  popu- 
lation as  would  ere  long  starve  them  out,  and 
so  prevent  their  becoming  dangerous  to  the 
whites  ?  If  you  did,  remember  that  such  is  the 
increasing  kindne?s  of  the  slaveholders,  so 
ameliorated  the  condition  of  the  slave,  that  not 
one  slave,  not  one  child  less  will  be  born,  and 
not  one  can  die  by  starvation.  Sir,  the  truth 
is,  that  nothing  has  yet  been  proposed  beneficial 
either  to  the  white  or  black  race  in  all  this  long- 
drawn  debate.  Give  me  leave  to  say,  sir,  that 
this  consideration  induced  me  to  introduce  the 
resolution  which  now  lies  upon  the  table,  de- 
voting the  public  lands  to  the  emancipation 
and  colonization  of  the  unfortunate  slaves.  If 
we  want  some  object  upon  which  to  exhaust 
our  enthusiasm,  here  is  one  worth  it  all.  Not 
the  subjugation  of  a  people,  but  the  redemption 
of  a  nation. 

The  question  being  taken  on  the  motion  of 
Mr.  STOEBS,  was  decided  in  the  negative. 

The  reading  of  the  bill  proceeded  as  far  as 
the  fourth  section  ;  when 

Mr.  TAYLOR,  of  New  York,  proposed  to  amend 
the  bill  by  incorporating  in  that  section  the  fol- 
lowing provision  : 

Section  4,  line  25,  insert  the  following  after  the 
word  "  States  :  "  "  And  shall  ordain  and  establish, 
that  there  shall  be  neither  slavery  nor  involuntary 
servitude  in  the  said  State,  otherwise  than  in  the  pun- 
ishment of  crimes,  whereof  the  party  shall  have 
been  duly  convicted:  Provided,  always,  That  any 
person  escaping  into  the  same,  from  whom  labor  or 
service  is  lawfully  claimed  in  any  other  State,  such 
fugitive  may  be  lawfully  reclaimed,  and  conveyed  to 
the  person  claiming  his  or  her  labor  or  service  as 
aforesaid  :  And  provided,  also,  That  the  said  provision 
shall  not  be  construed  to  alter  the  condition  or  civil 
rights  of  any  person  now  held  to  service  or  labor  in 
the  said  Territory." 

The  main  question  of  the  restriction  on  sla- 
very in  the  future  State  of  Missouri,  being  thus 
fully  before  the  House,  and  the  usual  hour  of 
adjournment  having  arrived,  the  committee 
rose,  reported  progress,  and  obtained  leave  to 
sit  again. 


THTTBSDAY,  January  27. 
Missouri  State  Bill  —  Restriction  on  ike  State. 

The  order  of  the  day  on  the  Missouri  bill 
being  announced  — 

Mr.  TAYLOE'S  motion  to  amend  the  bill  by 
imposing  a  restriction  on  slavery,  being  under 
consideration  — 

Mr.  TAYLOB,  of  New  York,  rose,  and  spoke  as 
follows  : 

Mr.  Chairman  :  The  bill  on  your  table  pro- 
poses no  act  of  ordinary  legislation.  No  attri- 
bute of  sovereignty  is  more  important,  than 
that  which  is  exercised  in  the  admission  of  new 
parties  to  the  Federal  Compact.  It  was  re- 


served for  America  to  exhibit,  on  an  extensive 
scale,  an  example  of  independent  States  uniting 
for  the  general  welfare,  surrendering  a  part  of 
their  sovereignty  to  a  new  created  Government, 
and  authorizing  it  to  constitute  other  States 
similar  to  themselves. 

By  the  Articles  of  Confederation,  the  appro- 
bation of  nine  States  out  of  thirteen  was  neces- 
sary to  the  admission  of  a  new  member.  In 
the  Convention  that  formed  the  Federal  Con- 
stitution, the  subject  of  admitting  new  States 
being  under  consideration,  it  was  proposed  that 
to  such  admission  the  consent  of  two-thirds  of 
the  members  present  in  each  House  of  Congress 
should  be  necessary,  and  it  passed  in  the  affirm- 
ative by  the  votes  of  all  the  States  present,  ex- 
cept Virginia  and  Maryland.  No  other  ques- 
tion was  taken  on  this  single  proposition,  and 
why  it  was  not  finally  incorporated  into  the 
constitution  does  not  appear.  Congress  and 
three-fourths  of  the  States  may  change  the  con- 
stitution— may  establish  principles  and  create 
powers  injurious  to  the  rights  of  the  other 
States.  The  period  may  arrive  when  the  desire 
to  obtain  this  constitutional  majority  in  support 
of  some  project  of  ambition,  or  avarice,  may 
lead  to  the  admission  of  States  favorable  to  its 
accomplishment. 

This  bill  acquires  additional  importance  from 
the  consideration  that  the  territory  in  question 
is  no  part  of  our  ancient  domain.  The  power 
of  admitting  new  States  into  the  Union,  when 
adopted  by  the  members  of  the  good  old  Con- 
federation, had  to  this  territory  no  more  appli- 
cation than  to  Chili  or  Peru.  It  was  a  foreign 
province — alien  to  our  laws,  customs,  and  insti- 
tutions. It  sustained  none  of  the  conflicts  of 
our  Revolution ;  it  was  purchased  not  by  the 
blood  of  our  fathers,  but  with  the  wealth  of 
their  sons.  If  we  believe  that,  by  a  liberal 
construction  of  the  constitution,  the  power  of 
admitting  this  Territory  as  a  State  is  possessed 
by  Congress,  we  remember  also  that  politician* 
of  no  humble  name  have  denied  its  existence ; 
that  an  amendment  to  the  constitution,  for  the 
purpose  of  obtaining  from  the  States  a  grant  of 
the  power  now  about  to  be  exercised,  was  pro- 
posed in  the  United  States  Senate,  by  a  states- 
man eminently  entitled  to  the  confidence  of  this 
nation ;  that  serious  doubts  on  this  subject  ex- 
isted in  the  minds  of  those  who  then  occupied 
in  the  Government  its  most  distinguished  sta- 
tions— doubts,  which  were  finally  removed,  as 
other  doubts  afterwards  were,  by  considerations 
of  imperious  necessity. 

The  magnitude  of  this  question  is  apparent, 
by  casting  your  eye  on  a  map  of  the  Territory 
from  which  it  is  proposed  to  carve  this  State  ? 
Who  knows  its  extent?  Who  has  explored  its 
boundaries  ?  The  waters  of  its  rivers  traverse 
a  country  of  at  least  two  thousand  miles,  before 
they  reach  the  Mississippi.  It  probably  con- 
tains more  square  miles  than  all  the  States  of 
the  Old  Confederacy.  The  rule  you  now  apply 
to  Missouri,  hereafter  will  be  held  applicable  to 
the  residue  of  the  Territory.  The  fertility  of 


480 


ABRIDGMENT  OF  THE 


H.  OF  R.] 


Missouri  State  Bill — Restriction  on  the  State. 


[JANUARY,  1820. 


its  soil,  the  temperature  and  salubrity  of  its  cli- 
mate, its  majestic  rivers,  its  vegetable  produc- 
tions, its  mineral  wealth  ;  "all  contribute  to  con- 
firm our  anticipations  of  its  greatness.  Under 
the  guidance  of  a  wise  policy,  it  will  doubtless 
exhibit,  in  future  time,  the  fairest  specimens  of 
American  character,  and  the  most  perfect  models 
of  free  government.  Cold,  indeed,  must  be  his 
heart  who  can  contemplate  without  emotion 
the  high  destinies  prepared  for  our  posterity  in 
this  land  of  promise — secured  to  them  without 
possibility  of  failure,  if  Congress  shall  be  true 
to  their  interests  and  to  our  national  principles. 
Probably  this  very  question,  certainly  the  deter- 
mination of  a  few  Congresses,  will  irrevocably 
decide,  whether  this  Territory  is  indeed,,  as  it 
has  been  pronounced  on  a  former  occasion,  by 
a  gentleman  from  Virginia,  (Mr.  RANDOLPH,) 
the  most  expensive  acquisition  made  by  the 
United  States,  or  whether  its  purchase  was  the 
wisest  expenditure  of  treasure  ever  made  by 
any  nation. 

The  importance  of  this  bill  is  further  en- 
hanced by  the  unparalleled  excitement  it  has 
produced  in  every  section  of  the  Union ;  an  ex- 
citement occasioned  not  by  the  intrigues  of  po- 
litical leaders,  but  arising  from  the  intrinsic 
merits  of  the  subject,  and  manifested  by  the 
spontaneous  expression  of  public  feeling. 

The  admission  of  Missouri,  without  a  restric- 
tion against  slavery,  is  opposed  by  a  majority 
of  the  States  in  the  Union.  These  States,  it  is 
true,  have  parted  with  the  power  of  legislating 
on  the  subject ;  but,  ought  not  their  judgment 
and  wishes  to  be  respected  ?  In  business  part- 
nerships, what  would  wisdom  dictate  in  such  a 
case  ?  Although  its  managers  or  agents  might 
have  power  to  admit  new  members,  would  they 
be  wise  to  exercise  it  in  a  manner  hostile  to  the 
known  opinions  of  a  majority  of  those,  both  in 
number  and  amount,  interested  in  the  concern  ? 
What  consequences  would  be  likely  to  follow 
such  proceedings,  even  if  the  managers  should 
be  able,  by  the  means  of  votes  thus  acquired,  to 
retain  their  places,  and  control  the  interests 
of  the  original  partners  ?  Could  the  concern 
flourish?  Would  not  contention  and  distrust 
unavoidably  ensue  ?  And  is  harmony  less  de- 
sirable in  a  confederacy  of  States,  than  in  the 
little  concerns  of  mercantile  profit  ? 

The  adoption  of  the  amendment  is  necessary 
to  retard  the  growth  of  that  slaveholding  spirit 
which  appears  to  gain  ground  in  the  United 
States.  Notwithstanding  the  exertions  of  abo- 
lition and  colonization  societies,  in  various  parts 
of  the  Union,  it  is  feared  and  believed  that  pub- 
lic sentiment  in  the  West  is  becoming  less  un- 
friendly to  slavery  than  it  formerly  was;  no 
new  State  has  been  admitted  into  the  Union 
since  1791,  which  has  not  established  slavery 
by  law,  unless  prohibited  by  Congress.  Ala- 
bama, the  last  State  admitted,  has  not  left  it  to 
the  regulation  of  law,  but  has  protected  it  by 
a  constitutional  provision.  In  1792,  when  Ken- 
tucky was  admitted,  a  powerful  combination  of 
talent  and  influence  was  exerted  in  favor  of  the 


gradual  emancipation  of  her  slaves.  AVho  were 
then  the  zealous  supporters  of  freedom  in  Ken- 
tucky ?  The  history  of  their  efforts  and  the 
cause  of  their  failure,  are  well  known  to  some 
honorable  members  of  this  committee  from  that 
State.  Unfortunately  their  efforts  did  not  suc- 
ceed. But,  even  an  attempt  to  stop  the  pro- 
gress of  slavery  in  the  West,  though  successful, 
was  no  small  honor.  It  evinced  an  elevation 
of  mind,  a  magnanimity  of  purpose,  to  which 
the  citizens  of  no  new  State  have  since  attained. 
Some  old  States  have  accomplished,  for  them- 
selves, the  objects  of  the  Kentucky  emanci- 
pators ;  but  it  has  been  done  in  latitude  only 
where  cotton  could  not  be  grown,  and  where 
the  value  of  slaves  was,  on  that  account,  com- 
paratively small.  The  increase  of  a  slave- 
holding  spirit  appears,  not  only  from  these 
facts,  but  also  from  the  manner  in  which  the 
ordinance  of  1787  is  treated,  both  in  Congress 
and  out  of  it.  That  ordinance  was  passed  by 
the  unanimous  vote  of  all  the  States.  I  have 
the  authority  of  an  honorable  Representative 
from  Virginia,  when  I  say,  that  its  sixth  arti- 
cle, which  prohibits  slavery,  was  proposed  by  a 
delegate  of  that  State.  Its  enactment  was  then 
considered  by  all  the  States,  as  well  slavehold- 
ing as  non-slaveholding,  not  only  within  the 
legitimate  powers  of  Congress,  but  especially 
recommended  by  considerations  of  public  policy. 
Is  this  sentiment  still  maintained?  No,  sir,  it 
is  not ;  public  journals,  conducted  under  the 
patronage  of  high  authority,  denounce  it ;  dis- 
tinguished statesmen,  in  both  Houses  of  Con- 
gress, proclaim  it  an  instance  of  rank  usurpation ; 
and  a  Legislative  Assembly  of  one  State,  at 
least,  have  threatened  resistance  if  Congress 
shall  apply  the  same  principle  to  Missouri.  It 
is  not  my  purpose  to  declaim  against  these  pro- 
ceedings ;  I  mention  them  only  in  proof  of  my 
proposition,  that  a  slaveholding  spirit  is  gain- 
ing ground  in  the  Union. 

Congress  may  admit  new  States  into  the 
Union.  Congress  also  may  declare  war,  and 
may  borrow  money.  These  acts  are  alike  to  be 
performed  when  required  by  the  general  wel- 
fare. The  constitution  imposes  upon  Congress 
no  obligation  to  admit  new  States.  It  permits 
none  to  demand  admission.  It  authorizes  no 
member  of  the  Confederacy  to  require  such  ad- 
mission. The  President  and  Senate  cannot,  by 
treaty,  admit  a  State  into  the  Union  ;  nor  can 
they  impose  on  Congress  an  obligation  to  do  it. 
The  admission  of  Louisiana,  which  was  part  oi 
the  same  territory  with  Missouri,  was  not 
claimed  as  a  matter  of  right ;  it  was  solicited 
as  a  favor.  The  propriety  of  imposing  condi- 
tions was  not  questioned.  It  was  then  thought 
reasonable  and  constitutional,  too,  that  a  politi- 
cal as  well  as  every  other  society  should  pre- 
scribe the  time,  manner,  and  conditions  of  ob- 
taining the  privilege  of  membership.  That  the 
power  of  admitting  new  States  and  making  the 
laws  necessary  and  proper  therefor,  give  the 
right  for  which  we  contend,  according  to  the 
plain  and  natural  interpretation  of  language, 


DEBATES  OF  CONGRESS. 


481 


JANUARY,  1820.] 


Missouri  State  Bill— Restriction  on  the  State. 


[H.  OF  R. 


appears  to  me  too  evident  to  need  further  il- 
lustration. 

By  the  treaty  with  France,  Congress  acquired 
"  an  incontestable  title  to  the  domain  and  pos- 
session of  the  ceded  territory  in  full  sovereignty, 
with  all  its  rights  and  appurtenances."  The 
only  limitation  on  the  exercise  of  this  sover- 
eignty, must  he  found  in  the  constitution.  The 
sovereignty  is  general,  hut  must  be  exerted  in 
a  manner  consistent  with  the  principles  of  our 
National  Government.  It,  therefore,  becomes 
important  to  ascertain  what  these  principles 
are,  in  relation  to  the  amendment  on  your  table. 
In  other  words,  is  the  power  of  holding  slaves 
a  federal  right?  In  discussing  this  question, 
we  ought  carefully  to  distinguish  between  the 
principles  of  the  United  States  Government 
and  those  of  particular  States.  The  doctrines 
of  Xew  Hampshire  and  of  Georgia  in  regard  to 
slavery,  are  diametrically  opposite,  and  cannot 
both  be  the  doctrines  of  the  United  States. 
The  Federal  Government  is  as  distinct  from 
each  of  these,  as  they  are  from  each  other.  All 
these  rightfully  exercise  a  limited  sovereignty 
in  their  proper  spheres.  We  further  premise, 
that,  in  a  confederacy  like  ours,  the  principles 
of  a  dominant  State  naturally  acquire  a  cur- 
rency and  au  artificial  value  from  their  connec- 
tion with  honor  and  power.  It  is  evident 
enough,  that  the  United  States  Government 
does  not  belong  to  Virginia,  any  more  than  to 
Ohio.  It  nevertheless  may  be  quite  Virginian. 
Indeed  we  were  told,  but  a  few  days  since,  that 
we  are  indebted  for  the  territory  in  question  to 
the  wisdom  and  to  the  cash  of  Virginia.  [Mr. 
RANDOLPH  rose  and  said,  that  if  the  gentleman 
from  New  York  quoted  him,  he  hoped  he  would 
not  misquote  him.  He  had  used  neither  the 
word  wisdom  nor  cash.]  Mr.  TAYLOE  replied, 
that  words  were  only  useful  as  a  means  of  com- 
municating ideas.  The  gentleman  from  Vir- 
ginia may  have  used  sagacity  instead  of  wisdom, 
and  treasure,  wealth,  or  money,  instead  of  cash. 
The  gentleman  from  Virginia  shakes  his  head. 
I  cannot  have  mistaken  the  sentiment.  His  ex- 
pressions, as  usual,  were  very  clear  and  distinct. 
But  it  is  not  material.  The  political  sagacity 
of  Virginia  is  unimpeached.  She  has  mani- 
fested it  in  many  respects,  and  in  none  more 
than  in  the  ability  she  displays  on  this  floor. 
She  selects  for  Congress  her  ablest  sons.  She 
reposes  in  them  a  liberal  confidence.  While 
faithful  to  her  interests,  she  continues  them  in 
her  employment,  thereby  enabling  them  to 
honor  the  nation  and  serve  the  State.  She  in- 
structs them  not  to  waste  their  strength  at 
home,  in  petty  warfare,  in  scuffles  for  office, 
and  in  the  gratification  of  private  resentments. 
She  points  to  the  prize  of  high  ambition,  and 
bids  them  secure  it.  They  obey  her  mandate. 
If  they  stumble,  she  upholds  them.  If  they 
fall,  she  raises  them.  If  they  wander,  she  re- 
claims them.  She  publishes  their  virtues,  and 
covers  their  errors  with  a  mantle  of  charity. 
How  unlike  is  Virginia  in  all  these  respects,  to 
swine  of  her  sisters !  She  has  set  before  them 
VOL,  VI.— 31 


an  example,  which,  failing  to  imitate,  their 
complaints  of  her  influence  will  remain  un- 
availing. And,  is  there  less  danger  that  the 
principles  of  Virginia,  in  regard  to  slavery,  will 
acquire  popularity,  and  ultimately  pass  for  those 
of  the  nation,  because  she  is  wise  in  her  policy 
and  maintains  her  consequence  in  every  depart- 
ment of  your  Government  ?  But  let  us  exam- 
ine what  are  the  principles  on  which  the  United 
States  Government  is  founded.  Do  they  justify 
slavery  ?  I  answer,  they  do  not.  Congress, 
within  its  sovereignty,  has  constantly  endeav- 
ored to  prevent  the  extension  of  slavery,  and 
has  maintained  the  doctrine  "  that  aU  men  are 
born  equally  free."  But  has  disclaimed,  and 
continues  to  disclaim,  any  right  to  enforce  this 
doctrine  upon  State  sovereignties. 

The  first  truth  declared  by  this  nation,  at  the 
era  of  its  independence,  was,  "  that  all  men  are 
created  equal ;  that  they  are  endowed  by  their 
Creator  with  certain  inalienable  rights ;  that 
among  these  are  life,  liberty,  and  the  pursuit  of 


Are  we  willing  to  pronounce  this  declaration, 
for  the  support  of  which  the  Fathers  of  oar 
Revolution  pledged  their  lives  and  fortunes,  a 
flagrant  falsehood?  Was  this  declaration  a 
solemn  mockery  ?  Did  such  men  as  Jefferson, 
Adams,  Franklin,  Sherman,  and  Livingston, 
proclaim  to  the  world,  as  self-evident  truth, 
doctrines  they  did  not  believe  ?  Did  they 
lay  the  foundation  of  this  infant  Republic  in 
fraud  and  hypocrisy?  The  supposition  is  in- 
credible. These  men  composed  the  committee 
which  reported  the  Declaration  of  Independ- 
ence. Four  of  them  were  delegates  from  Mas- 
sachusetts, Pennsylvania,  Connecticut  and  New 
York.  They  expressed  the  opinions  of  the 
States  they  represented.  The  sentiments  of 
their  chairman  on  this  interesting  subject  are 
not  contained  in  the  declaration  alone.  If  fur- 
ther evidence  be  required  as  to  his  opinions,  it 
is  abundantly  furnished  in  his  "  Notes  on  Vir- 
ginia." His  denunciation  of  slavery  is  there 
expressed  in  language  too  distinct  to  be  misun- 
I  derstood.  Its  injustice  is  portrayed  in  glowing 
'  colors,  and  its  evils  described  with  irresistible 
eloquence.  While  books  are  read,  or  truth  re- 
vered, his  sentiments  on  this  subject  will  insure 
to  their  author  unfading  honor. 

In  1803,  Louisiana,  including  the  Territory  of 
Missouri,  was  purchased  from  France.  The 
third  is  the  only  article  of  the  treaty  relating  to 
the  subject  before  us.  It  consists  of  three 
parts ;  first,  "  the  inhabitants  of  the  ceded  ter- 
ritory shall  be  incorporated  into  the  union  of 
the  United  States."  This  provision  was  to  be 
executed  immediately.  It  extended  to  all  the 
inhabitants,  wherever  resident,  and  depended 
on  no  contingency.  Without  it  they  might 
have  continued  aliens,  and  have  been  treated 
like  the  inhabitants  of  a  conquered  province. 
The  obligation  imposed  by  this  clause  was  dis- 
charged by  Congress  in  passing  the  act  of  1804, 
erecting  Louisiana  into  two  territories,  and 
oroviding  for  the  temporary  government  there: 


482 


ABRIDGMENT  OF  THE 


H.  OF  R] 


Missouri  State  Hill — Restriction  on  the  State. 


[JANUARY,  1820. 


of.  By  this  act  they  were  incorporated  into 
the  Union,  and  the  laws  of  the  United  States 
were  extended  to  them ;  they  became  part  of 
the  American  family,  subject  to  its  rules  and 
regulations,  and  bound  to  obey  its  authority. 
Their  allegiance  was  transferred  from  France  to 
the  United  States ;  they  were  obligated  to  sup- 
port our  constitution  and  obey  our  laws;  they 
necessarily  acquired  some  new  privileges,  and 
lost  some  formerly  enjoyed ;  for  example,  they 
lost  the  privilege  of  employing  ships  in  the 
slave  trade — of  buying  foreign  slaves — of  pun- 
ishing heresy,  and,  in  short,  of  being  governed 
by  the  colonial  laws  of  France ;  and  they  ac- 
quired the  privilege  of  being  governed  by  the 
American  Congress  on  principles  of  freedom. 
These  consequences  necessarily  followed  their 
incorporation  into  the  Union. 

The  second  clause  is  contingent,  and  requires 
that  the  inhabitants  "shall  be  admitted,  as 
soon  as  possible,  according  to  the  principles  of 
the  Federal  Constitution,  to  the  enjoyment  of 
all  the  rights,  advantages,  and  immunities  of 
citizens  of  the  United  States."  The  subject- 
matter  of  this  clause  is  inhabitants  not  territory. 
In  all  the  cessions  of  territory  previously  ac- 
quired by  Congress,  a  provision  had  been  in- 
serted in  the  compacts,  "  that  the  territory 
should  be  formed  into  a  State  or  States."  These 
compacts  had  been  made  by  Congress,  which 
had  power  to  admit  new  States  into  the  Union. 
But  this  treaty  was  made  by  the  President  and 
Senate,  who  had  no  such  power.  It  was 
doubted  by  many  whether,  according  to  the 
principles  of  the  Federal  Constitution,  new 
States  could  be  erected  in  this  territory,  and  it 
was  uncertain  whether  the  existing  States 
would  so  amend  the  constitution  as  to  confer 
the  power.  But  if  Congress  had  the  power,  it 
was  uncertain  when,  and  on  what  conditions, 
they  would  ithinb  proper  to  exercise  it ;  and, 
until  the  general  welfare  of  the  United  States 
should,  in  the  opinion  of  Congress,  require  its 
exercise,  it  was  •not  possiWe-for  them  to  be  ad- 
mitted. Moreover,  the  rigl'its,  advantages,  and 
immunities,  to  the  enjoyment  of  which  they 
are  to  be  admitted,  are  those  of  citizens  of  the 
United  States.  The  power  of  holding  slaves  is 
no  right,  advantage,  or  immunity,  arising  from 
United  States  citizenship.  Whatever  those 
rights  are,  they  must  be  nniform:  that  is, 
United  States  citizenship  confers  the  same 
rights  in  New  Hampshire  as  in  Kentucky.  If 
in  Kentucky  it  gives  the  power  of  holding 
elaves,  by  virtue  of  it  a  citizen  of  the  United 
States  may  hold  slaves  in  New  Hampshire. 
The  error  is  in  confounding  the  rights  of  United 
States  citizenship  with  those  arising  under  the 
laws  of  Kentucky.  By  the  latter  an  authority 
to  hold  slaves  exists :  by  the  former  it  does  not. 
The  rights  of  United  States  citizenship  are 
founded  on  the  constitution;  they  are  para- 
mount to,  and  cannot  be  taken  away  or  affect- 
ed by  State  laws.  But  the  right  of  holding 
slaves  may  be  taken  away  by  State  laws ;  there- 
fore it  is  «ot  a  right  of  United  States  citizen- 


ship, and  consequently  was  not  guaranteed  to 
the  inhabitants  of  this  territory  by  treaty. 

The  inhabitants  had  no  right  to  calculate  on 
a  power  of  holding  slaves.  Neither  the  princi- 
ples of  the  constitution,  nor  the  practice  of  the 
Government,  justified  that  expectation.  Con- 
gress had  allowed  slavery  to  exist  in  no  terri- 
tory where  its  allowance  had  not  been  made, 
by  the  State  ceding  it,  an  express  condition  of 
the  cession.  These  inhabitants  could  not  rea- 
sonably expect  greater  rights  than  were  enjoy- 
ed by  those  of  the  original  territory  of  the 
United  States.  They  were  authorized  to  ex- 
pect the  privilege  of  self-government,  in  the 
same  manner  as  it  had  been  granted  to  them ; 
but,  like  them,  they  were  subject  to  the  deter- 
mination of  Congress  as  to  time,  manner, 
boundaries,  and  every  other  condition.  The 
third  clause  of  the  article  provides  "  that  the 
inhabitants,  in  the  mean  time,  shall  be  main- 
tained and  protected  in  the  free  enjoyment  of 
their  liberty,  property,  and  the  religion  which 
they  profess."  Without  stopping  to  inquire 
into  the  general  signification  of  the  word  prop- 
erty, I  take  it  for  granted  that  it  does  not  in- 
clude the  future  generations  of  men  who  may 
be  born  in  the  territory  ;  and  the  condition  of 
those  now  held  to  service  will  not  be  changed 
by  agreeing  to  the  amendment.  With  this 
single  remark,  I  proceed  to  observe,  that  the 
free  enjoyment  of  property  cannot  mean  an  ab- 
solute right  to  use  it  without  control;  nor, 
that  the  control  shall  be  exercised  in  the  same 
manner  and  degree  that  it  had  been  under  the 
former  government.  If  this  were  its  meaning, 
and  the  treaty  be  considered  in  the  nature  of  a 
charter  of  rights  to  the  inhabitants,  they  may 
at  this  time  rightfully  carry  on  the  slave  trade, 
and  do  many  other  acts  prohibited  by  law. 
But  the  right  granted  freely  to  enjoy  their  lib- 
erty, property,  and  religion,  only  requires  that 
they  shall  be  protected  by  the  Constitution  and 
laws  of  the  United  States,  in  the  same  manner 
as  the  liberty,  property,  and  religion  of  other 
citizens,  similarly  situated,  are  protected.  It 
is  a  protection  according  to  the  principles  of 
this,  and  not  of  a  foreign  Government. 

The  act  of  1804,  to  which  I  have  already  ad- 
verted, strongly  illustrates  the  solicitude  of 
Congress  to  prohibit  the  extension  of  slavery 
even  in  the  Orleans  territory.  It  forbade  the 
introduction,  first^  of  all  foreign  slaves ;  second- 
ly, of  all  slaves  brought  into  the  United  States 
after  May  1,  1798,  or  thereafter  to  be  import- 
ed ;  thirdly,  of  all  other  slaves,  except  by  citi- 
zens of  the  United  States,  removing  into  the 
territory  for  actual  settlement,  and  bona  fide 
owning  snch  slaves.  All  slaves  brought  into 
the  territory  of  Orleans,  contrary  to  these  pro- 
visions, were  entitled  to  freedom,  and  penalties 
were  imposed  on  the  importers.  Congress 
could  not  endure  the  idea  that  even  New 
Orleans  should  become  a  market  for  the  sale  ot 
human  flesh. 

The  residue  of  Louisiana  was  placed  under 
the  Government  of  the  Governor  and  Judges 


DEBATES  OF  CONGRESS. 


483 


IAXCARY,  1820.] 


Missouri  State  Bill— Restriction  on  the  State. 


[a  OF  R. 


of  Indiana,  where  slavery  was  forever  prohibit- 
ed by  the  ordinance  of  1787.  It  was  believed 
that  these  officers  would  apply  to  Missouri  the 
same  principles  of  government  on  which  they 
were  bound  to  administer  that  of  Indiana. 
Unhappily  for  Missouri,  these  gentlemen  enter- 
tained different  views,  and  suffered  the  evil  to 
increase,,  without  an  effort  to  retard  it.  The 
subsequent  acts  in  regard  to  this  Territory  are 
of  so  recent  a  date,  that  it  is  unnecessary  to 
detail  their  provisions. 

The  contests  of  party  at  home,  and  the  great 
national  questions  in  which  we  were  soon  in- 
volved with  foreign  Governments,  drew  the 
attention  of  Congress  from  this  particular  sub- 
ject. It  now  is  brought  forward  at  a  time 
when  political  animosities  have  in  a  good  de- 
gree subsided,  and  every  circumstance  is  favor- 
able to  its  just  decision. 

The  States  of  Ohio,  Indiana,  and  Illinois, 
were  admitted  into  the  Union  in  1802,  1816, 
and  1818,  and  the  restriction  against  slavery 
was  applied,  without  opposition,  to  all  of  them. 
They  formed  their  constitutions  accordingly, 
and  are  now  reaping  the  rich  reward  of  civil  as 
well  as  political  freedom. 

The  slave  trade  was  abolished  by  act  of  1807, 
to  take  effect  on  the  first  day  of  January,  1808, 
being  the  earliest  day  on  which  Congress  could 
exercise  that  power. 

In  this  manner  Congress  has  respected  the 
rights  of  man,  and  has  endeavored,  in  pursuance 
of  the  principles  of  the  United  States  Govern- 
ment, to  limit  the  extension  of  slavery  as  much 
as  possible. 

Mr.  HOLMES,  of  Massachusetts,  rose,  and 
spoke  as  follows :  Mr.  Chairman,  when  a  man 
is  fallen  into  distress,  his  neighbors  surround 
him  to  offer  relief.  Some,  by  an  attempt  at 
condolence,  increase  the  grief  which  they  would 
assuage ;  others,  by  administering  remedies,  in- 
flame the  disorder;  while  others,  affecting  all 
the  solicitude  of  both,  actually  wish  him  dead. 
It  is  so  with  Liberty.  Always  in  danger — often 
in  distress — she  not  only  suffers  from  open  and 
secret  foes,  but  officious  and  unskilful  friends. 
And  among  the  thousands  and  millions  that 
throng  her  temple  from  curiosity,  fashion,  or 
policy,  how  few — very  few — there  are,  who  are 
her  sincere,  faithful,  and  intelligent  worshippers  ? 

Among  these  few,  I  trust,  are  to  be  found  all 
the  advocates  for  restriction  in  this  House. 
And  I  readily  admit  that  most  of  those  out  of 
doors,  whose  zeal  is  excited  on  this  occasion, 
are  of  the  same  description.  But,  is  it  not 
probable  that  there  are  some  jugglers  behind 
the  screen  who  are  playing  a  deeper  game — 
who  are  combining  to  rally  under  this  standard, 
as  the  last  resort,  the  forlorn  hope  of  an  ex- 
piring party? 

But,  while  we  admit  this  in  behalf  of  the 
respectable  gentlemen  who  advocate  the  restric- 
tion of  slavery  in  Missouri,  we  ask,  may  we 
demand  of  them  the  same  liberality  ?  We  are 
not  the  advocates  or  the  abettors  of  slavery. 
For  one,  sir,  I  would  rejoice  if  there  was  not  a  \ 


slave  on  earth.  Liberty  is  the  object  of  my 
love — my  adoration.  I  would  extend  its  bless- 
ings to  every  human  being.  But,  though  my 
feelings  are  strong  for  the  abolition  of  slavery, 
they  are  yet  stronger  for  the  constitution  of  my 
country.  And,  if  I  am  reduced  to  the  sad  al- 
ternative to  tolerate  the  holding  of  slaves  in 
Missouri,  or  violate  the  constitution  of  my 
country,  I  will  not  admit  a  doubt  to  cloud  my 
choice.  Sir,  of  what  benefit  would  be  abolition, 
if  at  a  sacrifice  of  your  constitution  ?  Where 
would  be  the  guarantee  of  the  liberty  which  you 
grant?  Liberty  has  a  temple  here,  and  it  is 
the  only  one  which  remains.  Destroy  this, 
and  she  must  flee — she  must  retire  among  the 
brutes  of  the  wilderness — to  mourn  and  lament 
the  misery  and  folly  of  man. 

The  proposition  for  the  consideration  of  the 
committee  is  to  abolish  slavery  in  Missouri,  as  a 
condition  of  her  admission  into  the  Union. 

This  constitution  which  I  hold  in  my  hand  I 
am  sworn  to  support,  not  according  to  legisla- 
tive or  judicial  exposition,  but  as  I  shall  under- 
stand it ;  not  as  private  interest  or  public  zeal 
may  urge,  but  as  I  shall  believe ;  not  as  I  may 
wish  it,  but  as  it  is. 

I  have  carefully  examined  this  constitution, 
and  I  can  find  no  such  power.  I  have  looked 
it  through,  and  I  am  certain  it  is  not  in  the 
book.  This  power  is  not  express,  and,  if  given 
at  all,  it  must  be  constructive.  This  amplifying 
power  by  construction  is  dangerous,  and  will, 
not  improbably,  effect  the  eventual  destruction 
of  the  constitution.  That  there  are  resulting  or 
implied  powers,  I  am  not  disposed  to  deny ;  but 
they  are  only  where  the  powers  are  subordi- 
nate and  the  implication  necessary.  All  pow- 
ers not  granted  are  prohibited,  is  a  maxim  to 
which  we  cannot  too  religiously  adhere. 

I  come  now  to  the  power  of  Congress.  And 
my  first  proposition  is,  that  Congress  cannot  re- 
strict a  State  which  was  party  to  the  compact 
in  the  exercise  of  a  political  power  not  surren- 
dered by  the  constitution.  This  is  a  political 
axiom  which  scarcely  admits  of  proof  or  illus- 
tration. The  tenth  article  of  the  amendment 
preserves  every  power  not  surrendered.  If  it 
did  not,  and  Congress  could  take,  they  might 
another,  until  the  States  were  robbed  of  every 
attribute  of  sovereignty.  Remark,  sir,  that  I 
confine  the  proposition  to  existing  States.  I 
am  disposed  to  do  one  thing  at  a  time ;  this  is 
enough  for  my  present  purpose.  If  this  princi- 
ple is  established,  and  it  appears  to  establish 
itself,  I  proceed  to  my  second  proposition,  that 
the  power  to  restrict  an  existing  State,  in  the 
admission  or  rejection  of  slavery,  is  not  surren- 
dered to  Congress  by  the  constitution. 

And  here,  sir,  I  cannot  but  notice  the  con- 
fusion that  exists  in  the  ranks  of  the  advo- 
cates of  restriction.  Two  gentlemen  have  ad- 
dressed the  committee,  one  before  and  the  other 
since  the  proposition  was  made.  Instead  of 
presenting  us  with  one  single  precept,  one 
source  of  this  power,  they  have  presented  six ! 
From  that  of  laying  and  collecting  taxes,  &c., 


484 


ABRIDGMENT  OF  THE 


H.  OF  R.] 


The  Missouri  Bill — Restriction  on  the  State: 


[JANUARY,  1820. 


regulating  commerce,  prohibiting  migration  and  1 
importation,  admitting  new  States,  governing 
territories,  and  making  treaties !  And,  what  is 
singularly  unfortunate,  the  gentlemen  agree 
only  in  one  of  the  six,  and  that  the  most  excep- 
tionable and  least  plausible  of  the  whole.  These 
are  all  disconnected  and  distinct,  and  this  power 
can  be  derived  from  only  one  of  them.  The 

different  dishes,  and  offer  us  our  choice.  We 
demand  of  them  the  power — the  true  genuine 
coin,  and  no  counterfeit.  They  present  us  six 
pieces,  five  of  which  are  unquestionably  base, 
and  tell  us  they  all  look  so  much  alike  that  they 
cannot  distinguish,  and  we  must  select  for  our- 
selves. What  should  we  answer?  Precisely 
what  we  do ;  we  will  take  neither,  for  we  be- 
lieve them  all  counterfeit.  This  is  not  the 
whole.  The  memorialists,  and  others  abroad, 
have  furnished  some  ten  or  a  dozen  more  sources 
of  this  power. 

There  seemed  to  be  some  doubt  as  to  the 
meaning  of  this  ninth  section  of  the  first  article 
of  the  constitution.  I  believe  I  entertained  an 
opinion  last  session,  which  I  then  expressed, 
that  migration  and  importation  related  wholly 
to  slaves ;  the  former  to  bringing  by  land,  and 
the  latter  by  water.  I  was  led  to  this  by  the 
circumstance  that  the  taxation  was  confined  to 
importation — presuming  that  the  difficulty  of 
taxation,  in  case  of  bringing  by  land,  was  the 
reason  why  "migration"  was  dropped  in  the 
latter  part  of  the  clause.  Although  this  con- 
struction is  better  than  theirs,  I  am  satisfied  it 
is  not  the  best.  The  error  consists  in  using  the 
words  very  differently  from  their  common  and 
ordinary  import.  Take  the  sentence  as  it  is, 
and  it  is  plain  enough — "  the  migration  or  im- 
portation of  such  persons  as  the  existing  States 
shall  see  cause  to  admit,  shall  not  be  prohibit- 
ed," &c.  ^  "Persons"  means  slaves,  when  ap- 
plied to  importation,  and  free  persons,  when 
applied  to  migration.  The  former  implies  con- 
straint, and  excludes  volition ;  the  latter  implies 
volition,  and  excludes  constraint.  Importation 
is  bringing  either  by  land  or  water ;  migration 
is  a  voluntary  going  from  one  jurisdiction  or 
sovereignty  to  another.  The  Convention  were 
then  speaking  of  persons  coming  from  abroad : 
importing  of  slaves  could  not  be  prohibited  en- 
tirely ;  a  tax  was  the  only  restraint  that  could 
be  obtained  before  1808.  But  the  policy  of  the 
United  States  would  not  allow  a  tax  on  migra- 
tion, or  voluntary  coming.  Such  a  tax  on  for- 
eigners might  be  urged,  from  motives  of  popu- 
larity, against  the  general  policy  of  the  nation. 
A  right  to  prohibit  this  introduction  of  foreign- 
ers would  not  be  exercised  except  when,  upon 
necessary  or  extraordinary  occasions,  the  safety 
of  the  nation  might  require  it.  It  was  proper, 
then,  that  Congress  should  have  power  to  pro- 
hibit, but  not  to  tax,  strangers  emigrating  from 
abroad.  When  this  clause  was  reported  by  a 
committee  of  the  Convention,  the  taxation  ex- 
tended to  migration  as  well  as  importation. 
Had  the  Convention  understood  that  this  word 


related  only  to  a  transfer  from  one  State  to 
another,  would  the  committee  have  reported 
this  provision,  in  direct  contradiction  to  another 
clause  of  the  same  section  ?  While  the  clause 
was  under  debate  in  the  Convention,  a  member 
proposed  to  insert  the  word  "free"  before  "per- 
sons." Had  this  been  the  meaning  of  the  word, 
no  one,  unless  he  was  delirious  or  in  sport, 
would  have  proposed  an  amendment  which 
would  have  operated  to  authorize  Congress  to 
prohibit  a  transfer  of  none  but  free  persons 
from  one  State  to  another. 

I  trust  I  have  succeeded  in  proving  that  Con- 
gress cannot  restrict  a  State  which  was  party  to 
the  compact,  in  the  exercise  of  a  political  power 
not  surrendered  by  the  constitution ;  that  the 
political  power  of  a  State  which  was  party  to 
the  compact,  to  establish  or  prohibit  slavery,  is 
not  surrendered  by  the  constitution,  and  there- 
fore cannot  restrict  an  original  State  in  the  ex- 
ercise of  this  power. 


FRIDAY,  January  28. 
The  Missouri  Bill. 

The  House  then  again  went  into  committee  on 
this  subject,  (Mr.  BALDWIN  in  the  chair.) 

Mr.  SMYTH,  of  Virginia,  addressed  the  Chair. 
He  said  that  the  constitutionality  of  the  measure 
proposed  was  the  subject  which  he  intended 
first  to  consider.  The  constitution,  said  he, 
provides  that  "  new  States  may  be  admitted  by 
Congress  into  this  Union."  'if,  then,  a  new 
State  is  admitted  into  "  this  Union,"  must  it 
not  be  on  terms  of  equality?  Can  the  old 
States,  the  first  parties  to  this  Union,  bind  other 
States  farther  than  they  themselves  are  bound? 
Can  they  bind  the  new  States  not  to  admit  sla- 
very, and  preserve  to  themselves  the  right  to 
admit  slavery  ?  Shall  the  old  States  preserve 
rights  of  which  the  new  States  shall  be  de- 
prived ?  Can  this  Government  demand  of  the 
new  States  a  right  to  exercise  powers  over 
them  that  it  cannot  exercise  over  the  old 
States  ?  If  so,  you  may  demand  of  the  new 
States  power  to  legislate  over  them  as  you  legis- 
late over  the  District  of  Columbia.  Can  you 
stipulate  with  a  new  State  that  she  shall  have 
but  one  Senator ;  that  her  representation  in 
this  House  shall  be  apportioned  by  the  number 
of  her  free  inhabitants  only ;  that  she  shall  not 
appoint  her  full  number  of  Electors  of  the  Presi- 
dent ;  or  that  she  shall  not  have  a  republican 
form  of  government?  You  cannot,  for  the 
constitution  fixes  the  rights  of  every  State  in 
these  respects.  Can  you  stipulate  for  the  regu- 
lation of  the  press,  for  the  establishment  of  re- 
ligion, or  for  a  power  to  appoint  militia  officers? 
You  cannot,  for  in  these  respects  also,  the  rights 
of  the  States  are  declared  by  the  constitution. 
And  if  you  cannot  stipulate  for  the  exercise  of 
a  power  prohibited,  you  cannot  stipulate  for 
the  exercise  of  a  power  withheld. 

Will  you  not  admit  that  you  cannot  stipulate 
for  a  power  to  appoint  militia  officers  in  a  new 
State  ?  You  will ;  because  that  power  is  spe- 


DEBATES  OF  CONGRESS. 


485 


JANUARY,  1820.] 


The  Missouri  Bill— Restriction  on  the  State. 


[H.  OF  R. 


daily,  and  in  direct  terms,  reserved  to  the 
States.  All  powers  not  granted  are  reserved  in 
general  terms.  If  the  power  is  reserved,  is  it 
not  the  same,  whether  it  he  reserved  in  direct 
or  in  general  terms  ?  It  is  the  same.  A  power 
reserved  to  the  States  or  to  the  people,  either 
in  direct  or  in  general  terms,  you  cannot  exer- 
cise without  committing  an  act  of  usurpation. 

The  case  supposed,  of  stipulating  for  power  to 
appoint  militia  officers,  illustrates  the  danger 
which  might  arise  to  freedom  by  forming  a  new 
class  of  States,  over  which  this  Government 
should  possess  powers  different  from  those 
which  it  exercises  over  the  old  States.  A  con- 
solidated government  might  be  established  over 
such  new  States.  At  the  time  of  the  Revolution 
it  was  a  cause  of  complaint  against  the  British 
King,  that,  by  acquiring  Canada,  and  establish- 
ing a  despotic  government  therein,  he  endan- 
gered the  liberty  of  the  American  Colonies. 
The  people  would  never  have  adopted  the  con- 
stitution, had  they  supposed  that  Congress  was 
to  exercise  over  the  new  States  powers  different 
from  those  granted  by  the  constitution. 

The  legislative  power  of  every  State  is  origin- 
ally co-extensive.  Each  State,  by  the  consti- 
tution, commits  an  equal  portion  of  its  legislative 
powers  to  Congress ;  and  all  the  residue  is  re- 
served to  the  States,  unless  prohibited  to  them, 
or  to  the  people.  The  only  powers  of  this  Gov- 
ernment are  given  by  the  constitution.  The 
powers  granted  are  to  be  exercised  over  every 
State ;  and  the  powers  reserved,  are  retained  by 
every  State.  In  Pennsylvania  and  in  Virginia, 
the  power  to  legislate  respecting  slavery  is  in 
the  Legislature.  In  Ohio  and  Indiana  that 
power  is  in  the  people,  who  have  denied  it  to 
their  Legislatures.  No  power  has  been  dele- 
gated to  Congress  to  legislate  on  that  subject. 
The  constitution  provides  that,  "  the  powers  not 
delegated  to  the  United  States  by  the  constitu- 
tion, nor  prohibited  by  it  to  the  States,  are  re- 
served to  the  States,  respectively,  or  to  the 
people."  The  powers  not  delegated  being  re- 
served to  the  States,  respectively,  are  reserved 
to  each  of  the  States,  whether  new  or  old. 

Has  the  power  to  legislate  over  slavery  been 
delegated  to  the  United  States?  It  has  not. 
Has  it  been  prohibited  to  the  States  ?  It  has 
not.  Then  it  is  reserved  to  the  States,  respect- 
ively, or  to  the  people.  Consequently,  it  is  re- 
served to  the  State  of  Missouri,  or  to  the  people 
of  that  State.  And  any  attempt  by  Congress 
to  deprive  them  of  this  reserved  power,  will  be 
unjust,  tyrannical,  unconstitutional,  and  void. 

The  only  condition  that  may  constitutionally 
be  annexed  to  the  admission  of  a  new  State  into 
this  Union  is,  that  its  constitution  shall  be  repub- 
lican. This  the  constitution  authorizes  us  to  re- 
quire, and  it  is  the  only  condition  that  is  neces- 
sary. We  possess  power  to  make  all  needful 
regulations  respecting  the  territorial  property 
of  the  United  States.  Our  acts  in  pursuance  of 
the  constitution  are  paramount  to  the  laws  of 
any  State.  When  we  pursue  our  constitutional 
authority,  we  need  no  aid  from  stipulations; 


and  when  we  exceed  it,  our  acts  are  acts  of 
usurpation,  and  void.- 

It  has  been  questioned  by  some,  whether  a 
constitution  can  be  said  to  be  republican,  which 
loes  not  exclude  slavery.  But  we  must  under- 
stand the  phrase,  "  republican  form  of  govern- 
ment," as  the  people  understood  it  when  they 
adopted  the  constitution.  We  are  bound  by  the 
construction  which  was  put  upon  the  constitu- 
tion by  the  people.  It  would  be  perfidious  to- 
ward them  to  put  on  the  constitution  a  different 
construction  from  that  which  induced  them  to 
adopt  it. 

The  people  of  each  of  the  States  who  adopted 
the  constitution,  except  Massachusetts,  owned 
slaves ;  yet  they  certainly  considered  their  own 
constitutions  to  be  republican.  And  the  Federal 
Government  has  not,  by  virtue  of  its  power  to 
guarantee  a  republican  constitution  to  each  State 
in  the  Union,  required  a  change  of  the  constitu- 
tion of  any  one  of  those  States. 

The  constitution  recognizes  the  right  to  the 
slave  property,  and  it  thereby  appears  that  it 
was  intended,  by  the  Convention  and  by  the 
people,  that  that  property  should  be  secure. 
The  representation  of  each  State,  in  this  House, 
is  proportioned  by  the  whole  number  of  free  per- 
sons, and  three-fifths  of  the  number  of  the  slaves. 
In  forming  the  constitution,  the  Southern  States, 
Virginia  excepted,  insisted  on,  and  obtained  a 
provision,  authorizing  them  to  import  slaves  for 
twenty  years.*  And  the  constitution  provides 
that  slaves  running  away  from  their  masters  in 
one  State,  and  going  into  another,  shall  be  de- 
livered up  to  their  masters. 

But  the  gentleman  from  New  York  contended, 
that,  by  a  "  person  held  to  service  or  labor  in 
one  State,  under  the  laws  thereof,"  the  consti- 
tution means  an  apprentice,  or  bound  servant. 
Sir,  the  definition  of  a  word  conveys  its  meaning 
to  our  understandings  more  clearly  than  the  word 
itself;  and  the  very  best  definition  of  the  word 
"  slave"  that  can  be  given,  is,  a  person  held  to 
service  or  labor  under  the  laws  of  a  State.  The 
constitution  describes  apprentices  or  bound  ser- 
vants as  "  those  bound  to  service  for  a  term  of 
years ;"  and  directs  that  they  shall  be  included 
in  the  number  of  free  persons.  The  apprentice 


*  Extract  from  LuXhe,r  Martin's  report  to  th«  Legis- 
lature of  Maryland. 

"  We  were  then  told  by  the  delegates  of  the  two  first  of 
those  States,  (Georgia  and  South  Carolina,)  that  their  States 
would  never  agree  to  a  system  which  put  it  in  the  power  of 
the  General  Government  to  prevent  the  importation  of 
slaves ;  and  that  they,  as  the  delegates  from  those  States, 
must  withhold  their  assent  from  such  a  system." 

The  clanso  referred  to  relates  solely  to  the  importation  of 
slaves  from  abroad.  The  Convention  used  the  words,  "  mi- 
gration or  importation"  as  synonymous.  In  like  manner 
they  say,  tax  or  duty,  alliance  or  confederation,  imposts  or 
duties,  agreement  or  compact,  service  or  labor,  resolution 
or  vote,  for  the  purpose  of  elucidating  their  meaning.  This 
clause  at  one  time  stood  thus  before  the  Convention :  "The 
migration  or  importation  of  such  persons  as  the  several 
States,  now  existing,  shall  think  proper  to  admit,  shall  not 
be  prohibited  by  the  Legislature  prior  to  the  year  1800 ;  but 
a  tax  or  duty  may  bo  imposed  on  such  migration  or  impor- 
tation at  a  rate  not  exceeding  the  average  of  the  duties  laid 
on  imports."  This  proposition  to  lay  an  ad  valorem  duty, 
shows  that  nothing  was  in  the  contemplation  of  the  Con- 
vention but  the  slave  trade. 


480 


ABRIDGMENT  OF  THE 


H.  OP  R.] 


The  Missouri  Bill— Restriction  on  the  State. 


[JANUARY,  1820. 


or  bound  servant  is  bound  to  service  or  labor  by 
contract ;  the  slave  is  held  to  service  or  labor 
by  law.  A  person  "  held  to  service  or  labor" 
is  the  constitutional  and  legal  definition  of  the 
word  "  slave,"  and  is  superadded  to  the  word 
"slave"  or  "slaves,"  in  one  act  of  Congress  for 
suppressing  the  slave  trade  no  less  than  eight 
times.*  Thus  the  obligation  of  State  laws, 
which  hold  men  to  service  or  labor,  is  acknowl- 
edged by  the  constitution,  and  by  the  laws  of 
the  United  States. 

To  render  this  right,  with  other  rights,  still 
more  secure,  Virginia,  in  adopting  the  constitu- 
tion, declared  that  "  no  right,  of  any  denomina- 
tion, can  be  cancelled,  abridged,  restrained,  or 
modified,  except  in  those  instances  in  which 
power  is  given  by  the  constitution  for  those  pur- 
poses ;"  and  New  York  declared,  "  that  every 
power,  jurisdiction,  and  right,  which  is  not  by 
the  said  constitution  clearly  delegated  to  the 
Congress  of  the  United  States,  remains  to  the 
people  of  the  several  States,  or  to  their  respective 
State  Governments."  Several  of  the  other  States 
made  similar  declarations.  But  the  States  were 
not  content  to  declare  their  rights.  An  amend- 
ment to  the  constitution  declares  that :  "  The 
powers  not  delegated  to  the  United  States  by 
the  constitution,  nor  prohibited  by  it  to  the 
States,  are  reserved  to  the  States  respectively, 
or  to  the  people."  The  right  to  own  slaves 
being  acknowledged  and  secured  by  the  consti- 
tution, can  you  proscribe  what  the  constitution 
guarantees  ?  Can  you  touch  a  right  reserved  to 
the  States  or  the  people  ?  You  cannot. 

If  you  possessed  power  to  legislate  concerning 
slavery,  the  adoption  of  the  proposition  on  your 
table,  which  goes  to  emancipate  all  children  of 
slaves  hereafter  born  in  Missouri,  would  be  a 
direct  violation  of  the  constitution,  which  pro- 
vides that  "  no  person  shall  be  deprived  of 
property  without  due  process  of  law  ;  nor  shall 
private  property  be  taken  for  public  use  without 
just  compensation."  If  you  cannot  take  prop- 
erty even  for  public  use,  without  just  compen- 
sation, you  certainly  have  not  power  to  take  it 
away  for  the  purpose  of  annihilation,  without 
compensation.  And,  if  you  cannot  take  away 
that  which  is  in  existence,  you  cannot  take  away 
that  which  will  come  into  existence  hereafter. 
If  you  cannot  take  away  the  land,  you  cannot 
take  the  future  crops ;  and  if  you  cannot  take 
the  slaves,  you  cannot  take  their  issue,  who,  by 
the  laws  of  slavery,  will  be  also  slaves.  You 
cannot  force  the  people  to  give  up  their  property. 
You  cannot  force  a  portion  of  the  people  to 
emancipate  their  slaves. 

By  adopting  this  proposition,  yon  will  have 
proved  that  the  clauses  of  the  constitution 
deemed  most  sacred  by  the  people,  are  not  sa- 
cred with  you.  The  constitution  was  the  work 
of  politicians.  The  amendments  were  the  work 
of  the  people.  They  are  the  parts  of  the  con- 
stitution which  protect  the  rights  of  the  people. 
The  amendment  which  secures  property,  you 


*  Vol.  4  Laws,  p.  94. 


ire  about  to  violate  by  emancipating,  without 
;he  consent  of  the  masters,  the  offspring  of  ten 
;housand  slaves. 

The  people  of  Missouri  will  be  rightfully 
jound  by  our  laws  made  for  the  whole  Union  ; 
:>ut  we  have  no  right  to  make  local  laws  for  the 
people  of  Missouri  alone.  "We  have  no  right  to 
5ass  partial  laws,  that  shall  operate  in  some  of 
;he  States,  and  not  in  others. 

You  cannot  limit  the  new  States  in  the 
exercise  of  their  retained  powers.  "Whether 
slavery  shall  exist  or  not  in  the  new  States, 
must  depend  on  the  free  will  of  the  State  Legis- 
atures,  and  of  the  people.  If  yon  can  in  this  way 
Describe  the  course  of  legislation  on  one  subject, 
you  can  on  any  subject  or  on  every  subject. 

No  State  can  be  bound  not  to  change  its  con- 
stitution. The  same  right  which  Pennsylvania 
lias  of  self-government,  every  new  State  must 
possess  of  self-government.  They  are  bound  to 
adopt  a  republican  constitution,  for  that  is  a  law 
of  the  whole  Union. 

If  you  impose  on  Missouri  the  contemplated 
restriction,  and  Missouri  forms  her  constitution 
accordingly,  it  will  not  be  your  act,  but  the  act 
of  Missouri  that  will  become  a  law.  Then  sup- 
pose Missouri  changes  her  constitution  ;  as  she 
made  the  law,  she  can  repeal  it.  Your  act  can 
have  no  force,  because  not  passed  in  pursuance 
of  the  Constitution  of  the  United  States.  The 
acts  of  Congress,  passed  in  pursuance  of  the 
constitution,  are  laws;  but  the  stipulations  or 
declarations  of  Congress,  not  authorized  by  the 
constitution,  are  not  laws ;  and  they  can  have 
no  sanction ;  for  it  is  only  the  acts  passed  in 
pursuance  of  the  constitution  that  are  the  su- 
preme laws  of  the  land.  If  your  act  is  a  law,  it 
needs  not  the  aid  or  consent  of  Missouri  ;  and 
if  Missouri  is  to  pass  the  law,  Missouri  may  re- 
peal it.  But  this,  say  our  opponents,  would  be 
perfidious  on  the  part  of  Missouri ;  they  will 
not  presume  that  Missouri  would  violate  her 
plighted  faith.  They  detest  all  perfidy  except 
that  which  they  themselves  recommend.  This 
would  not  be  perfidy  on  the  part  of  Missouri. 
The  people  of  Missouri  would  only  have  eluded 
the  effects  of  the  perfidy  of  those  who  would 
have  violated  a  solemn  treaty. 

It  has  seemed  to  some  that  as  Ohio  was  re- 
quired to  form  a  constitution  agreeing  with  the 
ordinance  of  Congress  of  1787,  which  excluded 
slavery  from  the  territory  northwest  of  the  Ohio 
River,  therefore  Missouri  may  be  likewise  re- 
quired to  exclude  slavery  by  her  constitution. 
Whatever  be  the  effect  of  the  ordinance  of  1787, 
it  has  no  application  to  Missouri.  But  I  con- 
tend that  Ohio  is  not  bound  by  the  ordinance ; 
that  she  is  at  liberty  to  decide  as  she  pleases  the 
question,  whether  she  will  or  will  not  exclude 
slavery. 

It  has  been  said  that  the  constitution  vests  in 
Congress  a  power  to  make  all  needful  regula- 
tions respecting  the  territory  of  the  United 
States;  and  this  power,  it  is  supposed,  author- 
izes us  to  exclude  slaves  from  the  territories  of 
the  United  States,  and  also  to  demand  from  any 


DEBATES  OF  CONGRESS. 


487 


JANUARY,  1820.] 


The  Missouri  Bill — Restriction  on  the  State. 


[H.  OF  R. 


of  those  territories  about  to  become  States,  a 
stipulation  for  the  exclusion  of  slavea  The 
clause  of  the  constitution  referred  to  reads  thus : 
"  The  Congress  shall  have  power  to  dispose  of, 
and  make  all  needful  rules  and  regulations  re- 
specting the  territory  or  other  property  belong- 
ing to  the  United  States."  It  has  been  contended 
that  this  gives  a  power  of  legislation  over  per- 
sons and  private  property  within  the  territories 
of  the  United  States.  The  clause  obviously  re- 
lates to  the  territory  belonging  to  the  United 
.Suites,  as  property  only.  The  power  given  is 
to  dispose  of,  and  make  all  needful  regulations 
respecting,  the  territorial  property,  or  other 
property  of  the  United  States ;  and  Congress 
have  power  to  pass  all  laws  necessary  and 
proper  to  the  exercise  of  that  power.  This 
clause  speaks  of  the  territory  as  property,  as  a 
subject  of  sale.  It  speaks  not  of  the  jurisdic- 
tion.* That  the  convention  considered  as  being 
provided  for  by  the  ordinance  of  Congress.f 
This  clause  contains  no  grant,  of  power  to  legis- 
late over  persons  and  private  property  within  a 
territory.  A  power  to  dispose  of,  and  make  all 
needful  regulations  respecting  the  property  of 
the  United  States,  is  very  different  from  a 
power  to  legislate  over  the  persons  and  prop- 
erty of  the  people.  When  it  was  the  intention 
of  the  Convention  that  the  constitution  should 
convey  to  Congress  power  to  legislate  over  per- 
sons and  private  property,  they  expressed  them- 
selves in  terms  not  doubtful.  Thus,  they  said, 
u  Congress  shall  have  power  to  exercise  exclu- 
sive legislation  in  all  cases  whatsoever,"  within 
the  ten  miles  square.  But  no  such  power  to 
legislate  over  the  territories  is  granted.  The 
power  is,  to  dispose  of,  and  make  all  needful 


*  This  clause,  as  first  proposed  in  Convention,  read  thus : 
"To   dispose  of  the  unappropriated   lands  of  the  United 


5;  to  institute  temporary  governments  for  new  States 
arising  therein."  The  latter  power  was  not  granted.  See 
Journal  Convention,  page  260. 

t  Mr.  Smyth  is  very  distinct  here  upon  a  much  contested 
point.  He  considers  the  "needful  rules  and  regulation" 
clause  as  applying  to  property  only,  and  that  the  property  of 
the  ynited  States.  He  considers  it  no  grant  of  the  jurisdic- 
tion, or  the  right  of  government,  that  (to  wit,  jurisdiction 
and  government)  being  provided  for  in  the  ordinance.  This 
is  historically  and  logically  true.  The  ordinance  was  the 
constitution  of  the  territories,  made  for  them  at  the  same 
time,  (and,  it  may  be  said,  by  the  same  men,)  who  made 
the  constitution  for  the  States.  It  was  not  necessary  for 
the  new  constitution  to  provide  for  the  territorial  govern- 
ments, because  their  own  constitutions  had  done  it  And 
that  territorial  constitution,  to  wit,  the  ordinance  of  '87,  was 
part  and  parcel  of  the  new  system,  going  with  the  new  con- 
stitution, and  doing  for  the  territories  what  the  constitution 
was  doing  for  the  States.  The  territories  had  no  share  in 
the  constitution,  and  looked  to  the  ordinance  and  the  power 
of  Congress  for  their  governments.  The  ordinance  of'STwas 
not  made  under  the  articles  of  confederation;  for  no  power 
to  make  it  is  there ;  but  as  an  incident  to  sovereignty  and 
ownership,  and  in  virtue  of  the  compacts  with  the  ceding 
States.  The  new  territories  are  governed  by  the  same 
rights  of  ownership  of  soil  and  sovereignty,  and  by  virtue 
of  the  compacts  with  the  powers  from  which  they  are 
acquired. 


regulations  respecting  the  property  of  the  United 
States.  When  that  is  sold  and  conveyed,  it 
ceases  to  be  an  objeet  of  the  power  to  make 
regulations  respecting  the  property  of  the 
United  States ;  and  if  the  construction  contended 
for  by  our  opponents  be  correct,  and  Congress 
possess  power  to  legislate  for  a  territory,  that 
would  not  authorize  them  to  make  regulation* 
which  should  continue  in  force  when  the  terri- 
tory became  a  State,  and  the  United  State* 
ceased  to  own  property  therein. 

By  treaty  we  are  bound  to  admit  Missouri 
into  the  Union ;  to  allow  her  a  representation 
for  her  slaves ;  to  guarantee  to  her  a  republican 
form  of  government,  (that  is,  a  government  by 
and  for  the  people  themselves,  not  a  govern- 
ment imposed  on  them,  nor  a  patrimonial  gov- 
ernment ;)  and  to  leave  her  all  power  not  dele- 
gated by  the  constitution  to  the  United  States, 
nor  prohibited  by  it  to  the  States.  Treaties  are 
in  part  the  supreme  law  of  the  land,  and  para- 
mount to  the  constitution  of  any  State ;  yet  you 
propose  to  violate  the  treaty  with  France  by  the 
means  of  a  State  constitution,  which  is  of  infe- 
rior obligation  to  a  treaty. 

It  has  been  urged,  not  indeed  at  this  session, 
as  a  reason  for  violating  tke  treaty  with  France, 
that  the  present  Government  of  that  nation 
will  not  insist  on  the  strict  performance  of  its 
stipulations.  Although  the  right  of  the  people 
of  Missouri  rests  on  a  treaty,  the  question 
arises  between  them  and  their  own  Govern- 
ment ;  and  it  would  be  considered  criminal  in 
them  to  apply  for  protection  to  any  other  Gov- 
ernment. But  the,  former  sovereign  of  the 
country  has  made  a  stipulation  on  behalf  of  the 
people,  and  to  that  stipulation  we  have  agreed 
in  the  most  solemn  manner.  If  we  do  not  per- 
form our  engagements,  we  shall  be  deemed  a 
perfidious,  faithless  nation ;  and  yet  it  has  been 
proposed  to  violate  the  treaty,  because  the  pow- 
erful Monarch  with  whom  we  made  it  reigns 
no  more. 

Will  you  be  unjust,  false,  and  perfidious,  be- 
cause you  are  powerful?  Would  it  be  honor- 
able to  violate  a  treaty  because  those  who  claim 
the  benefits  of  its  provisions  are  our  own  citi- 
zens ?  Should  the  treaty  with  Spain  be  ratified, 
will  you  refuse  to  pay  your  own  citizens  for 
Spanish  spoliations,  because  Spain,  who  stipu- 
lated on  their  behalf,  is  not  likely  to  declare 
war  against  you  if  you  do  not?  By  your  con- 
stitution, a  treaty  is  the  supreme  law  of  th« 
land,  and  paramount  to  the  constitution  which 
you  propose  to  force  Missouri  to  adopt.  You 
may,  indeed,  repeal  the  treaty  by  an  act  of  Con- 
gress ;  but  the  effect  of  a  measure  of  that  kind 
should  be  well  considered.  And  you  must  re- 
peal the  treaty  directly  or  by  implication  before 
the  proposed  measure  can  have  the  desired  ef- 
fect ;  for  the  treaty,  until  it  is  repealed,  is  para- 
mount to  the  imposed  constitution ;  and  the 
judges  would  sustain  it. 

Beware !  You  have  no  right  to  Missouri  but 
what  the  treaty  gives  yon.  The  treaty  gives 
you  Missouri,  on  condition  that  you  secure  the 


488 


ABRIDGMENT  OF  THE 


H.  OF  R.] 


The  Missouri  Bill — Restriction  on  the  State, 


[JANUARY,  1820. 


property  of  the  inhabitants,  and  incorporate 
them  into  the  Union  of  the  United  States,  with 
nil  the  rights  of  citizens,  according  to  the  prin- 
ciples of  the  Federal  Constitution,  Which  re- 
serves to  them  all  powers  not  delegated  by 
that  constitution.  If  I  receive  a  deed  on  condi- 
tion, I  am  bound  to  perform  the  condition. 
Every  engagement  in  a  treaty  is  a  condition, 
the  breach  of  which  releases  the  other  party 
from  his  engagements.*  Perhaps  they  are  mis- 
taken who  suppose  that  the  present  Govern- 
ment of  France  is  deficient  in  spirit  and  honor, 
and  will  not  insist  on  the  observance  of  exist- 
ing treaties  made  with  France.  Would  not 
England  like  to  see  France  and  the  United 
States  brought  into  collision  ?  Would  not  all  Eu- 
rope be  pleased  to  see  the  power  of  France  inter- 
posed between  the  United  States  and  Mexico  ? 
France  wants  colonies  and  commerce;  and 
half  the  people  of  Louisiana  are  Frenchmen. 

I  will  next  consider  the  effect  which  the  pro- 
posed measure  may  have  upon  the  safety  of  the 
community.  There  were  in  the  United  States, 
at  the  taking  of  the  last  census,  of  free  whites 
5,765,000,  of  slaves  1,165,000,  or  about  one  slave 
to  five  free  whites.  There  were  of  free  blacks 
181,000,  making  the  whole  number  of  the 
blacks  about  1,346,000,  there  being  more  than 
four  whites  to  one  black.  Now,  it  is  apparent 
that,  were  these  people  equally  dispersed  in 
every  district,  county,  and  town,  of  every  State, 
there  would  be  no  danger  from  any  insurrectional 
movement  by  them  in  any  part  of  the  United 
States.  Equal  dispersion  would  produce  not 
only  an  increase  of  comfort  to  the  slaves,  but 
also  perfect  security  to  the  whites. 

Let  us  suppose  that,  instead  of  being  dispersed 
through  ten  of  the  States,  as  they  now  are, 
that  the  slaves  were  all  collected  in  Virginia ; 
that  State  would  then  have — whites  551,000, 
blacks  1,846,000,  or  about  five  blacks  to  two 
whites.  What  would  be  the  consequence? 
Let  St.  Domingo  answer.  But  Virginia  has 
actually  392,000  slaves,  or  about  eight  slaves 
to  eleven  white  persons.  She  is  yet  safe,  if  her 
legislators  have  foresight,  decision,  and  firm- 
ness. And  I  hope  it  will  never  be  said  of  Vir- 
ginia, "  Died  Abner  as  a  fool  dieth :  thy  hands 
were  not  bound,  nor  thy  feet  put  into  fetters." 

As  equal  dispersion  of  the  slaves  would  be 
perfect  security,  and  concentration  of  them  in 
a  single  State  would  be  probable  destruction, 
what  may  be  said  of  the  policy  of  the  amend- 
ment on  your  table,  which  proposes  to  return 
upon  the  old  States,  or  throw  into  Mississippi 
and  Louisiana,  where  they  are  already  too  nu- 
merous, ten  thousand  slaves  from  Missouri.  It 
is  evident  that  the  more  you  concentrate  them, 
the  greater  the  danger ;  the  more  you  disperse 
them,  the  greater  the  safety.  Where  the  pro- 
portion of  the  slaves  to  the  free  persons  is  too 
great,  it  ought,  by  all  just  means,  to  be  lessened. 

Dispersion  is  the  true  policy  to  pursue  to- 
wards a  distinct  people,  whose  numbers  in  any 


*  Grotius. 


part  of  an  empire  endanger  its  peace.  Thus 
Salmanazar  dispersed  the  Israelites  throughout 
his  empire;  and  Vespasian,  Adrian,  and  Con- 
stantine,  dispersed  the  Jews.  It  was  good 
policy  in  Valens  to  disperse  the  children  of  the 
Goths,  in  Asia.  So  in  our  own  times,  the  Brit- 
ish finding  that  the  Maroons  were  dangerous 
in  Jamaica,  transported  them  to  Nova  Scotia. 
Suppose  that  fifty  thousand  prisoners  had  been 
taken  in  the  late  war,  would  you  have  deemed 
it  safe  to  have  cantoned  the  whole  of  them  in 
Vermont  ?  Or  would  you  not  have  dispersed 
them  through  several  of  the  States?  Doubtless 
you  would  have  dispersed  them.  And  for 
the  same  reason  you  should  disperse  the  slaves. 

The  tendency  of  the  proposition  to  create 
jealousies  between  the  States,  deserves  serious 
consideration.  It  seems  to  me  to  be  a  sacred 
duty  of  those  who  govern  this  nation,  to  guard 
against  every  cause  of  division  with  the  utmost 
care,  and  to  practise  forbearance.  The  consti- 
tution was  formed  in  a  spirit  of  concession ;  and 
it  has  been,  and  will  be,  necessary  to  administer 
it  in  the  same  spirit.  The  people  of  the  South 
deem  the  proposed  measure  a  serious  wrong. 
That  circumstance  alone  should  be  a  sufficient 
objection  to  any  measure  which  cannot  be 
shown  to  be  essential  to  the  preservation  of  the 
community.  In  the  effects  of  the  embargo  we 
have  seen  how  impolitic  it  is  to  adopt  a  measure 
against  the  general  ^opposition  of  a  large  section 
ot  the  country.  We  saw  that  measure  repealed 
for  want  of  power  to  enforce  it ;  but  not  until 
it  had  produced  extensive  disaffection,  which, 
in  the  last  war,  paralyzed  the  right  arm  of  the 
United  States,  and  led  to  that  convention,  which 
is  now  the  subject  of  universal  regret. 

You  are  about  to  prove  to  the  Southern  and 
Western  people  that  their  property  and  their 
lives  are  unsafe  under  your  Government ;  that 
you  mean  to  violate  their  claim  of  a  right  to 
make  laws  for  themselves.  It  will  not  be  good 
policy  to  convince  the  Southern  and  Western 
people  of  this.  Are  you  certain  that  injustice 
cannot  have  the  effect  of  breaking  the  bands  of 
the  Union?  Doubtless  they  are  strong;  .but 
the  attachment  to  life,  property,  and  the  rights 
of  freemen,  is  stronger.  The  States  who  hold 
slaves  cannot  consent  that  any  State  shall  sur- 
render to  this  Government  power  over  that  de- 
scription of  property.  Its  value  amounts  to 
five  hundred  millions  of  dollars.  Power  over  it 
has  not  been  granted  to  this  Government  for 
any  purpose,  except  that  of  taxation ;  nor  can 
power  over  it  be  obtained  by  the  concession 
of  particular  States,  or  otherwise  than  by  an 
amendment  to  the  constitution. 

Every  State  is  interested  that  every  other 
State  shall  preserve  its  rights.  The  States 
should  possess  the  same  rights,  so  that  the  inva- 
sion of  the  rights  of  one  should  be  the  invasion  of 
the  rights  of  all.  You  will  unite  in  opposition 
ten  of  the  States ;  you  will  form  local  parties, 
the  most  dangerous  of  all  parties;  you  will 
unite  the  State  governments,  defending  State 
rights,  to  the  people,  defending  their  prop- 


DEBATES  OF  CONGRESS. 


FEBRUARY,  1820.] 


The  Missouri  Bill— Restriction  on  the  State. 


[H.  OF  R 


erty  to  the  amount  of  five  hundred  millions. 
Louisiana,  being  equally  interested  in  the  con- 
struction of  the  treaty,  must  make  common 
cause  with  Missouri,  and  the  other  slavehold- 
ing  States  may  make  common  cause  with  them. 
If  you  let  the  people  of  Missouri  alone  to  ex- 
ercise the  right  of  self-government,  as  it  is  exer- 
cised by  the  people  of  the  other  States,  perhaps 
they  may  of  themselves  exclude  slavery.  If 
such  is  their  sovereign  will  and  pleasure,  be  it 
so.  Let  the  will  of  the  people  be  done.  But 
if  you  attempt  to  force  your  own  will  upon 
them,  perhaps  they  may  know  and  duly  appre- 
ciate their  rights.  Then  they  will  not  give  up 
the  sacred  right  of  self-government.  The 
people  who  have  not  a  right  to  legislate  for 
themselves  are  not  free.  They  do  not  enjoy  a 
republican  form  of  government.  It  would  be 
an  event  to  be  lamented  if  any  portion  of  this 
free  people  should  give  up  their  constitutional 
rights. 

TUESDAY,  February  1. 
The  Missouri  Bill. 

The  House  then  again  went  into  Committee 
of  the  Whole,  on  this  bill — the  proposed  restric- 
tion still  under  consideration. 

Mr.  REID,  of  Georgia,  addressed  the  House. 
That  this  was  a  question  deeply  interesting  to 
that  quarter  of  the  Union  whence  he  had  the 
honor  to  come,  was  the  only  apology  he  urged 
for  offering  his  opinions  to  the  committee. 

The  subject  (he  continued)  is  said  to  be  deli- 
cate and  embarrassing.  It  is  so,  and  particu- 
larly in  one  point  of  view.  The  sentiments,  to 
which  the  heat  and  ardor  of  debate  gave  ex- 
pression, will  not  expire  here,  like  the  broken 
echoes  of  your  Hall !  They  will  penetrate  to 
the  remotest  corners  of  the  nation,  and  may 
make  an  impression  upon  the  black  population 
of  the  South,  as  fatal,  in  its  effects  to  the  slave, 
as  mischievous  to  our  citizens.  This  not  mere 
idle  surmise.  In  a  professional  capacity,  I  was 
recently  concerned  for  several  unhappy  beings, 
who  were  tried  and  convicted  of  a  violation  of 
the  laws,  by  attempted  insurrection.  They  had 
held  conversations,  as  the  testimony  developed, 
with  certain  itinerant  traders,  who  not  only 
poisoned  their  minds,  but  incited  them  to  rebel- 
lion— by  proffered  assistance.  Such  influence 
have  the  opinions  of  even  the  most  depraved  and 
ignorant  white  men  upon  this  unfortunate  race 
of  people.  But  the  subject  is  neither  delicate 
nor  embarrassing,  as  it  is  considered  to  imply  re- 
proach, or  a  high  offence  against  the  moral  law 
— the  violation  of  the  liberty  of  our  fellow-men. 
Such  imputations  "pass  by  us  as  the  idle  wind, 
which  we  respect  not."  They  are  "barb- 
less  arrows,  shot  from  bows  unstrung!"  The 
slaveholding  States  have  not  brought  this  ca- 
lamity upon  themselves.  They  have  not  volun- 
tarily assumed  this  burden.  It  was  fastened 
upon  them  by  the  mother  country,  notwith- 
standing the  most  earnest  entreaties  and  expos- 
tulations. And,  if  the  gentlemen  were  well 
acquainted  with  the  true  state  of  slavery  in 


the  South,  (I  speak  particularly  of  Georgia,  for 
my  information  extends  little  farther,)  I  am  very 
sure  their  understandings  would  acquit  us  of  the 
charges  which  their  imaginations  prefer. 

Sir,  the  slaves  of  the  South  are  held  to  a  ser- 
vice which,  unlike  that  of  the  ancient  villein,  is 
certain  and  moderate.  They  are  well  supplied 
with  food  and  raiment.  They  are  "content, 
and  careless  of  to-morrow's  fare."  The  lights 
of  our  religion  shine  as  well  for  them  as  for 
their  masters ;  and  their  rights  of  personal  se- 
curity, guaranteed  by  the  constitution  and  the 
laws,  are  vigilantly  protected  by  the  courts.  It 
is  true,  they  are  often  made  subject  to  wanton 
acts  of  tyranny ;  but  this  is  not  their  peculiar 
misfortune !  For,  search  the  catalogue  of  crimes, 
and  you  will  find  that  man — the  tyrant — is 
continually  preying  upon  his  fellow-men ;  there 
are  as  many  white  as  black  victims  to  the 
vengeful  passions  and  the  lust  of  power !  Be- 
lieve me,  sir,  I  am  not  the  panegyrist  of  slavery. 
It  is  an  unnatural  state ;  a  dark  cloud  which 
obscures  half  the  lustre  of  our  free  institutions ! 
But  it  is  a  fixed  evil,  which  we  can  only  alle- 
viate. Are  we  called  upon  to  emancipate  our 
slaves  ?  I  answer,  their  welfare — the  safety  of 
our  citizens,  forbid  it  Can  we  incorporate 
them  with  us,  and  make  them  and  us  one  peo- 
ple? The  prejudices  of  the  North  and  of  the 
South  rise  up  in  equal  strength  against  such  a 
measure;  and  even  those  who  clamor  most 
loudly  for  the  sublime  doctrines  of  your  Decla- 
ration of  Independence,  who  shout  in  your  ears, 
"all  men  are  by  nature  equal  l':  would  turn 
with  abhorrence  and  disgust  from  a  party-col- 
ored progeny !  Shall  we  then  be  blamed  for  a 
state  of  things  to  which  we  are  obliged  to 
submit?  Would  it  be  fair ;  would  it  be  manly  ; 
would  it  be  generous ;  would  it  be  just ;  to  offer 
contumely  and  contempt  to  the  unfortunate 
man  who  wears  a  cancer  in  his  bosom,  because 
he  will  not  submit  to  cautery  at  the  hazard  of 
his  existence  ?  For  my  own  part,  surrounded 
by  slavery  from  my  cradle  to  the  present  mo- 
ment, I  yet 

"  Hate  the  touch  of  servile  hands  ; 

I  loathe  the  slaves  who  cringe  around:" 
and  I  would  hail  that  day  as  the  most  glorious 
in  its  dawning,  which  should  behold,  with  safety 
to  themselves  and  our  citizens,  the  black  pop- 
ulation of  the  United  States  placed  upon  the 
high  eminence  of  equal  rights,  and  clothed  in 
the  privileges  and  immunities  of  American 
citizens !  But  this  is  a  dream  of  philanthropy 
which  can  never  be  fulfilled ;  and  whoever  shall 
act  in  this  country  upon  such  wild  theories, 
shall  cease  to  be  a  benefactor,  and  become  a 
destroyer  of  the  human  family. 

The  Constitution  of  the  United  States  is  plain 
and  simple ;  it  requires  no  superiority  of  intel- 
lect to  comprehend  its  dictates ;  it  is  addressed 
to  every  understanding ;  u  he  who  runs  may 
read."  It  is,  then,  a  proof  of  the  absence  of  all 
authority  for  the  proposed  measure,  when  its 
advocates,  and  some,  too,  of  great  names,  fly 
from  cluuse  to  section  and  from  section  to  arti- 


490 


ABRIDGMENT  OF  THE 


H.  OF  R.] 


The  Missouri  Bill — Restriction  on  the  Stale. 


[FEBRUAHV,  1820. 


cle,  without  finding  "  rest  for  the  sole  of  the 
foot ;"  without  finding  or  agreeing  upon  any 
one  line,  phrase,  or  section,  whence  this  power 
for  which  all  contend  may  be  brought  into 
existence.  And  it  is  perfectly  natural  that  this 
effect  should  be  produced.  A  search  for  the 
philosopher's  stone  might  as  soon  be  expected 
to  end  in  certainty. 

But  it  is  argued  that  Congress  has  ever  im- 
posed restrictions  upon  new  States,  and  no  ob- 
jection has  been  urged  until  this  moment.  If 
it  be  true,  that  only  one  condition  can  consti- 
tutionally be  imposed,  it  would  seem  that  any 
other  is  null  and  void,  and  may  be  thrown  off 
by  the  State  at  pleasure.  And  then  this  argu- 
ment, the  strength  of  which  is  in  precedent, 
cannot  avail.  Uniformity  of  decision  for  hun- 
dreds of  years  cannot  make  that  right  which  at 
first  was  wrong.  If  it  were  otherwise,  in  vain 
would  science  and  the  arts  pursue  their  march 
towards  perfection ;  in  vain  the  constant  pro- 
gress of  truth  ;  in  vain  the  new  and  bright  lights 
•which  are  daily  finding  their  way  to  the  human 
mind,  like  the  rays  of  the  distant  stars,  which, 
passing  onward  J'rom  the  creation  of  time,  are 
said  to  be  continually  reaching  our  sphere. 
Malus  usu#  dbolendus  est.  When  error  appears, 
let  her  be  detected  and  exposed,  and  let  evil 
precedents  be  abolished. 

It  is  true  that  the  old  Confederation,  by  the 
6th  section  of  the  ordinance  of  1787,  inhibited 
slavery  in  the  territory  northwest  of  the  Ohio, 
and  that  the  States  of  Ohio,  Illinois,  and  In- 
diana, have  been  introduced  into  the  Union 
under  this  restriction. 

fectly  worthy  of  the  end  it  seems  destined  to 
accomplish.  It  had  no  authority  in  the  Articles 
of  Confederation,  which  did  not  contemplate, 
•with  the  exception  of  Canada,  the  acquisition  of 
territory.  It  was  in  contradiction  of  the  res- 
olution of  1780,  by  which  the  States  were  allured 
to  cede  their  unlocated  lands  to  the  General 
Government,  upon  the  condition  that  these 
should  constitute  several  States,  to  be  admitted 
into  the  Union  upon  an  equal  footing  with  the 
original  States.  It  is  in  fraud  of  the  acts  of 
cession  by  which  the  States  conveyed  territory 
in  faith  of  the  resolution  of  1780.  And,  when 
recognized  by  acts  of  Congress,  and  applied  to 
the  States  formed  from  the  territory  beyond  the 
Ohio,  it  is  in  violation  of  the  Constitution  of 
the  United  States.  So  much  for  the  efficacy  of 
the  precedent  which,  although  binding  here,  is 
not,  it  would  seem,  of  obligation  upon  Ohio, 
Indiana,  or  Illinois,  or,  if  you  impose  it,  upon 
Missouri.  It  is  not  the  force  of  your  legal 
provisions  which  attaches  the  restrictive  6th 
article  of  the  ordinance  to  the  States  I  have 
mentioned.  It  is  the  moral  sentiment  of  the 
inhabitants.  Impose  it  upon  Missouri,  and  she 
will  indignantly  throw  off  the  yoke  and  laugh 
you  to  scorn  !  You  will  then  discover  that  you 
have  assumed  a  weapon  that  you  cannot  wield 
— the  bow  of  Ulysses,  which  all  your  efforts 
cannot  bend.  The  open  and  voluntary  exposure 


of  your  weakness  will  make  you  not  only  the 
object  of  derision  at  home,  but  a  byword  among 
nations.  Can  there  be  a  power  in  Congress  to 
do  that  which  the  object  of  the  power  may 
rightfully  destroy  ?  Are  the  rights  of  Missouri 
and  of  the  Union  in  opposition  to  each  other  ? 
Can  it  be  possible  that  Congress  has  authority 
to  impose  a  restriction  which  Missouri,  by  an 
alteration  of  her  constitution,  may  abolish  ?  Sir, 
the  course  we  are  pursuing  reminds  me  of  the 
urchin  who,  with  great  care  and  anxiety,  con- 
structs his  card  edifice,  which  the  slightest  touch 
may  demolish,  the  gentlest  breath  dissolve. 

But  let  us  stand  together  upon  the  basis  of 
precedent,  and  upon  that  ground  you  cannot 
extend  this  restriction  to  Missouri.  You  have 
imposed  it  upon  the  territory  beyond  the  Ohio, 
but  you  have  never  applied  it  elsewhere.  Ten- 
nessee, Vermont,  Kentucky,  Louisiana,  Missis- 
sippi, and  Alabama,  have  come  into  the  Union 
without  being  required  to  submit  to  the  con- 
dition inhibiting  slavery ;  nay,  whenever  the 
ordinance  of  1787  has  been  applied  to  any  of 
these  States,  the  operation  of  the  6th  article  has 
been  suspended  or  destroyed.  According,  then, 
to  the  uniform  tenor  of  the  precedent,  let  the 
States  to  be  formed  of  the  territory  without  the 
boundaries  of  the  territory  northwest  of  Ohio 
remain  unrestricted,  and  in  the  enjoyment  of 
the  fulness  of  their  rights. 

Thus,  it  appears  to  me,  the  power  you  seek  to 
assume  is  not  to  be  found  in  the  constitution,  or 
to  be  derived  from  precedents.  Shall  it,  then, 
without  any  known  process  of  generation,  spring 
spontaneously  from  your  councils,  like  the 
armed  Minerva  from  the  brain  of  Jupiter  ?  The 
Goddess,  sir,  although  of  wisdom,  was  also  the 
inventress  of  war — and  the  power  of  your  crea- 
tion, although  extensive  in  its  dimensions,  and 
ingenious  in  its  organization,  may  produce  the 
most  terrible  and  deplorable  effects.  Assure 
yourselves  you  have  not  authority  to  bind  a 
State  coming  into  the  Union  with  a  single  hair ! 
If  you  have,  you  may  rivet  a  chain  upon  every 
limb,  a  fetter  upon  every  joint.  Where,  then, 
I  ask,  is  the  independence  of  your  State  govern- 
ments? Do  they  not  fall  prostrate,  debased, 
covered  with  sackcloth  and  crowned  with  allies, 
before  the  gigantic  power  of  the  Union  ?  They 
will  no  longer,  sir,  resemble  planets,  moving  in 
order  around  a  solar  centre,  receiving  and  im- 
parting lustre.  They  will  dwindle  to  mere 
satellites,  or,  thrown  from  their  orbits,  they 
will  wander  "  like  stars  condemned,  the  wrecks 
of  worlds  demolished  I" 

I  beg  leave  to  offer  a  few  words  upon  the 
expedience  of  this  amendment,  and  I  declare 
myself  at  a  loss  to  divine  the  motive  which  so 
ardently  presses  its  enactment.  It  is  said  that 
humanity,  a  tender  concern  for  the  welfare, 
both  of  the  slave  and  his  master,  is  the  moving 
principle.  And  here  I  cannot  refrain  from 
repeating  the  words  of  a  periodical  writer,  as 
remarkable  for  his  good  taste  as  the  justness  of 
bis  sentiments :  "  The  usual  mode,"  ?ays  he, 
of  making  a  bad  measure  palatable  to  a  virtu- 


DEBATES  OF  CONGRESS. 


491 


FEBRUARY,  1820.] 


The  Missouri  Bill— Restriction  on  the  State. 


[H.  OF  R. 


ous  and  well-disposed  community,  is  that  of 
holding  it  up  as  conducing  to  some  salutary 
end,  by  which  the  whole  people  are  eventually 
to  be  greatly  benefited.  "  It  is  thus  that  every 
mischievous  public  measure  is  sheltered  behind 
some  pretext  of  public  good."  But  it  is  a  ques- 
tion which  deserves  consideration,  whether,  if 
slavery  -be  confined  to  its  present  limits,  the  sit- 
uation of  the  master  or  the  slave,  or  both,  will 
be  made  better  ?  Will  not  the  increased  num- 
ber of  slaves,  within  a  given  space,  diminish 
the  means  of  subsistence  ?  Will  not  the  num- 
ber of  masters  diminish  as  the  number  of  slaves 
increases  ?  And  what  are  the  consequences  ? 
Extreme  wretchedness,  penury,  and  want,  to 
the  slave ;  care,  anxiety,  imbecility,  and  servile 
war  to  the  master !  Then,  indeed,  will  be  pro- 
duced what  the  advocates  of  this  amendment  so 
much  deprecate — tyranny,  in  all  its  wantonness, 
on  one  hand,  despair  and  revenge  on  the  other. 
At  this  moment  the  situation  of  the  Southern 
slave  is,  in  many  respects,  enviable.  Adopt 
your  restriction,  and  his  fate  will  not  be  better 
than  that  of  the  mastiff,  which  howls  all  day 
long  from  the  kennel,  where  his  chains  confine 
him.  But,  let  the  dappled  tide  of  population 
roll  onwards  to  the  West ;  raise  no  mound  to 
interrupt  its  course,  and  the  evil,  of  which  we 
on  all  sides  so  bitterly  complain,  will  have  lost 
half  its  power  to  harm  by  dispersion.  Slaves, 
divided  among  many  masters,  will  enjoy  greater 
privileges  and  comforts  than  those  who,  cooped 
within  a  narrow  sphere,  and  under  few  owners, 
will  be  doomed  to  drag  a  long,  heavy,  and 
clanking  chain  through  the  space  of  their  exist- 
ence. Danger  from  insurrection  will  diminish. 
Confidence  will  grow  between  the  master  and 
his  servant.  T  he  one  will  no  longer  be  consid- 
ered as  a  mere  beast  of  burden ;  the  other  as  a 
remorseless  despot,  void  of  feeling  and  commiser- 
ation. In  proportion  as  few  slaves  are  possessed 
by  the  same  individual,  will  he  look  with  less 
reluctance  to  the  prospect  of  their  ultimate 
liberation.  Emancipations  will  become  common, 
and  who  knows  but  that,  the  Great  Being,  to 
whose  mercies  all  men  have  an  equal  claim, 
may,  in  the  fulness  of  his  time,  work  a  miracle 
in  behalf  of  the  trampled  rights  of  human  na- 
ture? Sir,  humanity,  unless  I  am  egregiously 
deceived,  disclaims  those  doctrines,  the  practi- 
cal result  of  which  is  to  make  the  black  man 
more  wretched,  and  the  white  man  less  safe. 
She  turns  with  shivering  abhorrence  from  the 
fetters  which,  while  you  affect  to  loosen,  you 
clasp  more  firmly  around  the  miserable  African. 
But,  let  gentlemen  beware!  Assume  the 
Mississippi  as  the  boundary.  Say,  that  to  the 
smiling  Canaan  beyond  its  waters,  no  slave  shall 
approach,  and  you  give  a  new  character  to  its 
inhabitants,  totally  distinct  from  that  which 
shall  belong  to  the  people  thronging  on  the  east 
of  your  limits.  You  implant  diversity  of  pur- 
suits, hostility  of  feeling,  envy,  hatred,  and 
bitter  reproaches,  which 

"  Shall  grow  to  clubs  and  naked  sworda, 
To  murder  and  to  death." 


If  you  remain  inexorable ;  if  you  persist  in 
refusing  the  humble,  the  decent,  the  reasonable 
prayer  of  Missouri,  is  there  no  danger  that  her 
resistance  will  rise  in  proportion  to  your  op- 
pression ?  Sir,  the  firebrand,  which  is  even  now 
cast  into  your  society,  will  require  blood — ay, 
and  the  blood  of  freemen — for  its  quenching. 
Your  Union  shall  tremble,  as  under  the  force  of 
an  earthquake!  While  you  incautiously  pull 
down  a  constitutional  barrier,  you  make  way 
for  the  dark,  and  tumultuous,  and  overwhelm- 
ing waters  of  desolation !  If  you  "  sow  the 
winds,  must  you  not  reap  the  whirlwind  ?" 

Mr.  CLAGETT,  of  New  Hampshire,  rose  and 
addressed  the  Chair  as  follows :  Mr.  Chairman, 
when  I  reflect  that  the  subject  under  considera- 
tion involves  a  constitutional  question  of  the 
first  magnitude,  in  which  the  whole  Union  is 
deeply  interested,  I  confess  I  feel  fully  sensible 
of  my  own  inability  to  perform  that  duty  which 
I  owe  to  those  I  represent,  and  to  my  country. 
Nor  am  I  insensible  to  the  solicitude  felt  by 
this  honorable  body,  while  this  discussion  pro- 
ceeds. But  as  equal  solicitude,  and,  probably, 
greater,  agitated  the  Convention  who  formed 
our  constitution,  when  the  same  subject  was 
before  them  ;  and,  as  their  deliberations  closed, 
so,  I  hope  ours  will,  in  a  spirit  of  amity.  Theirs 
was  the  greater  task ;  they  had  a  compromise 
to  make :  we  find  it  already  made ;  they  had  a 
constitution  to  form  :  we  find  one  already  form- 
ee.  With  these  impressions,  and  a  full  sense  of 
my  own  responsibility  for  the  course  I  pursue, 
and  for  the  motives  by  which  I  am  governed,  I 
ask  your  attention  to  the  brief  view  of  the  sub- 
ject which  my  best  reflections  enable  me  to 
present.  And,  sir,  it  will  be  my  endeavor  to 
avoid  every  thing  contrary  to  that  spirit  of  har- 
mony so  desirable ;  and  I  regret  that  any  re- 
marks should  have  been  made  which  may  re- 
quire animadversion  or  retort. 

Mr.  Chairman,  I  have  said  that,  among  the 
statesmen  who  formed  this  constitution,  were 
many  of  those  who  subscribed  to  the  Declara- 
tion of  Independence,  the  Act  of  Confederation, 
and  established  the  Ordinance  of  1787;  and  in 
all  their  proceedings  it  evidently  appears  that 
they  considered  slavery  as  a  great  evil,  and 
inconsistent  with  those  pure  principles  of  liberty 
for  which  they  contended  ;  and  in  no  act  ia  this 
more  apparent  than  in  that  ordinance  by  which 
slavery  is  expressly  excluded  from  all  the  Ter- 
ritory and  States  northwest  of  the  river  Ohio, 
forever.  But  the  same  subject  was  among  the 
most  perplexing  and  painful  in  the  Convention 
who  formed  the  constitution,  as  appears  by 
their  journals.  Slavery  had  been  introduced, 
indeed,  under  a  Government  whose  principles 
were  not  congenial  with  ours.  It  was  an  exist- 
ing evil  in  our  laud,  and  could  not  be  imme- 
diately eradicated,  but  it  could  be  restricted, 
and  further  extension  of  the  evil  prohibited. 
After  much  agitation,  this  course  was  amicably 
acrreed  upon,  as  clearly  appears  from  the  consti- 
tution :  leaving  it,  however,  with  such  original 
States  where  the  evil  existed,  to  regulate  their 


492 


ABRIDGMENT  OF  THE 


H.  OP  R.] 


Journal  of  the  Old  Congress. 


[FEBRUARY,  1820. 


own  internal  concerns,  and  giving  to  Congress 
full  power  over  this  subject  in  all  other  respects, 
but  suspending  the  operation  of  that  power 
until  the  year  1808. 

Sir,  let  me  ask  your  attention  to  the  9th  sec- 
tion of  the  1st  article  of  the  constitution ;  and, 
if  we  keep  in  view  the  principle  contended  for, 
the  object  to  be  attained,  it  would  seem  that  we 
inufet  come  to  a  correct  conclusion.  "The 
migration  or  importation  of  such  persons  as  any 
of  the  States  now  existing  shall  think  proper  to 
admit,  shall  not  be  prohibited  by  Congress  prior 
to  the  year  1808 ;  but  a  tax  or  duty  may  be 
imposed  on  such  importation,  not  exceeding  ten 
dollars  lor  each  person." 

Sir,  plain  as  this  section  really  is,  different 
constructions  have  been  attempted.  The  hon- 
orable gentleman  from  Massachusetts,  last  men- 
tioned, has  facetiously  called  upon  the  friends  of 
this  amendment  to  agree.  Sir,  I  have  perceived 
no  material  disagreement  on  this  side  of  the 
question,  but  have  noticed  a  little  on  the  other, 
and  must  be  permitted  to  retort  the  remark. 
The  honorable  gentleman  contends  that  the 
term  "  migration"  applies  only  to  free  persons, 
(emigrants ;)  but  the  honorable  gentleman  from 
Virginia  (Mr.  SMYTH,)  who  followed  on  the 
same  side,  contends  that  it  applies  only  to  slaves ; 
and  here  the  two  honorable  gentlemen  seem  to 
be  at  issue.  But  the  honorable  gentleman  from 
Massachusetts  frankly  confesses  that  his  "  first 
impressions  led  him  to  the  opinion  that  the 
term  migration,  as  here  used,  applied  only  to 
slaves."  Sir,  I  am  convinced  the  "  first  impres- 
sions" of  the  honorable  gentleman  from  Massa- 
chusetts were  correct ;  and  that  "  first  impres- 
sions" should  not  be  too  soon  surrendered.  But, 
sir,  the  words  "  migration"  and  "  importation," 
though  different  in  signification,  both  apply  here 
to  the  same  persons — to  "  such  persons  as  any 
of  the  States  now  existing  shall  think  proper  to 
admit."  Migration,  in  common  parlance,  is  the 
act  of  removing  from  place  to  place ;  and,  as 
used  here,  can  only  mean  from  State  to  State ; 
because  the  compact  was  between  States,  and 
was  intended  to  protect  non-slaveholding  States 
against  the  intrusion  of  slaves,  and  to  restrict 
them  within  the  States  where  the  evil  was  tole- 
rated. "Importation"  means  bringing  from 
abroad,  and  can  have  no  other  meaning,  and 
yas  intended  to  prevent  the  farther  introduc- 
tion of  slaves  from  abroad. 

The  words  "  such  persons  as  any  of -the  States 
now  existing  shall  think  proper  to  admit,"  show 
that  all  the  States  did  not  think  proper  to  ad- 
mit ;  and  the  fact  is  well  known  that  six  only  of 
the  thirteen  original  States  did  then  admit 
slaves ;  seven  (which  were  a  majority)  were 
opposed  to  their  admission ;  but  all  entered  into 
this  compact,  as  the  best  and  only  remedy  in 
their  power ;  suspending  the  operation  of  the 
power  of  Congress  upon  the  original  States 
until  1808,  when  it  was  believed,  restrictions 
even  upon  the  original  States  might  safely  com- 
mence, but,  without  any  limitation  or  suspension 
of  power  over  the  subject,  as  to  new  States. 


But,  it  has  been  said,  that  "  migration"  applies 
only  to  white  emigrants.  Sir,  if  there  can  be 
a  doubt  that  slaves  are  the  persons  intended, 
the  5th  article  of  the  constitution  will  remove 
it ;  for  that  article  is  wholly  in  favor  of  slave- 
holding  States,  and  provides,  that  "  no  amend- 
ment of  the  constitution,  prior  to  1808,  shall 
affect  the  1st  and  4th  clauses  in  the  9th  section 
of  the  1st  article,  which  wholly  apply  to  slaves. 
The  6th  article  of  the  ordinance  of  1787,  ex- 
cluding slavery  from  new  States,  but  permitting 
reclamation  of  fugitives  from  original  States 
only,  must,  from  its  analogy  to  the  9th  section 
and  1st  article  of  the  constitution,  have  been 
in  view  of  the  Convention  when  the  constitu- 
tion was  formed,  and  has  a  strong  bearing  on 
this  subject.  Can  it  then  be  doubted  that  Con- 
gress have  a  superintending  and  complete  power 
over  this  subject,  except  only  as  to  the  internal 
regulations  in  the  original  States  ?  And  did 
not  Congress  commence  this  work  by  a  law  of 
1807,  which  took  effect  on  the  1st  day  of  the 
year  1808?  Sir,  they  did;  and  I  think  we 
are  bound  to  pursue  it. 

Mr.  Chairman:  Look  back  to  times  which 
tried  the  "  principles"  of  men ;  to  the  Congress 
of  1774,  and  examine  the  proceedings  of  those 
men  to  the  adoption  of  the  constitution ;  the 
professions  and  the  acts  of  those  patriots  all 
speak  the  same  language,  and  tend  to  the  same 
object — civil  and  religious  liberty,  the  rights 
of  man ;  and  then  say,  if  we  can  so  far  depart 
from  their  principles,  as  to  extend  slavery  over 
this  free  and  happy  land.  Is  there  no  evil  in 
this  traffic  ?  Why  were  Congress  so  assiduous 
to  enforce  the  ordinance  of  1787,  upon  our  cit- 
izens now  of  Ohio,  Indiana,  and  Illinois  ?  Why 
was  your  law  of  1807  prepared  to  meet  the 
first  day  of  the  year  1808,  when  you  could  first 
prohibit  the  importation  of  slaves  into  the 
original  States? 


WEDNESDAY,  February  2. 
Journal  of  the  Old  Congress. 
Mr.  STEOTHEE    offered  the    following    joint 
resolution : 

Resolved  by  the  Senate  and  House  of  Representatives 
of  the  United  States  of  America  in  Congress  assembled, 
That  the  Secret  Journal  of  the  Old  Congress,  from 
the  date  of  the  ratification  of  the  definitive  Treaty  of 
Peace  between  the  United  States  and  Great  Britain, 
in  the  year  1783,  to  the  formation  of  the  present 
Government,  now  remaining  in  the  office  of  the  Sec- 
retary of  State,  be  published  under  the  direction  of 
the  President  of  the.  United  States,  and  that  one 
thousand  copies  thereof  be  printed  and  deposited  in 
the  Library,  subject  to  the  disposition  of  Congress. 

The  resolution  having  been  twice  read,  Mr. 
STROTHER  moved  that  it  be  ordered  to  be  en- 
grossed and  read  a  third  time  to-morrow.  He 
saw  no  objection  to  its  taking  this  course, 
which  would  afford  the  opponents  of  the  pro- 
position, if  it  had  any,  the  opportunity  fully  to 
urge  their  objections ;  and  would  have  the  ad- 
vantage, should  it  meet  the  favor  of  the  House, 


DEBATES  OF  CONGRESS. 


1UARY,    1820.] 


Journal  of  the  Old  Congrest, 


[H.  OF  R. 


of  being  acted  on  at  once,  and  not  lost  or  en- 
dangered by  the  delay  that  would  attend  the 
usual  course  of  commitment  to  a  Committee  of 
the  Whole,  &c. 

Mr.  SMITH,  of  North  Carolina,  was  opposed 
to  the  motion  ;  and  hoped,  as  it  was  a  propo- 
sition involving  the  expenditure  of  money,  that 
it  would  take  the  ordinary  course,  and  be  com- 
mitted. He  moved,  therefore,  that  the  resolu- 
tion be  committed  to  a  Committee  of  the  whole 
llouse. 

Mr.  PIXOKXEY,  of  South  Carolina,  was  in 
favor  of  ordering  the  resolution  now  to  a  third 
reading.  He  was  a  member,  he  said,  of  the 
Old  Congress,  and  knew  very  well  what  the 
secret  part  of  its  journal  contained,  and,  should 
it  be  ordered  to  be  published,  the  House  would 
find  that  the  little  cost  which  the  printing 
would  incur,  would  be  well  laid  out. 

After  some  conversation  between  Mr.  STBOTH- 
EB,  Mr.  SMITH,  and  Mr.  LIVERMOBB,  as  to  the 
course  proper  for  the  resolution  to  take,  Mr. 
SMITH  withdrew  his  motion ;  and  the  resolution 
was  ordered  to  be  engrossed  for  a  third  read- 
ing. 

The  Missouri  Bitt. 

The  House  then  resumed,  as  in  Committee 
of  the  Whole,  the  consideration  of  the  restric- 
tive amendment  proposed  to  this  bill. 

Mr.  RANDOLPH  rose  and  addressed  the  com- 
mittee nearly  three  hours  against  the  amend- 
ment; but  had  not  concluded  his  remarks, 
when  he  gave  way  for  a  motion  for  the  com- 
mittee to  rise ;  and  the  House  adjourned. 


THUESDAY,  February  3. 
American  Colonization  Society. 
Mr.  RANDOLPH  presented  a  representation 
of  the  President  and  Board  of  Managers  of  the 
American  Colonization  Society,  stating,  that 
they  are  about  to  commence  the  execution  of 
the  object  to  which  their  views  have  been 
long  directed,  and  without  a  larger  and  more 
sudden  increase  of  their  funds  than  can  be  ex- 
pected from  the  voluntary  contributions  of 
individuals,  their  progress  must  be  slow  and 
uncertain ;  they  therefore  pray  that  the  Execu- 
tive Department  may  be  authorized  to  extend 
to  the  Society  such  pecuniary  and  other  aid, 
as  it  may  be  thought  to  require  and  deserve ; 
and  that  the  subscribers  to  the  said  Society 
may  be  incorporated  by  act  of  Congress,  to 
enable  them  to  act  with  more  efficiency  in  car- 
rying on  the  great  and  important  objects  for 
which  they  have  associated ;  which  was  read, 
and  referred  to  the  committee  on  so  much  of 
the  President's  Message  as  relates  to  the  Afri- 
can slave  trade. 

Journal  of  the  Old  Congress. 
The  engrossed  resolution  for  authorizing  the 
publication  of  the  Secret  Journal  of  the  Con- 
gress under  the  Confederation,  from  the  Treaty 
of  Peace  of  1783,  to  the  formation  of  the 
present  constitution,  was  read  a  third  time; 


and  the  question  being  stated  on  its  pas- 
sage— 

Mr.  SMITH,  of  Maryland,  expressed  his  de- 
sire to  hear  from  the  gentleman  who  intro- 
duced it,  some  explanation  of  the  object  of  this 
proposition,  and  of  the  particular  reasons  which 
at  this  time  called  for  its  adoption. 

Mr.  STEOTHEE,  of  Virginia,  rose  in  support 
of  the  resolution.  By  a  resolution  of  the  last 
Congress,  he  said,  directions  had  been  given  for 
the  publication  of  the  Secret  Journal  and  the 
Foreign  Correspondence  of  the  Old  Congress 
up  to  the  Treaty  of  1783 ;  and  why  it  had  stop- 
ped there,  he  was  at  a  loss  to  conceive.  The 
theory  of  our  Government,  he  said,  was,  that 
it  stood  on  the  virtue  and  intelligence  of  the 
people ;  and  its  practice  should  be,  that  public 
men  should  be  judged  of  by  their  acts.  He 
was  of  opinion,  with  a  colleague  who  yesterday 
expressed  that  sentiment,  that  the  tree  should 
be  judged  of  by  its  fruit ;  and  he  wished  now 
for  an  opportunity  to  see  the  fruit,  that  he 
might  judge  of  the  tree.  What  objection,  he 
asked,  could  be  made  to  this  proposition  ?  Most 
of  the  men  who  had,  at  the  period  to  which 
this  proposition  referred,  taken  part  in  the  de- 
liberations of  Congress,  had  descended  to  the 
tomb,  and  their  memories  were  justly  vener- 
ated. Some,  he  said,  yet  lived,  mingling  in 
public  life,  and  eagerly  courting  its  distinc- 
tions. If  their  course  had  been  generous  and 
frank,  they  could  have  no  objection  to  a  dis- 
closure of  the  transactions  of  that  day.  Who, 
he  asked,  were  interested  in  concealing  the 
transactions  of  that  day  from  the  American 
people?  Not,  he  was  sure,  the  descendants  of 
those  who  were  now  slumbering  in  the  tomb ; 
it  must  be,  if  any,  the  survivors,  who  were  yet 
struggling  for  political  influence  or  advance- 
ment— who  wished  to  get  yet  higher  than  they 
were  on  the  political  ladder.  If,  said  Mr.  S., 
I  had  had  the  fortune  to  have  had  an  ancestor 
who  contributed  largely  to  the  acknowledg- 
ment of  our  independence,  and  to  the  measures 
whicli  succeeded  in  confirming  it,  should  I  op- 
pose the  proposition  now  before  the  House,  I 
should  think,  by  so  doing,  I  assailed  the  repu- 
tation of  my  parent.  Could  it  be,  he  asked, 
that  any  gentleman  objected  to  this  resolve 
from  feelings  of  friendship  to  any  who  were 
engaged  in  the  occurrences  of  that  day  ?  "Was 
there  any  one  who  was  desirous  to  shut  out 
light  for  the  purpose  of  sustaining  a  reputation 
surreptitiously  obtained  ?  He  trusted  not.  The 
constitution  itself,  he  said,  required  that  the 
Journals  of  Congress  should  be  published,  un- 
less where  important  circumstances  should  re- 
quire a  different  course.  Ought  we,  he  asked, 
to  have  State  secrets  ?  Were  there  any  move- 
ments, either  under  the  old  Confederacy  or  the 
present  form  of  Government,  which  were  not 
fit  to  be  seen  by  the  American  people  ?  Was 
that  period  of  degeneracy  already  arrived  that 
the  acts  of  the  Government  were  so  corrupt  as 
not  to  be  tit  to  be  seen  ?  He  could  see  no  pos- 
sible objection  to  the  publication  of  the  Journal 


494 


ABRIDGMENT  OF  THE 


H.  OF  R.] 


Journal  of  the  Old  Congress. 


[FEBRUARY,  1820. 


in  question.  He  knew,  he  said,  that  this  was  a 
delicate  topic  with  some,  who  shrunk  from  the 
inquiry — why,  he  could  not  divine.  This  very 
sensitiveness,  he  said,  was  with  him  an  argu- 
ment in  favor  of  the  resolution.  Would  any 
honest  public  agent,  he  asked,  desire  a  veil  to 
be  drawn  over  his  acts,  to  hide  his  conduct 
from  the  public  eye  ?  He  conceived  not.  At 
that  time,  he  said,  we  had  a  negotiation  on  foot 
with  Spain,  which  had  terminated  lately  in  the 
celebrated  Florida  Treaty. 

Mr.  HILL,  of  Massachusetts,  said,  that  it  had 
been  stated  yesterday,  by  a  gentleman  from 
South  Carolina,  (Mr.  PINCKNEY,)  who  had  him- 
self been  one  of  the  old  Congress,  that,  in  his 
opinion,  the  Secret  Journal  ought  to  be  pub- 
lished, as  containing  matters  interesting  to  the 
people  to  know.  This  was  with  him  a  suf- 
ficient reason  to  vote  for  its  publication ;  and, 
when  it  was  further  recollected  that  the  pub- 
lication was  to  be  made  under  the  direction  of 
the  President  of  the  United  States,  he  thought 
every  objection  to  it  must  vanish. 

Mr.  PINCKNEY,  of  South  Carolina,  hoped  the 
motion  would  not  be  postponed.  Until  yester- 
day, he  thought  the  resolve  of  Congress  pro- 
vided for  printing  the  Secret  Journal  of  the 
Proceedings  of  Congress,  subsequent  to  the 
Treaty  of  1783,  as  well  as  anterior  to  it.  Why, 
he  asked,  had  not  the  whole  been  ordered  to  be 
published  ?  Did  it  not  look  as  if  there  was 
something  in  it  which  was  not  fit  to  meet  the 
eye  ?  There  were  some  of  those  proceedings 
which  ought  to  be  published  for  general  infor- 
mation. He  would  state  one  of  them,  he  said, 
which  perhaps  was  not  known  to  the  nation, 
and  was  a  most  important  part  of  the  history 
of  our  country.  It  was  not  noticed  by  Judge 
Marshall  or  Dr.  Ramsay,  in  their  histories  of 
our  country;  and  was  not  noticed,  probably, 
because  they  knew  nothing  of  it,  not  having 
access  to  the  Secret  Journal  which  contained 
it.  In  the  year  1785,  Mr.  P.  proceeded  to  state, 
the  Spanish  Government  sent  a  Minister  to  this 
country,  with  full  powers  to  treat  for  a  sur- 
render of  the  right  to  navigate  the  Mississippi 
for  twenty-five  or  thirty  years  exclusively  to 
Spain.  If  that  treaty  had  taken  place,  the  con- 
sequence would  have  been,  that  the  whole  of 
the  country  on  the  Mississippi  would  have  been 
either  separate  and  independent  of  this  Govern- 
ment, or  in  the  hands  of  France.  This  propo- 
sition from  the  Spanish  Government,  when 
made,  was  referred  to  Mr.  Jay  to  report  upon 
it;  and  to  the  astonishment  of  the  country,  Mr. 
P.  said,  that  gentleman  had  not  only  reported 
in  favor  of  accepting  it,  but  supported  that  opin- 
ion with  much  earnestness  and  with  the  best 
exertion  of  his  talents.  The  question  was  then 
submitted  to  the  votes  of  the  States.  All  the 
Eastern  and  Northern  States,  said  Mr.  P.,  join- 
ed in  support  of  the  treaty ;  and,  had  it  not 
have  been  for  the  greatest  exertions  I  ever 
witnessed  in  a  public  body,  from  those  opposed 
to  it,  that  treaty  would  have  been  ratified.  If 
it  had  been,  where  would  now  have  been  the 


members  who  fill  these  seats  ?  Either  subjects 
of  a  power  hostile  to  us,  or  members  of  a  Gov- 
ernment wholly  independent  of  us,  and  our 
rivals.  Mr.  P.  asked  the  honorable  gentleman 
from  Maryland,  and  others,  whether  facts  like 
these,  ought  to  be  withheld  from  the  public 
eye?  It  was  information  for  which  he  had  al- 
ready said,  one  would  in  vain  search  the  most 
approved  of  our  histories.  But,  was  it  not 
extraordinary  that,  in  ordering  the  Secret  Jour- 
nal to  be  published,  Congress  should  have  stop- 
ped at  the  Treaty  of  1783?  The  inference 
must  be,  unless  some  better  reason  were  given, 
that  Congress  did  not  wish  the  world  to  be 
acquainted  with  the  whole  of  it.  He  was, 
therefore,  of  opinion  that  it  was  a  matter  of 
course  that  the  remainder  should  be  published. 
If  there  was  information  in  the  Secret  Journal 
which  it  was  desirable  should  not  be  published, 
the  whole  should  have  been  withheld.  But, 
he  presumed  the  fact  which  he  had  stated  was 
sufficient  to  show  that  the  portion  of  the  Jour- 
nal embraced  by  this  resolve  ought  to  be  pub- 
lished. 

Mr.  MERCER,  of  Virginia,  explained  the  views 
which  had  governed  the  committee  of  the  last 
Congress  in  the  course  which  they  had  pursued 
in  regard  to  this  subject.  The  reason  why 
they  had  limited  their  report  to  the  printing  of 
the  Secret  Journal  and  Foreign  Correspondence 
to  the  Treaty  of  1783,  was,  that  it  had  been 
thought  unadvisable  to  disclose  to  the  world 
the  correspondence  and  Secret  Journal,  from 
the  Treaty  of  Peace  up  to  the  formation  of  the 
constitution,  since  there  were  yet  many  actors 
on  the  scene  here,  and  some  perhaps  in  Europe, 
who  might  be  injuriously  affected  by  it.  That, 
Mr.  M.  said,  was  the  reasoning  of  the  commit- 
tee— it  was  not  his.  He  knew,  he  said,  that  a 
great  lexicographer  had  defined  an  ambassador 
to  be  one  hired  to  tell  lies  for  the  good  of  his 
country ;  but  he  believed  that  all  State  secrets 
were  unnecessary,  and  that  the  most  candid 
would  ever  be  the  most  successful  negotiator. 
The  only  secret  which  our  Government  had 
purchased  was  from  a  swindler,  and  was  cal- 
culated at  the  time  to  expose  the  Administra- 
tion and  the  country  to  the  contempt  of  the 
world. 

Mr.  BALDWIN,  of  Pennsylvania,  said,  that  the 
fa'cts  stated  by  the  gentleman  from  South  Caro- 
lina, had  been  disclosed  in  the  debate  in  the 
Virginia  Convention,  at  the  time  of  the  adop- 
tion of  the  constitution,  as  long  as  thirty  years 
ago.  After  that  disclosure,  the  part  of  the 
Journal  in  question  not  being  published,  was  a 
strong  indication  that  it  could  not  now  be  ne- 
cessary or  desirable  to  publish  it.  There  might 
be  things  in  it  not  proper  to  be  published ;  and 
it  was  worth  consideration,  whether  the  veil 
should  not  be  continued  where  our  predeces- 
sors had  thought  proper  to  spread  it.  If,  when 
an  excitement  prevailed  on  the  subject,  it  was 
thought  proper  not  to  reveal  the  proceedings 
in  relation  to  it,  there  were  reasons  now  also 
why  they  should  not  be  introduced  to  the  pub- 


DEBATES  OF  CONGKESS. 


495 


FEBRUARY,  1820.] 


Journal  of  the  Old  Congress. 


[H.  OF  R. 


lie  eye.  We  have  enough  now,  said  Mr.  B.,  to 
agitate  and  distract  us,  without  adding  to  the 
excitement.  He  did  not  know  that  he  should 
have  objected  to  this  publication,  however, 
were  it  not  that,  with  a  knowledge  of  all  the 
facts,  under  all  changes  of  the  Government, 
the  publication  not  having  been  made,  the 
duty  of.  deliberately  weighing  the  proposition 
was  imposed  on  the  House.  It  ought  not  to 
be  hastily  acted  on.  Why  this  hasty  deter- 
mination to  go  back  forty  years  into  the  re- 
cesses of  our  history,  and  examine  transactions 
which  the  interest  of  our  country  perhaps  re- 
quires to  remain  where  they  are  1 

Mr.  AKDEESON,  of  Kentucky,  was  in  favor  of 
the  resolve  lying  on  the  table,  because  he  de- 
sired to  see  "an  amendment  introduced  to  it. 
From  the  naked  publication  of  the  Journal,  we 
might  infer  that  motives  actuated  the  public 
men  of  that  day  different  from  their  real  mo- 
tives. He,  therefore,  considered  it  important 
that  the  public  papers,  reports,  &c.,  connected 
with  the  Journal,  should  be  published;  and 
moved  to  refer  the  resolve  to  a  select  commit- 
tee, Avith  instructions  to  extend  its  scope  so  as 
to  embrace  all  the  information  on  the  subject, 
that  no  partial  publication  should  be  made  of 
the  transactions  of  that  day.  Such  a  publica- 
tion of  votes.  &c.,  without  the  motives  of  their 
being  understood,  might  do  an  injury  to  those 
who  were  concerned  in  them. 

Mr.  STOKRS,  of  New  York,  was  opposed  to  a 
reference  of  this  resolve,  preferring  to  see  it 
met  directly  and  rejected.  When  this  propo- 
sition was  first  introduced,  he  said,  he  had 
been  inclined  to  support  it.  But,  upon  reflec- 
tion, he  was  convinced  that  the  interests  of  the 
country  not  only  required  that  the  Journal 
should  not  be  published,  but  imperiously  re- 
quired it.  There  was  a  reason  for  publishing 
the  Secret  Journal  and  Correspondence  of  the 
Revolutionary  Congress,  which  did  not  apply 
to  that  embraced  by  this  motion ;  and  good 
reasons  had  been  assigned  for  the  discrimina- 
tion. But,  in  his  opinion,  there  was  a  better 
reason ;  our  domestic  quarrels,  said  he,  formed 
but  a  small  portion  of  our  legislation  previously 
to  the  Treaty  of  1783.  There  was  nothing, 
then,  in  the  Journal  which  it  was  desirable  to 
withhold ;  and  nothing  in  the  secret  papers 
which  could  affect  the  feelings  or  characters 
of  any  but  open  and  known  traitors.  It  was 
proposed  now,  however,  to  lift  the  veil  from 
those  scenes  of  domestic  quarrelling,  in  which 
the  feelings  of  different  portions  of  the  country 
had  been  interested  to  a  degree  which  seldom, 
until  this  moment,  had  been  witnessed  in  the 
councils  of  the  country,  to  give  to  the  world 
all  the  history  of  our  family  bickerings;  to  show 
that,  before  the  adoption  of  the  constitution, 
the  North  was  opposed  to  the  South,  the  South 
detracting  from  the  North,  &c.  For  what  use? 
He  could  not  see  any  occasion  for  it.  One 
word,  he  said,  as  to  a  venerable  name  which 
had  been  introduced  in  this  debate.  He  knew 
the  gentkman  from  South  Carolina  too  well  to 


suppose  him  intentionally  to  have  misstated 
any  thing.  But,  it  was  due  to  Mr.  Jay,  and  to 
his  character,  to  say,  that  the  gentleman  had 
not  told  the  whole  history  of  the  affair  referred 
to  by  him.  It  might  be  supposed  that  it  was 
proposed  to  give  up  to  Spain  the  navigation  of 
the  Mississippi  without  an. equivalent.  Not  so, 
however.  There  was  to  be  an  equivalent,  and 
he  should  like  to  hear  what  it  was.  He  was 
not  to  be  told  that  Mr.  Jay,  than  whom  there 
was  not  a  more  worthy  man  or  more  strenuous 
patriot  in  any  country,  proposed  to  surrender, 
without  an  equivalent,  the  navigation  of  the 
river  Mississippi. 

[Mr.  PINCKXEY  rose  to  explain.  He  had 
stated  that  Spain  had  sent  a  Minister  to  this 
country  with  the  express  purpose  to  persuade 
us  to  cede  to  her,  for  twenty-five  or  thirty 
years,  the  exclusive  navigation  of  the  Missis- 
sippi, and  that  she  had  offered  a  treaty  embracing 
such  a  cession.  That  treaty,  he  now  stated, 
proposed  benefits  to  the  Northern  States,  in 
which  the  Southern  States  had  no  participation. 
They  were  to  pay  the  price ;  they  were  to  yield 
the  navigation  of  the  Mississippi — but  they 
were  not  to  be  benefited  by  the  equivalent,  as 
it  had  been  called,  which  proposed  to  open  to 
our  flag  certain  ports,  such  as  Manilla,  &c.,  but 
did  not  propose  to  open  the  ports  of  South 
America.  It  was  by  no  means  such  a  price  as 
Spain  ought  to  have  paid  for  the  important 
cession  she  sought  from  us.  With  respect  to 
Mr.  Jay,  he  said  no  more  of  him  than  that,  in 
the  ordinary  routine  of  business,  the  treaty  had 
been  referred  to  him,  and  that  he,  in  a  long  re- 
port, which  was  considered  a  very  able  per- 
formance, recommended  the  adoption  of  the 
treaty.  He  did  not  by  any  means  detract  from 
the  character  of  Mr.  Jay.] 

Mr.  STORKS  said  he  did  not  suppose  that  the 
gentleman  did  intend  to  detract  from  the  char- 
acter of  Mr.  Jay ;  because  he  knew  him  to  be 
incapable  of  it.  But,  when  first  up,  the  gentle- 
man had  not  stated  the  matter  as  clearly  as  he 
had  now  done.  Mr.  S.  said  he  was  certain  Mr. 
Jay  never  would  have  agreed  to  surrender  the 
right  of  navigating  the  Mississippi,  without 
what  he  had  at  least  deemed  an  equivalent 
benefit  to  the  country  yielded  by  Spain.  What 
was  really  the  fact,  as  it  now  appeared  ?  That 
a  foreign  nation  offered  to  us  a  treaty,  under 
the  old  Confederation,  which  one  part  of  the 
nation  thought  it  their  interest  to  accept,  and 
the  other  did  not.  Was  there  any  thing  impor- 
tant in  this  transaction?  Only  in  one  point  of 
view,  and  that  rather  an  unhappy  one  ;  as  show- 
ing, that  there  did  exist  in  the  Old  Congress  a 
contrariety  of  views,  which  we  should  rather 
be  ashamed  to  develop  than  anxious  to  publish. 
I  mentioned  the  name  of  Mr.  Jay,  said  Mr.  S., 
because  it  had  been  brought  into  the  debate ; 
and  I  now  take  the  opportunity  to  say,  that 
this  nation  will  be  unfit  for  freedom  whenever 
the  name  of  John  Jay  shall  cease  to  be  venerat- 
ed from  one  end  of  the  continent  to  the  other. 
As  to  the  effect  of  this  resolve,  if  agreed  to,  Mr. 


496 


ABRIDGMENT  OF  THE 


H.  or  R.] 


Journal  of  the  Old  Congress. 


[FEBRUARY, 


S.  said  it  would  serve  to  teach  to  the  powers  of 
Europe  our  weakness.  They  will  find  from  it 
the  grounds  on  which  this  Confederacy  is  most 
accessible  to  attack— the  different  interests  to 
which  they  may  appeal,  if  it  be  an  object  with 
them  to  attempt  the  severance  of  the  Union. 
The  same  interests,  said  he,  exist  at  this  day  as 
did  then.  I  need  only  refer  to  the  subject  (the 
Missouri  question)  which  is  now  agitated  in  this 
House,  to  show  that  it  would  be  extremely  un- 
wise to  develop,  to  those  who  may  be  here- 
after our  enemies,  the  avenues  by  which  we 
may  be  assailed.  To  pass  this  resolve  might 
answer  another  purpose,  also  to  be  deprecated. 
It  would  show  to  the  present  generation,  after 
their  fathers  had  descended  to  their  graves, 
those  things  which  ought  never  to  be  touched. 
We  know  that  the  Old  Congress  was  composed 
of  members,  representing  rather  legislatures 
than  the  people  of  the  States,  and  in  many 
cases  legislated  with  a  view  to  their  particular 
political  interests ;  they  were  not,  as  the  Con- 
gress of  the  present  Government,  a  representa- 
tion of  the  people.  The  publication  of  this 
Journal  would  only  add  fuel  to  the  flame  of 
dissensions,  already  sufficiently  great.  Are  we 
not,  he  asked,  warm  enough  already?  Have 
there  not  been  debates  which  show  that  our 
zeal  wants  no  additional  excitement  here  ?  Is 
it  not  wise — is  it  not  prudent,  till  we  are  once 
more  seated  in  domestic  peace,  that  we  should 
suffer  that  Journal  to  slumber  where  it  now 
reposes;  that  it  should  remain  until  the  men 
who  were  actors  in  public  life  at  that  day,  and, 
if  possible,  until  with  them  all  the  prejudices 
and  resentments  arising  out  of  sectional  inter- 
ests, shall  have  passed  away?  Under  the  influ- 
ence of  that  impression,  Mr.  S.  said  he  hoped 
the  resolution  would  be  rejected. 

Mr.  RANDOLPH,  of  Virginia,  said,  in  rising, 
that  the  observations  of  the  gentleman  from 
New  York  were  not  the  only  observations  that 
he  had  ever  heard  on  the  floor  of  this  House  or 
out  of  it,  against  a  proposition,  which  went  (in 
his  judgment)  powerfully  to  support  it.  He 
agreed,  with  the  honorable  gentleman  who  had 
just  sat  down,  that,  to  use  the  coarse  expression 
of  a  man  whose  name,  if  fame,  if  notoriety,  was 
an  object,  would  last  as  long  as  the  world 
whose  destinies  he  had  so  important  an  agency 
in  governing — we  should  wash  our  dirty  linen 
at  home.  But  the  proposition  now  was,  to 
commit  this  resolution — to  inquire,  in  fact, 
whether  or  not  it  was  expedient  to  adopt  it ; 
and  was  the  honorable  gentleman  afraid  to 
trust  a  committee  of  this  House  ?  Mr.  R.  said 
he  had  nothing  to  say  irreverent  of  the  name 
of  John  Jay,  or  of  any  other  of  ihepatres  con- 
scripti  of  our  better  times.  But  nothing  could 
be  more  fallacious  than  the  notion  of  keeping 
the  Cabinets  of  Europe  out  of  our  secrets  by 
refusing  to  publish  them  by  our  authority.  The 
Minister  of  Spain  had  long  ago  informed  his 
Government  of  every  thing  relating  to  this 
matter ;  and  in  the  archives  of  the  Escurial  or 
of  Saint  Ildefonso  might  be  already  found  every 


thing  it  was  in  the  power  of  Congres  to  disclose 
to  them.  When  this  publication  should  have 
been  made,  Mr.  R.  said  he  should  himself  learu 
from  it  nothing  new  :  but  was  it  not  important, 
he  asked,  that  the  people  should  be  informed  on 
those  matters  which  the  gentleman  from  New 
York  was  so  desirous,  and  so  unavailingly  de- 
sirous, of  keeping  from  the  crowned  heads  of 
Europe — or,  rather,  from  their  Ministers  ?  He 
was  on  the  point,  he  said,  of  expressing  this 
wish  :  that  at  Paris,  or  some  other  spot,  there 
should  be  a  repository  in  which  all  the  records 
of  diplomacy  might  be  preserved,  that  history 
might  rest  on  her  own  basis.  He  trusted  that 
all  the  transactions  of  our  Government  would 
be  developed,  when  they  could  be  no  longer  in- 
jurious to  the  feelings,  the  characters,  or  repu- 
tations of  those  who  were  living.  With  regard 
to  the  knowledge  of  foreign  nations  respecting 
us,  Mr.  R.  said  they  knew  the  only  mode  in 
which  this  Republic,  or  any  other,  is  assailable. 
Divide  et  impera — that,  said  he,  is  the  tyrant's 
maxim ;  that  is  the  way  in  which  they  will  ap- 
proach us — and,  I  am  sorry  to  say,  that  mate- 
rials for  their  operations  are  daily  furnishing, 
ready  to  their  hand. 

Mr.  COOK,  of  Illinois,  spoke  against  the  prin- 
ciple of  the  resolve.  If  he  wished  to  walk 
among  the  tombs  of  his  ancestors ;  to  visit  the 
graves  of  the  venerable  patriots  who  framed 
the  constitution  of  the  country,  and  discharged 
the  important  duties  of  government  during  the 
Confederation,  and  inscribe  on  their  tombs  cen- 
sure or  approbation,  he  would  vote  for  this  reso- 
lution, because  it  would  produce  the  informa- 
tion necessary  to  enable  him  to  do  so.  But 
the  information  communicated  by  the  gentle- 
man from  South  Carolina  had  satisfied  him  that 
the  resolve  ought  not  to  be  adopted.  The  coun- 
try, he  said,  was  now  nearly  rent  in  twain,  by 
an  agitation  almost  as  serious  as  that  of  the 
Western  insurrrection,  or  of  the  discovery  of  the 
Spanish  conspiracy.  The  statement  which  had 
been  made  by  the  gentleman  from  South  Caro- 
lina, was  calculated  to  increase  that  excitement. 
The  peace  and  tranquillity  of  the  country  re- 
quired, Mr.  C.  said,  that  the  wouuds  which  time 
had  cicatrized,  should  not  be  opened  again; 
that  the  veil  which  had  been  dropt  over  the 
incidents  of  that  day  should  not  now  bo  lifted. 
With  respect  to  that  statement,  the  gentleman 
from  South  Carolina  must  excuse  him  for  say- 
ing, that,  from  the  lapse  of  time,  Mr.  C.  appre- 
hended he  had  forgotten  the  objection  which 
he  owed,  as  a  member  of  the  Old  Congress,  not 
to  divulge  its  proceedings.  The  character  of 
that  gentleman  forbade  the  imputation  to  him 
of  any  incorrect  motive;  but,  if  the  proceed- 
ings were  secret  at  the  time,  and  so  ordered  to 
remain,  they  should  not  now  have  been  disclosed, 
unless  some  important  emergency  required  it. 
The  hint  already  given  was  sufficient  to  arouse 
feelings  which  should  lie  dormant.  Wash- 
ington, the  sage  and  patriot,  had  recommend- 
ed that  the  veil  which  covered  the  conflicts  of 
that  day,  should  not  be  lifted ;  and  his  warning 


DEBATES  OF  CONGRESS. 


497 


FEBKCABT,  1820.] 


The  Missouri  Bill — Eestrictivn  on  the  State. 


[H.  OF  K. 


voice  against  the  encouragement  of  local  preju- 
dices and  sectional  distinctions,  operated,  Mr. 
C.  said,  on  his  mind  forcibly  on  this  occasion. 
On  further  consideration  of  this  subject,  Mr.  0. 
said,  he  thought  gentlemen  would  agree  with 
him  there  were  strong  reasons  against  acting 
on  it  as  proposed.  The  gentleman  from  Vir- 
ginia had  urged  the  adoption  of  this  resolution 
as  the  representative  of  the  hardy  yeomanry — 
in  the  name  of  the  people  of  whom  he  is  the 
servant.  It  is  for  the  interest,  the  peace,  the 
tranquillity  of  those  people,  said  Mr.  C.,  that  I 
wish  to  see  this  resolution  laid  in  eternal  sleep ; 
that  it  shall  lie  with  the  ashes  of  the  departed 
•which  it  is  attempted  to  disturb.  Many  of  the 
actors  of  that  day  have  gone  off  the  stage  of 
life.  Some  of  them  may,  in  their  political 
course,  have  committed  what  we  now  consider 
errors.  But,  is  nothing  due  to  him  who,  on 
reflection,  abandons  an  erroneous  course,  and 
pursues  the  proper  interest  of  his  country  ?  Is 
he  not  to  be  sheltered  from  reproach  for  errors 
committed  in  the  outset  of  his  life  ?  Mr.  C. 
thought  it  important  that  those  things  which 
the  venerable  fathers  of  the  land  had  kept  secret 
should  not  now  be  brought  up,  by  writ  of 
error,  to  be  reversed  before  the  tribunal  of  the 
people.  He  was  willing  to  submit  this  ques- 
tion to  the  elders  of  the  country ;  they  had  de- 
cided on  it — then-  decision  had  been  long  ac- 
qniesced  in,  and  he  hoped  the  House  would  not 
undertake  to  reverse  their  decision. 

Mr.  PINCKXEY  said  that  he  had  just  been  in- 
formed that,  under  the  resolution  of  the  last 
Congress,  the  President  and  Secretary  of  State 
had  considered  themselves  authorized  to  pub- 
lish the  whole  of  the  secret  journal,  as  well 
after  as  before  the  Treaty  of  1783.  If  so,  there 
was  of  course  no  occasion  to  act  further  on 
this  subject.* 

Mr.  WABFIELD,  of  Maryland,  said  he  could 
not  readily  express  the  astonishment  he  felt  at 
the  opposition  given  to  the  resolution  then  be- 
fore the  House ;  for  he  did  not  suppose  there 
would  have  been  the  least  hesitation  in  adopt- 
ing it.  He  believed  the  public  proceedings  of 
our  Government,  and  the  greater  part,  if  not 
the  whole  of  the  confidential  communications, 
had  been  published  up  to  the  year  1783.  From 
that  period  to  the  ratification  of  the  present 
Government,  if  we  have  not  been  left  alto- 
gether in  the  dark,  we  have  certainly  a  very 
imperfect  and  indistinct  knowledge  of  the  im- 
portant measures  which  were  then  acted  on  by 
those  in  power.  Why  the  proceedings  of  our 
public  characters,  for  the  period  alluded  to, 


*  This  Is  fact  Under  the  resolution  of  Congress,  of  the 
27th  March,  1818,  which  provides  for  the  publication  of  the 
secret  journals  of  the  acts  and  proceedings  and  the  foreign 
correspondence  of  the  Congress  of  the  United  States,  the 
construction  has  been  such  as  to  Include  the  period  subse- 
quent to  the  treaty  of  1788.  Had  this  been  known  to  the 
mover  of  the  resolve  now  debated,  of  course  it  would  not 
have  been  introduced.  The  allusions  in  the  debate  were, 
however,  of  such  a  nature,  that,  having  a  sketch  of  it  in 
possession,  we  did  not  feel  ourselves  justified  in  withhold- 
ing it  from  the  public  eye.— Editors  National  InMli- 
goncer. 

VOL.  VI.— 32 


should  be  concealed  from  the  view  of  the  citi- 
zens of  this  country,  he  was  altogether  at  a 
loss  to  understand.  He  was  informed,  from 
very  good  authority,  and  by  some  who  were 
members  of  Congress  at  that  time,  that  subjects 
were  discussed,  and  questions  brought  before 
them,  of  great  and  national  importance ;  many 
of  which  had  been  communicated  to,  and  were 
distinctly  understood  by  Governments  in  Eu- 
rope, whilst  the  knowledge  of  them  in  this 
country  was  chiefly  confined  to  those  who  were 
at  that  time  actors  on  our  great  political  thea- 
tre. They  had  been  denominated  the  secret 
proceedings  of  Congress,  and  under  that  appel- 
lation had  been  concealed  from  public  scrutiny. 
This  doctrine  of  secret  proceedings,  and  thereby 
concealing  from  the  public  eye  measures  im- 
portant in  their  consequences,  and  which  ought 
to  be  known  to  the  citizens  of  this  country,  is 
a  doctrine  against  which  he  would  take  leave 
to  enter  his  solemn  protest.  It  was  a  doctrine 
which  might  be  advocated  and  maintained 
under  some  Governments ;  but  it  was  one 
which  he  considered  altogether  incompatible 
with  the  spirit  and  genius  of  Republicanism. 
In  a  Republic  the  people  ought  to  know,  they 
had  a  right  to  know,  the  political  course  pur- 
sued by  those  whom  they  had  clothed  with 
power.  He  had  no  fear,  Mr.  W.  said,  of  trust- 
ing the  people  of  this  country  with  a  full  knowl- 
edge of  their  political  concerns ;  he  had  great 
confidence  in  their  wisdom,  their  prudence,  and 
their  patriotism.  If,  upon  the  publication  of 
these  secret  proceedings,  it  should  be  found  that 
the  estimate  which  had  been  made  of  the  public 
worth  of  men,  had  been  a  mistaken  one,  it 
might,  perhaps,  be  a  cause  of  regret,  but,  so  far 
from  being  an  argument  against  their  publica- 
tion, he  conceived  it  to  be  one  of  the  most  co- 
gent reasons  that  could  be  assigned  in  support 
of  the  measure.  Men  ought  to  stand  or  fall,  in 
public  estimation,  according  to  their  intrinsic 
merit  or  demerit.  The  acts  of  men  on  great 
and  important  political  questions,  is  the  stand- 
ard by  which  they  ought  to  be  judged. 

The  question  was  then  taken  on  referring  the 
resolve  to  a  select  committee,  and  was  decided 
in  the  affirmative. 

The  Missouri  Bill. 

The  House  spent  some  time  in  Committee  of 
the  Whole,  on  the  Missouri  bill.  Mr.  RAN- 
DOLPH spoke  for  some  time,  in  continuation 
of  the  argument  he  commenced  yesterday. 
When  he  concluded,  the  committee  rose,  on 
motion  of  Mr.  HARDIN,  who  is,  according  to 
usage,  now  entitled  to  the  floor ;  and  the  House 
adjourned. 

TUESDAY,  February  4. 

On  motion  of  Mr.  SLOCTJMB,  the  President  of 
the  United  States  was  requested  to  communi- 
cate to  this  House  if  any,  and  what,  progress 
has  been  made  in  surveying  certain  parts  of  the 
coast  of  North  Carolina,  and  in  ascertaining  the 


498 


ABRIDGMENT  OF  THE 


H.  OF  R.] 


Accountability  for  Public  Moneys. 


[FEBRUARY,  1820. 


latitude  and  longitude  of  the  extreme  points  of 
Cape  Hatteras,  Cape  Lookout,  and  Cape  Fear, 
pursuant  to  a  resolution,  approved  19th  January, 
1816. 

On  motion  of  Mr.  STEVENS,  the  Committee  of 
Commerce  were  directed  to  report  whether,  in 
their  opinion,  it  would  he  expedient  to  erect  a 
light-house  on  the  south  coast  of  Lake  Erie,  at 
or  near  the  confluence  of  its  waters  with  those 
of  Sandusky  Bay. 

Accountability  for  Public  Moneys. 
Mr.  EANDOLPH  rose  to  offer  a  motion,  having 
for  its  ohjectan  inquiry  respecting  the  enforcing 
a  stricter  accountability  for  the  public  moneys, 
&c.  The  United  States  reminded  him,  he  said, 
of  those  generous  and  gallant  young  fellows, 
ready  to  do  justice,  at  all  times,  to  everybody 
but  themselves.  The  moneys  of  the  United 
States  were  scattered  over  the  country  from 
Passamaquoddy  to  Yellow  Stone — from  Chicago 
to  Mobile,  in  a  manner  which  would  fritter 
away  the  resources  of  any  other  nation  in  the 
world  than  this.  Nothing,  said  he,  but  the 
rapid  growth  of  the  infant  Hercules  has  enabled 
us  to  support  this  dilapidation  of  the  public 
estate.  We  are  something  like  the  Georgia  and 
Virginia  Planters — cotton  being  at  fifty  cents, 
and  tobacco  at  thirty  dollars.  Do  you  want  a 
tooth-pick  ?  Take  a  hundred  dollars.  Do  you 
want  a  tooth-brush  ?  Take  a  hundred  dollars. 
Do  you  want  tooth-powder?  Take  a  hundred 
dollars.  And,  sir,  we  want  pens,  paper,  and 
ink ;  and  these  different  wants  supply  business 
for  several  individuals,  to  whom  money  is  ad- 
vanced, to  be  accounted  for  hereafter.  Is  it 
accounted  for?  What  is  the  deficit  now ?  It 
exceeds  greatly  the  average  annual  revenue 
during  the  administration  of  Washington.  Let 
us  see,  said  he,  the  aggregate  receipts  on  which 
the  father  of  his  country,  as  he  has  been  over 
and  over  called,  administered  the  Government 
of  the  United  States.  From  the  4th  of  March, 
1789,  to  the  31st  of  December,  1791,  making 
almost  half  of  his  first  term  of  service,  the  re- 
ceipts into  the  Treasury  amounted  to  $4,400,000. 
For  the  year  ensuing  they  were  only  $3,600,000 ; 
for  the  year  folio  whig,  $4,600,000.  These  were 
the  receipts  of  the  four  years  composing  the 
first  Presidency.  In  the  first  year  of  the  next 
term,  the  revenue  was  $5,100,000 ;  for  the  next, 
$5,900,000 ;  and  for  the  last,  $7,000,000.  These 
facts,  Mr.  E.  said,  were  conclusive.  They  spoke 
to  the  understanding  of  every  man  who  kept 
his  eye  on  the  receipts  and  expenditures  of  the 
Government.  I  recollect,  said  he,  when  we 
thought,  if  we  could  get  a  receipt  of  ten  millions 
of  dollars — of  which  seven  millions  went  to  the 
Sinking  Fund,  and  shortly  after,  on  the  pur- 
chase of  Louisiana,  eight  millions — we  should 
be  in  the  full  tide  of  successful  experiment. 
Was  there  no  way,  Mr.  R.  asked,  to  recover  the 
public  assets  from  the  hands  of  those  who  were 
living  on  the  public  funds  ?  .This  system  would 
not  answer — a  system  more  simple  might  an- 
Bwer  in  the  case  of  the  United  States,  as  he 


knew  it  would  in  that  of  this  House.  For  what, 
said  he,  is  our  situation  ?  We  meet  in  a  room 
in  which  we  can  neither  hear  nor  see — but  even 
the  blind  can  see  what  I  wish  to  bring  to  the 
attention  of  the  House — it  is  the  universal  di- 
lapidation of  the  public  funds.  As  for  accom- 
modation and  adaptation  to  public  business,  I 
should  as  soon  think  of  attempting  to  be  heard 
across  the  Potomac,  in  the  face  of  a  northwester, 
as  to  be  heard  here,  where  the  physical  tri- 
umphs over  the  intellectual  power.  Have  gen- 
tlemen adverted,  Mr.  E.  asked,  to  how  much  of 
the  money  of  the  public  was  in  the  hands  of  the 
Columbia  banks,  or  how  it  got  there  ?  And  do 
we,  said  he,  know  any  thing  of  the  Central 
Bank,  the  Patriotic  Bank,  and  of  the  other 
banks,  so  numerous  that  it  would  be  in  vain  to 
attempt  to  repeat  their  titles  ?  For  my  part, 
continued  Mr.  E.,  I  am  not  at  all  sorry  for  the 
effect  which  the  public  at  this  time  experience, 
although  perhaps  I  pay  as  dearly  for  it  as  most 
of  us — I  lament  the  cause — but,  sir,  we  are 
punished,  if  I  may  use  the  term,  in  the  offend- 
ing member.  I  trust  it  may  bring  us  to  a  sense, 
not  only  of  what  is  best  for  our  ownselves,  but 
of  what  is  due  to  our  constituents ;  that  the 
system  of  peculation  shall  be  broken  up ;  that 
the  Augean  stable  shall  be  cleansed ;  that  the 
stream  of  public  treasure,  compared  to  which 
the  Missouri  itself  is  but  a  rill,  shall  not  be 
dammed  up  by  peculators  and  defaulters,  &c. 
Mr.  E.  said  he  would  therefore  move — 

'  That  the  Secretary  of  the  Treasury  be  directed 
to  report  to  this  House  such  measures  as,  in  his  opin- 
ion, may  be  expedient  to  enforce  the  more  speedy 
payment  of  public  moneys,  due  from  individuals  and 
corporate  bodies  in  tbe  United  States." 

Mr.  LOWNDES  said  he  had  no  objection  what- 
ever to  the  object  of  this  motion.  He  would 
only  remark,  that  a  part  of  it  appeared  to  him 
to  be  comprehended  in  calls  already  made  on 
the  Treasury  Department,  and  a  part  of  it  with- 
in the  prescribed  duties  of  a  committee  of  this 
House.  With  regard  to  the  unaccounted-for 
moneys  of  the  United  States,  Mr.  L.  conceived 
both  the  facts  and  apprehensions  of  the  gentle- 
man from  Virginia  to  be  exaggerated.  In  order 
to  take  a  correct  view  of  the  subject,  he  sug- 
gested the  propriety  of  so  modifying  the  reso- 
lution as  to  call  for  an  accurate  statement  of 
the  amount  of  public  moneys  outstanding  and 
unaccounted  for,  &c. 

Mr.  EANDOLPH  said  he  would  readily  agree  to 
modify  his  motion  in  the  manner  which  the 
gentleman  from  South  Carolina,  or  any  other 
gentleman,  should  deem  it  expedient,  to  effectu- 
ate the  object  of  it.  If  the  gentleman  would 
prepare  such  an  amendment  he  would  adopt  it 
with  pleasure.  The  resolution,  he  said,  must 
speak  for  itself.  While  up,  he  would  observe 
that,  with  regard  to  the  banks  of  this  District, 
while  he  had  mentioned  one  or  two  by  name, 
he  did  not  know  that  there  was  a  pin  to  choose 
between  them.  He  had  no  idea,  be  said,  of 
selling  off  the  public  lands,  increasing  the  bal- 


DEBATES  OF  CONGKESS. 


499 


FEBRUARY,  1820.] 


The  Missouri  Bill— Restriction  on  the  State. 


[H.  OF  R. 


ances  already  due  for  them,  and  making  up  the 
present  deficit  by  taxes  on  the  people,  when  it 
could  be  made  up  merely  by  making  these 
leeches  disgorge.  The  honorable  gentleman 
has  mistaken  me,  said  Mr.  K.,  if  he  supposes  I 
have  any  hostility  to  the  Secretary  of  the  Treas- 
ury. I  have  none.  But,  Mr.  Speaker,  you 
know  very  well — no  man  ought  to  know  better 
— what  it  is  to  disturb  a  hornet's  nest.  The 
Secretary  of  the  Treasury  is  not  going  to  array 
himself  against  these  individuals  without  a  call 
from  this  House.  The  present  system,  Mr.  R. 
said,  would  not  work ;  and,  if  it  would  not,  we 
must  either  go  on  with  it  as  it  is,  and  continue 
to  increase  the  public  burdens,  or  we  must  en- 
deavor to  get  rid  of  it.  He  wished  that  the 
present  Secretary  of  the  Treasury,  or  the  former 
Secretary  of  the  Treasury— of  whose  intended 
return  to  this  country  rumors  were  afloat — or 
some  one  of  equal  capacity  with  either,  would 
devote  himself  to  rectifying  the  disorders  in  the 
public  expenditures.  The  disorder  in  the  re- 
ceipts was  bad  enough — no  other  Government, 
perhaps,  could  go  on  with  it — but  when  to  this 
was  added  the  disorders  in  the  expenditures, 
Croesus  himself  could  not  sustain  it.  The  Eng- 
lish, Mr.  R.  said,  were  remarkable  for  having 
brought  their  system  of  collection  to  the  least 
possible  expense — he  would  not  say  to  perfec- 
tion, but  certainly  much  nearer  it  than  we  have 
attained.  France,  though  her  revenue  be  not 
so  cheaply  collected  as  that  of  England,  yet,  as 
far  as  his  information  extended,  in  the  economy 
of  its  expenditures  greatly  surpassed  her.  The 
English  are  profuse  in  their  expenditure — he 
spoke  not  of  the  gross  amount,  nor  of  the  ob- 
ject, whether  great  armies,  the  navy,  &c.,  but 
of  the  dollar  for  dollar's  worth.  But,  he  said, 
we  are  more  profuse  in  the  expense  of  the  col- 
lection of  revenue  than  either  of  these  powers, 
and  we  outdo  the  outgoings  of  every  former 
generation  in  the  profusion  of  expenditure  and 
total  want  of  responsibility  in  public  agents. 
Now.  said  he,  meo  periculo,  I  undertake  to  say, 
if  you  will  call  in  the  balances  due  to  the  Gov- 
ernment from  individuals ;  if  you  will  make  the 
great  corporations  and  men  who  pass  for  rich, 
with  public  moneys  in  their  hands ;  if  you  will 
make  these  leeches  disgorge ;  if  you  will  make 
them  pay  the  people,  it  will  cure  your  deficit ; 
it  will  make  it  unnecessary  to  lay  taxes.  They 
do  not  pay  interest  on  the  money  they  hold ; 
and  very  likely,  if  you  authorize  a  loan,  they 
will  take  it — and  who  are  better  able  than  men 
who  have  both  their  pockets  stuffed  with  public 
money  ?  Mr.  R.  said  he  hoped  the  Secretary  of 
the  Treasury  would  consider  it  a  part  of  his 
duty,  in  suggesting  a  remedy,  to  give  the  House 
some  little  history  of  the  nature  of  the  disease. 
If,  however,  it  should  be  thought  necessary 
specially  to  require  it,  he  had  no  objection  so  to 
modify  the  resolution. 

The  question  was  then  taken  on  Mr.  RAH- 
DOLPH'S  motion,  and  carried  without  a  division. 


The  Missvuri  Bill 

The  House  again  resolved  itself  into  a  Com- 
mittee of  the  Whole,  (Mr.  BALDWIN  in  the 
chair,)  on  this  bill. 

Mr.  HARDIN,  of  Kentucky,  addressed  the 
committee  in  the  following  words :  Mr.  Chair- 
man, I  am  under  great  obligations  to  the  com- 
mittee for  indulging  me  in  my  request  on  yes- 
terday evening,  for  the  committee  to  rise,  and 
give  me  the  floor  this  morning.  But,  were  I  to 
consult  the  safety  of  the  little  reputation  I  have, 
I  ought  not,  although  pledged,  to  address  you 
and  this  House  to-day  upon  the  present  subject. 
I  readily  acknowledge  that,  at  this  moment,  I 
feel  the  most  thorough  conviction  of  my  own 
incapacity  to  do  any  thing  like  tolerable  justice 
to  the  question  now  under  consideration,  or 
even  to  acquit  myself  with  credit. 

The  importance  of  the  present  subject  ren- 
ders it  my  indispensable  duty  to  myself,  to  this 
House,  my  country,  and  posterity,  however  re- 
luctant I  may  be,  to  assign  those  reasons  which 
have  occurred  to  me,  and  which  compel  me  to 
vote  against  the  amendment  offered  by  the  gen- 
tleman from  New  York.  There  is  one  point, 
and  I  believe  only  one,  in  which  there  is  an  en- 
tire concurrence  of  opinion  in  this  House  and 
the  Senate;  that  is,  the  immense  importance 
and  magnitude  of  the  present  question  now  be- 
fore us — important,  not  only  on  account  of  the 
extraordinary  excitement  existing  throughout 
the  nation,  but  also  on  account  of  the  new  con- 
stitutional doctrine  broached  on  the  opposite 
side  of  the  House.  One  portion  of  the  United 
States  bring  forward  and  support  this  amend- 
ment, under  the  imposing  names  of  humanity, 
sympathy,  and  religion ;  at  the  same  time  nt- 
tering  the  bitterest  curses  against  the  odious 
and  abominable  practice  of  retaining  a  part  of 
the  human  family  in  bondage.  I  acknowledge 
there  would  be  great  propriety  in  reprobating 
the  practice  upon  this  occasion,  if  we  were  the 
authors  of  it,  or  could  get  clear  of  it ;  but  it  has 
been  our  misfortune  to  have  it  entailed  upon  us 
by  that  Government  under  which  we  were  col- 
onized ;  and,  however  eloquently  gentlemen 
may  declaim  upon  the  subject  of  universal  lib- 
erty, it  proves  nothing  upon  the  present  ques- 
tion, although  it  may  captivate  and  enlist  all 
the  finer  feelings  and  sensibilities  of  the  heart. 
But  I  fear,  I  greatly  fear,  Mr.  Chairman,  that 
gentlemen  are  fighting  under  false  colors — that 
they  have  not  yet  hoisted  their  true  flag.  As 
this  contest  is  upon  the  great  theatre  of  the 
world,  in  the  presence  of  all  the  civilized  na- 
tions of  the  earth,  and  as  it  is  to  be  viewed  by 
an  impartial  posterity,  would  it  not  be  more 
magnanimous  to  haul  down  the  colors  on  which 
are  engraven  humanity,  morality,  and  religion, 
and  in  lieu  thereof  unfurl  the  genuine  banner, 
on  which  is  written  a  contest  for  political  con- 
sequence and  mastery  ? 

On  our  side  of  the  House,  Mr.  Chairman,  we 
are  contending  not  for  victory,  but  struggling 
for  our  political  existence.  We  have  already 


500 


ABRIDGMENT  OF  THE 


H.  OP  R.] 


The  JUissouri  Bill — Restriction  on  the  State. 


[FEBRUARY,  1820. 


surrendered  to  the  non-slaveholding  States  all 
that  region  of  the  American  empire  between 
the  great  rivers  Ohio  and  Mississippi ;  and  if 
yon  tear  from  us  that  immense  country  west  of 
the  Mississippi,  we  may  at  once  surrender  at 
discretion,  crouch  at  the  feet  of  our  adversa- 
ries, and  beg  mercy  of  our  proud  and  haughty 
victors. 

Behold,  Mr.  Chairman,  and  see  how  our  ta- 
bles groan  with  the  cumbrous  mass  of  memori- 
als and  petitions  from  town  meetings,  coloniz- 
ing societies,  and  emancipating  clubs,  together 
with  resolutions  from  all  the  non-slaveholding 
States.  This  mode  of  operating  upon  this 
House  is  extremely  unfriendly,  and  hostile  to 
the  enactment  of  good,  wise,  and  salutary  laws. 
It  prevents  and  destroys  the  beneficial  effects  of 
a  free  interchange  of  sentiments  upon  great  na- 
tional subjects.  I  acknowledge  that  three  of 
the  slaveholding  States  have  sent  also  to  this 
House  requests  and  instructions ;  they  were 
only  intended  by  way  of  counteraction  to  the 
ponderous  mass  on  the  other  side.  I  duly  ap- 
preciate the  motive  that  induced  their  being 
sent;  it  was  a  display  of  effort  in  the  good 
cause.  But  it  was  entirely  unnecessary ;  it  was 
an  act  of  supererogation,  for  we  had  been  in- 
structed before.  Our  instructions  come  from 
higher  authority ;  they  came  from  the  Conven- 
tion of  1V88.  I  hold  them  in  my  hand ;  they 
are  known  throughout  the  civilized  world  by 
the  name  of  the  Constitution  of  the  United 
States.  In  pursuing  the  investigation  of  this 
subject,  in  the  order  I  proposed,  it  will  be  ne- 
cessary, Mr.  Chairman,  in  the  first  place,  that 
we  should  have  a  clear  and  distinct  view  of  the 
relative  power  of  the  General  and  State  Gov- 
ernments. I  take  this  proposition  to  be  unde- 
niable, that,  were  it  not  for  the  contract  be- 
tween the  States,  which  is  the  Constitution  of 
the  United  States,  that  the  States  would  be 
completely  sovereign  to  all  intents  and  purposes, 
and  that  every  power  and  attribute  incidental 
to,  or  connected  with  sovereignty,  would  belong 
to  the  States.  The  proposition  is  equally  in- 
controvertible that,  as  the  Government  of  the 
United  States  possessed  no  sovereignty  origin- 
ally, or  even  existence  itself,  and  being  com- 
posed entirely  of  delegated  powers  from  the 
States,  that  it  possesses  none  of  the  original  at- 
tributes of  sovereignty,  and  it  can  do  nothing 
which  it  is  not  authorized  to  do  by  the  consti- 
tution, either  by  an  express  grant  of  power,  or 
by  an  implicit  grant  as  necessary  to  carry  into 
effect  some  power  already  given.  If  the  two 
propositions  above  stated  be  correct,  and  of  the 
truth  of  which  there  can  be  no  doubt,  it  follows 
as  a  consequence,  independent  of  the  amendment 
to  the  constitution,  which  reads  in  these  words, 
"  the  powers  not  delegated  to  the  United  States 
by  the  constitution,  nor  prohibited  by  it  to  the 
States,  are  reserved  to  the  States  respectively, 
or  to  the  people,"  that  Congress  can  do  nothing 
which  they  are  not  authorized  to  do,  and  that 
the  States  can  do  every  thing  that  is  not  dele- 
gated to  Congress,  or  which  they  are  not  forbid 


to  do.  The  above  conclusions  refute  all  the  ar- 
guments which  we  have  heard  about  the  om- 
nipotence of  Congress.  Doctrines  at  all  times 
dangerous,  but  extremely  so  now  on  account  of 
their  being  so  fashionable. 

In  pursuing  this  inquiry,  Mr.  Chairman,  we 
must  pause  for  a  moment,  until  we  ascertain 
what  kind  of  property  a  man  has  in  his  slave. 
The  answer  to  this  question  is  not  difficult,  for 
none  will  pretend  to  deny  but  that  his  property 
is  absolute  and  unqualified,  as  much  so  as  to 
any  property  a  man  can  possess,  except  the 
right  to  take  from  his  slave  his  life ;  and  this 
right  to  slave  property  is  unequivocally  recog- 
nized by  the  constitution,  first,  in  the  clause 
which  gives  a  representation  in  this  House  for 
three-fifths,  and  secondly,  in  that  part  which 
reads  in  these  words :  "  No  person  held  to  ser- 
vice or  labor  in  one  State,  under  the  laws  there- 
of, escaping  into  another,  shall,  in  consequence 
of  any  law  or  regulation  therein,  be  discharged 
from  such  service  or  labor,  but  shall  be  deliv- 
ered up,  on  claim  of  the  party  to  whom  such 
service  or  labor  may  be  due."  Mr.  Chairman, 
having  progressed  thus  far  in  the  argument,  I 
may  safely  say  to  my  opponents,  you  allege  that 
Congress  has  the  power.to  impose  the  restric- 
tion ?  We  deny  it ;  and  it  being  admitted  upon 
all  hands,  and  from  all  sides  of  the  House,  that 
if  Congress  have  the  power  it  must  exist  in  the 
constitution  and  nowhere  else,  I  therefore  call 
upon  you  to  lay  your  finger  upon  that  part  of 
the  constitution  which  will  sustain  you  in  the 
high  ground  you  assume.  In  answer  to  this 
call,  which  is  made  not  by  me  alone,  but  other 
gentlemen  also,  we  see  on  the  other  side  of  the 
House  nearly  as  great  confusion  and  uproar  as 
prevailed  at  the  Tower  of  Babel,  when  the  angel 
from  Heaven  was  sent  down  to  disperse  the 
people  and  confound  their  language.  One  takes 
one  part  of  the  constitution,  another  disclaims 
that  and  selects  another  part,  and  no  two  seem 
to  agree  throughout. 

It  is  time,  sir,  that  this  plea  of  necessity  for 
the  extension  of  power  should  be  disregarded 
and  no  longer  allowed.  I  would  ask  you,  Mr. 
Chairman,  and  this  House,  to  cast  your  eyes 
back  upon  the  nations  of  the  world,  both  an- 
cient and  modern,  from  the  formation  of  the 
first  Government,  under  Nimrod,  who  was  a 
mighty  hunter,  to  the  present  day,  and  tell  me, 
has  not  every  encroachment  upon  the  civil,  po- 
litical, and  religious  rights  of  the  people  been 
justified,  or  apologized  for,  under  this  same  plea 
— necessity?  The  Ministers  of  Great  Britain 
plead  necessity  for  the  present  system  of  taxa- 
tion, which  now  bows  down  to  the  earth  with 
the  heaviest  load  of  oppression,  the  people  of 
that  country.  Bonaparte  plead  necessity  for 
his  conscriptions ;  even  the  Sultan  of  Turkey,  if 
he  takes  off  the  head  of  one  of  his  subjects, 
pleads  necessity.  I  do  assure  you,  Mr.  Chair- 
man, that  civilly,  morally,  politically,  and  re- 
ligiously, a  greater  tyrant  never  existed  than 
this  same  necessity. 

The  amendment  is  fraught  with  the  greatest 


DEBATES  OF  CONGRESS. 


501 


FEBRUARY,  1820.] 


The  Missouri  Bill — Restriction  on  the  State. 


[H.  opR. 


injustice  towards  the  people  of  Missouri.  Those 
who  lived  there  and  had  slaves,  when  that 
country  was  transferred  to  the  United  States, 
were  told  in  the  most  solemn  manner,  by  the 
very  terms  of  the  treaty  itself,  that  they  were 
to  be  secured  in  the  free  enjoyment  of  their 
property ;  and  it  was  then  well  known  to  the 
contracting  parties,  that  a  great  number  of  the 
inhabitants  had  slaves.  To  those  who  have 
moved  there  since,  what  has  been  the  language 
of  this  Government  to  them?  It  was,  that 
slavery  should  be  tolerated  there,  because  Con- 
gress, in  the  territorial  administration  of  the 
government  of  that  country,  did  not  prohibit  it. 
Under  the  persuasion  that  that  description  of 
property  was  and  would  continue  to  be  well 
secured  to  the  rightful  proprietors,  numbers 
have  been  induced  to  move  from  all  the  slave- 
holding  States  to  that  country,  and  carry  their 
negroes  along  with  them.  That  quarter  of  the 
world  being  alike  free  and  open  to  emigrants 
from  all  parts  of  the  United  States,  the  demand 
for  land  was  increased,  the  price  of  it  enhanced, 
and  this  Government  had  been  the  gainer  there- 
by. Carry  this  amendment,  and  what  is  the 
result?  A  violation  of  national  honor  and 
plighted  faith  to  those  who  are  there,  and  who 
have  not  the  means  of  resistance.  They  are 
completely  at  our  mercy ;  and  although  justice 
is  on  their  side,  they  have  no  way  to  ob- 
tain it,  unless  we  grant  it  to  them.  But  I  am 
afraid  that  their  appeal  for  their  political  rights 
is  addressed  to  a  tribunal  with  which  justice, 
humanity,  and  religion  is  but  a  name,  a  shadow, 
a  phantom.  We  are  told  that  the  slave  prop- 
erty which  is  now  there  shall  be  secure  to  the 
owners.  I  have  shown  that  the  increase  is  to 
be  taken  from  them.  If  the  amendment  be 
adopted,  and  the  same,  from  necessity,  acceded 
to  by  the  people  of  Missouri,  what  will  follow 
as  the  consequence?  This — that  emigration 
from  all  the  slaveholding  States  being  substan- 
tially prohibited,  the  population  will  flow  into 
that  country  exclusively  from  the  North,  and 
in  the  course  of  a  few  years,  by  State  regula- 
tions, their  slaves  will  be  taken  from  them. 
The  gentlemen  who  advocate  this  amendment 
well  know  the  consequence  that  will  follow 
from  the  restriction  as  now  proposed.  Their 
declaration  that  the  slave  property  now  there  is 
not  eventually  to  be  affected,  is  insidious;  it 
cannot  deceive  us,  the  nation,  or  gull  the  people 
of  Missouri.  If  this  were  not  the  expected  and 
looked  for  consequence,  that  master-stroke  of 
Northern  politics,  to  make  it  a  non-slaveholding 
State,  would  be  an  abortion,  and  fall  short 
of  its  mark.  The  people  of  Missouri  have  sa- 
gacity enough,  if  this  amendment  shall  be  adopt- 
ed, to  know  upon  what  they  have  to  depend ; 
that  is,  either  resistance  to  the  measure,  or  an 
abandonment  of  their  country  and  homes,  be- 
cause they  never  will  consent  to  give  up  and 
lose  their  slave  property.  If  they  choose  the 
latter  alternative,  and  seek  out  other  countries 
to  remove  to,  and  other  lands  for  habitations, 
their  possessions  which  they  have  purchased  in 


its  virgin  state  at  a  high  price,  and  with  great 
labor  rescued  part  of  it  from  the  forest  and 
wilderness,  will  have  to  be  thrown  into  the 
market.  That,  together  with  the  land  of  the 
Government,  which  will  be  for  sale,  will  greatly 
reduce  the  price,  on  account  of  the  dispropor- 
tion between  the  article  in  market  and  the 
demand.  Those  of  the  inhabitants  of  Missouri 
who  will  be  expelled  their  country  by  this  re- 
striction, will  be  compelled  to  sell  their  lands 
at  whatever  price  that  may  be  offered;  the 
purchasers  will  be  from  the  North ;  and  the 
people  of  that  country,  although  famed  for  their 
outward  show  of  religion,  humanity,  and  sober 
habits,  have  never  been  remarkable  for  their 
liberality,  but  on  the  contrary,  notorious  for 
their  capacity  at  driving  a  good  bargain.  They 
are,  in  truth,  exceedingly  sharp-sighted  in  money 
matters  as  well  as  politics.  There  are  other 
considerations  which  ought  to  prevent  the  pas- 
sage of  the  present  proposed  restriction.  In- 
justice, as  it  relates  to  the  slaveholding  States. 
They  form,  in  point  of  numbers,  one-half  of 
this  Union.  They  paid  their  proportion  to- 
wards the  purchase  of  this  territory.  I  would 
ask  of  this  House,  Mr.  Chairman,  and  particu- 
larly those  who  advocate  the  opposite  side  of 
the  question,  if  towards  those  States  it  be  fair, 
honorable,  and  just,  by  the  dead  weight  of  num- 
bers here,  to  interdict  and  prohibit  their  inhab- 
itants from  an  equal  participation  in  the  enjoy- 
ment of  the  country  west  of  the  Mississippi,  the 
largest  and  fairest  portion  of  the  American 
world  ?  Where,  I  would  ask,  can  the  people  of 
those  States  which  tolerate  slavery  move  to,  if 
you  forbid  them,  by  a  system  of  measures,  from 
going  there  ?  The  whole  of  the  territories,  ex- 
cept the  Missouri,  which  belong  to  the  United 
States,  have  already  been  surrendered  to  the 
non-slaveholding  States ;  for  it  must  not  be  for- 
gotten, that  where  slavery  is  prohibited,  there 
the  slave  owners  cannot  go,  because  they  can- 
not give  up  their  slave  property.  Nay,  more, 
in  a  variety  of  cases,  even  affection  forbids  a 
separation.  It  has  been  said,  that  we  can 
move,  if  we  are  desirous  to  emigrate,  to  the 
Mississippi  and  the  Alabama ;  but,  I  would  ask, 
how  can  a  Marylander,  a  Virginian,  and  a  Ken- 
tuckian,  move  there  ?  He  and  his  family  have 
been  accustomed  to  a  colder  climate.  It  is  un- 
congenial to  their  constitutions.  The  danger 
of  sickness  will  to  them  be  alarming,  and  they 
never  will  attempt  a  removal  to  those  States,  a 
few  rare  instances  excepted.  If  you  take  from 
us  the  whole  of  the  Missouri  Territory,  we 
strike  at  once  and  give  up  the  ship. 

I  call  upon  the  gentlemen  from  both  sides  of 
this  House  to  tell  me  what  is  to  be  the  conse- 
quence if  this  section  be  not  settled  in  some 
way  this  session?  I  may  be  asked,  how  is  that 
to  be  done  ?  I  answer,  by  a  compromise,  and 
in  no  other  way.  Can  either  party  be  so  vain 
as  to  expect  a  victory  ?  Behold  I  and  see  how 
this  nation  is  divided:  eleven  States  against 
eleven ;  a  small  majority  in  this  House  in  favor 
of  the  amendment ;  a  small  one  in  the  Senate 


502 


ABRIDGMENT  OF  THE 


H.  OF  R.] 


The  Missouri  BUI — Restriction  on  the  State. 


[FEBRUARY,  1820. 


against  it ;  and  the  Cabinet,  perhaps,  not  unani- 
mous. In  this  state  of  public  sentiment  the 
bill  falls,  and  Missouri  is  not  permitted  to  be- 
come a  member  of  the  Union.  Her  claims  are 
just  and  well  founded,  but  we  have  refused  'to 
recognize  them,  and  turned  a  deaf  ear  to  her 
petitions,  from  time  to  time ;  not  only  that,  but 
manifested  a  strong  disposition  not  even  to  al- 
low -her  citizens  the  rights  of  self-government 
— the  birth-right  of  all  Americans. 

The  flame  of  seventy-six  may  burst  out. 
They  call  a  convention,  form  a  constitution 
agreeably  to  their  own  ideas  of  the  best  practi- 
cable mode  of  obtaining  happiness ;  they  dis- 
claim their  territorial  vassalage  and,  set  up  for 
themselves.  Are  we  to  drive  them  to  submis- 
sion at  the  point  of  the  bayonet,  because  being 
citizens  of  the  United  States,  they  claim  the 
high  destinies  of  freeborn  men  ?  If  the  bayonet 
is  the  policy,  who  is  to  wield  it?  Not  the 
Southern,  Western,  or  Middle  States,  for  the 
hearts  of  their  people  are  with  them ;  and,  ten 
chances  to  one,  if  arms,  the  last  argument  of 
nations,  are  resorted  to,  they  will  assist  and  aid 
them.  This  dispute  is  like  no  other  that  ever 
came  into  this  House,  that  was  ever  laid  before 
the  Legislative  body  of  this  nation.  Party 
spirit,  I  know,  has  at  times  run  high,  but  the 
great  danger  from  this  question,  as  it  relates  to 
the  safety  and  integrity  of  the  Union,  is  this, 
that  it  is  not  the  same  State  divided  into  par- 
ties ;  it  is  not  the  States  in  the  same  section  of 
the  Union  divided  against  each  other.  It  is 
the  North  and  East  against  the  South  and 
West.  It  is  a  great  geographical  line  that  sep- 
arates the  contending  parties.  And  those  par- 
ties, when  so  equally  divided,  shake  mighty 
empires  to  their  centre,  and  break  up  the  foun- 
dations of  the  great  deep,  that  sooner  or  later, 
if  not  settled,  will  rend  in  twain  this  temple 
of  liberty,  from  the  top  to  the  bottom.  My 
friends  reply  to  me,  and  say,  how  can  you 
compromise — how  can  you  surrender  princi- 
ple? 

It  strikes  me,  Mr.  Chairman,  that  this  matter 
can  be  settled  with  great  facility,  if  each  party 
be  so  disposed,  and  neither  give  up  any  point 
in  this  question  which  may  be  called  prin- 
ciple. Can  it  not  be  done  by  permitting  Mis- 
souri to  go  into  the  Union  without  the  restric- 
tion, and  then  draw  a  line  from  the  western 
boundary  of  the  proposed  State  of  Missouri,  due 
West  to  the  Pacific?  North  of  the  line  pro- 
hibit slavery,  and  South  admit  it? 

SATURDAY,  February  5. 
Mr.  MEIGB  submitted  the  following  preamble 
and  resolution : 

Whereas,  slavery  in  the  United  States  is  an  evil  of 
great  and  increasing  magnitude ;  one  which  merits 
the  greatest  efforts  of  this  nation  to  remedy :  There- 
fore, 

Resolved,  That  a  committee  he  appointed  to  inquire 
into  the  expediency  of  devoting  the  public  lands  as  a 
fund  for  the  purpose  of, 


1st.  Employing  a  naval  force  competent  to  the  an- 
nihilation of  the  slave  trade. 

2dly.  The  emancipation  of  slaves  in  the  United 
States;  and, 

3dly.  Colonizing  them  in  such  a  way  as  shall  be 
conducive  to  their  comfort  and  happiness,  in  Africa, 
their  mother  country. 

The  said  preamble  and  resolution  were  read ; 
and,  on  motion  of  Mr.  WALKEB,  of  North  Caro- 
lina, laid  on  the  table. 

The  Missouri  Bill 

The  House  then  again  resolved  itself  into  a 
Committee  of  the  Whole  (Mr.  BALDWIN  in  the 
chair)  on  this  bill. 

Mr.  HEMPHILL,  of  Pennsylvania,  addressed 
the  Chair  as  follows :  I  have  a  wish,  Mr.  Chair- 
man, to  express  my  sentiments  on  the  subject 
before  the  honorable  committee.  I  approach  it 
with  great  diffidence,  as  I  have  not  been  in  the 
habit  of  public  speaking  for  many  years.  I 
confess  that  the  magnitude  of  the  question  im- 
presses me  with  fear  that  I  may  become  embar- 
rassed in  the  discussion. 

I  have  taken  all  the  pains  in  my  power,  con- 
sistently with  the  state  of  my  health,  to  gain 
information,  and  have  listened  with  attention 
to  the  speeches  in  this  House,  and  to  many  of 
those  in  the  Senate,  and  I  may  unintentionally 
confound  what  I  have  heard  in  the  two  places, 
for  I  have  taken  no  notes  of  any  thing  that  has 
fallen  from  any  gentleman. 

Mr.  Chairman,  the  present  amendment  does 
not  interfere  with  the  slaves  now  held  by  the 
inhabitants  of  Missouri ;  but,  by  its  operation, 
their  offspring  will  be  free.  The  cause  in  which 
we  are  embarked  is  just,  as  its  object  is  to  afford 
to  the  descendants  of  an  unhappy  race  those 
enjoyments  that  heaven  intended  to  give  them. 
But  we  are  met  on  the  threshold  of  the  discus- 
sion, and  told  that  Congress  has  no  right  to 
legislate  on  the  subject;  it  is  said  that  the 
power  is  too  large ;  it  has  been  compared  to  an 
ocean,  and  that  Congress  ought  not  to  be  en- 
trusted with  it,  the  danger  of  its  being  abused 
is  so  great.  It  is  contended  that,  if  Congress 
possess  this  power,  they  might  descend  to  the 
minutest  acts  of  legislation,  and  introduce  new 
States  into  the  Union  as  mere  dwarfs,  stripped 
of  all  the  grandeur  of  sovereignty. 

I  acknowledge  that  it  is  difficult  to  answer 
these  general  observations,  this  reasoning  against 
the  existence  of  power  from  the  possibility  of 
its  abuse.  There  is  but  one  way  that  I  know 
of  to  give  any  thing  like  an  answer,  and  that  is, 
by  saying,  in  the  same  general  terms,  that  this 
power  is  a  near  relation  to  all  other  powers, 
and  that  powers  of  every  description  are  liable 
to  be  abused. 

Congress  possesses  a  string  of  powers,  all  of 
which  might  be  abused.  Among  others  it  pos- 
sesses the  power  to  levy  and  collect  taxes,  to 
borrow  money  on  the  credit  of  the  United 
States,  and  to  declare  war.  The  powers  to  col- 
lect taxes  and  to  declare  war  give  to  Congress 
a  command  over  the  purse  and  the  sword  of  the 


DEBATES  OF  CONGRESS. 


503 


FEBRUARY,  1820.] 


The  Missouri  Bill— Restriction  on  the  State. 


[H.  OF  R. 


nation.  These  powers,  if  wickedly  exercised, 
might  not  only  jeopardize,  but  might  put  an  end 
to  the  existence  of  the  Government.  To  make 
a  comparison  of  the  privilege  of  merely  chang- 
ing the  relations  of  a  Territory  into  a  State, 
upon  certain  stipulations,  with  the  powers  just 
mentioned,  would  be,  truly,  like  comparing  a 
star  to. the  sun. 

The  President  and  the  Senate  also  possess 
important  powers,  which,  physically  speaking, 
might  easily  be  abused;  instead  of  appointing 
men  of  virtue  to  office,  they  might  fill  them 
with  the  vilest  malefactors  of  the  nation.  But 
is  there  any  danger  of  all  this  ? 

Congress  being,  then,  expressly  intrusted  with 
such  vast  powers,  is  it  not  a  very  feeble  argu- 
ment to  urge  the  possible  abuse  of  power  against 
its  existence  in  a  minor  case,  even  if  it  were  a 
doubtful  one  ? 

I  have  gone  far  enough  for  my  purpose,  as  I 
wish  to  be  brief  on  each  head  of  my  argument. 

Is  there,  then,  any  cause  of  alarm  in  regard 
to  the  power  in  question  ?  How  can  there  be, 
as  nothing  can  be  done  without  the  assent  of 
those  who  are  applying  to  compose  a  State  ?  It 
is  not  an  act  of  ordinary  legislation,  but  a  mere 
act  of  compact  and  agreement — and  can  it  for  a 
moment  be  supposed  that  Congress  will  ever  insist 
on  any  terms,  except  such  as  may  affect  the  re- 
publican character  of  the  Government,  or  some 
other  important  interest  of  the  nation ;  and,  on 
such  occasions,  why  shall  the  people  be  deprived 
of  the  right  to  pass  their  judgment  through 
their  immediate  representatives? 

As  to  another  remark,  that  an  act  of  Congress 
will  be  irrevocable,  and  without  responsibility, 
the  position  is  incorrect ;  the  inhabitants  are 
under  no  obligation  to  accept  the  terms  pro- 
posed by  Congress ;  they  may  appeal  to  the 
people,  who,  if  displeased  with  their  represent- 
atives, can  change  them ;  and  even  if  the  terms 
are  accepted,  they  can  be  altered  by  the  con- 
sent of  both  parties. 

After  these  observations,  I  think  I  am  at 
liberty  to  confine  myself  to  the  particular 
amendment  before  the  committee. 

But,  it  has  been  said,  that  even  this  condition 
in  restraint  of  slavery,  would  manacle  a  limb  of 
the  sovereignty  of  the  proposed  State  of  Mis- 
souri, and  bring  her  into  the  Union  as  an  object 
of  scorn,  altogether  unworthy  of  the  association 
of  her  sister  States.  This  picture  is  most  un- 
naturally drawn ;  it  ought  rather  to  have  rep- 
resented her  as  the  goddess  of  liberty,  a  being 
incapable,  from  the  composition  of  her  nature, 
of  doing  wrong,  in  this  respect,  and  yet  deprived 
of  no  political  strength ;  if  any  of  her  sister 
States  should  disdain  to  associate  with  her,  the 
general  spirit  of  the  age  would  condemn  such 
lofty  pretensions. 

Our  ancestors  treated  this  subject  in  the  true 
light  in  which  liberty  and  slavery  ought  always 
to  be  considered ;  but  is  the  spirit  that  warmed 
their  breasts  to  pass  for  nothing  ?  Is  the  ordi- 
nance of  1787  to  be  reproached  as  a  mere  usur- 
pation, and  nothing  more  ?  Let  us  at  least  con- 


descend to  inquire  into  these  first  principles, 
and  afterwards  we  can  perceive  whether  they 
apply  to  this  particular  case  or  not. 
.  I  now,  Mr.  Chairman,  beg  leave  to  call  the 
attention  of  the  committee  to  the  peculiar  kind 
of  sovereignty  that  is  to  be  withheld  from  the 
proposed  State  of  Missouri.  It  is  pretended 
that  she  will  be  deprived  of  the  right  of  hold- 
ing man  in  bondage.  But  how  can  this  be 
deemed  a  right  ?  It  is  nothing  more  than  a 
tyrannical  abuse  of  sovereignty ;  all  the  laws  on 
earth  cannot  make  a  right  of  it.  When  a  peo- 
ple are  overcome  and  enslaved  for  want  ol 
ability  to  resist,  they  do  not  lose  their  rights, 
the  laws  of  the  oppressing  country  take  from 
them  their  remedy — they  are  not  held  as  slaves, 
because  they  have  no  rights,  but  they  are  held 
by  force,  and  because  there  is  no  remedy  in 
their  power. 

I  may  be  told  that  it  is  an  attribute  of  sover- 
eignty to  judge  for  itself  as  to  what  is  right 
and  what  is  wrong.  This  is  true  in  the  ab- 
stract ;  still  sovereignty  has  its  limits.  In  Vat- 
tel,  I  read  u  that  all  nations  have  a  right  to  re- 
pel by  force  what  openly  violates  the  laws  of 
society  which  nature  has  established  among 
them,  or  that  directly  attacks  the  welfare  and 
safety  of  that  society." 

And,  sir,  may  I  not  ask  what  can  more  di- 
rectly attack  the  welfare  of  society  than  to  hold 
a  race  of  people  in  bondage  ? 

If  the  State  of  New  York,  or  any  other  State, 
should  enslave  the  small  tribes  of  Indians  with- 
in their  limits,  would  the  other  parts  of  the 
Union  acquiesce  ?  Would  it  not  rather  be  con- 
sidered as  offending  against  divine  and  human 
justice,  than  as  the  exercise  of  any  right  of  sov- 
ereignty ?  It  is  a  right  that  does  not  belong  to 
the  constituents,  and  of  course  cannot  be  depu- 
ted to  the  Supreme  head. 

I  do  not  make  these  remarks  as  applicable  to 
the  present  condition  of  slaveholding  States. 
After  what  has  passed,  Congress  cannot  inter- 
fere with  then*  slaves  without  their  own  con- 
sent ;  and  I  am  willing  to  go  further,  and  to 
say  that,  independently  of  the  constitution,  the 
slaveholding  States  have  acquired,  if  I  may  be 
allowed  the  expression,  a  certain  kind  of  rights 
which  have  grown  up  out  of  original  wrongs ; 
they  have  the  right  now  of  self-preservation, 
and  of  domestic  tranquillity  and  peace,  as  a  sud- 
den and  general  emancipation,  or  even  a  material 
laxity  of  their  laws,  might  lead  to  dangerous 
and  bloody  consequences,  and  in  these  rights 
they  must  be  protected  by  the  arm  of  the  Gen- 
eral Government,  if  any  occasion  should  re- 
quire it,  until  some  plan  can  be  fallen  upon  for 
the  gradual  abolition  of  slavery. 

But  we  find  the  inhabitants  of  Missouri  un- 
der very  different  circumstances.  With  them 
no  such  danger  exists ;  the  children  of  their 
slaves,  hereafter  born,  can  be  made  free  with  as 
much  facility  as  those  that  were  similarly  cir- 
cumstanced in  Pennsylvania.  When  the  in- 
habitants of  Missouri,  then,  apply  to  be  admit- 
ted as  a  State  in  the  Union,  is  it  not  our  duty, 


504 


ABRIDGMENT  OF  THE 


H.  OF  K.] 


The  Missouri  Bill— Restriction  on  the  State. 


[FEBRUARY,  1820. 


and  do  not  the  sacred  laws  of  nature  call  upon 
us  to  look  back  to  these  first  principles  ?  As 
to  the  sovereignty,  of  which  she  would  be  de- 
prived, if  we  allow  to  the  opposite  side  the 
largest  scope,  it  would  be  only  that  of  saying 
for  herself  whether  or  no  she  would  do  a  wrong 
of  a  political  cast  that  would  reflect  dishonor 
on  the  nation ;  for  it  must  dishonor  any  nation 
to  spread  slavery,  unless  there  is  an  absolute 
necessity  for  it.  In  such  a  case,  shall  we  be 
over  nice  and  scrupulous,  and  fear  to  act,  unless 
we  find  the  power  in  the  constitution  in  so  many 
words — is  it  not  sufficient,  if  it  is  found  by  a 
fair  and  reasonable  construction  ? 

The  questions  before  the  committee,  as  I  di- 
vide them,  are  two :  does  Congress  possess  the 
power  of  admitting  the  inhabitants  of  Missouri 
to  compose  a  State,  and,  at  the  same  time,  an- 
nexing a  condition  in  restraint  of  slavery  ? 

If  the  power  belongs  to  Congress,  is  it  good 
policy,  under  all  the  circumstances,  to  exercise 
it?  With  regard  to  the  Territories,  the  lan- 
guage of  the  constitution  is  explicit,  and  no 
question  can  exist.  But  it  is  said  that,  when  a 
new  State  is  to  be  admitted  into  the  Union, 
there  is  a  restraint  imposed  on  Congress,  and 
that,  in  such  a  case,  it  can  only  act  by  way  of 
negation  or  affirmation.  Had  Congress  been 
destined  to  such  narrow  limits,  some  peculiar 
phraseology  would  have  been  used  by  the  Con- 
vention, corresponding  with  such  a  simple  ne- 
gative or  affirmative  authority ;  and  the  consti- 
tution would  not  have  contained  the  general 
expression,  that  the  new  States  may  be  admit- 
ted by  the  Congress  into  the  Union.  Let  us  for 
a  moment  ascend  to  the  fountain  of  this  power 
— it  must  have  belonged  originally  to  the  peo- 
ple of  the  States,  and  wherever  it  existed  it 
was  comprehensive  and  plenary — under  the  old 
Confederation,  the  people  or  the  States  could 
have  admitted  a  new  State  to  participate  with 
them  on  any  terms  or  conditions  they  pleased, 
it  would  have  been  a  matter  of  discretion  on 
both  sides,  a  mere  compact,  and,  in  the  forma- 
tion of  the  new  constitution,  the  members  of 
the  Convention  were  authorized  to  say  how 
much  of  this  full  and  original  power  should  vest 
in  Congress,  and,  by  the  general  grant,  the 
whole  passed,  unless  it  is  restricted  in  some 
other  part  of  the  same  instrument.  Is  there 
any  division  of  this  original  power,  unless  it  is 
to  be  found  in  the  way  I  have  mentioned  ? 

The  ordinance  itself,  of  1787,  has  undergone 
repeated  recognitions.  But,  it  has  been  re- 
proached as  the  production  of  usurped  power. 
This  is  an  assertion  without  proof;  the  States 
had  relinquished  all  right  and  jurisdiction  over 
this  Territory,  and  there  existed  no  capacity  of 
self-government  or  organization ;  under  such 
circumstances,  it  could  not  be  irregular  for  Con- 
gress to  act,  particularly  as  the  cessions  were 
made  by  virtue  of  the  resolve  of  Congress  of 
the  10th  of  October,  1780,  which  contained  this 
clause:  that  the  said  lands  shall  be  "granted  or 
settled  at  such  times  and  under  such  regulations 
as  shall  hereafter  be  agreed  on  by  the  United 


States  in  Congress  assembled,  or  any  nine  or 
more  of  them."  And,  independently  of  this,  the 
first  Congress  after  the  adoption  of  the  consti- 
tution, which  had  express  power  to  make  all 
needful  rules  and  regulations  respecting  the 
Territory,  recognized  the  ordinance  by  passing 
a  supplementary  act ;  and  the  State  of  Virginia, 
also,  after  the  constitution,  on  the  30th  Decem- 
ber, 1788,  adopted  it,  by  agreeing  to  the  5th 
article  verbatim,  which  has  reference  to  all  the 
articles,  and  contains  in  itself  the  important 
proviso  that  the  constitution  and  Government 
so  to  be  formed  shall  be  republican,  and  in  con- 
formity to  the  principles  contained  in  these 
articles;  in  addition  to  this,  it  has  been  re- 
cognized by  three  different  Congresses,  on  the 
admissions  of  the  States  of  Ohio,  Indiana,  and 
Illinois,  into  the  Union;  and  by  those  three 
bodies  of  people  in  the  acceptance  of  their  ad- 
mission into  the  Union  agreeably  to  its  provi- 
sions. There  are  many  other  instances  of  its 
recognition,  which  make  it  sufficient  to  quiet 
even  a  doubtful  question,  for  the  sake  of  stabil- 
ity in  human  affairs,  and  for  the  repose  and 
happiness  of  society.* 

There  is  another  part  of  the  constitution  that 
has  attracted  much  attention.  I  mean  that 
which  relates  to  migration  and  importation. 
The  committee  will  perceive  that  this  clause 
does  not  directly  support  the  amendment  in 
full,  as  it  would  not  work  an  entire  extinguish- 


*  The  clause  in  the  constitution  which  declared  the 
engagements  of  the  Congress  of  the  Confederation  to  be 
valid  against  the  new  Government,  was  supposed  at  the 
time  to  be  applicable  to  the  ordinance  of  1787,  and  intended 
to  sanction  its  compacts.  Thus,  Judge  Tucker,  Professor  of 
Law  in  the  college  of  William  and  Mary,  Virginia,  and 
editor  of  an  edition  of  Blackstone's  Commentaries,  says: 
"  Congress,  under  the  former  confederation,  passed  an 
ordinance,  July  18, 1787,  for  the  government  of  the  Terri- 
tory of  the  United  States,  northwest  of  the  Ohio,  which 
contained,  among  other  things,  site  articles,  which  were 
to  oe  considered  as  articles  of  compact  between  the  original 
States  and  the  people  and  States  of  the  Territory,  and  to  re- 
main unalterable,  unless  by  common  consent  These  arti- 
cles appear  to  have  been  confirmed  by  the  sixth  article  of 
the  constitution,  which  declares,  that  all  debts  contracted, 
and  engagements  entered  into  before  the  adoption  of  the 
constitution,  shall  be  as  valid  against  the  United  States  un- 
der the  constitution  as  under  the  confederation.''''  (Appen- 
dix D,  p.  279,  Phil,  edition,  1803.)  This  would  seem  to  bo  a 
fair  understanding  of  the  engagement  clause  in  the  constitu- 
tion, and  to  give  to  the  ordinance  the  virtue  of  a  constitu- 
tional enactment.  The  Congress  of  the  confederation  had 
certainly  entered  into  engagements  with  the  ceding  States, 
to  wit,  an  engagement  to  dispose  of  the  soil  which  they  ceded, 
and  an  engagement  to  build  up  political  communities  upon 
it  This  is  what  the  old  Congress  had  begun  to  do  under  ite 
ordinance,  and  it  is  certainly  what  the  constitution  requires 
the  new  Congress  to  continue  doing;  and  it  is  in  this  sense 
that  the  power  of  Congress  to  govern  the  Territories,  was 
usually  referred  by  our  first  generation  of  statesmen  to  their 
engagements  in  accepting  the  territorial  cessions,  and  not 
to  the  clause  in  the  constitution  which  authorized  it  to  dis- 
pose of,  and  make  all  needful  rules  and  regulations  respect- 
ing the  territory  or  other  property  of  the  States. 


DEBATES  OF  CONGRESS. 


505 


FEBRUARY,  1820.] 


The  Missouri  Bill— Restriction  on  the  State. 


[H.  OP  R 


ment  of  slavery  in  the  State  of  Missouri,  it 
could  only  prevent  future  migration  to  it.  But 
perhaps  it  may  be  of  some  consequence  to  ex- 
amine it,  as  it  may  have  a  collateral  bearing 
upon  the  subject. 

It  is  declared  "  that  the  migration  or  impor- 
tation of  such  persons  as  any  of  the  States  now 
existing  shall  think  proper  to  admit,  shall  not 
be  prohibited  by  the  Congress  prior  to  the  year 
1808." 

What  is  meant  by  the  words  "  migration  or 
importation?"  If  the  Convention  had  meant 
importation  into  the  United  States  only,  why 
use  the  word  "migration?"  "Importation" 
was  the  appropriate  word  for  that  purpose,  and 
would  have  included  such  persons  as  should  be 
brought  from  beyond  the  seas,  as  well  as  those 
brought  from  the  adjoining  countries ;  it  would 
include,  with  great  propriety,  persons  brought 
into  the  country  from  any  other  place  whatever. 

The  subject  of  slavery  was  one  that  occasion- 
ed the  most  animated  contest  between  the  mem- 
bers of  the  Convention;  and  I  presume  that 
they  did  not  employ  these  words  without  weigh- 
ing their  signification  well. 

I  will  give  my  idea  of  the  word  importation 
first.  On  the  one  hand  it  was  agreed  that  Con- 
gress might  prohibit  the  importation  of  slaves 
after  the  year  1808 ;  but  as  Congress  had  a  right 
to  lay  a  tax  or  duty  on  every  thing  imported  into 
this  country,  it  was  in  their  power  to  lay  it  so 
high  as  would  virtually  amount  to  a  prohibition. 
To  prevent  this,  the  slaveholding  States  had  the 
precaution  to  have  the  tax  or  duty  limited  to  a 
sum  not  higher  than  ten  dollars  on  each  person. 
This  compromise  ended  the  contest  as  to  the 
word  importation. 

But  what  is  meant  by  the  word  "  migra- 
tion ?"  That  it  was  intended  as  a  significant 
word,  is  manifest  from  the  minutes  of  the  Con- 
vention. 

It  was  moved  and  seconded,  to  amend  the 
first  clause  of  the  report,  to  read,  "The  impor- 
tation of  slaves  into  such  of  the  States  as  shall 
permit  the  same,  shall  not  be  prohibited  by  the 
Legislature  of  the  Union,  until  the  year  1808." 

In  the  proposed  amendment,  the  word  im- 
portation stood  alone ;  but  the  motion  passed 
in  the  negative,  and  the  word  migration  was 
retained.  Such  a  variety  of  opinions  are  en- 
tertained as  to  the  meaning  of  this  word  that  it 
excites  curiosity.  Some  think  it  is  synonymous 
with  importation  ;  some,  that  it  relates  to  free 
persons  coming  into  this  country ;  others,  that 
it  has  a  double  meaning,  relating  either  to  free 
persons  or  to  slaves ;  and  others,  that  it  is  con- 
fined to  slaves  to  be  brought  into  this  country 
from  the  adjacent  countries. 

I  shall  say  nothing  as  to  the  first  and  third  ex- 
positions. Can  it  for  a  moment  be  imagined  that 
Congress  were  to  be  restrained  from  prohibit- 
ing an  influx  of  strangers  into  this  country,  if 
the  safety  of  the  country  should  require  it, 
until  1808  ?  Such  a  power  is  incident  to  every 
Government;  good  policy  may  require  it  in 
times  of  peace,  but  it  is  absolutely  necessary  as 


preparatory  to  a  state  of  war,  and  in  war.  It 
appears  by  the  minutes  of  the  Convention,  that 
the  clause  at  one  time  stood  in  these  words : 
"  But  a  tax  or  duty  may  be  imposed  on  such 
migration  or  importation,  at  a  rate  not  exceed- 
ing the  average  duty  laid  on  imports ;"  but,  as 
free  persons  could  not  have  been  valued,  of 
course  they  could  not  have  been  intended  as  the 
clause  then  stood.  For  my  own  part  I  think  the 
clause  was  always  intended  to  embrace  slaves, 
and  no  other  description  of  persons. 

As  to  the  other  exposition,  that  the  word  mi- 
gration means  slaves  to  be  brought  from  the  ad- 
jacent countries ;  if  so,  can  any  sensible  reason 
be  given  why  a  duty  or  tax  was  not  attached  to 
the  word  migration,  as  well  as  to  the  importa- 
tion. In  both  cases  slaves  would  be  brought 
into  this  country  from  foreign  nations,  and  why 
should  the  tax  or  duty  be  stricken  out  as  it  re- 
lated to  migration  ?  The  word  migration  must 
have  meant  one  of  two  things — either  a  change 
of  situation  from  a  foreign  nation  into  this 
country,  or  a  change  in  this  country  from  one 
State  to  another  State;  in  this  respect  the 
clause  is  left  at  large ;  it  does  not  contain  the 
word  State  or  United  States.  The  idea  of  the 
two  words  being  synonymous,  seems  now  to  be 
abandoned.  Suppose,  then,  that  Congress  had 
laid  a  duty  or  tax  on  slaves  to  be  brought  from 
any  of  the  adjacent  countries,  would  such  a  law 
have  been  declared  unconstitutional  ?  If  not, 
the  case  is  included  by  the  word  importation ; 
and,  of  course,  the  word  migration  has  no  em- 
ployment there.  If  we  consider  the  meaning 
to  be  a  change  of  situation  from  one  State  to 
another,  and  that  is  from  one  government  to 
another,  are  we  not  furnished  with  the  reason 
why  no  tax  or  duty  was  attached  to  the  word 
migration,  as  would  not  have  been  agreeable  to 
other  parts  of  the  constitution :  "  No  tax  or 
duty  shah1  be  laid  on  articles  exported  from  any 
State ;  nor  shall  vessels  bound  to  or  from  one 
State  be  obliged  to  enter,  clear,  or  pay  duty,  in 
another." 

I  have  adopted  this  construction,  because  it  is 
most  free  from  objection,  and  because  it  accords 
best  with  humanity,  and  with  the  spirit  of  the 
times  which  produced  the  constitution. 

If  this  construction,  is  correct,  that  Congress 
possesses  the  power  over  migration  from  State 
to  State,  and  should  ever  exercise  that  power, 
then  I  may  be  permitted  to  ask,  how  could  a 
State  that  has  abolished  slavery  ever  introduce 
it  into  its  limits  again?  Importation  from 
abroad  would  be  cut  off;  migration  from  State 
to  State  would  be  inhibited,  and  the  badge  of 
slavery  could  not  be  fastened  on  any  white 
freemen  or  black  freemen ;  they  would  be  in- 
stantly discharged  on  a  Tiabeas  corpus.  Such  is 
the  genius  of  our  republican  institutions,  that 
no  person  that  is  born  free  can  ever  be  en- 
slaved ;  and,  independently  of  this.  I  wish  to 
maintain  it  as  a  principle  throughout  this  dis- 
cussion, that  it  would  be  a  breach  of  morality 
and  a  true  sovereignty,  and  a  dishonor  to  a 
State,  to  introduce  slavery,  unless  there  should 


506 


ABRIDGMENT  OF  THE 


H.  OF  R.] 


The  Missouri  Bill— Restriction  on  the  State. 


[FEBRUARY,  1820. 


exist  an  absolute  necessity  for  it.  Under  the 
view  which  I  have  taken,  if  the  restriction  is 
not  carried,  Missouri  will  be  in  a  better  situa- 
tion, (if  she  should  so  consider  it,)  than  such 
States  as  I  have  mentioned,  as  the  existing 
slavery  in  Missouri  could  not  be  extinguished, 
but  must  be  permitted  to  remain  and  spread 
over  that  whole  country. 

The  existence  of  slavery  in  this  country  must 
be  considered  as  involuntary ;  that  it  is  a  great 
political  evil  is  generally  acknowledged,  and 
that  no  blame  is  attached  to  the  present  gen- 
eration is  equally  admitted.  It  was  a  bitter  in- 
heritance, and  one  that  imposed  the  necessity 
of  its  being  accepted. 

That  it  is  in  direct  hostility  with  the  princi- 
ples of  our  Eevolution  we  all  agree ;  sentiments 
different  in  the  extreme  at  that  period  seized 
the  American  mind,  and  the  voice  of  true  liber- 
ty was  heard  throughout  the  colonies. 

The  most  pathetic  appeals  were  made  on  the 
subject,  not  only  to  the  people  of  this  country, 
but  to  the  people  of  England  and  Ireland,  to 
the  Canadians,  and  to  some  of  the  Islands. 

The  contest  for  liberty  was  bloody  and  ex- 
pensive, and  after  it  terminated  in  the  achieve- 
ment of  our  independence,  and  when  the  repre- 
sentatives of  the  people  assembled  to  make  a 
constitution,  among  the  first  difficulties  that 
were  presented  to  them  was  this  unfortunate 
practice  of  slavery.  It  was  pregnant  with 
every  species  of  embarrassment ;  they  had 
fought  for  liberty,  but  were  obliged  to  counte- 
nance within  the  borders  of  their  own  country 
a  state  of  bondage ;  for  themselves  they  could 
not  bear  political  restraint,  yet  their  situation 
had  been  a  paradise  compared  to  the  condition 
of  this  miserable  race.  A  large  portion  of  the 
people  at  that  critical  moment  were  constrained 
to  yield  to  certain  principles  contained  in  the 
constitution,  as  a  federal  alliance  was  consider- 
ed as  the  only  political  event  that  could  effec- 
tually contribute  to  the  tranquillity  and  future 
greatness  of  the  United  States,  as  a  nation ;  a 
compromise  was  happily  effected,  and  to  it  we 
are  indebted  for  the  many  blessings  which  we 
have  enjoyed;  but,  to  these  compromises  the 
inhabitants  of  Missouri  must  be  considered  as 
perfect  strangers. 

Could  the  present  question  in  any  shape  have 
been  proposed  to  the  Convention,  I  appeal  to 
the  candor  of  the  committee,  if,  in  their  opin- 
ion, it  would  have  been  sustained  for  a  moment 
by  the  patriots  of  that  early  day  ?  Slavery  in 
the  old  States  could  not  be  extinguished,  but  as 
to  States  that  were  to  grow  up  out  of  the  con- 
stitution, it  never  was  intended  that  they 
should  be  inconsistent  with  the  solemn  profes- 
sions made  to  the  world.  The  sentiments  of 
the  nation  on  this  subject  were  fairly  evinced 
by  the  disposition  of  the  territory  northwest  of 
the  Ohio ;  and  shall  it  now  be  made  a  serious 
question  whether  we  will  deliberately  extend 
the  practice  of  slavery  to  this  boundless  region, 
and  deny  the  blessings  of  liberty  to  millions  un- 
born, when  we  are  left  at  liberty  to  act  accord- 


ing to  our  own  wishes,  and  when  there  is  no 
plea  of  necessity  for  an  excuse?  I  ardently 
hope  that  a  different  result  will  be  the  effect  of 
our  deliberations. 

As  slavery  exists,  it  is  asked  where  is  the 
difference  whether  they  live  in  one  part  of  the 
country  or  another  ?  If  no  slavery  existed  in 
this  country,  a  similar  question  might  be  put : 
it  might  be  asked,  as  slavery  exists  in  any  part 
of  the  world,  why  might  they  not  be  brought 
into  this  country — will  the  change  affect  their 
happiness?  Yet,  in  such  cases,  it  is  highly  ma- 
terial, and  one  reason  is,  that  Missouri  will  be 
a  new  sovereignty,  and  slavery  ought  to  be  ex- 
tinguished in  the  limits  of  every  sovereignty,  if 
it  can  be  effected  without  dangerous  conse- 
quences. Its  existence  will  interest  the  State 
in  the  perpetuation  of  slavery. 

It  is  represented  as  a  violation  of  every  prin- 
ciple of  justice  to  prevent  slaveholders  from 
carrying  their  slaves  with  them  to  this  State, 
if  they  should  be  inclined  to  remove  into  it,  as 
the  country  was  purchased  by  the  general  fund. 
With  equal  propriety  the  same  argument  could 
have  been  employed  in  relation  to  the  States 
formed  out  of  the  Northwest  Territory,  as  that 
was  likewise  a  common  fund;  but  has  any 
serious  inconvenience  been  experienced  hereto- 
fore in  this  respect?  None  has  been  publicly 
made  known.  Gentlemen,  moreover,  say  that 
it  would  be  cruel  to  oblige  those  who  should  be 
desirous  to  settle  in  this  State,  to  part  with 
such  slaves  as  had  gained  their  affections,  such 
as  their  favorite  nurses  and  the  playmates  of 
their  children.  The  number  of  this  description 
would  be  few,  and  it  did  not  occur  to  gentlemen 
that  this  would  be  a  happy  opportunity  to  give 
the  best  evidence  of  their  attachment,  by  manu- 
mitting these  favorites,  and  taking  them  along 
as  free  persons:  this  would  afford  them  com- 
fort the  remainder  of  their  lives,  and  the  gen- 
erous act  would  amply  reward  the  master. 

It  has  been  intimated  that  this  has  become  a 
question  of  high  excitement  and  passion,  and 
that  we  are  carried  away  in  the  tide  of  popu- 
larity. Let  it  be  recollected  that,  if  the  meas- 
ure of  restriction  is  popular  in  the  North,  the 
doctrine  of  non-restriction  is  equally  popular  in 
the  South,  and  the  result  will  show  whether 
they  will  leave  the  Southern  ranks  and  entitle 
themselves  to  the  praise  of  the  North  for  their 
firmness  and  independence.  I  have  heard  it 
•said  (but  I  am  not  certain  that  it  was  in  the 
House)  that  slaves  are  as  happy  as  the  lower 
class  of  white  people.  If  this  is  correct,  it  must 
be  in  consequence  of  the  degradation  to  which 
they  are  reduced ;  their  faculties  are  not  allow- 
ed that  expansion  which  nature  intended ;  they 
are  kept  in  darkness,  and  are  unacquainted 
with  their  true  situation,  as  well  in  regard  to 
their  present  state  as  to  their  future  existence. 
Slavery  in  the  abstract  strikes  the  heart  with 
abhorrence :  this  h'fe  can  have  no  charms  if  it 

not  sweetened  with  liberty ;  and  if  a  slave 
has  any  accurate  knowledge  of  his  own  condi- 
tion, nothing  can  appear  before  him  but  sad- 


DEBATES  OF  CONGKESS. 


507 


FEBRUARY,  1820.] 


The  Missouri  Bill— Restriction  on  the  State. 


[H.  OP  R 


ness,  from  the  dawn  of  the  morning  to  the 
close  of  the  evening. 

Many  suggestions  have  been  made  in  relation 
to  a  compromise.  But,  if  we  reflect  a  moment, 
it  will  be  easily  perceived  that,  under  the  cir- 
cumstances, it  will  be  impossible  to  compromise 
a  question  of  this  character.  A  compromise 
usually  has  for  its  basis  mutual  concessions, 
which  are  equally  obligatory ;  but,  if  we  should 
pass  a  law  excluding  slavery  from  the  remain- 
ing territory,  where  would  be  the  security  that 
another  Congress  would  not  repeal  it?  It  will 
be  but  an  ordinary  act  of  legislation,  and 
whenever  there  shall  be  an  application  for  a 
new  State,  we  shall  be  met  with  the  same  con- 
stitutional objections  that  now  exist.  It  is,  in 
fact,  yielding  all  for  which  we  have  been  con- 
tending, and  if  we  once  give  up  the  ship, 
slavery  will  be  tolerated  in  the  State  of  Missou- 
ri, and  we  can  never  after  remove  it. 

It  is  true  that  a  compromise  was  made  on  the 
subject  of  slavery  at  the  adoption  of  the  consti- 
tution, but  it  was  one  of  an  obligatory  nature, 
and  it  arose  out  of  circumstances  that  could  not 
be  controlled.  The  constitution  was  necessary 
to  save  us  from  domestic  discord  and  foreign 
ambition;  we  were  then  in  our  infancy;  but 
now  our  national  strength  bids  defiance  to  any 
nation,  where,  I  ask,  is  the  necessity  of  deceiv- 
ing ourselves  or  our  constituents  by  this  mere 
pretence  of  a  compromise  ? 

The  genllemen  on  the  other  side  tell  us  that, 
if  the  restriction  is  carried,  the  Union  will  be 
dissolved.  Missouri  alone,  notwithstanding  her 
high  displeasure,  could  make  but  a  feeble  effort 
in  this  respect,  and  will  the  respectable,  patri- 
otic, and  high-minded  State  of  Virginia,  be  dis- 
posed to  break  up  the  Union  on  this  occasion — 
Virginia  that  has  enjoyed  the  highest  honors  of 
the  nation,  both  in  war  and  in  peace  ?  Will  the 
other  slaveholding  States  join  in  the  contest? 
What  is  there  to  justify  such  a  calamitous 
event  ?  Wherein  are  we  betraying  our  coun- 
try ?  Do  we  not  stand  on  the  ground  of  our 
ancestors  ?  Are  we  not  maintaining  the  same 
principles  that  animated  their  hearts  when,  like 
a  band  of  patriotic  brothers,  they  unanimously 
excluded  slavery  from  the  Northwestern  Terri- 
tory ?  I  have  no  wish  to  say  that  the  honor- 
able gentlemen  only  mean  to  intimidate  us — 
that  would  be  unkind — but  I  beg  leave  to  differ 
with  them  on  this  subject.  I  have  a  more  ex- 
alted opinion  of  the  patriotism  of  the  South ; 
they  will  never  cause  American  blood  to  be 
spilt,  unless  for  reasons  that  would  justify  them 
in  the  eyes  of  the  world  ;  and,  in  the  language 
of  Mr.  Jefferson,  "  the  Almighty  has  no  attri- 
bute that  would  side  with  them  in  such  a  cause 
as  this  would  be."  Has  it  come  to  this,  that  the 
extension  of  slavery  is  to  be  considered  as  one 
of  the  pillars  of  our  liberty?  This,  indeed, 
would  be  a  political  paradox. 


MONDAY,  February  7. 
The  Missouri  Sill. 

The  House  resumed,  as  in  Committee  of  the 
Whole,  (Mr.  BALDWIN  in  the  chair,)  the  con- 
sideration of  the  Missouri  bill,  the  restrictive 
amendment  being  still  under  consideration. 

Mr.  HEMPHLLL,  of  Pennsylvania,  resumed  and 
concluded  the  speech  which  he  commenced  on 
Saturday,  in  favor  of  the  restriction.  His  speech 
is  given  entire  in  the  preceding  pages. 

Mr.  McLANE,  of  Delaware,  addressed  the  com- 
mittee as  follows : 

Mr.  Chairman — If  it  were  not  for  the  peculiar 
situation  in  which  I  shall  be  placed,  in  regard 
to  some  respectable  opinions  prevailing  in  the 
State  from  which  I  have  the  honor  to  come,  by 
the  vote  I  shall  feel  it  my  duty  to  give  upon  the 
present  occasion,  I  should  not  trespass  upon  the 
time  of  the  committee.  If  the  eloquence  and 
ability  which  have  been  already  employed  in 
this  debate  have  not  produced  any  change  of 
opinion,  I  have  not  the  presumption  to  suppose 
that  it  will  be  in  my  power  to  vary  the  result ; 
but,  if  it  is  not  for  me  to  disturb  the  opinions 
of  others,  I  may  afford  a  justification  of  my  own, 
and  furnish  to  those  who  may  hereafter  feel  any 
interest  in  the  course  I  deem  it  my  duty  to  pur- 
sue, an  exposition  of  the  motives  by  which  I  am 
governed. 

I  concur  with  the  honorable  mover  of  the 
amendment,  that  it  presents  an  act  of  no  ordi- 
nary legislation ;  and  I  am  very  sure  he  cannot 
easily  overrate  its  importance — an  importance 
derived  not  more  from  the  intrinsic  magnitude 
of  the  question,  in  all  its  relations,  than  the  ex- 
citement and  tumult  to  which  it  has  given  rise 
in  every  part  of  the  Republic.  I  do  not  believe 
that  any  subject  has  ever  arisen  in  this  country, 
since  the  formation  of  the  Government,  which 
has  produced  a  more  general  agitation,  or  in 
regard  to  which  greater  pains  have  been  taken 
to  inflame  the  public  mind,  and  control  the  de- 
liberations of  the  national  councils.  The  daz- 
zling reward  of  popular  favor,  invested  with  all 
its  fascinations,  has  been  held  up  on  the  one 
hand,  and  the  appalling  spectre  of  public  denun- 
ciation, with  all  its  frightfulness,  on  the  other. 
The  sincere  and  humane,  actuated  I  am  sure  by 
the  best  and  purest  motives ;  the  aspiring  dema- 
gogue and  ambitious  politician ;  those  who  wish 
well  to  their  country ;  and  those  who  seek  power 
in  the  troubled  sea  of  popular  commotion ;  have 
promiscuously  united  in  these  public  agitations, 
until  the  press  has  teemed  and  our  tables  groaned, 
with  a  mass  of  pamphlets  and  memorials  beyond 
example. 

The  State  which  I  have  the  honor,  in  part,  to 
represent,  has  been  the  theatre  of  a  full  share  of 
this  agitation ;  and  the  honorable  Legislature  of 
that  respectable  State  has  been  pleased,  recently, 
to  take  up  the  subject,  and  have  unanimously 
resolved  that,  in  their  opinion,  Congress  have 
the  constitutional  power,  and  ought  to  impose 
this  restriction  upon  the  new  States. 

Entertaining  the  respect  I  do  for  the  intelli- 


508 


ABRIDGMENT  OF  THE 


H.  OP  R.] 


The  Missouri  Bill — Restriction  on  the  State. 


[FEBRUARY,  1820. 


gence  of  the  people  of  my  own  State,  and  the 
character  of  their  Legislature,  I  cannot  find  my 
opinion  in  opposition  to  theirs  without  the  most 
unfeigned  regret.  For,  although  I  do  not  con- 
cede to  the  Legislature  of  a  State  the  right  of 
instructing  the  representatives  of  the  people  in 
Congress,  or  of  employing  its  official  character 
to  influence  their  conduct,  or  to  affect  their  re- 
sponsibility, yet,  viewing  their  acts,  in  this  re- 
spect, as  the  opinions  of  the  individual  members 
merely,  I  cannot  regard  them  with  indifference, 
selected,  as  they  undoubtedly  should  be,  from 
their  fellow-citizens,  as  distinguished  for  some 
portion  both  of  virtue  and  intelligence. 

I  am  free  to  admit,  that,  in  subjects  of  general 
policy  merely,  the  will  of  the  people,  when  fully 
and  fairly  ascertained,  is  always  entitled  to  great 
weight ;  and,  upon  an  occasion  like  the  present, 
if  I  were  influenced  by  motives  of  expediency 
only,  I  should  be  much  disposed  to  yield  my  im- 
pressions to  that  will.  But,  in  constitutional 
questions,  the  representative  is,  or  ought  to  be, 
governed  by  higher  considerations ;  and  he 
would  be  unworthy  of  his  trust  who  could  be 
regardless  of  them.  He  is  sworn  to  support  the 
constitution,  and  he  takes  his  seat  in  this  House, 
to  legislate  for  the  nation,  under  the  provisions 
of  that  instrument.  His  own  integrity,  and  the 
safety  of  our  common  institutions,  depend  upon 
his  strict  personal  accountability ;  his  own 
opinions,  formed  by  the  best  lights  of  his  own 
impartial  judgment,  must  be  his  guide ;  and  he 
cannot  adopt  those  of  others,  when  conflicting 
with  his  own,  without  a  surrender  of  his  con- 
science. In  such  cases,  popular  feelings  and 
legislative  recommendation  can  have  no  greater 
influence  than  to  weaken  one's  confidence  in 
his  own  impressions,  and  to  dictate  a  reinvesti- 
gation  of  the  subject,  to  see  if  conclusions  may 
not  have  been  drawn  from  false  premises,  or 
views  overlooked,  which,  if  they  had  been  ad- 
verted to,  would  have  led  to  a  different  result. 
I  have  allowed  the  recommendation  of  the  Legis- 
lature of  Delaware  to  have  such  an  effect  in  this 
instance.  I  have  deliberately  reviewed  and  re- 
considered this  important  subject,  divested,  I  am 
sure,  of  any  improper  feelings,  and  prompted  by 
every  allurement  of  popular  favor,  to  reach  a 
conclusion  in  conformity  with  their  views ;  but, 
I  am  bound  to  say,  after  this  re-investigation, 
pursued  with  great  labor,  and  a  full  sense  of  my 
responsibility,  that  I  believe,  in  my  conscience, 
that  Congress  does  not  possess  the  power  to 
impose  the  contemplated  restriction.  In  this 
belief,  then,  Mr.  Chairman,  and  resting  upon 
the  principles  of  the  constitution,  and  my  duty 
to  a  power  higher  than  any  legislature,  I  must 
regret  the  difference  of  opinion,  and  be  con- 
tented with  an  upright  discharge  of  my  public 
trust.  I  will  take  leave  to  say,  sir,  in  the  lan- 
guage of  an  illustrious  man  on  another  occasion, 
who  I  could  desire  to  imitate  in  many  other 
respects,  "  I  honor  the  people,  and  respect  the 
legislature ;  but  there  are  many  things  in  the 
favor  of  either,  which  are  objects,  in  my  account, 
not  worth  ambition.  I  wish  popularity,  but  it 


is  that  popularity  which  follows,  not  that  which 
is  run  after.  It  is  that  popularity  which,  sooner 
or  later,  never  foils  to  do  justice  to  the  pursuit 
of  noble  ends,  by  noble  means.  I  shall  not, 
therefore,  on  this  occasion,  do  what  my  con- 
science tells  me  is  wrong,  to  court  the  applause 
of  thousands ;  nor  shall  I  avoid  doing  what  I 
deem  to  be  right,  to  avert  the  artillery  of  the 
press." 

I  shall  not,  in  this  place,  sir,  imitate  the  ex- 
ample of  other  gentlemen,  by  making  profes- 
sions of  my  love  of  liberty,  and  abhorrence  of 
slavery ;  not  because  I  do  not  entertain  them, 
but  because  I  consider  that  the  great  principles 
of  neither  are  involved  in  this  amendment.  It 
is  a  coloring,  to  be  sure,  of  which  the  subject  is 
susceptible,  and  which  has  been  used  in  great 
profusion,  but  it  serves  much  more  to  inflame 
feelings  and  prejudices  unfriendly  to  a  dispas- 
sionate deliberation,  than  to  aid  the  free  exer- 
cise of  an  unbiased  judgment. 

This  amendment  does  not  propose,  nor  has  it 
for  its  object,  to  inhibit  the  introduction  of  slaves 
from  parts  beyond  the  United  States ;  in  such  a 
scheme  there  is  no  intelligent  man  in  the  Union 
who  would  not  cordially  concur.  Neither  does 
it  propose  to  promote  the  emancipation  of  the 
slaves  now  in  the  country ;  this  is  admitted  to 
be  impracticable ;  the  wildness  of  enthusiasm 
itself  acknowledges  its  incompetency  for  such 
an  undertaking.  The  truth  is,  sir,  that  this 
species  of  unhappy  beings  are  now  among  us ; 
brought  here,  in  part,  by  events  beyond  our 
control,  and,  in  part,  under  the  authority  of  our 
own  constitution  ;  and  it  behooves  us,  by  a  wise 
and  prudent  administration  of  our  powers,  to 
meliorate  their  condition,  and  accommodate  the 
evil,  as  far  as  it  may  be  practicable,  to  the  peace 
and  happiness  of  our  white  population,  and  the 
stability  of  our  institutions.  It  is  not  pretended, 
even  that  the  condition  of  the  unhappy  slave 
himself  would  be  improved  by  the  success  of 
this  amendment ;  on  the  contrary,  it  has  been 
insinuated,  as  boldly  as  the  sentiment  would 
justify,  that  his  confinement  to  a  narrower  com- 
pass might  lead  to  his  extirpation,  by  the  grad- 
ual, but  sure  process  of  harder  labor,  and  scar- 
city of  subsistence.  I  am  free  to  say,  that  the 
condition  of  the  slave  himself  would  be  melio- 
rated by  his  dispersion,  nor  do  I  attach  the  same 
importance,  as  some  gentlemen  appear  to  do,  to 
the  danger  of  encouraging  an  illicit  importation 
from  abroad  by  permitting  a  market  west  of  the 
Mississippi.  It  is  an  argument  founded  on  the 
futility  of  legal  restraint,  the  worst  possible 
species  of  argument  by  which  a  legislature  could 
be  influenced.  It  would  prove  the  inutility  of 
every  act  of  legislation,  or  might  be  used  to 
justify  every  species  of  usurpation.  It  would 
equally  demonstrate  the  futility  of  the  proposed 
amendment  itself;  for,  if  gentlemen  cannot 
hope  to  exterminate  the  foreign  slave  trade,  by 
all  the  precautions  legitimately  in  their  power, 
founded  in  a  unanimity  of  legislation,  strength- 
ened by  the  powerful  force  of  public  sentiment, 
and  the  abominable  nature  of  the  traffic  itself, 


DEBATES  OF  CONGRESS. 


509 


FEBRUARY,  1820.] 


The  Missouri  Eill— Restriction  on  the  State. 


[H.  OF  R. 


what  greater  reliance  can  they  place  upon  this 
restriction,  foisted  into  the  constitution  of  a 
free  people  against  their  consent,  on  which  ac- 
count, alone,  it  would  be  an  object  of  hatred 
and  contempt,  and  the  violation  be  winked  at  by 
a  great  portion  of  the  people,  if  not  by  their  pub- 
lic authorities? 

Sir,  this  amendment  does  not  even  propose 
to  prevent  the  introduction  of  slavery  into  Mis- 
souri for  the  first  time ;  it  has  already  taken 
root  there ;  we  found  it  there  when  we  acquired 
the  territory,  and  it  has  grown  and  extended 
under  the  sanction  of  our  own  laws ;  but  the 
whole  force  and  effect  of  the  amendment  is,  to 
take  from  the  people  of  Missouri  the  right  to 
decide,  for  themselves,  whether  they  will  permit 
persons  removing  thither,  from  other  States  in 
which  slavery  is  tolerated,  to  take  their  slaves 
with  them.  This  object  would  not  be  unde- 
sirable, if  it  could  be  accomplished  by  the  legit- 
imate powers  of  Congress ;  but  we  have  no 
right  to  do  it  by  an  assumption  of  power  in 
ourselves,  or  by  an  unauthorized  use  of  the 
power  of  others. 

Mr.  Chairman,  the  great  question  involved  in 
this  amendment  is  neither  more  nor  less  than 
this :  whether  Congress  can  interfere  with  the 
people  of  Missouri,  in  the  formation  of  their 
constitution,  to  compel  them  to  introduce  into 
it  any  provision,  touching  their  municipal  rights, 
against  their  consent,  and  to  give  up  their  right 
to  change  it,  whatever  may  be  their  future  con- 
dition, or  that  of  their  posterity  ?  Every  thing 
beyond  this  is  merely  the  imposing  garb  in 
which  the  power  comes  recommended  to  us. 
It  is  certainly  true,  that  an  attempt  to  take 
from  this  people  the  right  of  deciding  whether 
they  will  or  will  not  tolerate  slavery  among 
them,  is  less  objectionable  because  of  its  end, 
than  it  would  be  if  it  interfered  with  some 
other  local  relation  or  right  of  property ;  but 
the  power  to  do  this  implies  a  power  of  much 
greater  expansion.  Congress  has  no  greater 
power  over  slavery,  or  the  rights  of  the  owner, 
in  any  particular  State,  than  it  has  over  any 
other  local  relation  or  domestic  right;  and, 
therefore,  a  power  to  interfere  with  one  must 
be  derived  from  a  power  to  interfere  with  all. 
Sir,  it  is  manifest,  from  the  avowal  of  the  hon- 
orable mover,  that  he  contemplates  a  wider 
scope  of  power,  and  the  attainment  of  impor- 
tant ends,  other  than  those  which  lie  upon  the 
surface  of  this  amendment.  The  gentleman 
seemed  not  to  limit  his  view  to  the  municipal 
effect  of  this  power ;  in  his  eye  it  was  to  have 
an  indirect  operation  upon  the  Federal  powers 
of  the  General  Government,  since  his  chief  ob- 
jection appeared  to  be  to  the  enumeration  of 
slaves  in  the  ratio  of  Congressional  represent- 
ation. Sir,  I  think  it  will  be  in  my  power  to 
show  that  the  gentleman's  fears,  on  this  score, 
are  groundless ;  but  they  serve  to  prove,  never- 
theless, that  this  is  neither  wholly  a  question 
of  slavery,  nor  a  power  limited  to  this  single 
object,  but  that  it  is  only  one,  selected  from  an 
immense  mass  of  power,  authorizing  Congress 


to  control  the  rights  of  a  free  people  in  the 
formation  of  their  State  constitution ;  and,  in 
this  way,  to  enlarge  the  operation,  if  not  the 
nature,  of  the  political  power  of  the  General 
Government. 

The  people  of  Missouri  come  here  with  the 
Treaty  of  1803  in  their  hands ;  they  demand 
admission  into  the  Union  as  a  matter  of  right — 
they  do  not  solicit  it  as  a  favor.  If  their  con- 
stitution is  republican,  and  consistent  with  the 
provisions  of  that  under  which  we  are  acting, 
we  have  no  alternative,  unless  it  is  to  refuse  to 
execute  our  own  contract — to  violate  the  plight- 
ed faith  of  the  nation.  No  one  will  undertake, 
at  this  day,  to  deny  that  the  United  States  had 
the  right  to  acquire  the  Territory  of  Louisiana. 
They  had  the  right  also  to  acquire  it  by  con- 
tract ;  the  right  of  acquiring  includes  the  right 
of  governing  it ;  and,  in  contracting  for  its  ac- 
quisition, it  is  competent  to  stipulate  the  terms 
and  the  principles  by  which  the  right  of  govern- 
ing it  should  be  exercised.  If  the  United 
States  were  competent  to  make  the  treaty,  the 
treaty  was  competent  to  take  away  the  discre- 
tion of  Congress,  for  it  is  declared  to  be  the 
"  supreme  law  of  the  land." 

It  must  also  be  conceded  that  the  power  to 
admit  new  States,  is  one  of  the  powers  of  the 
General  Government,  and  I  shall  not  deny  that, 
in  its  ordinary  exercise,  it  belongs  to  Congress, 
but  being  a  power  in  the  General  Government, 
given  up  by  the  States,  its  exercise  may  be 
regulated  and  controlled  by  the  treaty-makinff 
power;  which  is  the  extraordinary  and  SIK 
preme  power  of  the  same  Government.  The 
powers  of  the  General  Government  are  exec- 
utive, legislative,  and  judicial ;  and  are,  ordi- 
narily, exercised  by  the  respective  departments 
on  which  they  naturally  devolve ;  they  may 
or  may  not  be  exerted,  as  circumstances  make 
it  proper.  But  the  treaty-making  power  is  the 
extraordinary  power  which  may  stipulate  with 
regard  to  the  exercise  of  any  of  them,  and  its 
stipulations  are  binding  because  they  render 
the  exercise  of  the  power  necessary.  No  treaty 
can  be  unconstitutional  which  stipulates  for  the 
performance  of  any  matter  which  it  is  within 
the  power  of  the  General  Government  to  per- 
form; a  distinction  to  which  the  honorable 
gentleman  from  Pennsylvania  (Mr.  HEMPHILL) 
did  not  advert,  when  he  found  it  necessary  to 
elude  the  obligations  of  the  Treaty  of  1803, 
by  pronouncing  it  unconstitutional.  A  treaty 
is  only  unconstitutional,  when  it  stipulates  for 
the  exercise  of  powers,  or  the  surrender  of 
rights,  which  never  have  been  given  to  the 
General  Government,  but  belong  to  the  States, 
and  the  people.  This  is  the  exposition  which 
has  ever  been  given  to  the  treaty-making 
power,  since  the  famous  British  treaty.  It 
would  be  difficult  to  imagine  a  treaty  that  did 
not  contain  some  stipulations  in  regard  to  the 
powers  either  of  the  executive  or  legislative 
departments  of  the  Government.  The  power 
to  regulate  commerce  with  foreign  nations,  to 
appropriate  money,  and  to  raise  armies,  belongs 


510 


ABRIDGMENT  OF  THE 


H.  OF  R.] 


The  Missouri  Bill — Restriction  on  the  State. 


[FEBRDAKY,  1820. 


to  Congress.  But  the  treaty-making  power 
may  make  stipulations  in  regard  to  either,  and 
for  the  exercise  of  either,  and  the  Congress  and 
the  nation  would  be  bound  by  them.  The  in- 
terference of  Congress  might,  in  some  instan- 
ces, be  necessary  to  carry  the  stipulations  into 
effect ;  and  it  would  be  their  duty  in  good  faith 
to  yield  it.  If  they  refused,  the  national  faith 
would  be  violated,  but  the  treaty  would  not  be 
void.  In  the  very  instance  of  the  Louisiana 
treaty,  it  was  stipulated,  among  other  things,  to 
pay  $15,000,000  as  the  price  of  the  cession. 
This  amounted  to  a  stipulation  that  Congress 
should  appropriate  that  sum  of  money.  Con- 
gress cannot  have,  and  ought  not  to  have,  a 
more  unlimited  discretion,  in  the  exercise  of 
any  power,  than  in  that  of  appropriating 
money;  yet  the  treaty  stipulated  that  they 
should  exercise  the  power,  and  the  Congress 
did  exercise  it ;  could  not  the  treaty  then  stipu- 
late that  they  should  admit  a  State  into  the 
Union,  and  if  it  did  so,  are  not  Congress  equally 
bound  to  execute  it?  Shall  it  be  said,  that 
their  discretion  is  gone  in  the  one  case,  but  ex- 
ists in  the  other  ?  Then,  sir,  has  the  Treaty  of 
1808  stipulated  that  Congress  shall  exercise 
their  power  to  admit  this  State,  and  have  Con- 
gress sanctioned  the  stipulation  ? 

The  third  article  contains  this  provision: 
"  The  inhabitants  of  the  ceded  territory  shall 
be  incorporated  in  the  union  of  the  United 
States,  and  admitted  as  soon  as  possible,  accord- 
jng  to  the  principles  of  the  Federal  Consti- 
tution, to  the  enjoyment  of  all  the  rights,  ad- 
vantages, and  immunities  of  citizens  of  the 
United  States ;  and  in  the  mean  time  shall  be 
maintained  and  protected  in  the  free  enjoyment 
of  their  liberty,  property,  and  the  religion 
which  they  profess." 

It  must  be  conceded  that  this  article  was  de- 
signed to  have  some  meaning,  and  to  secure  to 
the  inhabitants  some  rights  and  advantages  to 
which  they  could  have  no  claim  without  it.  It 
will  not  do,  in  the  interpretation  of  an  impor- 
tant instrument  of  this  description,  to  say  that 
the  only  article  which  applies  to  the  inhabitants 
•whose  rights  would  be  affected  by  the  transfer, 
is  a  mere  matter  of  form,  without  substance  or 
design.  Its  own  language  clearly  imports  its 
intention,  to  confer  "rights,  advantages,  and 
immunities,"  of  a  political  character,  and  such 
as  they  could  not  have  claimed  as  a  matter  of 
right  without  this  stipulation.  What  would 
have  been  the  condition  of  these  inhabitants  in 
relation  to  the  Government  of  the  United  States, 
if  the  treaty  had  not  contained  this  provision  ? 
Sir,  the  power  of  the  General  Government  over 
them  and  the  territory,  would  have  been  su- 
preme ;  it  could  have  kept  them  in  a  state  of 
perpetual  colonial  dependence  ;  placed  over 
them  any  form  of  government  whatever,  and, 
if  it  pleased,  have  sold  them  again  to  any  for- 
eign power.  It  would  have  been  completely 
discretionary  to  have  "incorporated"  them 
into  the  Union  or  not,  as  it  pleased,  and  to  give 
them  such  rights  as  it  thought  proper,  and  when 


it  pleased.  Now,  these  are  the  very  powers 
this  treaty  meant  to  tie  up  ;  and  when  we  con- 
sider the  objections  which  the  language  and 
foreign  habits  of  these  inhabitants  might  have 
interposed  to  their  incorporation  into  the  Union, 
and  that  the  United  States  were  bargaining 
more  for  the  free  navigation  of  the  Mississippi 
River  than  an  accession  of  territory  or  popula- 
tion, it  became  an  imperious  duty  on  the  French 
Government  to  stipulate,  that  if  the  United 
States  obtained  their  object,  they  should  be 
compelled  to  extend  the  rights  and  advantages 
of  free  government  to  the  inhabitants. 

They  are  to  be  incorporated  into  the  Union 
of  the  United  States,  and  are  to  be  admitted  as 
soon  as  possible  to  the  enjoyment  of  the  rights, 
advantages,  and  immunities,  &c.,  and  "in  the 
mean  time  they  are  to  be  protected  in  the  free 
enjoyment  of  their  property."  This  latter 
clause  shows  that  their  incorporation  into  the 
Union  meant  more  than  a  Territorial  form  of 
government ;  they  were  to  be  under  such  a  gov- 
ernment until  they  could  be  incorporated  into 
the  Union,  and  during  that  time  their  property 
was  not  to  be  disturbed.  It  was  only  under 
that  form  of  government  that  the  United  States 
could  interfere  with  these  rights.  Their  power 
would  cease  when  it  became  possible  to  incor- 
porate them  into  the  Union,  and  admit  them 
to  the  enjoyment  of  all  the  "rights,  advantages, 
and  immunities,  of  citizens  of  the  United  States;" 
in  virtue  of  which,  they  would  themselves  be 
authorized  to  regulate  their  own  property. 

Now,  Mr.  Chairman,  the  people  of  Missouri 
cannot  be  incorporated  into  the  Union  but  as 
the  people  of  a  "  State,"  exercising  State  gov- 
ernment. It  is  a  Union  of  States,  not  of  peo- 
ple, much  less  of  Territories.  A  Territorial 
government  can  form  no  integral  part  of  a  union 
of  State  governments ;  neither  can  the  people 
of  a  Territory  enjoy  any  federal  rights,  until 
they  have  formed  a  State  government,  and  ob- 
tained admission  into  the  Union.  The  most 
important  of  the  federal  advantages  and  immu- 
nities consist  in  the  right  of  being  represented 
in  Congress — as  well  in  the  Senate  as  in  this 
House — the  right  of  participating  in  the  coun- 
cils by  which  they  are  governed.  These  are 
emphatically  the  "rights,  advantages,  and  im- 
munities, of  citizens  of  the  United  States."  The 
inhabitant  of  a  Territory  merely  has  no  such 
rights — he  is  not  a  citizen  of  the  United  States. 
He  is  in  a  state  of  disability,  as  it  respects  his 
political  or  civil  rights.  Can  it  be  called  a 
"right"  to  acquire  and  hold  property,  and 
have  no  voice  by  which  its  disposition  is  to  be 
regulated  ?  Can  it  be  called  an  advantage  or 
immunity  of  a  citizen  of  the  United  States  to 
be  subjected  to  a  Government  in  whose  deliber- 
ations he  has  no  share  or  agency,  beyond  the 
mere  arbitrary  pleasure  of  the  governor — to 
be  ruled  by  a  power  irresponsible  (to  him,  at 
least)  for  its  conduct?  Sir,  the  rights,  advan- 
tages, and  immunities,  of  citizens  of  the  United 
States,  and  which  are  their  proudest  boast,  are 
the  rights  of  self-government — first,,  in  their 


DEBATES  OF  CONGRESS. 


511 


FEBEUART,  1820.] 


The  Missouri  Sill— Restriction  on  the  State. 


[H.  OF  B. 


State  constitutions ;  and  secondly,  in  the  Gov- 
ernment of  the  Union,  in  which  they  have  an 
equal  participation. 

One  principal  point  of  difference  between  the 
two  great  parties,  by  which  the  people  of  this 
country  were  originally  divided,  was  in  regard 
to  the  force  and  effect  of  the  treaty-making 
power.  .  Mr.  Jefferson,  who  was  at  the  head  of 
the  Administration  when  the  treaty  of  1803 
was  concluded,  entertaining  the  opinion  that  it 
was  not  binding  upon  Congress  until  it  received 
their  approbation,  submitted  it  to  them,  and  re- 
commended the  passing  of  the  necessary  laws 
to  carry  it  into  effect.  The  party  at  that  day 
opposed  to  Mr.  Jefferson's  Administration  pro- 
nounced the  treaty  unconstitutional,  because  it 
stipulated  to  admit  States  into  the  Union,  carved 
out  of  a  territory  which  formed  no  part  of  the 
old  Thirteen  States.  They  did  not  deny  the 
force  of  a  treaty  containing  engagements  in 
regard  to  the  powers  of  Congress,  but  said  that 
no  department  of  the  General  Government  had 
power  to  make  new  States  out  of  new  territory. 
The  third  article  of  the  treaty  of  which  I  have 
been  speaking  was  the  objectionable  clause,  and 
both  parties  concurred  in  ascribing  to  it  the 
same  construction  for  which  I  now  contend. 
On  that  occasion,  Mr.  Griswold,  of  Connecticut, 
and  one  of  the  ablest  and  most  distinguished 
statesmen  of  whom  this  country  can  boast, 
when  speaking  of  the  just  interpretation  of 
this  third  article,  said :  "  It  is  perhaps  some- 
what difficult  to  ascertain  the  precise  effect 
whiQh  it  was  intended  to  give  the  words  which 
have  been  used  in  this  stipulation.  It  is  how- 
ever clear,  that  it  was  intended  to  incorporate 
the  inhabitants  of  the  ceded  territory  into  the 
Union,  by  the  treaty  itself,  or  to  pledge  the 
faith,  of  the  nation  that  such  an  incorporation 
should  take  place  within  a  reasonable  tune." 
The  honorable  Mr.  Tracy,  of  the  Senate,  upon 
the  same  occasion,  and  in  reference  to  the  same 
article,  also  expressed  himself  in  the  following 
terms :  "  The  obvious  meaning  of  this  article 
is,  that  the  inhabitants  of  Louisiana  are  incor- 
porated by  it  into  the  Union  upon  the  same 
footing  that  the  territorial  governments  are, 
and  the  territory,  when  the  population  is  suf- 
ficiently numerous,  must  be  admitted  as  a  State, 
with  every  right  of  any  other  State."  Mr. 
Pickering  went  even  further,  and  said :  "  If  in 
respect  to  the  Louisiana  treaty,  the  United 
States  fail  to  execute,  and  within  a  reasonable 
time,  the  engagement  in  the  third  article  to  in- 
corporate the  territory  in  the  Union,  the  French 
Government  will  have  a  right  to  declare  the 
whole  treaty  void."  This  construction  was  ac- 
quiesced in  by  the  opposite  side,  who  contended 
that  the  power  to  admit  new  States  was  not 
confined  to  the  old  territory,  and,  that  as  the 
treaty  was  now  submitted  for  the  approbation 
of  Congress,  they  had  only  to  determine  whether 
it  was  expedient  to  adopt  it  with  this  provision. 
After  the  utmost  deliberation,  and  with  a  full 
understanding  of  the  clear  import  of  this  third 
article,  Congress  determined  to  adopt  the  treaty. 


They  accepted  the  territory,  and  passed  the 
necessary  laws  for  carrying  it  into  full  effect. 
They  made  it  their  own  act.  They  subsequently 
divided  it  into  two  territorial  governments,  and 
made  no  attempt  to  prevent  the  existence  of 
slavery  in  either ;  they  sold  the  land,  and  in- 
vited emigrants  to  go  thither  from  other  parts 
of  the  United  States,  and  buy  and  settle,  but 
did  not  prohibit  them  from  carrying  their  slaves 
with  them.  They  sold  the  land  and  put  the 
money  in  the  public  treasury.  As  soon  as  the 
population  of  that  part  of  the  territory  called, 
under  the  division,  Louisiana,  became  sufficient- 
ly numerous,  Congress  admitted  it  into  the 
Union  as  a  State  upon  the  same  footing  with 
the  original  States:  no  attempt  was  made  to 
insist  upon  a  restriction  similar  to  the  present, 
or  to  impose  any  other  condition  against  their 
consent  which  in  any  manner  affected  the  rights 
of  the  people  in  the  exercise  of  their  sovereign 
power.  The  provisions  to  which  Congress  re- 
quired the  people  of  Louisiana  then  to  submit, 
will  be  found,  with  one  exception,  to  be  such 
as  were  prescribed  by  the  Constitution  of  the 
United  States,  and  to  which  they  would  have 
been  subjecte4  though  they  had  not  put  them 
into  their  constitution.  Then*  enumeration 
in  the  law  was  wholly  a  matter  of  caution. 
On  that  occasion,  also,  the  people  voluntarily 
assented  to  the  terms,  and  the  right  of  Congress 
to  impose  conditions  against  their  will  never 
was  asserted.  It  was  particularly  so  in  that 
part  of  the  law  which  stipulated  that  the  lands 
sold  by  the  United  States  should  not  be  taxed 
for  five  years.  It  is,  however,  to  be  remarked, 
that  this  was  not  a  destruction  of  the  power  in 
the  people  to  tax  the  land ;  it  was  an  agree- 
ment merely  between  the  parties  to  suspend  it 
for  a  term  of  years ;  but  the  restriction  now 
attempted  to  be  imposed  upon  the  people  of 
Missouri  is  a  complete  annihilation  of  their 
power  and  right  forever.  In  the  case  of  Louis- 
iana it  was  no  part  of  their  constitution ;  it 
was  a  mere  agreement  by  separate  contract 
not  to  use  a  power  admitted  to  be  in  them  for 
a  limited  time.  In  the  case  of  Missouri  it  is 
an  attempt  to  make  a  constitution  extinguish- 
ing a  power,  and  making  that  constitution  irre- 
vocable. 

We  have  been  referred,  however,  to  the  Dec- 
laration of  Independence,  as  declaratory  of  the 
principles  of  the  constitution  in  this  respect  I 
should  scarcely  have  deemed  this  topic  worthy 
of  an  answer,  but  for  the  confidence  with  which 
it  has  been  reiterated  in  this  debate.  If  the 
abstract  principles  contained  in  this  memorable 
paper  could  possibly  be  supposed  to  have  any 
reference  to  the  condition  of  the  black  popu- 
lation in  the  United  States,  yet,  as  it  preceded 
the  adoption  of  the  constitution,  their  practical 
effect  must  depend  altogether  upon  the  positive 
provisions  of  that  charter.  But  the  truth  is, 
sir,  that  the  Declaration  of  Independence  had  no 
reference  to  those  persons  who  were  at  that 
time  held  in  slavery.  It  was  pronounced  by 
the  freemen  of  the  country,  and  not  by  slaves. 


512 


ABRIDGMENT  OF  THE 


H.  OF  R.] 


The  Missouri  Bill— Restriction  on  the  State. 


[FEBRUABY,  1820. 


No  one  pretended  that  they  acquired  any  claim 
to  freedom  on  this  account;  on  the  contrary, 
the  Revolution  found  them  in  a  state  of  ser- 
vitude, the  acknowledgment  of  our  actual  in- 
dependence left  them  so,  and  the  Constitution 
of  the  United  States  perpetuated  their  condi- 
tion. The  Declaration  of  Independence  was  the 
act  of  open  resistance  on  the  part  of  the  white 
freemen  of  the  colonies,  against  the  pretensions 
of  the  mother  country  to  govern  them  without 
their  consent ;  to  assert  their  inalienable  right 
of  self-government,  and  to  alter  or  abolish  it 
whenever  it  should  be  necessary  to  affect  their 
safety  and  happiness.  It  was  the  resistance  of 
freemen  to  the  assumption  of  a  power  on  the 
part  of  Great  Britain,  precisely  similar  to  that 
which  we  are  now  endeavoring  to  impose  upon 
the  people  of  Missouri.  It  expressly  asserts  the 
principles  that  "all  just  powers  of  government 
are  derived  from  the  consent  of  the  governed ; 
and  the  right  of  the  people  to  alter  or  abolish, 
and  institute  it  anew,  as  to  them  shall  seem 
most  likely  to  affect  their  safety  and  happiness." 
I  do  not  deny  that  the  principles  of  the  Decla- 
ration of  Independence  are  those  of  the  consti- 
tution ;  on  the  contrary,  I  admit  that  they  are 
those  upon  which  all  our  institutions  repose ; 
they  are  those  upon  which  the  people  of  Mis- 
souri claim  the  right  to  make  their  own  consti- 
tution, and  resist  the  imposition  of  any  species 
of  government  deriving  its  powers  from  any 
other  source.  But  I  contend  that  it  never  de- 
signed to  assume  or  assert  any  principle  what- 
soever in  regard  to  the  slave  population  of  the 
United  States,  and  therefore  that  it  cannot  be 
used  in  this  debate,  either  as  declaratory  of 
their  rights  or  explanatory  of  the  principles  of 
the  constitution  and  government  in  their  behalf. 
It  is  unreasonable  to  assert  the  contrary,  when 
every  one  knows  that  while  the  freemen  of  this 
country  were  openly  resisting  the  usurpations 
of  the  British  Crown,  they  did  not  relax  in  the 
slightest  degree  their  hold  upon  the  negro 
slave ;  and  to  him  it  was  a  matter  of  entire  un- 
concern who  should  govern  his  master,  as  in  all 
conditions  his  master  would  continue  to  govern 
him.  I  do  not  advocate  the  consistency  of  all 
this :  I  take  things  as  I  find  them  under  our 
form  of  Government ;  though  when  we  throw 
our  eye  towards  St.  Domingo,  and  reflect  upon 
the  scenes  which  ensued  the  heedless  enthu- 
siasm which  characterized  the  French  Revolu- 
tion, we  cannot  fail  to  admire  the  cautious  wis- 
dom of  our  ancestors  in  not  hazarding  the  great 
object  of  their  struggle,  by  suddenly  letting 
loose  their  unfortunate,  though  degraded,  slave 
population.  Besides,  sir,  the  principles  of  the 
Declaration  of  Independence  would  not  be 
satisfied  by  merely  loosening  the  shackles  of 
the  slaves;  they  would  assert  not  only  the 
rights  of  a  freeman,  but  an  equality  of  those 
rights,  civil  and  political.  And  where  is  the 
State  in  the  Union  in  which  the  emancipated 
negro  has  been  admitted  to  the  enjoyment  of 
equal  rights  with  the  white  population?  I 
know  of  none.  In  some,  to  be  sure,  their 


rights  may  be  greater  than  in  others ;  but  in 
none,  I  believe,  are  they  upon  an  equality.  In 
the  State  which  I  have  the  honor  in  part  to 
represent,  it  has  been  the  settled  uniform  policy 
to  preserve  a  marked  and  wide  discrimination, 
and  I  am  free  to  express  a  hope  that  the  policy 
will  never  be  abandoned.  I  am  an  enemy  to 
slavery,  but  I  should  deprecate  a  policy  assail- 
ing that  discrimination  which  reason  and  nature 
have  interposed  between  the  white  and  black 
population.  I  forbear  to  press  this  part  of  the 
subject,  sir;  it  presents  many  dark  images, 
which  it  would  be  unbecoming  in  ine  here  to 
express. 

No  little  reliance  has  also  been  placed,  by 
the  honorable  mover,  upon  the  clause  in  the 
constitution,  vesting  in  Congress  a  power  to 
dispose  of  and  make  all  needful  rules  and  regu- 
lations respecting  the  territory,  or  other  prop- 
erty belonging  to  the  United  States. 

I  do  not  propose  to  enter  minutely  into  the 
inquiry  whether  the  power  of  Congress  to  es- 
tablish a  territorial  government  is  derived  from 
this  clause.  I  incline  to  the  opinion  that  it  is 
not.  The  power  here  conferred  is  a  power  to 
dispose  of  and  make  needful  rules  respecting 
the  property  of  the  United  States.  It  was  de- 
signed, I  think,  to  authorize  the  sale  of  the  land 
for  purposes  of  revenue,  and  all  regulations 
which  might  be  deemed  necessary  for  its  proper 

position;  or  to  convert  it  to  other  public 
objects  disconnected  with  sale  or  revenue ;  to 
retain  this  power,  even  after  the  Territory  had 
assumed  a  State  government,  and  perhaps  to 
divest  from  the  State  government  the  right  of 
taxing  it,  as  it  would  do  the  property  of  indi- 
viduals. It  is  silent  as  to  the  people,  and  their 
slaves  are  the  property  of  their  owners,  and  not 
of  the  Government.  The  right  to  govern  a  ter- 
ritory is  clearly  incident  to  the  right  of  acquir- 
ing it*  It  would  le  absurd  to  say  that  any 


*  And  such  was  the  practical  understanding  at  the  time ; 
for  the  acquisition  of  the  Northwest  Territory,  and  the  or- 
dinance for  its  government,  were  coincident  acts,  one  grow- 
ing out  of  the  other,  and  as  near  together  in  their  birth  and 
origin  as  two  such  acts  could  be — as  near  together  as  the 
delivery  of  a  deed  to  a  legislative  body,  and  an  act  of  legis- 
lation founded  upon  that  deed,  could  be.  The  deed  of  ces- 
sion from  Virginia  was  delivered  in  March,  1784 ;  Mr.  Jeffer- 
eon,  one  of  the  signers  of  the  deed  on  the  part  of  Virginia, 
and  then  a  member  of  the  Continental  Congress,  imme- 
diately moved  for  a  committee  to  report  a  plan  for  the  gov- 
ernment of  the  ceded  Territory ;  which  plan  was  reported 
in  April,  formed  into  an  ordinance,  and  passed ;  and  re- 
mained in  force  until  repealed  by  the  amended  ordinance  of 
1787.  Thus  the  acquisition  of  the  territory,  and  the  ordi- 
nance for  its  government,  were  coincident  acts,  the  second 
growing  out  of  the  first— not  merely  as  an  incidental  right, 
but  as  a  duty  imposed  by  the  conditions  of  the  acquisition. 
These  conditions  were,  to  dispose  of  the  soil,  and  to  build 
up  political  communities  upon  it  /—neither  of  which  could 
be  done  without  a  law  to  sell  the  land,  and  a  government  to 
rule  the  people.  The  principal  difference  between  the  ordi- 
nance of  1784  and  1787,  was  in  the  anti-slavery  feature,  that 
clause  being  struck  out  of  Mr.  Jefferson's  plan,  because  it 
did  not  provide  for  the  recovery  of  fugitives  from  service; 
and  restored  in  the  ordinance  of  1787  because  it  did. 


DEBATES  OF  CONGRESS. 


513 


FEBRUARY,  1820.] 


The  Missouri  Bill— Restriction  on  the  State. 


[H.  OF  B. 


Government  might  purchase  a  territory  with  a 
population,  and  not  have  the  power  to  give  them 
laws;  but,  from  whatever  source  the  power  is 
derivable,  I  admit  it  to  be  plenary,  so  long  as  it 
remains  in  a  condition  of  territorial  depend- 
ence, but  no  longer,  I  am  willing  at  any  time 
to  exercise  this  power.  I  regret  that  it  has  not 
been  done  sooner.  But,  though  Congress  can 
give  laws  to  a  Territory,  it  cannot  prescribe 
them  to  a  State.  The  condition  of  the  people 
of  a  Territory  is  to  be  governed  by  others ;  of 
a  State  to  govern  themselves.  This  is  the  great 
favor  we  permit  them  to  enjoy  when  we  exalt 
them  to  the  character  of  a  State.  The  instant 
we  authorize  them  to  form  their  constitution, 
the  territorial  disabilities,  and  the  powers  of 
Congress  over  them,  crumble  together  in  the 
dust.  A  new  being,  and  a  new  relation  spring 
up  ;  the  State  authority,  derived  from  the  just 
power  of  the  people,  takes  its  place ;  every  fea- 
ture of  the  territorial  authority  becomes  effaced, 
and  the  federal  powers  of  Congress,  encircling 
a  State,  commence  their  operation.  There  is 
nothing  of  territorial  disability  on  the  one  hand, 
or  territorial  authority  on  the  other,  which 
passes  into  the  new  order  of  things ;  if  they 
did,  the  State  would  be  incomplete. 

It  appears  to  me,  then,  Mr.  Chairman,  that 
the  right  contended  for  cannot  be  derived  from 
the  power  to  regulate  commerce  among  the 
several  States ;  and  therefore  that  the  power, 
which  was  restrained  until  the  year  1808,  was 
that  of  preventing  the  migration  or  importa- 
tion of  persons  from  foreign  countries  only. 
It  would  be  very  immaterial,  in  the  present  ar- 
gument, whether  the  word  persons  related  to 
slaves  only,  or  to  freemen  as  well  as  slaves ;  I 
believe,  however,  it  relates  to  both. 

In  a  just  interpretation  of  this  clause,  we  are 
bound  to  assign  to  each  word  a  distinct  mean- 
ing, to  suppose  that  each  had  a  definite  object, 
and  that  neither  was  used  unnecessarily.  If 
both  "  migration"  and  "  importation"  be  applied 
to  slaves,  one  would  be  wholly  useless.  The 
word  "  importation"  would  embrace  every  pos- 
sible means  by  which  slaves  could  be  introduced 
into  the  country  against  their  will,  as  it  would 
every  means  by  which  they  could  be  removed 
from  one  State  into  another.  We  see,  more- 
over, that,  upon  the  importation  only,  the  im- 
position of  a  tax  or  duty  is  authorized,  and,  if 
slaves  can  migrate  at  all,  they  do  so  as  well 
•when  coming  hither  from  a  foreign  country,  as 
in  going  from  State  to  State,  and  it  is  therefore 
unreasonable  to  suppose  that  while  it  was  the 
evident  policy  and  intention  to  prevent  their 
coming  in  at  all,  the  "  importation"  only  would 
be  obstructed,  and  their  "  migration"  left  free 
and  unrestricted. 

But,  sir,  the  word  "  migration"  cannot  apply 
to  the  forcible  or  involuntary  removal  of  a 
slave  from  any  State,  foreign  or  domestic.  It 
is  the  voluntary  act  of  a  free  agent ;  and  a  slave 
has  no  such  will,  and  is  no  such  agent ;  he  is 
subject  to  the  will  of  a  master,  by  whom  all 
his  actions  are  controlled.  It  is,  moreover,  a 
VOL.  VI.— 33 


right,  so  defined  by  all  the  best  writers  on  the 
subject ;  it  is  the  right  of  quitting  one's  country, 
and  of  going  into  another  in  the  pursuit  of 
wealth  and  happiness,  and,  according  to  the' 
principles  of  our  republican  form  of  govern- 
ment, it  is  inalienable.  But,  will  it  be  pretend- 
ed that  the  slave  has  any  such  right,  when  we 
have  seen  that,  in  the  only  instance  in  which 
he  voluntarily  leaves  his  master's  service,  he  is 
compelled,  in  defiance  of  all  the  municipal  reg- 
ulations of  other  States,  to  be  reclaimed  ?  No, 
sir,  he  has  no  such  right ;  he  never  changes  his 
residence,  but  under  the  compulsion  of  a  power 
he  dare  not  resist.  It  is  no  exercise  of  a  right, 
when  the  unhappy  slave  is  taken  by  his  owner 
from  place  to  place — he  obeys  a  hard  fate  which 
he  cannot  control,  and  he  can,  with  no  more 
propriety,  be  said  to  migrate,  than  the  exile 
who  is  driven  from  his  family  and  home,  into 
involuntary  banishment. 

The  term  "migration,"  as  here  used,  is  also  a 
general  one,  and  has  relation  to  the  government 
by  which  it  is  to  be  controlled.  Its  true  mean- 
ing is  that  of  quitting  their  own  country,  and  of 
removing  beyond  the  jurisdiction  of  the  Govern- 
ment; its  meaning  is  precise  and  technical. 
Therefore,  though  a  man  may  change  his  resi- 
dence, so  long  as  he  remains  under  the  Govern- 
ment of  the  United  States,  he  does  not  migrate, 
in  the  sense  of  the  constitution.  When  a  man 
removes  from  one  county  to  another  of  the 
same  State,  he  cannot  be  said  to  have  migrated 
in  relation  to  that  State,  nor  can  he  be  said  to 
migrate  in  relation  to  the  United  States,  when 
he  removes  from  one  State  to  another  in  the 
Union.  He  is  still  in  the  same  country,  still 
under  the  same  jurisdiction  and  laws ;  enjoying 
equal  rights,  and  liable  to  the  same  obligations ; 
he  is  still  a  citizen,  nay,  an  inhabitant  of  the 
United  States,  and  the  protecting  arm  of  the 
constitution  shields  and  conducts  him  wherever 
he  goes ;  he  is  not  an  emigrant,  until  he  has 
turned  his  back  upon  his  country,  and  quitted 
its  jurisdiction. 

But,  Mr.  Chairman,  if  the  words,  as  used,  be 
in  any  degree  ambiguous,  we  are  bound  to  con- 
sider the  circumstances  under  which  the  consti- 
tution was  adopted,  and  the  object  which  was 
to  be  effected  by  the  restrictive  clause.  It  is 
clear  that  the  General  Government  possessed 
the  power,  under  the  constitution,  to  restrict 
the  "  importation"  of  slaves  from  abroad,  either 
as  incident  to  their  general  powers,  or  to  the 
particular  power  to  regulate  commerce  with 
foreign  nations.  It  is,  in  my  opinion,  equally 
clear  that  they  also  possessed  the  power  of  pro- 
hibiting the  migration  of  foreign  freemen,  under 
particular  circumstances.  It  has  been  already 
shown  that  all  our  intercourse  with  foreign  na- 
tions is  peculiarly  under  the  control  of  the 
General  Government,  to  which  the  right  of  reg- 
ulating or  preventing  foreign  emigration  is  ne- 
cessarily incident;  if  it  were  otherwise,  any 
single  State,  by  opening  its  ports  to  foreign  emi- 
gration, might  let  in  a  population  to  any  extent, 
and  against  the  evident  policy  and  interests  of 


514 


ABRIDGMENT  OF  THE 


H.  OF  R.] 


The,  Missouri  Bill — Restriction  on  the  State, 


[FEBUUARY,  1820. 


all  the  others.  At  the  adoption  of  the  consti- 
tution, however,  the  States  being  in  their  in- 
fancy, it  was  their  policy  to  encourage  emigra- 
tion from  ahroad ;  and,  as  its  interruption  has 
been  one  of  the  causes  of  complaint  against 
the  British  Government,  it  was  natural  that  the 
powers  of  the  Federal  Government  should  be 
placed  under  some  restraint  in  this  respect. 

The  year  1808  was,  I  imagine,  agreed  upon, 
in  consequence  of  the  compromise  upon  the 
other  point.  A  consideration  of  the  object  of 
the  compromise*  will  leave  no  room  for  doubt. 
It  related  to  the  increase  of  population,  either 
of  freemen  or  slaves,  from  abroad.  The  consti- 
tution had  provided,  that  three-fifths  of  the 
slave  population  should  be  enumerated  in  the 
ratio  of  representation,  which  would  have  been 
constantly  augmenting,  by  the  importation  from 
abroad,  beyond  the  natural  increase  of  this 
species  of  population,  arid  it  became,  therefore, 
a  matter  of  compromise,  upon  the  mere  point 
of  time  for  which  the  importation  should  be 
tolerated.  But  this  concession  could  not  have 
been  made  without  a  similar  license  to  the  emi- 
gration of  free  persons  in  favor  of  the  northern 
and  non-slaveholding  States,  and  thus  the  affair 
was  adjusted  by  allowing  the  same  period  to 
each.  The  essence  of  this  compromise  being 
entirely  an  affair  of  time,  leaves  no  doubt  as  to 
its  meaning.  It  was  to  prevent  the  premature 
ascendency  in  the  South,  by  an  undue  increase 
of  this  population,  an  object  which  would  have 
been  as  effectually  promoted  by  the  dispersion 
of  the  slaves  among  the  other  States,  as  by  in- 
hibiting their  introduction  from  abroad,  for,  in 
case  of  their  diffusion,  the  North  would  acquire 
their  share  of  the  numbers,  and  so  the  represent- 
ation would  be  equalized. 

That  this  clause  had  no  sort  of  reference  to  a 
power  to  prevent  the  removal  of  slaves  from 
State  to  State  is  further  evident,  from  the  im- 
portant consideration  that,  previous  to  the 
adoption  of  the  constitution,  each  State  itself 
possessed  the  undoubted  authority  to  prohibit 
the  bringing  of  slaves  from  any  other  State.  It 
is,  therefore,  extremely  improbable  that,  with 
all  the  jealousy  and  hostility  of  the  Northern 
States  upon  this  subject,  they  should  have  called 
in  the  aid  of  the  General  Government  to  ac- 
complish what  they  could  do  without  it,  and 
thus  weaken  their  own  power,  by  confiding  it 
to  councils  who  had  an  interest  in  encouraging 
what  they  desired  to  abolish.  It  is  impossible, 
sir,  to  resist  this  construction,  when  in  aid  of 
it  are  arrayed  the  acts  and  practice  of  all  the 
States,  from  the  establishment  of  the  General 
Government  up  to  the  present  day.  Sir,  it  is  a 
power  which  can  be  safely  exerted  only  by  the 
individual  States  themselves ;  they  never  will, 
and  never  ought  to  submit  to  its  exercise  by  the 
General  Government. 

Sir,  I  invite  gentlemen  to  look  at  the  present 
state  of  the  public  councils,  and  consider 
whether  they  do  not  hazard  their  whole  object 
by  persisting  in  a  measure  so  repugnant  to  the 
ardent  feelings  of  at  least  one  moiety  of  this 


Empire,  and  so  much  opposed  to  the  constitu- 
tional views  of  many  of  the  friends  of  the 
avowed  policy.  It  is  a  consideration  to  which 
a  statesman  is  bound  to  look.  If  actuated  by 
motives  of  humanity  and  the  public  peace,  he 
would  be  criminal  to  disregard  it.  We  see  it 
ascertained,  beyond  doubt,  that  the  Senate  will 
not  consent  to  this  restriction;  and  that,  if  wo 
persist  in  it,  they  will  not  unite,  even  in  any 
territorial  regulation.  The  introduction  of 
slaves  into  the  "Western  country  will  remain 
free.  Those  who  desire  to  send  this  property 
there  for  sale  will  be  stimulated  to  do  so  with- 
out delay  ;  the  market  there  will  rise  in  appre- 
hension of  the  future  acts  of  Congress ;  dealers 
and  settlers  will  take  advantage  of  it ;  and  thus 
slavery  will  become  too  deeply  rooted  to  yield 
to  any  means  of  extirpation  which  future  coun- 
cils may  employ.  In  the  mean  time,  too,  public 
excitement  increases ;  evil  men  seize  upon  the 
occasion  to  promote  their  designs ;  local  preju- 
dices spring  up  ;  and  the  spirit  of  jealousy  and 
discord  is  raised  in  all  parts  of  the  country, 
which  they  who  engender  will  be  wholly  unable 
to  allay  or  direct.  But  if,  consulting  the  pres- 
ent state  of  things,  gentlemen  will  yield  some- 
thing to  a  spirit  of  harmony  and  mutual  inter- 
ests, we  may  now  put  this  unpleasant  subject 
to  sleep  forever.  The  people  of  Missouri  will 
enter  the  Union  with  their  rights  unimpaired, 
and  their  feeling  undisturbed ;  devoted  to  your 
institutions,  and  inspired  with  full  confidence 
in  your  justice  and  generosity.  The  territorial 
soil  will  then  be  unpolluted  with  slavery.  Its 
introduction  in  regard  to  that  being  prohibited, 
much  the  largest  portion  of  the  Western  world 
will  be  peopled  by  a  population  unfriendly  to 
slavery ;  and  when  they  come  to  frame  their 
State  constitutions,  preparatory  to  their  future 
admission  into  the  Union,  they  will  voluntarily 
form  them  in  conformity  with  their  habits  and 
principles.  For,  I  desire  to  be  understood  as 
denying  the  authority  of  Congress  to  make  any 
regulation  for  a  territory,  which  can  be  binding 
upon  the  people  against  their  consent,  when 
they  come  to  make  their  constitution,  and  after 
their  admission  into  the  Union.  I  sanctify  no 
irrevocable  ordinances ;  but  their  territorial  reg- 
ulations will  accomplish  the  object,  by  creating 
a  population  whose  interests  it  will  be  volun- 
tarily to  adopt  the  restriction.  In  this  way,  too, 
Missouri  will  be  seated  in  the  midst  of  non- 
slaveholding  States,  and  the  force  of  public  sen- 
timent will  soon  lead  to  the  emancipation  of 
her  present  slave  population.  For  the  accom- 
plishment of  all  these  objects,  gentlemen  are 
called  upon  merely  to  abstain  from  the  assump- 
tion of  a  doubtful  power  over  a  resisting  peo- 
ple. 

When  Mr.  McLANE  had  concluded — 
Mr.  CLAY  (Speaker)  rose  and  expressed  a  wish 
to  address  the  committee  on  the  highly  impor- 
tant question  before  it ;  but  the  lateness  of  the 
hour  prevented  his  asking  its  attention  this 
afternoon;  and  he  therefore  moved  that  the 
committee  rise. 


DEBATES  OF  CONGRESS. 


515 


FEBRUARY,  1820.] 


The  Missouri  Bill— Restriction  on  the  Slate. 


[H.  OF  R. 


The  committee  then  rose,  and  obtained  leave 
to  sit  again. 

TUESDAY,  February  8. 
Missouri  Bill. 

The  House  then  went  into  a  Committee  of 
the  Whole,  on  this  bill — the  restrictive  amend- 
ment being  still  under  consideration. 

Mr.  CLAY  (Speaker)  rose,  and  addressed  the 
committee  nearly  four  hours  against  the  right 
and  expediency  of  the  proposed  restriction.* 

The  committee  then  rose,  on  the  motion  of 
Mr.  SERGEANT  (who,  according  to  the  usage, 
has  priority  of  claim  to  the  floor  to-inorrow,) 
and  the  House  adjourned. 


WEDNESDAY,  February  9. 
Slavery  in  the  Territories. 

Mr.  FOOT  submitted  the  following  resolutions, 
viz: 

Resohed,  by  the  Senate  and  House  of  Representatives 
of  the  United  States  of  America  in  Congress  assembled, 
That  there  shall  be  neither  slavery  nor  involuntary 
servitude  in  any  of  the  territories  of  the  United 
States,  otherwise  than  in  the  punishment  of  crimes 
whereof  the  party  shall  have  been  duly  convicted : 
Prm-ided,  That  this  shall  not  be  construed  to  alter 
the  condition  or  civil  rights  of  any  person  now  held 
to  service  or  labor  in  the  said  territories. 

Resolved,  That  it  be,  and  it  is  hereby,  recommend- 
ed to  the  inhabitants  of  the  several  territories  of  the 
United  States,  that,  for  the  purpose  of  effectually 
preventing  the  further  extension  of  slavery,  each  ter- 
ritory, when  authorized  by  Congress  to  form  a  con- 
stitution and  State  government,  shall,  by  express 
provision  in  their  constitution,  prohibit  involuntary 
servitude  or  slavery,  otherwise  than  in  the  punish- 
ment of  crimes. 

Mr.  XELSOX,  of  Virginia,  moved  that  the  res- 
olution be  committed  to  the  Committee  of  the 
Whole,  which  was  now  considering  the  Missouri 
bill.  It  was  entitled  to  serious  consideration, 
as  it  affected  the  important  question  now  under 
discussion.  He  conceived  this  not  the  proper 
mode  of  bringing  up  the  question ;  it  should  be 
in  the  usual  form  of  an  act,  which  should  go 
through  the  several  forms,  while,  as  a  resolu- 
tion, introduced  to-day  to  be  decided  to-morrow, 
it  would  not  afford  an  opportunity  for  discussing 
its  merits. 

Mr.  FOOT  observed,  in  support  of  his  resolu- 
tions, that  it  was  well  known  to  the  House  that 
the  Senate  had  decided,  (on  the  2d  day  of  Feb- 
ruary,) by  a  majority  of  almost  two-thirds  of 
that  body,  that  the  proposed  restriction  should 
not  be  inserted  in  the  "  bill  to  provide  for  the 
admission  of  Missouri  into  the  Union ;"  that  the 
House  of  Representatives  have  already  con- 
sumed two  weeks  in  discussing  the  same  ques- 
tion ;  that  further  discussion  would  be  a  useless 
waste  of  time  and  money,  as  the  expenses  of 
Congress  exceeded  $2,000  per  day;  that  no 


*  This  speech  was  not  reported. 


possible  good  could  result  from  the  discussion ; 
that  constitutional  doubts  on  the  subject  were 
insuperable.  He  further  remarked,  that  his 
object  in  proposing  the  resolutions  was  to  pre-, 
vent  a  further  discussion,  to  relieve  the  subject 
from  constitutional  doubts,  and  to  afford  the 
friends  of  restriction  an  opportunity  to  prevent 
the  further  extension  of  slavery  in  all  the  terri- 
tories over  which  Congress  had  an  undoubted 
right  to  legislate,  and  which,  in  his  opinion, 
would  more  effectually  prevent  the  extension 
of  slavery  than  the  restriction  proposed  in  the 
bill,  because,  if  slaves  were  excluded  during  the 
settlement  of  a  territory,  it  would  never  be  per- 
mitted when  the  territory  should  become  a 
State,  and  instanced  particularly  Ohio,  Indiana, 
and  Illinois ;  and  closed  his  remarks  by  observ- 
ing, no  man  detests  slavery  more  than  I  do ; 
few  of  the  members  of  this  House,  and  perhaps 
not  one,  have  seen  slavery  in  its  most  hideous 
forms.  I,  sir,  have  seen  the  miserable  Africans 
on  board  the  slave  ship,  and  landed,  and  sold  in 
market  like  beasts,  and  cruelly  lacerated  by 
their  inhuman  negro  drivers,  in  the  West  In- 
dies ;  and,  sir,  no  gentleman  would  go  further 
to  prevent  the  inhuman  traffic,  or  the  extension 
of  the  evil,  if  I  could  believe  Congress  possess- 
ed the  power ;  but,  sir,  we  should  remember 
our  power  is  delegated  power ;  and  if  the  con- 
stitution does  not  give  us  this  power,  we  do  not 


Mr.  RHEA  hoped  the  resolutions  would  be  laid 
on  the  table  until  the  great  question  now  before 
the  committee  should  be  decided.  Gentlemen 
were  determined  to  discuss  it,  and  decide  upon 
it ;  and  he  hoped  no  proposition  would  be  re- 
ceived to  interfere  with  that  discussion.  Mr. 
R.'s  motion  to  lay  the  resolutions  on  the  table 
prevailed ;  and  they  were  laid  on  the  table  ac- 
cordingly. 

The  Missouri  Bill. 

The  House  then  resumed,  in  Committee  of 
the  Whole,  the  consideration  of  this  bill,  and 
the  restrictive  amendment  proposed  thereto. 

Mr.  SEKGEANT,  of  Pennsylvania,  addressed 
the  Chair  as  follows :  The  important  question 
now  before  the  committee  has  already  engaged 
the  best  talents  and  commanded  the  deepest  at- 
tention of  the  nation.  What  the  people  strongly 
feel,  it  is  natural  that  they  should  freely  express ; 
and  whether  this  is  done  by  pamphlets  and 
essays,  by  the  resolutions  of  meetings  of  citi- 
zens, or  by  the  votes  of  State  Legislatures,  it  is 
equally  legitimate,  and  entitled  to  respect  as  the 
voice  of  the  public  upon  a  great  and  interesting 
public  measure.  The  free  expression  of  opinion 
is  one  of  the  rights  guaranteed  by  the  constitu- 
tion, and,  in  a  government  like  ours,  it  is  an  in- 
valuable right.  It  has  not,  therefore,  been  with- 
out some  surprise  and  concern  that  I  have  heard 
it  complained  of,  and  even  censured,  in  this  de- 
bate. One  member  suggests  to  us  that,  in  the 
excitement  which  prevails,  he  discerns  the 
efforts  of  what  he  has  termed  an  "  expiring 
party,"  aiming  to  re-establish  itself  in  the  pos- 


510 


ABKIDGMENT  OF  THE 


H.  OF  R.] 


The  Missouri  Bill — Restriction  on  the  Slate. 


[FEBRtJART,    1820. 


session  of  power,  and  has  spoken  of  a  "juggler 
behind  the  scene."  He  surely  has  not  reflected 
upon  the  magnitude  of  the  principle  contended 
for,  or  he  would  have  perceived  at  once  the 
utter  insignificance  of  all  objects  of  factions  and 
party  contest  when  compared  with  the  mighty 
interests  it  involves.  It  concerns  ages  to  come, 
and  millions  to  be  born.  We,  who  are  here, 
onr  dissensions  and  conflicts,  are  nothing,  abso- 
lutely nothing,  in  the  comparison ;  and  I  can- 
not well  conceive  that  any  man  who  is  capable 
of  raising  his  view  to  the  elevation  of  this  great 
question,  could  suddenly  bring  it  down  to  the 
low  and  paltry  consideration  of  party  interests 
and  party  motives. 

Another  member,  (Mr.  McLANE,)  taking  in- 
deed a  more  liberal  ground,  has  warned  us 
against  ambitious  and  designing  men,  who,  he 
thinks,  will  always  be  ready  to  avail  themselves 
of  occasions  of  popular  excitement,  to  mount 
into  power  upon  the  ruin  of  our  Government, 
and  the  destruction  of  our  liberties.  Sir,  I  am 
not  afraid  of  what  is  called  popular, excitement 
— all  history  teaches  us  that  revolutions  are  not 
the  work  of  men,  but  of  time  and  circumstan- 
ces, and  a  long  train  of  preparation.  Men  do 
not  produce  them  ;  they  are  brought  on  by  cor- 
ruption ;  they  are  generated  in  the  quiet  and 
stillness  of  apathy,  and  to  my  mind  nothing 
could  present  a  more  frightful  indication  than 
public  indifference  to  such  a  question  as  this. 
It  is  not  by  vigorously  maintaining  great  moral 
and  political  principles,  in  their  purity,  that  we 
incur  the  danger.  If  gentlemen  are  sincerely 
desirous  to  perpetuate  the  blessings  of  that  free 
constitution  under  which  we  live,  I  would  ad- 
vise them  to  apply  their  exertions  to  the  pres- 
ervation of  public  and  private  virtue,  upon 
which  its  existence,  I  had  almost  said,  entirely 
depends.  As  long  as  this  is  preserved  we  have 
nothing  to  fear.  When  this  shall  be  lost ;  when 
luxury,  and  vice,  and  corruption,  shall  have 
usurped  its  place,  then,  indeed,  a  Government 
resting  upon  the  people  for  its  support  must 
totter  and  decay,  or  yield  to  the  designs  of  am- 
bitious and  aspiring  men. 

Another  member,  the  gentleman  to  whom  the 
committee  lately  listened  with  so  much  attention, 
(Mr.  CLAY,)  after  depicting  forcibly  and  elo- 
quently what  he  deemed  the  probable  conse- 
quences of  the  proposed  amendment,  appealed, 
emphatically,  to  Pennsylvania,  "  the  unambitious 
Pennsylvania — the  keystone  of  the  federal  arch" 
— whether  she  would  concur  in  a  measure  calcu- 
lated to  disturb  the  peace  of  the  Union.  Sir, 
this  was  a  single  arch ;  it  is  rapidly  becoming  a 
combination  of  arches,  and  where  the  centre 
now  is,  whether  in  Kentucky  or  Pennsylvania, 
or  where,  at  any  given  time  it  will  be,  might  be 
very  difficult  to  tell.  Pennsylvania  may  indeed 
be  styled  u  unambitious,"  for  she  has  not  been 
anxious  for  what  are  commonly  deemed  honors 
and  distinctions,  nor  eager  to  display  her  weight 
and  importance  in  the  affairs  of  the  nation. 
She  has,  nevertheless,  felt,  and  still  does  feel, 
her  responsibility  to  the  Union,  and  under  a 


just  sense  of  her  duty  has  always  been  faithful 
to  its  interest,  under  every  vicissitude  and  in 
every  exigency.  But,  Pennsylvania  feels  also 
a  high  responsibility  to  a  great  moral  principle, 
which  she  has  long  ago  adopted,  with  the  most 
impressive  solemnity,  for  the  rule  of  her  own 
conduct,  and  which  she  stands  bound  to  assert 
and  maintain,  wherever  her  influence  and  power 
can  be  applied,  without  injury  to  the  just  rights 
of  her  sister  States. 

1.  We  are  about  to  lay  the  foundation  of  a 
new  State,  beyond  the  Mississippi,  and  to  ad- 
mit that  State  into  the  Union.  The  proposition 
contained  in  the  amendment  is,  in  substance,  to 
enter  into  a  compact  with  the  new  State,  at  her 
formation,  which  shall  establish  a  fundamental 
principle  of  her  government,  not  to  be  changed 
without  the  consent  of  both  parties.  And  this 
principle  is,  That  every  human  ~being  lorn  or 
hereafter  brought  within  the  State  shall  be  free. 

In  this  view,  the  ordinance  of  1787,  respect- 
ing the  Northwest  Territory,  and  the  history  of 
the  States  formed  under  it,  are  eminently  de- 
serving of  consideration  and  respect.  This  or- 
dinance was  framed  upon  great  deliberation. 
It  was  intended  to  regulate  the  government 
of  the  Territory ;  to  provide  for  its  division 
into  States,  and  for  their  admission  into  the 
Union;  and  to  establish  certain  great  prin- 
ciples, which  should  become  the  fundamental 
law  of  the  States,  so  to  be  formed.  In  its  ter- 
ritorial condition,  it  was  subject  to  the  exclu- 
sive jurisdiction  of  Congress,  to  be  exercised  by 
the  ordinary  process  of  legislation.  But  it  was 
one  of  the  terms  of  the  cession  by  Virginia  to 
the  United  States,  that  this  Territory,  as  it  be- 
came peopled,  should  be  divided  into  States, 
and  that  these  States  should  be  admitted  into 
the  Union,  "  upon  an  equal  footing,  in  all  re- 
spects, with  the  original  States."  We  shall  now 
see  how  the  fulfilment  of  this  engagement  was 
effected.  After  providing  for  the  territorial 
government,  the  ordinance  proceeds  as  follows : 
"  And  for  extending  the  fundamental  principles 
of  civil  and  religious  liberty,  which  form  the 
basis  whereon  these  republics,  their  laws,  and 
constitutions  are  erected ;  to  fix  and  establish 
those  principles  as  the  basis  of  all  laws,  consti- 
tutions, and  governments,  which  forever  here- 
after shall  be  formed  in  the  said  Territory ;  to 
provide,  also,  for  the  establishment  of  States 
and  permanent  government  therein,  and  for 
their  admission  to  a  share  in  the  federal  coun- 
cils, on  an  equal  footing  with  the  original  States, 
at  as  early  periods  as  may  be  consistent  with 
the  general  interests:  It  is  hereby  ordained  and 
declared,  that  the  following  articles  shall  be 
considered  as  articles  of  compact  between  the 
original  States  and  the  people  and  States  in  the 
said  Territory,  and  forever  remain  unalterable, 
unless  by  common  consent."  Then  follow  the 
several  articles,  of  which  the  sixth  declares, 
"  that  there  shall  be  neither  slavery  nor  invol- 
untary servitude,"  &c.  The  fifth  article  pro- 
vides, expressly,  that  "the  constitution  and 
governments  (of  the  States)  so  to  be  formed 


DEBATES  OF  CONGRESS. 


517 


FEBRCART,  1820.] 


The  Missouri  Bill—Ratriction  on  the  State. 


[H.  OP  R. 


shall  be  republican,  and  in  conformity  to  the 
principles  contained  in  these  articles."  When 
the  States  of  Ohio,  Indiana,  and  Illinois,  re- 
spectively, applied  for  admission,  they  were  ad- 
mitted upon  the  express  condition  that  their 
constitutions  should  be  republican,  and  in  con- 
formity to  the  ordinance  of  1787.  They  as- 
sented to  the  condition,  and  were  admitted 
"  upon  an  equal  footing  with  the  original 
States." 

I  am  aware  that  all  this  has  been  pronounced, 
rashly  I  think,  to  be  a  usurpation.  The  term 
does  not  well  apply,  at  this  time  of  day,  after 
the  repeated  sanction  of  every  kind  which  the 
ordinance  has  received.  In  truth,  if  there  be 
any  thing  in  our  legislative  history,  which  is  en- 
titled to  our  affection  for  the  motives  in  which 
it  originated ;  to  our  veneration  for  the  author- 
ity by  which  it  is  supported ;  to  our  respect  for 
the  principles  embodied  in  it;  it  is  the  ordi- 
nance of  1787.  But  the  charge  of  usurpation  is 
in  every  sense  inapplicable,,  for  the  efficacy  of 
the  contract  arises  from  the  assent  of  the  State 
to  the  condition  proposed  as  the  terms  of  her 
admission. 

But  this  ordinance  is  entitled  to  still  higher 
consideration.  It  was  a  solemn  compact  be- 
tween the  existing  States;  and  it  cannot  be 
doubted  that  its  adoption  had  a  great  influence 
in  bringing  about  the  good  understanding  that 
finally  prevailed  in  the  Convention  upon  several 
points  which  had  been  attended  with  the  great- 
est difficulty.  It  passed  on  the  13th  of  July, 
1787,  while  the  Convention  that  framed  the 
constitution  was  in  session.  From  the  minutes 
of  that  body,  lately  published,  it  will  be  seen 
that  the  two  most  important  and  difficult  points 
to  adjust,  were  those  of  the  admission  of  States 
and  the  slave  representation.  This  ordinance 
finally  adjusted  both  these  matters,  as  far  as  con- 
cerned all  the  Territories  then  belonging  to  the 
United  States,  and  was  therefore  eminently  cal- 
culated to  quiet  the  minds  of  the  advocates  of 
freedom;  to  remove  their  objections  to  the 
principle  of  slave  representation,  and  to  secure 
their  assent  to  the  instrument  which  contained 
that  principle,  by  limiting  its  operation  to  the 
existing  States.  It  is  not  to  be  questioned  that 
this  ordinance,  unanimously  adopted,  and,  as  it 
were,  fixing  au  unchangeable  basis,  by  common 
consent,  had  a  most  powerful  influence  in  bring- 
ing about  the  adoption  of  the  constitution.  It 
is  a  part  of  the  groundwork  of  the  constitution 
itself;  one  of  the  preliminary  measures  upon 
which  it  was  founded.  Hence  the  unusual 
solemnity  of  the  terms  in  which  it  is  conceived, 
so  different  from  the  ordinary  forms  of  legisla- 
tion, and  which  give  to  it  the  character  of  a 
binding  and  irrevocable  covenant. 

I  will  now.  with  the  leave  of  the  committee, 
proceed  to  the  remaining  branch  of  this  very 
interesting  subject,  or  what  is  called  the  ques- 
tion of  expediency. 

It  is  decreed  that  slavery  shall  be  a  very 
great  evil,  and,  as  has  been  already  remarked, 
one  of  its  incidents  is,  that  where  it  exists,  it 


can  never  be  fairly  or  freely  discussed.  It  must 
be  taken  up  at  a  certain  point,  which  admits 
every  thing  that  goes  before,  and  among  the 
rest  (in  the  qualified  sense)  the  lawfulness  of 
its  origin  and  existence.  I  will  not  disturb 
this  arrangement,  but  I  must  be  permitted  to 
say  that  slavery  is  a  great  moral  and  politi- 
cal evil.  If  it  be  not,  let  it  take  its  course ;  if 
it  be  good,  let  it  be  encouraged ;  if  it  be  an  evil, 
I  am  opposed  to  its  further  extension.  This  is 
a  plain,  simple,  clear,  intelligible  ground.  Most 
of  those  who  have  opposed  the  amendment, 
have  agreed  with  us  in  characterizing  slavery 
as  an  evil  and  a  curse,  in  language  stronger 
than  we  should  perhaps  be  at  liberty  to  use. 
One  of  them  only,  the  member  from  Kentucky, 
who  last  addressed  the  committee,  (Mr.  CLAY,) 
rather  reproves  his  friends  for  this  unqualified 
admission.  He  says  it  is  a  very  great  evil  in- 
deed to  the  slave ;  but  it  is  not  an  evil  to  the 
master;  and  he  challenges  us  to  deny  that  our 
fellow-citizens  of  the  South  are  as  hospitable,  as 
generous,  as  patriotic,  as  public  spirited,  as  their 
brethren  of  the  North  or  East.  Sir,  they  are 
all  this,  and  even  more.  For  some  of  the  vir- 
tues enumerated  they  are  eminently  and  pecu- 
liarly distinguished ;  and  I  believe  they  are  de- 
ficient in  none  of  them.  It  has  long  ago  been 
remarked  that  the  masters  of  slaves  have  the 
keenest  relish  for  their  own  liberty,  and  the 
proudest  sense  of  their  own  independence.  It 
is  natural  that  it  should  be  so ;  the  feeling  is 
quickened  by  the  degrading  contrast  continually 
before  them.  But  it  seems  to  me  that  the  con- 
cession with  respect  to  slavery,  modified  as  it 
is  in  appearance,  is  quite  as  broad  as  the  un- 
limited admission  of  every  one  else  who  has 
spoken.  It  is  an  evil  to  the  slave  ;  it  is  an  evil 
founded  in  wrong,  and  its  injustice  is  not  the 
less  because  it  is  advantageous  to  some  one  else. 
Every  injury,  from  the  least  to  the  greatest, 
might  find  the  same  sort  of  mitigation.  It  is  a 
very  great  evil  to  him  who  suffers,  but  it  is  no 
evil  to  him  who  inflicts  it.  The  same  gentle- 
man, however,  has  himself  made  the  most  un- 
qualified concession ;  for  he  said  he  would  re- 
commend to  the  people  of  Missouri  to  abolish 
slavery,  and  that,  in  his  own  State,  he  would 
favor  a  general  emancipation,  as  soon  as  it 
should  be  practicable,  which  he  would  not  do 
if  it  were  not  an  evil. 

We  are  told,  however,  that  it  is  no  extension, 
it  is  only  diffusion,  that  is  to  be  the  effect. 

I  confess  I  do  not  well  understand  the  distinc- 
tion. The  diffusion  of  slaves  is  an  extension  of 
the  system  of  slavery,  with  all  its  odious  fea- 
tures ;  and  if  it  were  true,  as  it  certainly  is  not, 
that  their  numbers  would  not  be  increased  by 
it,  still  it  would  be  at  least  impolitic.  But,  for 
what  purpose  is  this  diffusion  to  be  encouraged? 
To  disperse  and  weaken  and  dilute  the  morbid 
and  dangerous  matter,  says  one.  To  better  the 
condition  of  the  slaves  by  spreading  them  over 
a  large  surface,  says  another.  A  third  tells  us, 
that  wo  cannot  justly  refuse  to  permit  a  man  to 
remove  with  his  family.  A  fourth  comes  di- 


518 


ABRIDGMENT  OF  THE 


H.  OF  R] 


The  Missouri  Bill — Restriction  on  the  State. 


[FEBRUARY,  1820. 


rectly  to  the  question  of  interest,  and  his  reason 
is,  that  land  in  the  State  of  Missouri  has  been 
bought  by  individuals  upon  the  faith  of  its  being 
a  slave  State,  and  if  we  prohibit  slavery  there, 
these  lands  will  fall  in  value.  And  in  the  rear 
of  all  these,  comes  an  appeal  to  the  public  in- 
terest, in  the  shape  of  a  suggestion,  that  slavery 
must  be  permitted  in  order  to  maintain  the  price 
of  the  public  lands. 

But  it  is  only  diffusion  that  is  desired.  Is 
this  a  reasonable  desire  ?  But  little  more  than 
thirty  years  have  elapsed  since  the  constitution 
•was  adopted.  Two  States  of  this  Union  (South 
Carolina  and  Georgia)  then  insisted  upon  reserv- 
ing, for  twentyp  years,  the  privilege  of  supplying 
themselves  with  slaves  from  abroad,  and  re- 
fused to  come  into  the  Union  unless  Congress 
were  prohibited  during  that  time,  from  pre- 
venting importation.  Congress  were  accord- 
ingly prohibited,  and  scarcely  ten  years  have 
elapsed  since  the  prohibition  ceased.  Can  they 
reasonably  ask  already  to  be  permitted  to  dif- 
fuse what  they  were  then  so  anxious  to  possess  ? 
Are  they  so  soon  overburdened?  It  cannot  be, 
for  the  illicit  trade  is  still  carried  on,  and  that 
would  end  at  once,  if  there  were  not  a  demand 
and  a  market. 

I  may  be  told,  and  told  with  truth,  that  the 
other  slaveholding  States  are  not  exposed  to  the 
same  remark.  Of  Virginia,  especially,  it  gives 
me  pleasure  to  speak  on  this  subject,  with  sin- 
cere respect.  While  yet  a  colony,  she  remon- 
strated against  the  introduction  of  slaves.  One 
of  the  earliest  acts  of  her  government,  after  her 
independence,  put  an  end  to  the  trade  ;  and  it 
has  always  been  understood,  to  her  honor,  that, 
in  convention,  her  voice  and  her  most  strenu- 
ous exertions  were  employed  in  favor  of  the 
immediate  abolition  of  the  traffic.  Still,  sir, 
with  respect  to  any  or  all  the  slaveholding 
States,  I  may  be  allowed  to  ask,  is  diffusion 
now  necessary?  I  think  it  is  not.  Look  at 
the  present  price  of  slaves.  Does  that  indicate 
an  actual  increase  of  their  numbers  to  such  an 
amount  as  to  require  diffusion  ?  I  am  informed 
by  a  gentleman,  upon  whose  accuracy  I  place 
great  reliance,  that,  from  the  adoption  of  the 
constitution  to  the  present  time,  the  price  has 
been  regularly  advancing.  I  do  not  mean  to 
say  that  it  is  as  high  now  as  it  was  a  year  ago. 
It  was  then,  like  every  thing  else,  affected  by 
speculation.  But  taking  average  periods,  say 
of  five  or  six  years,  there  has  been  a  regular 
and  constant  advance,  manifesting  a  demand  at 
least  equal  to  the  supply. 

I  am  fully  convinced,  however,  that  this  idea 
of  diffusion  (as  distinguished  from  extension, 
which  is  at  present  so  great  a  favorite)  is  alto- 
gether founded  in  error.  If  the  amount  of  the 
slave  population  were  fixed,  and  it  could  not  be 
increased,  it  would  no  doubt  be  correct  to  say, 
that  in  spreading  it  over  a  larger  surface,  you 
only  diffused  it.  But  this  is  certainly  not  the 
case.  We  need  not  recur  for  proof  or  illustra- 
tion to  the  laws  that  govern  population.  Our 
own  experience  unhappily  shows  that  this  evil 


has  a  great  capacity  to  increase  ;  and  its  present 
magnitude  is  such  as  to  occasion  the  most  seri- 
ous anxiety.  In  1790,  there  were  in  the  United 
States  694,280  slaves;  in  1800,  there  were 
889,881;  and  in  1810,  1,165,441.  This  is  a 
gloomy  picture.  The  arguments  of  gentlemen 
on  the  opposite  side  admit  that  an  increase  will 
take  place ;  for  they  are  founded  upon  the  be- 
lief that  the  time  must  arrive  when  the  slaves 
will  be  so  multiplied  as  to  become  dangerous  to 
their  possessors.  There  are  indeed  no  limits  to 
the  increase  of  population,  black  or  white,  slave 
or  free,  but  those  which  depend  upon  the  means 
of  subsistence.  By  enlarging  the  space,  gener- 
ally speaking,  you  increase  the  quantity  of  food, 
and  of  course  you  increase  the  numbers  of  the 
people.  Our  own  illustrious  Franklin,  with  his 
usual  sagacity,  long  ago  discovered  this  impor- 
tant truth.  "  Was  the  face  of  the  earth  (he 
says)  vacant  of  other  plants,  it  might  be  gradu- 
ally sowed  and  overspread  with  one  kind  only ; 
as  for  instance  with  fennel ;  and  were  it  empty 
of  other  inhabitants,  it  might  in  a  few  ages  bo 
replenished  from  one  nation  only ;  as  for  in- 
stance with  Englishmen."  If  this  does  not  ex- 
actly happen,  it  is  only  because  in  their  inarch 
they  are  met  and  resisted  by  other  plants  and 
by  other  people,  struggling  like  themselves  for 
the  means  of  subsistence. 

By  enlarging  the  limits  of  slavery,  you  are 
thus  preparing  the  means  for  its  indefinite  in- 
crease and  extension ;  and  the  result  will  be  to 
keep  the  present  slaveholding  States  supplied 
to  their  wishes  with  this  description  of  popula- 
tion, and  to  enable  them  to  throw  off  the  sur- 
>lus,  with  all  its  productive  power,  on  the 
Vest,  as  long  as  the  country  shall  be  able  and 
willing  to  receive  them.  To  what  extent  you 
will  in  this  way  increase  the  slave  population, 
it  is  impossible  to  calculate ;  but  that  you  will 
increase  it  there  can  be  no  doubt,  and  it  ia 
equally  certain  that  the  increase  will  be  at  the 
expense  of  the  free  population. 

And  now,  let  me  ask  gentlemen  where  this 
diffusion  is  to  end  ?  If  circumstances  require  it 
at  present,  will  not  the  same  circumstances  de- 
mand it  hereafter  ?  Will  they  not,  at  some  fu- 
ture time,  become  straitened  in  their  new  limits, 
however  large  ?  And  what  will  you  do  then  ? 
Diffuse  again— and  what  then?  Even  this  dif- 
fusion will  have  its  limits,  and  when  they  are 
reached,  the  case  is  without  remedy  and  with- 
out hope.  For  a  present  ease  to  ourselves,  we 
doom  our  posterity  to  an  interminable  curse. 
But,  we  seem  to  forget  altogether,  that  while 
the  slaves  are  spreading,  the  free  population  is 
also  increasing,  and,  sooner  or  later,  must  feel 
the  pressure  which  it  is  supposed  may  at  some 
time  be  felt  by  the  slaves.  Where  you  place  a 
slave,  he  occupies  the  ground  that  would  main- 
tain a  freeman.  And  who,  in  this  code  of 
speculative  humanity,  making  provision  for 
times  afar  off,  is  to  have  the  preference — the 
freeman  or  the  slave  ? 

In  the  variety  of  claims  that  have  been  pressed 
upon  us,  there  is  but  a  single  one  which  deserves 


DEBATES  OF  CONGKESS. 


519 


FEBRUARY,  1820.] 


The  Missouri  Bill — Restriction  on  the  State. 


[H.  OF  R 


a  moment's  attention.  It  is  that  which  arises 
out  of  the  inquiry,  so  often  repeated,  "Will  you 
not  suffer  a  man  to  migrate  with  his  family  ? 
Those  who  have  been  accustomed  to  the  labor 
and  service  of  slaves,  it  is  not  to  be  denied, 
cannot  at  once  change  their  habits,  without 
feeling,  at  least,  a  great  deal  of  inconvenience. 
It  is  also  true,  that  the  associations  which  have 
been  formed  in  families  cannot  be  broken  up 
without  violence  and  injury  to  both  the  parties ; 
and  in  proportion  as  the  authority  has  been 
mild  in  its  exercise,  will  the  transfer  of  it  to 
other  hands  be  advantageous,  especially  to  the 
servant.  But,  it  is  impossible  to  make  a  dis- 
crimination, or  to  permit  the  introduction  of 
slaves  at  all,  without  giving  up  the  whole  mat- 
ter. If  you  allow  slavery  to  exist,  you  must  al- 
low it  without  limits.  The  consequence  is,  that 
the  State  becomes  a  slave  State.  Free  labor 
and  slave  labor  cannot  be  employed  together. 
Those  who  go  there  must  become  slaveholders, 
and  your  whole  system  is  overturned.  Besides,  if 
the  limited  permission  did  not,  of  itself,  produce 
the  evil,  to  an  unlimited  extent,  (as  it  certainly 
would,)  it  is  liable  to  abuses,  beyond  all  possi- 
bility of  control,  which  would  inevitably  have 
that  effect.  The  numbers  of  a  family  are  not 
defined;  the  number  of  families  of  this  sort, 
which  a  single  individual  may  have,  cannot  be 
fixed.  It  is  easy  to  see  how,  under  color  of 
such  permission,  a  regular  trade  might  be  estab- 
lished, and  carried  on,  as  long  as  there  was  any 
temptation  of  profit  or  interest.  This  argument, 
however,  has  been  pressed,  as  if  a  prohibition 
to  go  with  slaves  was,  in  effect,  a  prohibition  to 
the  inhabitants  of  a  slaveholding  State  to  go  at 
all.  I  cannot  believe  this  to  be  the  case.  They 
may  go  without  slaves  ;  for,  though  slaves  are  a 
convenience  and  a  luxury  to  those  who  are  ac- 
customed to  them,  yet  the  inhabitants  of  the 
slaveholding  States  would  hardly  admit  that 
they  are  indispensably  necessary.  Besides,  they 
may  take  their  slaves  with  them  as  free  ser- 
vants. But,  look  at  the  converse.  The  intro- 
duction of  slavery  banishes  free  labor,  or  places 
it  under  such  discouragement  and  opprobrium 
as  are  equivalent  in  effect.  You  shut  the  coun- 
try then  against  the  free  emigrant,  who  carries 
with  him  nothing  but  his  industry.  There  are 
large  and  valuable  classes  of  people  who  are  op- 
posed to  slavery,  and  cannot  live  where  it  is 
permitted.  These,  too,  you  exclude.  The 
laws  and  the  policy  of  a  slave  State  will,  and 
must  be,  adapted  to  the  condition  of  slavery, 
and,  without  going  into  any  particulars,  it  will  be 
allowed  that  they  are  in  the  highest  degree  of- 
fensive to  those  who  are  opposed  to  slavery.  It 
seems  to  me,  sir,  I  may  be  pardoned  for  so  far 
expressing  an  opinion  upon  the  concerns  of  the 
slaveholding  States ;  it  seems  to  me  that  the 
people  of  the  South  have  a  common  interest 
with  us  in  this  question — not  for  themselves, 
perhaps,  but  for  those  who  are  equally  dear  to 
them.  The  cultivation  by  slaves  requires  large 
estates.  They  cannot  be  parcelled  out  or  di- 
vided. In  the  course  of  time,  and  before  very 


long,  it  will  happen  that  the  younger  children 
of  Southern  families  must  look  elsewhere  to 
find  employment  for  their  talents,  and  scope 
for  their  exertion.  What  better  provision  can 
they  have  than  free  States,  where  they  may 
fairly  enter  into  competition  with  freemen,  and 
every  one  find  the  level  which  his  proper  abili- 
ties entitles  him  to  expect  ?  The  hint  is  suffi- 
cient. I  venture  to  throw  it  out  for  the  con- 
sideration of  those  whom  it  concerns. 

But,  independently  of  the  objections  to  the 
extension,  arising  from  the  views  thus  presented 
by  the  opponents  of  the  amendment,  and  inde- 
pendently of  many  much  more  deeply-founded 
objections,  which  I  forbear  now  to  press,  there 
are  enough,  of  a  very  obvious  kind,  to  settle 
the  question  conclusively.  With  the  indulgence 
of  the  committee,  I  will  touch  upon  some  of 
them. 

It  will  be  remembered  that  this  is  the  first 
step  beyond  the  Mississippi — the  State  of  Louis- 
iana is  no  exception,  for  there  slavery  existed 
to  an  extent  which  left  no  alternative — it  is  the 
last  step,  too,  for  this  is  the  last  stand  that  can 
be  made.  Compromise  is  forbidden  by  the 
principles  contended  for  on  both  sides.  Any 
compromise  that  would  give  slavery  to  Missouri 
is  out  of  the  question.  It  is,  therefore,  the  final, 
irretrievable  step,  which  can  never  be  recalled, 
and  must  lead  to  an  immeasurable  spread  of 
slavery  over  the  country  beyond  the  Mississippi. 
If  any  one  falter ;  if  he  be  tempted  by  insinua- 
tions, or  terrified  by  the  apprehension  of  losing 
something  desirable  ;  if  he  find  himself  drawn 
aside  by  views  to  the  little  interests  that  are 
immediately  about  him,  let  him  reflect  upon  the 
magnitude  of  the  question,  and  he  will  be  ele- 
vated above  all  such  considerations.  The  eyes 
of  the  country  are  upon  him ;  the  interests  of 
posterity  are  committed  to  his  care ;  let  him 
beware  how  he  barters,  not  his  own,  but  his 
children's  birthright,  for  a  mess  of  pottage.  The 
consciousness  that  we  have  done  our  duty  is  a  sure 
and  never-failing  dependence.  It  will  stand  by 
us  and  support  us  through  life,  under  every 
vicissitude  of  fortune,  and  in  every  change  of 
circumstances.  It  sheds  a  steady  and  a  cheering 
light  upon  the  future  as  well  as  the  present, 
and  is  at  once  a  grateful  and  a  lasting  reward. 

Again,  sir,  by  increasing  the  market  for  slaves, 
you  postpone  and  destroy  the  hope  of  extin- 
guishing slavery  by  emancipation.  It  seems  to 
me  that  the  reduction  in  the  value  of  slaves, 
however  accomplished,  is  the  only  inducement 
that  will  ever  effect  an  abolition  of  slavery.  The 
multiplication  of  free  States  will,  at  the  same 
time,  give  room  for  emancipation,  or,  to  speak 
more  accurately,  for  those  who  are  emancipated. 
This,  I  would  respectfully  suggest,  is  the  only 
effectual  plan  of  colonization  ;  but  it  can  never 
take  effect  while  it  is  the  interest  of  owners  to 
pursue  their  slaves  with  so  much  avidity,  or  to 
pay  such  prices  for  them.  Increase  the  market, 
and  you  keep  up  the  value ;  increase  the  num- 
ber of  slaveholding  States,  and  you  destroy  the 
possibility  of  emancipation,  even  if  every  part 


520 


ABRIDGMENT  OF  THE 


H.  OF  R.] 


The  Missouri  Bill — Restriction  on  the  State. 


[FEBRUARY,   1820. 


ig  us  continually  endangers  the  peace  and 
being  of  the  Union  by  the  irritation  and 


of  the  Union  should  desire  it.  You  extend,  in- 
definitely, the  formidable  difficulties  which  al- 
ready exist. 

The  political  aspect  of  the  subject  is  not  less 
alarming.  The  existence  of  this  condition 
amon 

well  being 

animosity  it  creates  between  neighboring  States. 
It  weakens  the  nation  while  it  is  entire  :  and, 
if  ever  a  division  should  happen,  can  any  one 
reflect  without  horror  upon  the  consequences 
that  may  be  worked  out  of  an  extensively  pre- 
vailing system  of  slavery  ?  We  are  told,  indeed, 
both  in  the  House  and  out  of  it,  to  leave  the 
matter  to  Providence.  Those  who  tell  us  so 
are,  nevertheless,  active  and  eager  in  the  small- 
est of  their  own  concerns,  omitting  nothing  to 
secure  success.  Sir,  we  are  endowed  with  fac- 
ulties that  enable  us  to  judge  and  to  choose ;  to 
look  before  and  after,  however  imperfectly. 
When  these  have  been  fairly  and  conscientiously 
exerted,  we  may  then  humbly  submit  the  con- 
sequences, with  a  hope  and  belief,  that,  what- 
ever they  may  be,  they  will  not  be  imputed  to  us. 
The  issue  of  our  counsels,  however  well  meant, 
is  not  in  our  hands.  But  if,  for  our  own  grati- 
fication, regardless  of  all  considerations  of  right 
or  wrong,  of  good  or  evil,  we  hug  a  vicious  in- 
dulgence to  our  bosom  until  we  find  it  turning 
to  a  venomous  serpent,  and  threatening  to  sting 
us  to  the  heart,  with  what  rational  or  consoling 
expectation  can  we  call  upon  Providence  to  tear 
it  away  and  save  us  from  destruction  ? 

It  is  time  to  come  to  a  conclusion ;  I  fear  I 
have  already  trespassed  too  long.  In  the  effort 
I  have  made  to  submit  to  the  committee  my 
views  of  this  question,  it  has  been  impossible  to 
escape  entirely  the  influence  of  the  sensation 
that  pervades  this  House.  Yet,  I  have  no  such 
apprehensions  as  have  been  expressed.  The 
question  is,  indeed,  an  important  one;  but  its 
importance  is  derived  altogether  from  its  con- 
nection with  the  extension,  indefinitely,  of  negro 
slavery,  over  a  land  which  I  trust  Providence 
has  destined  for  the  labor  and  the  support  of 
freemen.  I  have  no  fear  that  this  question, 
much  as  it  has  agitated  the  country,  is  to  pro- 
duce any  fatal  division,  or  even  to  generate  a 
new  organization  of  parties.  It  is  not  a  ques- 
tion upon  which  we  ought  to  indulge  unreason- 
able apprehensions,  or  yield  to  the  counsels  of 
fear.  It  concerns  ages  to  come  and  millions  to 
be  born.  It  is,  as  it  were,  a  question  of  a  new 
political  creation,  and  it  is  for  us,  under  Heaven, 
to  say  what  shall  be  its  condition.  If  we  im- 
pose the  restriction,  it  will,  I  hope,  be  finally 
imposed.  But  if  hereafter  it  should  be  found 
right  to  remove  it,  and  the  State  consent,  we 
can  remove  it.  Admit  the  State,  without  the 
restriction,  the  power  is  gone  forever,  and  with 
it  are  forever  gone  all  the  efforts  that  have  been 
made  by  the  non-slaveholding  States  to  repress 
and  limit  the  sphere  of  slavery,  and  enlarge  and 
extend  the  blessings  of  freedom.  With  it,  per- 
haps, is  gone  forever,  the  power  of  preventing 
the  traffic  in  slaves,  that  inhuman  and  detest- 


able traffic,  so  long  a  disgrace  to  Christendom. 
In  future,  and  no  very  distant  times,  conveni- 
ence, and  profit,  and  necessity,  may  be  found 
as  available  pleas  as  they  formerly  were,  and 
for  the  luxury  of  slaves,  we  shall  again  involve 
ourselves  in  the  sin  of  the  trade.  We  must  not 
presume  too  much  upon  the  strength  of  our  res- 
olutions. Let  every  man  who  has  been  accus- 
tomed to  the  indulgence,  ask  himself  if  it  is  not 
a  luxury,  a  tempting  luxury,  which  solicits  him 
strongly  and  at  every  moment.  The  prompt 
obedience,  the  ready  attention,  the  submissive 
and  humble,  but  eager  effort  to  anticipate  com- 
mand— how  flattering  to  our  pride,  how  sooth- 
ing to  our  indolence !  To  the  members  from 
the  South,  I  appeal  to  know  whether  they  will 
suffer  any  temporary  inconvenience,  or  any 
speculative  advantage  to  expose  us  to  the  dan- 
ger. To  those  of  the  North,  no  appeal  can  be 
necessary.  To  both,  I  can  most  sincerely  say, 
that,  as  I  know  my  own  views  on  this  subject 
to  be  free  from  any  unworthy  motive,  so  will  I 
believe  that  they  likewise  have  no  object  but 
the  common  good  of  our  common  country,  and 
that  nothing  would  have  given  me  more  heart- 
felt satisfaction  than  that  the  present  proposition 
should  have  originated  in  the  same  quarter  to 
which  we  are  said  to  be  indebted  for  the  ordi- 
nance of  1787.  Then,  indeed,  would  Virginia 
have  appeared  in  even  more  than  her  wonted 
splendor ;  and,  spreading  out  the  scroll  of  her 
services,  would  have  beheld  none  of  them 
with  greater  pleasure  than  that  series  which 
began  by  pleading  the  cause  of  humanity  in  re- 
monstrances against  the  slave  trade,  while  she 
was  yet  a  colony,  and,  embracing  her  own  act 
of  abolition  and  the  ordinance  of  1787,  termi- 
nated in  the  restriction  on  Missouri.  Consider 
what  a  foundation  our  predecessors  have  laid, 
and  behold,  with  the  blessing  of  Providence, 
how  the  work  has  prospered !  What  is  there, 
in  ancient  or  in  modern  times,  that  can  be  com- 
pared with  the  growth  and  prosperity  of  the 
States  formed  out  of  the  Northwest  Terri- 
tory ?  When  Europeans  reproach  us  with  our 
negro  slavery ;  when  they  contrast  our  repub- 
lican bo.ist  and  pretensions  with  the  existence 
of  this  condition  among  us,  we  have  our  answer 
ready — it  is  to  you  we  owe  this  evil;  you 
planted  it  here,  and  it  has  taken  such  root  in 
the  soil  that  we  have  not  the  power  to  eradicate 
it.  Then,  turning  to  the  West,  and  directing 
their  attention  to  Ohio,  Indiana,  and  Illinois, 
we  can  proudly  tell  them  these  are  the  offspring 
of  our  policy  and  our  laws,  these  are  the  free 
productions  of  the  Constitution  of  the  United 
States.  But  if,  beyond  this  smiling  region,  they 
should  descry  another  dark  spot  upon  the  face 
of  the  new  creation — another  scene  of  negro 
slavery,  established  by  ourselves,  and  spreading 
continually  towards  the  further  ocean,  what 
shall  we  say  then  ?  No,  sir,  let  us  follow  up  the 
work  our  ancestors  have  begun.  Let  us  give  to 
the  world  a  new  pledge  of  our  sincerity.  Let  the 
standard  of  freedom  be  planted  in  Missouri,  by 
the  hands  of  the  constitution,  and  let  its  banner 


DEBATES  OF  CONGRESS. 


521 


FEBBUARY,  1820.] 


The  Missouri  Bill — Restriction  on  the  State. 


[H.  OF  R. 


wave  over  the  heads  of  none  but  freemen — men 
retaining  the  image  impressed  upon  them  by 
their  Creator,  and  dependent  upon  none  but 
God  and  the  laws.  Then,  as  our  republican 
States  extend,  republican  principles  will  go  hand 
in  hand  with  republican  practice — the  love  of 
liberty  with  the  sense  of  justice. 

Theny  sir,  the  dawn  beaming  from  the  consti- 
tution, which  now  illuminates  Ohio,  Indiana,  and 
Illinois,  -will  spread  with  increasing  brightness 
to  the  further  West,  till,  in  its  brilliant  lustre,  the 
dark  spot  which  now  rests  upon  our  country  shall 
be  forever  hid  from  sight.  Industry,  arts,  com- 
merce, knowledge,  will  flourish,  with  plenty  and 
contentment  for  ages  to  come,  and  the  loud 
chorus  of  universal  freedom  re-echo,  from  the 
Pacific  to  the  Atlantic,  the  great  truths  of  the 
Declaration  of  Independence.  Then,  too,  our 
brethren  of  the  South,  if  they  sincerely  wish  it, 
may  scatter  their  emancipated  slaves  through 
this  boundless  region,  and  our  country,  at  length, 
be  happily  freed  forever  from  the  foul  stain  and 
curse  of  slavery.  And  if  (may  it  be  far,  very 
far  distant)  intestine  commotion,  civil  dissension, 
division,  should  happen,  we  shall  not  leave  our 
posterity  exposed  to  the  combined  horrors  of  a 
civil  and  servile  war.  If  any  man  still  hesitate, 
influenced  by  some  temporary  motive  of  con- 
venience, or  ease,  or  profit,  I  charge  him  to 
think  what  our  fathers  have  suffered  for  us,  and 
then  to  ask  his  heart  if  he  can  be  faithless  to  the 
obligation  he  owes  to  posterity. 

THURSDAY,  February  10. 
The  Missouri  Bill. 

The  House  went  into  Committee  of  the  Whole 
on  the  Missouri  bill. 

Mr.  SERGEAXT  occupied  nearly  three  hours  in 
continuation  of  the  argument  which  he  com- 
menced yesterday  in  support  of  the  Missouri 
restriction — the  whole  of  which  is  given  in  pre- 
ceding pages.  When  Mr.  S.  had  concluded— 

Mr.  P.  P.  BAKBOUR,  of  Virginia,  addressed 
the  committee  as  follows : 

Mr.  Chairman :  In  rising  to  address  you  at 
this  time,. I  feel  that  I  labor  under  great  disad- 
vantages. I  am  about  to  embark  in  the  discus- 
sion of  a  subject  which  has  already  been  greatly 
exhausted.  I  am  about  to  do  this  too  at  a  period 
of  the  day  when  talents  of  a  higher  order  than 
I  can  pretend  to  would  scarcely  command  at- 
tention. These  circumstances  are  of  themselves 
sufficiently  discouraging ;  but  the  greatest  diffi- 
culty of  my  situation  consists  in  the  frame  of  mind 
in  which  I  fear  the  committee  have  been  left  by 
the  closing  remarks  of  the  member  from  Pennsyl- 
vania, (Mr.  SERGEANT,)  who  has  just  resumed 
his  seat.  He  made  such  persuasive  appeals  to 
their  feelings ;  he  painted  in  such  glowing  colors 
of  pathetic  eloquence  the  horrors  of  slavery  in 
general,  and  particularly  the  agonizing  scenes 
of  husbands  separated  from  wives,  and  parents 
torn  from  children,  that  I  fear  the  agitations  of 
an  excited  sensibility  will  be  unfriendly  to  the 


dispassionate  investigation  and  correct  decision 
of  this  great  question. 

If,  sir,  the  cause  which  I  have  risen  to  defend, 
required  talents  like  those  which  I  have  just  de- 
scribed ;  talents  which,  by  exciting  the  sym- 
pathies of  the  heart,  cause  the  hearers  to  forget 
the  allegiance  due  to  the  judgment,  then,  in- 
deed, I  shonld  abandon  the  unequal,  the  hope- 
less contest,  in  which  I  should  find  myself 
engaged.  But  the  duty  which  devolves  on  me 
is  of  a  different  kind :  it  is  to  endeavor,  as  far 
as  I  can,  to  allay  the  tumult  of  feeling  which 
has  just  been  excited,  and  then,  in  the  language 
of  plain  truth,  to  attempt  to  convince  your 
minds  of  the  error  of  the  gentleman's  reasoning. 

Let  me,  then,  tell  the  gentleman  that  the  pic- 
ture which  he  has  drawn  of  the  suffering  inci- 
dent to  domestic  slavery  in  the  South,  is  too 
strong :  that  he  has  shaded  it  too  deeply  with 
the  coloring  of  his  own  imagination  ;  that, 
though  we  do  keep  the  yoke  of  servitude  on  the 
necks  of  our  fellow  men,  yet  our  humanity  has 
lightened  its  pressure ;  that,  though  slavery, 
disguise  it  as  you  will,  is  still  a  bitter  draught, 
yet  the  same  humanity  has  lessened  the  bitter- 
ness of  this  draught,  by  the  infusion  into  it  of 
many  drops  of  consolation ;  that,  in  fine,  such 
has  been  the  continually  increasing  melioration 
in  the  condition  of  that  people  amongst  us,  that 
they  now  in  general  experience  the  utmost  de- 
gree of  indulgence  which  is  compatible  with  the 
relation  of  master  and  slave. 

These  remarks  have  been  called  forth  by 
those  which  were  made  by  the  member  who 
preceded  me.  I  now  beg  leave  to  call  your  at- 
tention to  the  very  question  before  us,  and  I 
Avill  endeavor  to  subject  it  to  the  severest 
scrutiny  of  which  I  am  capable.  The  bill  be- 
fore us  proposes  to  authorize  the  people  of  Mis- 
souri to  form  a  constitution  and  State  govern- 
ment. An  amendment  is  offered  to  the  bill, 
which  requires  of  the  proposed  State,  as  a  tine 
qua  non  to  its  admission  into  the  Union,  that  it 
should  by  a  compact,  irrevocable  without  the 
consent  of  Congress,  make  a  provision,  the  effect 
of  which  would  be  to  prevent  the  further  intro- 
duction of  slaves  into  that  State,  and  to  eman- 
cipate the  children  of  all  those  now  there.  And 
the  question  is,  whether  we  have  power  to  im- 
pose this  condition,  which  the  amendment  pro- 
poses ?  The  advocates  of  the  amendment  con- 
tend that  we  have  the  power ;  on  our  part  it  is 
contended  that  we  have  not 

The  question  being  thus  precisely  stated,  I 
will  remind  gentlemen,  at  the  threshold  of  the 
discussion,  that  they  hold  the  affirmative ;  that 
therefore  the  burden  of  proof  devolves  on  them. 
I  do  not  mention  this  from  any  apprehension  of 
the  weakness  of  my  position ;  on  the  contrary, 
such  is  my  confidence  in  its  strength,  that  I  feel 
I  can  with  safety  assume  upon  myself  the  bur- 
den of  proof,  when  it  belongs  to  my  opponents ; 
but  I  wish  it  to  be  distinctly  understood,  that  I 
shall  consider  this  as  a  gratuity  on  my  part,  and 
not  an  act  of  duty. 

Both  the  members  from  Pennsylvania  (Mr. 


522 


ABRIDGMENT  OP  THE 


H.  OF  R.] 


The  Missouri  Bill — Restriction  on  the  State. 


[FEBRUARY,  1820. 


HEMPIIILL  and  Mr.  SERGEANT)  have  relied  much 
upon  the  ordinance  of  1787,  the  sixth  article  of 
which  forbids  slavery  in  the  Northwestern  Ter- 
ritory, as  showing  the  power  of  the  Old  Con- 
gress" in  relation  to  this  subject.  As  this  is  an- 
terior to  the  constitution,  and  as  it  may  some- 
what conduce  to  system  to  observe  a  chrono- 
logical order,  I  beg  leave  first  to  examine  the 
character  of  that  act,  and  what  influence  it  ought 
to  have  upon  this  question.  This  celebrated  act 
of  the  Old  Congress  has  been  called  a  usurpa- 
tion. Gentlemen  have  expressed  their  astonish- 
ment at  this  epithet.  I  am  prepared,  from  the 
most  unquestionable  authority,  to  prove  the 
charge;  and  for  that  purpose  I  beg  leave  to 
read  from  the  thirty-eighth  number  of  the  Fed- 
eralist the  following  extract :  "  Congress  (that 
is,  the  Old  Congress)  have  undertaken  to  do 
more :  they  have  proceeded  to  form  new  States ; 
to  erect  temporary  governments ;  to  appoint 
officers  for  them ;  and  to  prescribe  the  condi- 
tions on  which  such  States  shall  be  admitted 
into  the  Confederacy.  All  this  has  been  done, 
and  without  the  least  color  of  constitutional 
authority."*  These,  sir,  are  the  words  of  a 
member  (and,  let  me  add,  a  distinguished  mem- 
ber) of  the  Federal  Convention ;  one  who,  after 
he  had  contributed  to  the  formation  of  the  con- 
stitution, devoted  eight  years  of  his  life  to  its 


*  The  phrase,  "  constitutional  authority,"  as  here  used  by 
Mr.  Madison,  (who  was  the  author  of  this  number,)  could 
not  apply  to  the  Constitution  of  the  United  States,  as  the 
ordinance  was  made  before  that  Instrument  It  could  only 
refer  to  the  Articles  of  Confederation,  which  gave  the  funda- 
mental law  to  the  Old  Congress,  and  was,  in  fact,  its  consti- 
tution ;  and  which,  certainly,  gave  to  the  Congress  none  of 
the  powers  exercised  in  the  enactment  of  the  ordinance ; 
nor  was  it  supposed  to  grant  such  powers  at  the  time.  The 
power  to  acquire  and  to  hold  property,  and  the  engagement 
with  the  ceding  States  to  dispose  of  the  soil,  and  to  build  up 
political  communities  upon  it,  was  held  to  be  the  authority 
for  the  ordinance ;  nor  is  there  any  thing  in  the  Federalist 
incompatible  with  that  idea.  The  paragraph,  more  fully 
quoted  than  in  the  speech  of  Mr.  BAKBOUK,  is  in  these 
•words:  "A  very  large  proportion  of  this  fund  (western 
land)  has  already  been  surrendered  by  individual  States ; 
and  it  may  with  reason  be  expected,  that  the  remaining 
Btates  will  not  persist  in  withholding  similar  proofs  of  their 
equity  and  generosity.  We  may  calculate,  therefore,  that  a 
rich  and  fertile  country,  of  an  area  equal  to  the  inhabited 
extent  of  the  United  States,  will  soon  become  a  national 
stock.  Congress  have  assumed  the  administration  of  this 
stock.  They  have  begun  to  render  it  productive.  Congress 
have  undertaken  to  do  more :  they  have  proceeded  to  form 
new  States — to  erect  temporary  governments— to  appoint 
officers  for  them — and  to  prescribe  the  conditions  on  which 
such  States  shall  bo  admitted  into  the  Confederacy.  All  this 
has  been  done— and  done  without  the  least  color  of  consti- 
tutional authority,  yet  no  blame  has  been  whispered— no 
alarm  has  been  sounded."—"  I  mean  not,  by  any  thing  here 
said,  to  throw  censure  on  the  measures  which  have  been 
pursued  by  Congress.  I  am  sensible  they  could  not  have 
done  otherwise.11  Now,  this  is  very  far  from  charging  usur- 
pation; it  is  justification,  and  approbation;  and  corresponds 
with  Mr.  Madison's  uniform  conduct  with  respect  to  that 
ordinance,  for  which  he  afterwards  voted,  as  a  law  of  Con- 
gress, when  it  was  adopted  in  17S9. 


actual  administration.  If  then  the  Old  Con- 
gress, in  the  enactment  of  that  ordinance,  acted 
without  the  least  color  of  constitutional  author- 
ity, it  is  obvious  that  the  act  must  be  utterly 
void,  as  an  act  of  legislation.  Has  it  force  in 
any  other  way  ?  Gentlemen,  conscious  of  this 
vital  defect,  have  in  effect  conceded  it,  by  rest- 
ing its  authority  upon  the  footing  of  contract. 
They  say  that,  after  the  cession  of  Virginia,  and 
the  enactment  of  that  ordinance,  it  was  sub- 
mitted to  Virginia  for  her  ratification,  and  that 
it  was  ratified.  It  has  already  been  shown  by 
the  Speaker,  both  from  the  resolution  of  Con- 
gress and  the  act  of  the  Virginia  Legislature, 
that  it  was  an  alteration  in  the  number  and  di- 
mensions of  the  States  to  be  carved  out  of  that 
territory  which  was  alone  submitted,  and  which 
therefore  was  alone  intended  to  be  decided. 
But  there  are  other  insuperable  objections  to 
this  ordinance,  considered  upon  the  footing  of  a 
contract,  having  any  influence  upon  the  present 
question. 

It  has  been  correctly  said,  that,  to  make  a 
valid  contract,  there  must  be  two  parties.  Now, 
though  Virginia  should  be  considered  as  having 
been  competent,  yet  the  Old  Congress  was  not. 
I  have  shown  you  that  they  had  not  the  least 
color  of  constitutional  authority  over  the  sub- 
ject. It  follows,  then,  that  they  were  as  little 
competent  to  contract  as  to  legislate  in  relation 
to  it.  But,  again,  sir ;  supposing  the  Old  Con- 
gress to  have  been  a  competent  contracting 
party,  it  is  conceded  on  the  other  side  that,  con- 
sidering the  ordinance  in  the  light  of  a  contract, 
the  assent  of  Virginia  was  indispensable  to  its 
validity.  Now,  sir,  to  make  that  at  all  analo- 
gous to  the  present  case,  it  is  necessaiy  that 
France  should  give  its  assent  to  the  proposed 
restriction  of  slavery;  because  France,  having 
been  the  power  which  ceded  Louisiana,  stands 
in  the  same  relation  to  that  country  as  Virginia 
did  to  the  Northwestern  Territory.  Surely, 
then,  there  can  be  no  weight  due  to  this  ordi- 
nance as  a  precedent,  when  we  reflect  that  it 
emanated  from  men  having  no  jurisdiction  over 
the  subject-matter  to  which  it  relates ;  and  that 
too  at  a  time  anterior  to  the  formation  of  our 
constitution,  which  is  the  only  source  of  our 
power,  and  which,  I  shall  attempt  to  prove, 
clearly  gives  us  none  such  as  is  contended  for. 

I  will  now  endeavor  to  show,  beyond  all 
question,  that  the  effect  of  the  proposed  amend- 
ment is  to  diminish  the  rights  and  powers  of 
the  citizens  and  State  of  Missouri.  When  this 
amendment  shall  be  passed,  a  citizen  of  Missouri 
cannot  carry  into  that  State  slaves  from  any 
portion  of  the  United  States ;  a  citizen  of  Vir- 
ginia will  have  the  right  to  carry  them  into  his 
State.  I  ask  you,  sir,  if  these  two  citizens  bo 
equal  ?  And  yec  one  of  the  clauses  of  the  con- 
stitution which  I  have  referred  to,  and  which,  I 
have  shown,  applies  to  the  new  States,  declares 
that  "  the  citizens  of  each  State  shall  enjoy  all 
the  privileges  and  immunities  of  citizens  in  the 
several  States."  It  is  said,  however,  that  a 
citizen  of  Pennsylvania  cannot  carry  a  slave 


DEBATES  OF  CONGRESS. 


FEBRUARY,  1820.] 


The  Missouri  Bill— Restriction  on  the  State. 


[H.  OF  R. 


into  that  State,  and  that  therefore  the  citizen 
of  Missouri  stands  on  an  equal  footing  with  him. 
I  utterly  deny  the  position.  Gentlemen  here 
reason  from  fact  to  principle.  Although  such 
.s  the  law  of  Pennsylvania,  it  is  an  act  of  their 
own  Legislature,  which  they  were  free  to  enact 
or  not,  and  to  repeal  at  their  will ;  not  so  with 
Missouri;  for,  in  the  first  place,  we  in  effect 
decree  it  for  them,  and  then  declare  it  to  be  ir- 
repealable  without  our  consent.  Let  us  leave 
all  the  citizens  of  the  United  States  at  liberty, 
by  their  own  legislation,  either  to  retain  or 
abolish  slavery,  and  then  they  are  all  upon  an 
equal  footing  in  point  of  right,  as  by  the  con- 
stitution they  are  declared  to  be ;  and  if  they 
shall  exercise  that  right  in  different  ways,  in 
the  several  States,  and  thus  put  themselves  in 
different  situations  in  point  of  fact,  it  is  an  act 
of  their  own  will,  with  which  we  have  nothing 
to  do. 

It  is  said,  however,  in  a  memorial  presented 
to  us,  that  this  principle  would  lead  to  mon- 
strous consequences ;  that  if  there  were  but  a 
single  State  in  the  Union  which  tolerated  sla- 
very, this  principle  would  not  only  enable  the 
citizens  of  that  State  to  carry  slaves  to  a  State 
whose  laws  forbade  it,  but  would  even  enable 
citizens  of  the  latter  State  to  hold  them  con- 
trary to  their  own  laws.  These  consequences, 
if  they  could  follow,  would  indeed  be  monstrous, 
but  I  think  I  shall  be  able  to  show  that  the  fal- 
lacy of  reasoning  which  leads  to  them  is  still 
more  so.  Our  principle  does  not  claim  for  the 
citizens  of  one  State  greater  privileges  than  cit- 
izens of  the  other  States  enjoy,  but  the  same 
only.  Now  it  is  obvious,  that,  if  a  citizen  of 
Virginia  could  hold  slaves  in  Pennsylvania,  he 
would  enjoy  greater  privileges  than  a  citizen  of 
that  State.  This  obviates  the  first  part  of  the 
objection ;  the  second  part  is  as  easily  obviated. 
I  have  already  shown  you  that  the  citizens  of 
two  States  are  perfectly  equal  in  point  of  right, 
when  they  are  left  at  liberty  to  retain  or  abolish 
slavery.  If  the  one  retain  and  the  other  abolish 
it,  it  is  the  exercise  of  their  own  will,  expressed 
by  their  own  representatives,  which  produces 
the  difference  in  their  situations.  The  true 
principle  is  this:  As  in  Virginia  slavery  is  tol- 
erated, a  Pennsylvanian  is  equally  with  a  Vir- 
ginian entitled  to  hold  a  slave  there  ;  as  in 
Pennsylvania  slavery  is  not  tolerated,  the  citi- 
zens of  neither  State  can  hold  a  slave  there  ; 
but  it  is  competent  for  either  State  to  vary  its 
legislative  provisions  in  this  respect  at  its  own 
will. 

Let  ns  now  see  whether  the  proposed  amend- 
ment does  not  diminish  the  powers  of  Missouri 
as  a  State.  The  standard  by  which  to  ascertain 
the  powers  of  a  State  is  furnished,  first,  by  the 
grant  of  legislative  power  to  Congress ;  second- 
ly, by  the  prohibitions  upon  the  powers  of  the 
States.  All  other  powers  not  included  in  this 
grant,  or  in  these  prohibitions,  remain  with  the 
States.  Such  is  the  explicit  declaration  of  the 
10th  article  of  the  amendments  already  quoted. 
Now,  sir,  no  man  has  protended  that  the  power 


is  granted  to  the  Federal  Government  to  abolish 
slavery,  or  that  it  is  prohibited,  to'  the  States  to 
retain  it.  According  to  the  positive  provision 
of  the  10th  amendment,  therefore,  it  is  retained ; 
and  yet  gentlemen  are  now  about  to  exercise 
this  power  as  if  it  were  granted  to  us.  Gentle- 
men will  at  once  acknowledge  that  they  would 
not  attempt  this  in  relation  to  the  old  States ; 
and  why,  sir?  Do  you  answer  that  all  powers 
not  delegated  nor  prohibited  are  reserved  to 
them?  Then  say  I,  you  yourselves  admit  that 
the  same  article  which  makes  the  reservation 
of  powers  in  favor  of  the  old  States  applies  to 
the  new,  and  consequently  it  cannot  be  so  con- 
strued as  to  justify,  in  relation  to  the  new  States, 
what  it  forbids  towards  the  old.  If,  then,  the 
prohibitions  and  the  reservations  of  power 
equally  apply  to  the  new  States ;  if,  as  I  have 
shown,  it  is  not  competent  for  us  to  enlarge  the 
powers  of  the  States,  either  by  surrendering 
any  of  our  legislative  powers,  or  by  removing 
any  of  the  prohibitions,  it  follows,  necessarily, 
that  we  cannot  diminish  them  by  breaking  in 
upon  the  fund  which  they  have  reserved.  The 
same  constitution  which  contains  the  grant  to 
us,  and  the  prohibition  upon  the  States,  secures 
to  them  the  enjoyment  of  the  remainder. 

An  attempt  has  been  made,  however,  to  dis- 
tinguish this  subject  from  the  general  rule,  aris- 
ing out  of  the  constitution,  upon  this  ground  : 
that  slavery  was  a  question  adjusted  by  com- 
promise, and  that  therefore  no  States  but  those 
which  were  the  original  parties  to  the  constitu- 
tion can  claim  the  benefit  of  that  compromise. 
I  think  it  will  be  found,  sir,  that  this  position  is 
just  as  untenable  as  the  various  others  from 
which  gentlemen  have,  I  trust,  been  driven. 
There  were  other  subjects  besides  slavery  ad- 
justed by  compromise  ;  I  will  mention  the  most 
prominent  one — that  of  an  equal  representation 
in  the  Senate.  This  is  incontestably  proven  by 
the  circumstance  that,  in  the  clause  providing 
for  amendments,  it  is  declared  that  the  consti- 
tution shall  not  even  be  so  amended  as  to  de- 
prive any  State  of  its  equal  suffrage  in  the  Sen- 
ate without  its  own  consent ;  this  is  the  only 
provision  which  is  forever  put  beyond  the  reach 
of  amendment,  in  the  ordinary  mode.  Now, 
sir,  this  was  emphatically  the  work  of  a  com- 
promise in  a  vital  part  of  the  constitution ;  the 
principle  of  gentlemen,  if  true,  would  lead  to 
the  conclusion  that  the  new  States  were  not 
entitled  to  the  benefit  of  this  provision,  because 
they  were  not  parties  to  the  compromise ;  yet 
no  gentleman  will  maintain  this  position ;  and 
if  he  will  not,  he  must  give  up  the  other  upon 
the  subject  of  slavery.  Gentlemen  complain  of 
what  they  consider  injustice,  in  the  Southern 
representation  being  increased  by  their  slaves ; 
if  they  could  even  show  this,  yet  they  could 
not  in  this  way  attempt  to  alter  it.  But,  upon 
their  own  grounds,  I  am  prepared  to  show  that 
the  hardship  is  on  our  side ;  for  this  purpose  I 
beg  leave  to  introduce  to  your  attention  Vir- 
ginia and  Indiana ;  the  whole  representation  of 
Virginia  in  this  llouse  is  twenty-three,  of  which 


524 


ABRIDGMENT  OF  THE 


H.  OP  E.] 


The  Missouri  Bill — Restriction  on  the  State. 


[FEBKUARY,  1820. 


number  she  is  entitled  to  sixteen  from  her  free 
population,  artd  Jo  seven  from  her  slaves ;  Indi- 
ana, in  this  House,  is  entitled  to  one  member ; 
Virginia,  then,  has  a  right  to  sixteen  times  as 
many  members  here  as  Indiana,  even  from  her 
free  population ;  but  in  the  Senate,  Indiana,  by 
a  provision  of  the  constitution,  irrevocable 
without  her  own  consent,  is  equal  to  Virginia. 
It  thus  appears  that,  whilst  in  one  House,  Vir- 
ginia, by  her  slaves,  receives  an  increase  of  less 
than  one-half  her  representation,  Indiana,  in  the 
other,  has  her  relative  weight  multiplied  fifteen 
times,  and  that,  too,  as  I  have  shown,  by  an  ir- 
repealable  provision  of  the  constitution,  without 
her  own  consent.  "Whilst  Virginia  is  liable,  by 
an  amendment  of  the  constitution  even  against 
her  consent,  to  be  deprived  of  that  part  of  her 
representation  which  she  derives  from  her 
slaves.  I  will  say  nothing  about  our  being 
taxed  on  account  of  our  slaves,  in  the  same  pro- 
portion in  which  they  increase  our  representa- 
tion, as  that  has  been  already  presented  to 
you. 

But,  say  gentlemen,  the  powers  which  the 
constitution  does  not  give  us,  we  can  get  from 
the  several  States  by  compact.  They  say  that 
both  the  United  States  and  the  State  of  Missouri 
are  competent  to  make  a  contract ;  and  that  if 
the  one  party  make  a  proposition,  and  the  other 
accept  it,  this  is  obligatory  on  them  both. 
Even  if  this  principle  were  true,  an  abundant 
answer  is  furnished  by  an  argument  which  I 
believe  has  been  already  urged,  and  which  I 
shall  therefore  only  state,  without  pursuing  it ; 
it  is  that,  by  the  treaty,  which  was  a  compact 
prior  in  point  of  time,  and  paramount  in  point 
of  obligation,  the  people  of  Missouri  have  ac- 
quired certain  rights,  that  therefore  it  is  not 
competent  for  you  merely  because  you  are  the 
stronger,  to  say  that  you  will  not  comply  with 
its  stipulations  unless  they  will  agree  to  another 
compact,  the  effect  of  which  will  be  to  deprive 
them  of  one  of  the  rights  which  I  shall  attempt 
hereafter  to  show,  when  I  come  to  speak  of  the 
treaty  more  at  large,  it  gave  them. 

I  ask,  then,  if  this  amendment  prevail,  will 
Missouri  govern  herself  by  her  own  authority 
and  laws,  in  relation  to  the  subject  of  slavery  ? 
On  the  contrary,  do  we  not,  by  the  amendment, 
say  to  her,  that  she  shall  in  the  first  instance 
submit  to  our  will,  contrary  to  her  own,  and 
that  not  by  an  act  of  ordinary  legislation,  but 
by  one  which  we  require  to  be  made  irrevocable 
without  our  consent  ?  If  it  be  said  that  ours  is 
not  a  foreign  interference,  I  answer  in  the  lan- 
guage which  I  have  formerly  used,  that,  as  to 
any  subject  over  which  a  power  is  not  given  to 
the  General  Government — and  I  trust  I  have 
proven  this  is  one  of  that  kind — that  Govern- 
ment is  a  foreign  one  to  the  States,  as  much  as 
any  Government  in  Europe.  But  it  is  asked, 
whether  it  is  essential  to  sovereignty  that  a 
State  should  have  slavery  in  its  bosom  ?  I  an- 
swer no,  sir ;  but  it  is  of  the  very  essence  of 
sovereignty  that  a  State  should  have  the  power 
of  deciding  for  itself  whether  it  will  or  will  not 


tolerate  slavery.  Gentlemen  pressed  by  this 
reasoning  retreat  to  another  ground ;  they  say 
that  slavery  is  a  moral  wrong,  and  as  such  can- 
not be  the  subject  of  sovereignty;  I  answer 
that  it  is  essential  to  sovereignty,  and  the  high- 
est act  of  its  exercise,  to  decide  what  is  em- 
braced within  its  limits,  and  that  the  very  act 
of  one  Government  attempting  to  decide  this 
question  for  another  is  a  glaring  violation  of  the 
sovereignty  of  that  other;  I  answer  further, 
that  sovereignty,  in  relation  to  the  internal 
concerns  of  a  State,  has  no  limits  but  the  discre- 
tion and  moral  sense  of  the  State  itself,  unless 
it  relate  to  a  subject  the  power  over  which  has 
been  specially  delegated,  and  it  has  been  the 
purpose  of  my  whole  argument  to  prove  that 
this  has  not  been  so  delegated.  Suppose  that  a 
State,  like  ancient  Sparta,  should  by  its  laws 
even  sanction  the  barbarous  practice  of  putting 
their  Helots  to  death ;  suppose  that  it  was  so 
lost  to  the  moral  sense  as  to  permit  the  most 
enormous  crimes  against  the  laws  of  morality 
or  religion  to  escape  with  impunity ;  have  we 
the  power  to  interfere  in  these  matters  of  mu- 
nicipal legislation,  unless  it  be  in  relation  to  a 
subject  over  which  the  constitution  gives  us 
power  ?  I  must  be  pardoned  for  repeating,  that 
we  have  no  more  than  one  of  the  Governments 
of  Europe. 

But  in  whatever  light  we  look  upon  the  sub- 
ject of  slavery,  whether  as  a  moral  wrong  or 
not,  whether  as  a  rightful  subject-matter  of  sov- 
ereign power  or  not,  we  know  that  it  existed  in 
many  of  the  old  States  av  the  formation  of  the 
constitution;  that  it  has  continued  to  exist; 
that  there  are  several  clauses  in  the  constitution 
which  have  direct  reference  to  it,  giving  pro- 
tection to  the  master  in  reclaiming  the  services 
of  his  slave,  and  conferring  political  power,  and 
creating  a  liability  to  taxation,  with  an  acknowl- 
edged view  to  this  kind  of  population ;  this  is 
admitted  by  all  to  be  the  case,  as  it  respects  the 
old  States ;  I  have  shown,  again  and  again,  that 
the  new  States  and  their  citizens  have  all  the 
rights,  privileges,  immunities,  and  powers  of  the 
old  States.  If,  then,  it  be  a  right,  or,  if  you 
please,  a  wrong,  in  the  old  States  and  their 
citizens,  to  hold  slaves  beyond  our  control,  then 
the  new  States  and  their  citizens  claim  the  same 
right,  or  the  same  wrong,  call  it  by  what  name 
you  please. 

It  has  been  said  by  the  two  gentlemen  from 
Pennsylvania,  (Messrs.  HEMPHILL  and  SER- 
GEANT,) that  the  States  had  the  right  to  admit 
new  States  upon  conditions  to  be  prescribed  by 
themselves;  and  it  has  been  asked,  what  has 
become  of  that  power?  If  they  have  given  to 
Congress  the  simple  power  of  admission,  is  the 
other  part  of  the  power  annihilated,  or  does  it 
yet  remain  with  the  States?  To  these  ques- 
tions I  answer,  without  difficulty,  that  the 
States  did  possess  the  power  of  admitting  upon 
condition  ;  that  this  part  of  their  power  is 
neither  annihilated,  nor  does  it  remain  with 
them ;  that  they  have  given  to  Congress  the 
power  to  admit,  and  that  they  have  declared 


DEBATES  OF  CONGRESS. 


525 


FEBRUARY,  1820.] 


The  Missouri  Bill — Restriction  on  the  State. 


[H.  OF  R. 


the  terms  and  conditions  of  that  admission  in 
the  various  provisions  of  the  constitution. 

Sir,  the  conclusion  of  the  whole  matter  is 
this :  The  States  which  were  the  original  par- 
ties to  the  constitution,  have  given  to  Congress 
the  power  of  extending  indefinitely  the  terri- 
tory over  which  their  dominion  is  to  be  exer- 
cised, by  the  admission  of  new  States;  but  they 
have  not  given  to  Congress  the  right  to  increase 
their  capital  stock  of  power,  either  by  taking, 
by  their  own  will  or  by  the  joint  will  of  them- 
selves and  any  State  or  States,  any  attribute  of 
their  sovereignty ;  the  first  would  be  an  injury 
to  the  individual  State  from  which  it  was  taken, 
the  second  would  be  an  injury  to  all  the  States 
which  compose  the  Confederacy.  No,  sir,  the 
sum  of  the  power  of  Congress  is  fixed  by  the 
terms  of  the  constitution  in  a  manner  irrevoca- 
ble, except  in  the  mode  prescribed  for  amend- 
ment ;  the  States  have  not  intrusted  to  any  body 
of  men  on  earth  a  power  which  might  enable 
them  to  disturb  the  political  balance,  which  is 
adjusted  with  so  much  care  in  the  constitution  ; 
they  have  not  left  it  to  Congress  to  make  the 
new  States  either  greater  or  smaller  than  them- 
selves, but  have  made  their  own  political  di- 
mensions, as  marked  out  in  the  constitution, 
the  precise  standard  for  the  formation  of  those 
States  which  should  come  into  their  family  by 
adoption. 

The  next  clause  from  which  the  right  to  im- 
pose this  restriction  is  derived,  is  that  which 
gives  us  power  to  make  all  needful  rules  and 
regulations  respecting  the  territory  of  the  United 
States.  I  do  not  propose  to  go  into  the  general 
question,  how  far  our  power  extends  over  the 
territories,  as  such :  that  question  will  hereafter 
be  distinctly  presented  to  our  consideration. 
Deferring,  therefore,  the  general  inquiry  till 
that  occasion,  I  beg  leave  to  remind  the  com- 
mittee that,  as  it  respects  the  now  Territory  of 
Missouri,  we  have,  by  one  of  our  own  regula- 
tions, given  it  a  legislative  body ;  that  we  have 
extended  to  that  body  the  whole  power  of  legis- 
lation, subject  only  to  the  limitation  that  their 
laws  shall  not  be  inconsistent  with  the  consti- 
tution and  laws  of  the  United  States ;  a  limita- 
tion to  which  every  State  in  the  Union  is  equally 
subject :  the  question  of  slavery  is  one  of  a 
legislative  character;  it  therefore  already  be- 
longs to  them  to  decide  it  by  our  own  grant. 
Let  me  ask  gentlemen,  can  a  grant  of  political 
power  be  revoked  at  the  will  of  those  who 
grant  it  ?  Would  it  not  excite  some  surprise  in 
this  hall,  to  talk  of  revoking  a  common  charter 
of  incorporation,  such  as  that  of  the  Bank  of 
the  United  States,  unless  for  some  cause  of  for- 
feiture of  that  charter?  I  do  not  mean  now  to 
say  what  the  extent  of  the  legislative  power  is, 
in  relation  to  that  subject ;  some  modern  writers 
of  merit  seem  to  countenance  the  idea  that 
there  are  strong  cases,  in  which  it  would  be  a 
legitimate  exercise  of  power ;  but  of  this  I  am 
sure,  that  this  House  would  not  undertake  to 
revoke  the  most  common  charter  which  they 
had  granted,  unless  for  some  act  of  forfeiture ; 


and  yet  it  seems  to  be  thought  by  many  an  act 
quite  of  ordinary  legislation,  to  revoke  the  most 
exalted  charter  which  can  be  created — that  of 
the  grant  of  legislative  power.  If  you  can  take 
from  a  Territory  a  power  of  this  kind,  when 
once  granted,  what  would  hinder  you  from  re- 
pealing the  very  act  by  which  you  would  admit 
the  same  Territory  into  the  Union  ?  They  are 
both  grants  of  political  power,  differing  only  in 
degree.  But,  sir,  let  this  question  be  as  it  may 
concerning  the  Territories,  all  further  inquiry 
into  which  I  shall  defer  till  that  subject  comes 
up,  it  has  no  application  to  the  present  case, 
which  is  the  admission  of  a  State.  Whatever 
is  our  power  over  the  Territories,  it  is  acknowl- 
edged that  it  co-exists  with  the  Territorial 
condition,  and  that  when  that  ceases  the  power 
over  them,  as  such,  ceases  also.  It  is  acknowl- 
edged that  we  could  not  impose  this  condition 
after  the  State  is  admitted ;  and  yet  it  is  con- 
tended, that  it  may  be  done  just  before  its  ad- 
mission, by  virtue  of  a  Territorial  power,  which 
must  necessarily  exist  at  the  moment  when  the 
admission  takes  place ;  in  a  word,  it  is  argued 
that,  by  virtue  of  a  power  confessedly  tempo- 
rary, we  can  impose  a  condition,  in  its  character 
perpetual,  if  we  so  will.  I  cannot  show  the 
glaring  impropriety  of  this  position  in  so  palpa- 
ble a  mode  as  by  likening  it  to  a  case  of  munici- 
pal law.  Let  us  put  the  case  of  guardian  and 
ward.  A  guardian  has  power  to  make  leases  of 
his  ward's  land,  during  his  minority,  and  to  ex- 
pire with  it ;  the  moment  after  his  ward  reaches 
majority  he  has  no  power  over  the  estate ;  and 
yet,  sir,  upon  the  principle  now  contended  for, 
he  might  enter  into  a  contract  the  day  before 
the  minority  ceased,  which  would  bind  the 
ward  and  his  heirs  forever.  If  such  a  proposi- 
tion as  this  were  stated  in  the  judicial  hall,  in 
another  part  of  this  Capitol,  the  gentleman 
would  be  told  that  it  could  not  even  be  received 
for  discussion. 

The  next  clause  in  the  constitution,  from 
which  the  power  to  impose  this  restriction  is 
attempted  to  be  derived,  is  that  by  which  it  is 
declared  "that  migration  or  importation  of 
such  persons  as  any  of  the  States  now  existing 
shall  think  proper  to  admit,  shall  not  be  pro- 
hibited prior  to  the  year  1808."  Under  this  it 
is  contended  that  slaves  may  be  prevented  from 
passing  from  one  State  to  another.  It  has  al- 
ready been  properly  said,  that  if  that  were  the 
correct  construction,  it  ought,  being  legislative 
power,  to  be  executed  by  an  act  of  Congress, 
having  equal  effect  upon  all  the  States,  and  not 
by  an  irrevocable  compact,  operating  on  one 
only.  But,  sir,  independently  of  this  objection, 
there  are  two  other  answers  to  the  argument 
attempted  to  be  derived  from  this  clause,  which 
I  consider  conclusive.  The  first  is,  that  the 
word  migration  implies  to  freemen,  not  dares. 
The  origin  and  received  acceptation  of  the  term 
prove  tliis.  I  think  I  cau  show  it,  too,  by  re- 
ference to  the  probable -object  of  the  clause, 
and  the  conflicting  interests  of  different  sections 
of  the  country  which  it  attempted  to  reconcile. 


526 


ABRIDGMENT  OF  THE 


H.  OF  R.] 


The  Missouri  Bill— Restriction  on  the  State. 


UEBHCAKY,  1820. 


Let  it  be  recollected  that  the  constitution  en- 
titled the  slaveholding  States  to  a  representa- 
tion founded,  in  a  certain  proportion,  upon 
their  slave  population.  Now,  sir,  I  think  it 
fair  to  conclude,  as  it  was  agreed  that  Congress 
should  not  have  the  power  to  prohibit  the  im- 
portation of  slaves  prior  to  1808,  by  which  im- 
portation the  representation  of  the  slaveholding 
States  would  be  increased,  that  the  jealousy  of 
the  non-slaveholding  States  required  as  an  off- 
set to  this,  that  the  migration  of  free  persons, 
by  which  their  representation  would  be  in- 
creased, should  not  be  prohibited  till  the  same 
period.  But,  sir,  there  is  an  answer,  arising 
from  the  phraseology  of  the  clause,  which  seems 
to  me  to  put  an  end  to  the  question  ;  the  words 
are,  "The  migration  or  importation  of  such 
persons  as  any  of  the  States  now  existing  shall 
think  proper  to  admit,  shall  not  be  prohibited." 
Now,  this  word  " admit"  proves  incontestably 
that  the  word  migration,  whether  it  relates  to 
free  persons  or  slaves,  looks  to  persons  coming 
from  abroad ;  for,  if  they  were  already  in  the 
States,  they  could  not  be  admitted.  Sir,  it 
would  be  a  solecism  in  language  to  talk  of  ad- 
mitting a  man  into  a  house  who  was  already 
in  it. 

But,  sir,  the  strongest  objection  lies  yet  be- 
hind. The  law  which  I  have  supposed,  upon 
the  model  of  this  amendment,  emancipates  the 
children  of  all  the  slaves  now  in  Maryland.  Is 
this,  too,  a  regulation  of  commerce?  It  is  a 
contradiction  in  terms,  to  give  it  such  a  name. 
This  last  part  of  the  bill,  sir,  is  most  alarming 
in  its  consequences,  for  it  goes  directly  to  the 
emancipation  of  slavery  throughout  the  whole 
United  States,  after  the  present  generation  shall 
become  extinct ;  that  is,  in  the  life  of  one  man 
— for,  whilst  the  candles  are  all  burning  though 
millions  may  be  embraced,  yet  the  life  of  the 
longest  liver  terminates  the  period.  And  have 
you  the  power  to  emancipate  the  children  of 
acknowledged  slaves?  Yes,  says  one  gentle- 
man from  Pennsylvania,  (Mr.  HEMPHILL,)  for  he 
asked,  can  a  man  have  a  vested  interest  in  an 
unborn  human  being?  And  he  answered,  no. 
If  this  be  the  doctrine,  sir,  though  that  gentle- 
man did  not  apply  it,  and  I  believe  did  not  in- 
tend to  apply  it  to  the  old  States,  I  repeat 
again,  that  it  proclaims  universal  emancipation, 
after  failure  of  the  present  generation  of  slaves. 
Sir,  it  is  of  no  importance  that  the  present  Con- 
gress do  not  apply  it ;  we  are  but  actors  who 
fret  our  busy  hour  upon  the  stage,  and  then  pass 
away ;  others  will  come  to  act  their  parts,  and 
these  principles  may  then  be  put  into  practical 
execution,  in  their  utmost  extent.  I  will  not 
detain  the  committee  to  prove  that  a  property 
in  the  parent  implies  property  in  the  progeny. 
The  maxim  "  Partus  sequitur  ventrem"  is  as 
old  as  the  civil  law ;  it  is  founded  upon  the  im- 
mutable principle,  that  wherever  I  have  prop- 
erty in  the  capital  stock,  I  have  the  same  prop- 
erty in  its  products.  .  He  who  owns  the  land 
owns  all  the  fruit  Avhich  it  produces.  If,  then, 
you  may  admit  my  property  in  the  parent,  you 


cannot  deny  it  in  the  child.  If,  indeed,  yon 
deny  my  right  to  a  vested  interest  in  an  unborn 
human  being,  you  may,  perhaps,  go  one  step 
further,  and  deny  the  same  interest  in  those 
who  now  exist.  The  argument  is  as  strong  in 
one  case  as  the  other.  Assume  but  this  princi- 

Sle,  and  then  you  need  not  wait  for  futurity  to 
o  this  great  work  of  emancipation.     No,  sir, 
you  may  say  at  once  to  every  bondman  in  the 
United  States,  you  are  free. 

I  have  now,  sir,  finished  my  view  of  this 
question.  I  believe,  upon  my  conscience,  that 
the  proposed  restriction  is  a  violation  of  the 
constitution ;  I  trust  I  have  proven  it ;  if  I 
have,  or  if  there  be  even  serious  doubt,  I  con- 
jure the  committee  to  pause  before  they  take 
the  step  proposed ;  sir,  it  was  long  a  desidera- 
tum in  politics  to  devise  a  Government  like 
ours,  which  should,  by  the  union  of  many  sov- 
ereign States,  each  retaining  its  sovereignty  for 
municipal  purposes,  combine  the  strength  of  a 
monarchy  with  the  freedom  of  a  republic.  With 
us  it  is  "  in  the  full  tide  of  successful  experi- 
ment." Let  us  not  take  any  course  calculated 
to  arrest  its  success ;  such,  I  fear,  will  be  the 
unhappy  tendency  of  the  present  measure.  Let 
it  not  be  supposed  that,  I  come  here  the  apostle 
of  disunion ;  no,  sir,  I  look  upon  the  Union  of 
these  States  as  the  ark  of  our  political  safety ; 
if  that  be  lost,  we  may  bid  farewell,  a  long  fare- 
well, to  all  our  pleasing  hopes  and  fond  antici- 
pations of  future  greatness  and  glory.  They 
will  be  as  the  illusions  of  a  deceitful  dream. 
But,  whilst  I  deprecate  disunion  as  the  most 
tremendous  evil,  I  cannot  shut  my  eyes  against 
the  light  of  experience ;  I  cannot  turn  a  deaf  ear 
to  the  warning  voice  of  history ;  from  these  we 
learn  that  harmony  is  the  spirit  which  can  alone 
animate  and  sustain  a  confederate  republic. 
Whilst  this  spirit  exists,  it  is  displayed  in  acts 
of  legislation  reciprocally  beneficent  to  every 
member  of  the  confederacy,  and  these  become 
new  ligaments  to  bind  them  together  in  the 
bonds  of  brotherhood ;  this  spirit  is  not  all  at 
once  extinguished,  nor  are  the  bonds  of  union 
suddenly  burst  asunder;  but  when,  instead  of 
this  beneficent  spirit  of  legislation  which  I  have 
described,  a  different  course  prevails,  this  spirit 
of  harmony  gives  way  successively  to  jealousy, 
distrust,  and,  finally,  discord ;  let  but  this  last 
spring  up  amongst  us,  you  may  consider  the 
days  of  the  Eepublic  as  numbered,  and  that  it 
is  fast  hastening  to  its  dissolution. 

When  that  sad  catastrophe  shall  befall  us,  this 
noble  Confederacy,  which,  in  its  undivided  state, 
could  stand  against  a  world  in  arms,  will  be 
broken,  if  not  into  its  constituent  parts,  into 
some  minor  confederacies,  the  victims  of  for- 
eign intrigue  and  of  their  own  border  hatred. 
Where,  then,  will  be  your  commerce  which 
covers  every  sea  ?  Where  your  army  and  navy^ 
the  means  of  your  defence,  the  instruments  of 
your  glory  ?  They  will  be  remembered  only  to 
make  the  contrast  with  your  then  situation 
more  painful.  What  will  become,  then,  of  this 
boundless  tract  of  western  land,  the  subject  of 


DEBATES  OF  CONGRESS. 


527 


FEBRUARY,  1820.] 


The  Missouri  Bill — Restriction  on  the  State. 


[H.  OP  R. 


the  present  contest,  which  has  poured,  and 
•would  continue  to  pour,  such  rich  streams  of 
wealth  into  your  treasury?  It  may  become 
the  theatre  on  which  the  title  to  itself  may  be 
decided,  not  by  Congressional  debate,  not  by 
construction  of  treaties  or  constitutions,  but  by 
that  force  which  always  begins  where  constitu- 
tions end.  I  conjure  you  then,  beware,  lest,  by 
this  measure,  you  excite  the  discontent  of  one- 
half  of  the  Union,  by  legislating  injuriously  to 
them,  upon  a  subject  in  which  they  have  so 
deep  a  stake  of  interest,  and  you  have  none  in 
point  of  property ;  take  care  that  you  do  not 
awaken  the  painful  reflection,  that  the  federal 
arm  is  strong  only  to  destroy.  I  hope  and  trust 
that  the  wisdom  of  our  councils  may  be  such  as 
to  avert  these  evils ;  but  he  knows  little  of  the 
human  character,  who  does  not  fear  that  conse- 
quences like  these  may  follow,  if  the  hand  from 
•which  the  greatest  good  is  looked  for,  be  the 
one  which  deals  out  the  deepest  injury. 

God  grant  that,  in  deciding  this  question,  we 
may  bear  in  mind  this  excellent  motto,  "  United 
we  stand,  divided  we  fall." 

SATURDAY,  February  12. 
The  Missouri  Bill. 

The  House  then  resolved  itself  into  a  Com- 
mittee of  the  Whole  on  this  bill.  The  proposed 
restriction  being  still  under  consideration — 

Mr.  PINDALL,  of  Virginia,  said,  gentlemen 
who  insisted  to  impose  this  restriction  on  Mis- 
souri had  not  asserted  the  existence  of  any  su- 
preme, fundamental,  or  national  law  of  this  con- 
tinent which  would  of  itself  inhibit  slavery  in 
the  new  States.  Ifo  one  had  contended  that 
the  Constitution  of  the  United  States  contained 
any  precept  precluding  the  admission  of  slave- 
holding  States,  but  the  position  so  eagerly  urged 
was,  that,  although  the  Federal  Constitution  did 
not  inhibit  slavery,  yet  it  vested  in  Congress 
such  powers  as  enabled  that  body  to  exercise 
the  discretion  of  requiring  the  insertion  of  such 
a  provision  in  the  constitution  of  a  new  State. 
The  question,  continued  Mr.  P.,  then  is,  not 
•whether  there  be  a  fundamental  principle  or 
supreme  law  inhibiting  slavery,  but  whether 
there  is  in  this  country  a  tribunal  or  legislative 
council  having  a  discretion  superior  to  the  pow- 
er of  the  people  when  assembled  in  convention. 
That  this  is  the  posture  in  which  the  question 
presents  itself,  is  evident,  for  that  portion  of  the 
State  constitution  which  you  now  propose  to 
make  for  Missouri,  has  not  been  assented  to,  and 
probably  would  not  be  assented  to,  by  the  peo- 
ple of  Missouri,  nor  have  the  people  of  the  Unit- 
ed States  assented  to  the  proposal,  or  ever  had 
an  opportunity  of  listening  to  it  in  convention. 

The  Federal  Convention  is  a  national,  or 
rather  international  compact,  in  which  the  re- 
lations of  sovereignty  between  the  respective 
States  and  between  those  States  and  the  Gene- 
ral Government  are  prescribed,  adjusted,  and 
limited.  If  gentlemen  object  to  this  description 
of  the  constitution,  they  are  requested  to  fur- 


nish their  own  definition  of  the  instrument, 
which  I  trust  will  afford  the  conclusion  which  I 
am  in  quest  of.  Yielding  me  this  description  of 
the  constitution,  it  will  follow  that  a  change  in 
the  relations  thus  established  and  defined  be- 
tween the  States  and  this  Government,  neces- 
sarily involves  an  alteration  of  the  Federal 
Constitution.  The  positive  and  express  requisi- 
tion on  the  part  of  Congress,  of  a  particular  pro- 
vision in  the  constitution  of  Missouri,  to  remain 
irrevocable  by  that  State  and  the  people  thereof, 
unless  by  the  concurrence  of  this  Government, 
must  seek  an  alteration  or  amendment  of  the 
Federal  Constitution,  inasmuch  as  it  would,  by 
the  introduction  of  a  new  fundamental  prin- 
ciple, alter  and  vary  those  relations  between  the 
States,  and  between  the  States  and  this  Govern- 
ment, which  had  been  previously  adjusted  and 
ascertained  by  the  great  federal  compact ;  and 
that  such  alteration  cannot  have  place  merely 
by  an  act  of  Congress,  is  manifested  by  the  con- 
stitution, which  has  required  a  more  difficult 
process  of  amendment.  Gentlemen  who  sup- 
port this  restriction  derive  their  title  to  inter- 
fere, from  the  power  to  admit  new  States  on 
discretionary  conditions ;  and  the  Federal  Con- 
stitution being  here  again  silent,  they  de- 
duce their  authority  to  annex  such  conditions, 
through  the  avenue  of  inferences  from  some 
other  delegated  power.  They  have  been  re- 
minded that  it  was  illicit  to  infer  any  power 
which,  when  assumed,  would  remain  destitute 
of  limitations,  as  the  whole  design  of  the  instru- 
ment might,  by  such  means,  be  subverted,  and 
they  have  sought  to  meet  the  suggestion  by  an- 
nouncing supposed  boundaries  to  their  favorite 
power.  These  boundaries,  however,  are  the 
mere  dictates  of  ordinary  prudence,  and  to  be 
supported  only  by  the  discretion  and  good  sense 
of  Congress ;  boundaries  equally  applicable  to 
the  powers  of  unlimited  discretion ;  as  different 
in  their  exercise  as  the  moral  sentiments  or 
affections  of  men  differ,  and  the  property  as 
well  of  absolute  monarchies  as  of  republics. 

The  Convention  of  1787  was  not  satisfied  to 
limit  the  political  faculties  of  this  Government 
to  dimensions  which  our  own  prudence  should 
suggest,  but  afforded  limitations  of  equal  force 
and  authenticity  with  the  delegation  of  powers, 
and,  as  it  has  professed  so  to  do  in  all  cases,  I 
can  admit  of  no  inference  of  power  in  any  case, 
unless  the  just  extension  and  proportion  of  that 
power  can  be  shown  also  from  the  constitution. 
I  must  say  to  a  gentleman  from  Pennsylvania, 
and  others,  who  have  dwelt  so  copiously  on  the 
wisdom  of  the  Federal  Legislature,  and  the 
safety  of  the  country  in  relying  on  its  discre- 
tion,"that  I  do  not  partake  in  their  confidence  ; 
but,  on  the  contrary,  my  diffidence,  nay,  dis- 
trust, increases  in  proportion  to  the  eager  soli- 
citude of  gentlemen  from  one-half  of  the  Union, 
to  legislate  on  subjects  in  which  neither  them- 
selves nor  their  constituents  have  any  interest 
or  concern,  and  on  which  the  country  must  of 
course  bo  destitute  of  the  common  pledges  for 
the  rectitude  of  our  deliberation. 


528 


ABRIDGMENT  OF  THE 


H.  OF  R.] 


The  Missouri  Bill — Restriction  on  the  State. 


[FEBRUARY,  1820. 


Gentlemen  have  found  it  necessary  to  impose 
a  heavy  emphasis  on  the  power  of  Congress  to 
admit  new  States  into  the  Union,  which,  im- 
plying the  power  to  refuse  such  admission, 
clothes  that  hody,  it  is  said,  with  an  authority 
to  prescribe  the  condition  on  which  a  State  shall 
be  admitted.  This,  however,  is  an  error  which, 
notwithstanding  its  plausible  aspect,  can  be 
readily  refuted  by  comparing  this  grant  of  au- 
thority with  the  structure  of  the  Federal  Gov- 
ernment ;  preparatory  to  which  it  is  scarcely 
necessary  to  remark,  that  the  faculties  of  Con- 
gress, arising  from  the  constitution,  are  so  gov- 
erned by  the  nature  of  the  objects  on  which 
they  are  to  operate,  that  the  rules  of  interpre- 
tation as  respects  one  of  our  grants  of  power, 
may  have  no  application  in  relation  to  another ; 
for,  whilst  under  one  grant  of  power  we  are 
launched  into  a  wide  field  of  legislation,  bridled 
only  by  self-prudence,  another  delegation  (such, 
for  instance,  as  we  exercise  in  counting  the 
votes  of  the  Presidential  electoral  college)  con- 
fines us  to  the  narrow  path  of  duty  usually  con- 
fided to  mere  ministerial  agents.  If  our  legis- 
lative acts  may,  in  some  cases,  be  made  to  depend 
for  their  efficacy  on  arbitrary  conditions,  it  will 
not  from  hence  follow  that  all  the  capacities  of 
the  constitution  could  be  thus  handled.  We 
may  declare  war,  or  impose  taxes,  accompanied 
with  such  modifications  as  we  please ;  and  Gov- 
ernment, in  making  a  compact  with  a  foreign 
power,  may  stipulate  its  conditions  and  terms, 
without  which,  indeed,  it  would  be  no  com- 
pact; but,  in  admitting  new  States  into  the 
Union,  we  have  no  authority,  nor  is  it  necessary 
we  should  have  power  to  stipulate  conditions  ; 
for,  the  people  of  the  United  States,  whose  ser- 
vants we  are,  and  in  whose  right  we  act,  have 
themselves  stipulated  the  conditions  and  terms 
of  the  compact ;  for,  in  all  the  articles  of  the 
Federal  Constitution  are  found  a  full  and  fair 
designation  of  the  rights  acquired  and  obliga- 
tions incurred  by  the  adopted  State.  That  in- 
strument or  treaty  distinctly  expresses  the  mu- 
tual advantages  and  duties  which  are  to  subsist 
between  the  adopted  State  and  the  old  States 
and  the  Federal  Government.  The  people  of 
the  old  States  have  made  a  contract  of  limited 
partnership ;  they  have  also  conferred  on  us  a 
special  power  to  admit  (in  our  discretion,  if  you 
please)  additional  partners  into  the  firm  under 
the  old  compact,  but  have  not  authorized  us  to 
change  the  contract  itself,  or  substitute  a  new 
one  in  its  place. 

I  shall  not  insist  that  Congress  can  prescribe 
no  sort  of  condition,  under  any  circumstances 
whatever,  on  the  admission  of  a  new  State,  but 
ground  myself  on  positions  which  entitle  me  to 
warn  my  adversaries  that,  even  if  they  show  a 
right  to  propose  or  require  one  condition,  they 
will  not  have  established  their  title  to  impose 
conditions  of  a  different  import.  If  gentlemen 
will  assert  our  right  to  require  the  previous  pay- 
ment of  a  sum  of  money  by  Missouri,  as  the 
price  of  her  admission,  in  like  manner  as  a  bo- 
nus was  paid  by  the  Bank  of  the  United  States,  I 


I  might  yield  to  the  claim ;  by  which,  however, 
they  would  gain  nothing  in  this  contest,  for, 
after  Missouri  would  pay  the  money  and  be  in- 
ducted into  the  Union,  she  would  immediately 
require  all  the  political  rights  claimed  by  any 
other  State.  Impose  (if  you  please)  conditions 
without  which  Missouri  shall  not  be  admitted, 
but  you  shall  not  impose  conditions  which  would 
deprive  her,  after  her  admission,  of  portions  of 
her  sovereignty,  which  the  Federal  Constitu- 
tion guaranties  or  tolerates,  nor  shall  you,  in 
any  wise,  change  those  relations  of  sovereignty 
which  the  constitution  supposes  ought  to  exist 
between  the  States  and  this  Government,  as 
you  would  thereby,  in  effect,  substitute  a  new 
constitution,  in  lieu  of  that  already  sanctioned 
by  the  people. 

The  advocates  of  the  restriction  have  quoted 
the  compact  between  Virginia  and  Kentucky, 
when  the  latter  was  erected  into  a  State,  which 
they  suppose  affords  an  instance  of  the  capa- 
city of  a  State  to  alienate  a  portion  of  its  su- 
preme power.  A  recurrence  to  that  compact 
will  manifest  that  nothing  of  the  kind  \vas  ef- 
fected or  attempted.  The  stipulations  either 
relate  to  objects  which  impose  no  municipal  re- 
straints on  the  supremacy  of  Kentucky,  or  are 
merely  declaratory  of  a  reciprocity  of  rights 
and  du  .ies  which  would  have  had  place,  with- 
out such  declaration,  either  by  force  of  the  law 
of  nations  or  the  Federal  Constitution,  but 
were  inserted  from  abundant  caution.  Thus, 
the  lands  of  non-residents  of  Kentucky  were 
not  to  be  taxed  higher  than  the  lands  of  resi- 
dents ;  a  result  which  the  Constitution  of  the 
United  States  had  already  virtually  secured, 
&c.  But,  if  I  am  wrong  in  this,  I  pray  gentle- 
men to  put  their  own  interpretation  on  the 
compact  between  Virginia  and  Kentucky,  and 
show  me  the  aid  they  expect  to  derive  from  it. 
Let  me,  then,  admit  the  compact  stipulates  to 
transfer  or  impair  the  legislative  power  of  one 
of  these  States.  This  transfer,  or  subduction, 
either  deranges  some  of  the  adjustments  of 
power  previously  recognized  by  the  Federal 
Constitution,  or  it  does  not.  If  its  tendency 
be  to  derange  the  distribution  of  powers  made 
by  the  Federal  Constitution,  the  compact  thus 
far,  will  be  void.  But  ifj  on  the  other  hand, 
the  compact  has  no  manner  of  collision  with 
the  Federal  Constitution,  it  will  be  valid,  and 
take  its  full  effect,  and  be  altogether  severed 
out  of  the  residuary  powers  of  these  States, 
which  have  not  been  surrendered  to  this  Gov- 
ernment. I  would  now  submit  this  question : 
It  being  admitted  that  the  States  have  a  capa- 
city, growing  out  of  the  residuary  powers, 
whether  it  will  hence  follow  that  the  Federal 
Government  can,  out  of  its  delegated  powers, 
do  the  same  thing?  I  know  of  no  middle 
terms  to  serve  an  affirmative  conclusion. 

The  same  gentleman  infers  our  power  to  es- 
tablish the  restriction  from  the  capacity  which 
Congress  possesses  for  its  execution.  Congress, 
he  says,  may  agree  with  the  people  of  Mis- 
souri, and  hence  they  will  assent  to  impose  the 


DEBATES  OF  CONGRESS. 


529 


FEBRUARY,  1820.] 


The  Missouri  Bill— Restriction  on  the  State. 


[H. 


restriction  themselves.  And,  if  they  will  not 
otherwise  assent.  Congress  may  thwart  their 
wishes  by  making  the  Missouri  Kiver  the 
boundary  between  contemplated  States,  and  so 
divide  or  subdivide  the  inhabitants  as  will  not 
only  impose  inconvenient  dimensions  on  the 
new  States,  but  cause  a  postponement  of  the 
time  of  their  admission,  until  the  population  of 
each  of  such  divisions  maybe  sufficiently  nu- 
merous to  form  a  State.  I  acknowledge  that 
powerful  means  are  at  the  disposal  of  Congress, 
which  might  produce  a  strong  impression  on 
the  fears  of  those  who  oppose  our  designs. 
Indeed,  Congress,  having  a  legislative  author- 
ity over  the  present  Territory,  could  adopt 
rigid  laws  and  regulations,  to  waste  the  estates 
and  persecute  the  persons  of  the  obdurate  and 
refractory;  nay,  we  could  repeal  the  militia 
system  of  the  Territory,  withdraw  the  frontier 
posts  and  troops,  inhibit  the  passage  of  succors 
across  the  Mississippi,  and  thereby  encourage 
the  Osage,  and  other  Indians,  to  a  war  which 
would  probably  bring  the  Missourians  to  a  more 
mature  consideration  of  the  expediency  of 
adopting  our  projects.  These  means,  which 
partake  of  the  character  of  the  measure  pro- 
posed by  the  gentleman  from  Pennsylvania,  of 
splitting  their  Territory  by  inconvenient  parti- 
tion lines,  manifest  the  physical,  not  the  moral 
power  of  Congress ;  after  the  manner  of  the 
highwayman,  who  demonstrates  to  the  satisfac- 
tion of  his  victim,  his  physical,  but  not  his 
moral  or  just  title  to  the  money  he  designs  to 
acquire;  and  much  in  the  way  of  the  King 
who  prevailed  with  the  Jewish  banker  to  loan 
him  his  money,  by  exercising  over  him  the 
power  (appertaining  to  sovereignty,  too)  of 
drawing  a  tooth  each  day,  until  the  contract  of 
loan  was  ratified. 

If  Congress  has  the  power  to  impose  the  re- 
striction, it  must  first  be  derived  from  the  leg- 
islative powers  of  the  constitution ;  or,  sec- 
ondly, it  must  be  acquired  by  the  capacity  of 
this  Government  to  make  a  compact  for  that 
object  with  Missouri.  Those  who  assent  to 
the  first,  or  legislative  power,  have  relied 
greatly  on  the  clause  which  inhibits  Congress 
from  preventing  the  migration  or  importation 
of  such  persons  as  the  States  may  think  proper 
to  admit  previous  to  the  year  1818,  which  they 
suppose  implies  a  right  in  Congress  to  prohibit 
the  migration  from  State  to  State  after  that 
epoch.  Before  I  submit  my  own  views  in  re- 
lation to  this  clause  of  the  constitution,  permit 
me  to  make  a  remark  in  corroboration  of  the 
opinions  of  the  gentleman  from  Georgia,  (Mr. 
REID,)  and  other  non-restrictionists,  who  con- 
tend that  the  word  migration  was  inserted  in 
the  constitution  from  abundant  caution,  lest  the 
word  importation  should  not  imply  a  full  and 
effectual  authority  sought  to  be  invested  in 
Congress  to  prohibit  the  bringing  in  slaves  from 
foreign  countries,  under  all  circumstances. 

Every  act   of   Congress,  passed  since    the  ] 
adoption  of  the  Government,  to  discourage  or  j 
prohibit  the  foreign  slave  trade,  has  used  terms  i 
VOL.  VI.— 34 


of  prohibition  additional  to,  and  rather  broader 
than,  simple  importation  ;  in  proof  of  which  I 
refer  you  to  the  acts  of  22d  March,  1794;  10th 
May,  1800 ;  28th  February,  1803 ;  2d  March, 
1807;  and  some  amendatory  laws,  of  later 
dates.  Without  pretending  to  say  whether  a 
mere  authority  to  inhibit  the  importation  of 
slaves  would  have  comprehended  the  prohibi- 
tion of  all  the  various  modes  by  which  the  in- 
troduction of  slaves  might  be  effected,  I  would 
merely  remark  that  there  can  be  nothing 
strange  in  believing  that  the  Convention,  in  its 
solicitude  to  prohibit  the  foreign  trade,  might 
have  deemed  it  prudent  to  employ  the  word 
migration  in  addition  to  importation;  as  suc- 
cessive legislative  bodies,  who  certainly  only 
intended  to  prohibit  the  foreign  trade,  have 
adopted  a  similar  method  of  expression.  And, 
although  our  construction  would,  on  a  critical 
scrutiny,  convict  this  portion  of  the  constitu- 
tion of  tautology,  that  of  itself  would  not  in- 
validate the  interpretation ;  for  the  convention 
may  have  deemed  it  better  to  risk  such  impu- 
tation than  a  defeat  or  evasion  of  the  legisla- 
tive powers  of  Congress.  Indeed,  the  consti- 
tution abounds  in  tautological  terms,  instances 
of  which  are  seen  in  the  declarations  that  no 
State  shall  lay  any  imposts  or  duties  on  im- 
ports ;  and  that  no  State  shall  make  any  agree- 
ment or  compact,  &c. 

I  will  beg  leave  to  submit  the  view  of  this 
migration  or  importation  clause,  which  has  pre- 
vailed in  my  mind.  That  this  clause,  which 
only  prohibits  Congress  from  the  exercise  of  a 
branch  of  its  power  until  1808,  does  not  in  it- 
self confer  any  power  on  Congress,  is  yielded 
by  all ;  and,  on  the  other  hand,  I  admit  that 
the  temporary  prohibition  affords  evidence  that 
the  constitution  contains  a  Congressional  power 
after  1808,  correspondent  to  the  prohibition. 
The  admission  I  make  is  of  the  existence  of  such 
power  after  1808 ;  but  the  extent  and  more  pre- 
cise limitations  of  that  power  are  different  con- 
siderations, and  must  be  sought  after  in  some 
other  place ;  for,  if  you  would  make  the  excep- 
tions or  temporary  prohibitions  of  the  consti- 
tution not  only  presumption?  of  the  existence, 
but  evidence  of  the  extent,  of  correspondent 
powers,  where  such  exception  fails  to  operate, 
the  constitution  would  be  totally  perverted,  and 
the  whole  attitude  of  the  Government  become 
inverted.  "Would  you  infer  from  the  prohibi- 
tion to  pass  ex  post  facto  laws,  that  Congress 
can  pass  prospective  laws  in  all  cases  whatso- 
ever ;  or  from  the  prohibition  to  pass  bills  of 
attainder,  a  power  to  pass  all  laws  of  a  general 
nature  to  punish  crimes ;  or  from  the  prohibi- 
tion of  trial  for  capital  offences,  except  by  in- 
dictment, that  this  Government  can,  by  indict- 
ment, punish  all  manner  of  offences?  Or 
would  you  not  rather  consider  these  inhibitions 
as  evidence  of  the  mere  existence  of  corre- 
spondent powers,  for  the  extent  of  which  it  was 
necessary  to  refer  to  some  other  parts  of  the 
constitution,  in  which  the  powers  were  grant- 
ed ?  The  Convention  of  New  York,  in  adopt- 


530 


ABRIDGMENT  OF  THE 


H.  OP  R.] 


The  Missouri  Bill — Restriction  on  the  State. 


[FEBRUARY,  1820. 


ing  the  Federal  Constitution,  accompanied  the 
ratification  with  some  express  declarations ;  one 
of  which  was,  "  that  those  clauses  in  the  said 
constitution  which  declare  that  Congress  shall 
not  have  or  exercise  certain  powers,  do  not  im- 
ply that  Congress  is  entitled  to  any  powers  not 
given  by  the  said  constitution ;  but  such  clauses 
are  to  be  construed  either  as  exceptions  to  cer- 
tain specified  powers,  or  as  inserted  merely  for 
greater  caution."  Similar  declarations  were 
made  by  the  conventions  of  other  States.  I 
am,  therefore,  authorized  to  require  gentlemen 
who  pretend  that  the  migration  and  importa- 
tion clause  is  not  satisfied  by  reference  to  the 
power  of  Congress  over  th«  foreign  slave  trade, 
to  produce  some  other  portion  of  the  constitu- 
tion conferring  a  more  extensive  authority. 

It  is  proposed  to  negotiate  a  compact  or 
treaty  with  Missouri  to  insert  an  irrevocable 
inhibition  against  slavery  in  her  constitution. 
This  House  is  then  made  to  partake  with  the 
President  and  Senate  in  the  treaty-making 
power.  Be  it  so.  The  convention  of  New 
York,  which  ratified  the  Federal  Constitution, 
declared  that  no  treaty  should  he  construed  so 
to  operate  as  to  alter  the  constitution  of  any 
State;  but  the  delegation  from  that  State  seem 
now  to  perceive  that  a  treaty  which  can  effect 
no  sort  of  alteration  of  an  old  constitution  may 
make  a  new  one.  The  proposed  stipulation 
with  Missouri  would  dislocate  the  tenth  article 
of  the  amendments  to  the  constitution,  which 
declares  that  the  powers  not  delegated  to  the 
United  States,  nor  prohibited  by  it  to  the  States, 
are  reserved  to  the  States  respectively,  or  to 
the  people.  This  power  in  relation  to  domes- 
tic slavery  would  not  remain  or  be  reserved  to 
the  State  or  people  of  Missouri,  but  would  be 
withheld  from  them  by  this  Government.  As 
the  restriction  or  compact  with  Missouri  would 
grow  out  of  an  act  of  Congress,  and  as  all  acts 
of  Congress  are  objects  of  cognizance  by  the 
Federal  Judiciary,  this  Government,  through 
its  Executive  and  Judiciary  departments,  would 
succeed  to  a  sort  of  anomalous  and  invidious 
authority  in  the  domestic  concerns  of  the  new 
State,  unlike  what  is  found  in  all  the  other 
States,  and  contrary  to  any  conception  which 
could  have  been  entertained  by  the  framers  of 
the  Confederacy.  The  authors  of  the  Federal- 
ist, in  expounding  the  constitution  to  the  Amer- 
ican people,  and  persuading  them  to  its  ratifica- 
tion, urged  that  no  apprehension  should  be  en- 
tertained of  tyranny,  or  abuse  of  power,  from 
the  General  Government,  inasmuch  as  the  pow- 
ers reserved  to  the  States  over  the  lives,  liber- 
ty, and  property  of  the  people,  would  insure 
to  the  States  a  weight  and  influence  sufficient 
to  check,  and  frequently  eoatrol  the  operations 
of  the  Federal  Government.  But  what  be- 
comes of  the  balances  of  public  security,  (I  ask 
you,)  if  Congress  be  permitted  to  obliterate  the 
great  lines  of  demarcation  established  by  the 
constitution,  by  buying  in  first  one,  and  then 
another,  of  the  reserved  rights  of  the  States  ? 
By  eueh  means  a  few  years  hence  might  pre- 


sent us  a  confederacy  between  this  Government 
and  the  new  Western  States,  very  different  in 
its  character  and  import  from  the  constitution 
of  the  old  thirteen  States,  and  probably  dan- 
gerous to  their  safety,  as  it  would  comprehend 
interests  in  which  they  could  have  no  partici- 
pation. 

The  treaty  of  the  30th  of  April,  1803,  by 
which  France  ceded  Louisiana  to  the  United 
States,  imposes  an  express  obligation  on  this 
Government  to  admit  the  inhabitants  of  the 
ceded  country  into  the  Federal  Union  as  soon 
as  possible.  The  gentleman  from  New  York 
(Mr.  TAYLOR)  has  surprised  us  with  an  avowal 
that  the  Government  was  not,  and  never  would 
be,  bound  to  admit  Missouri  into  the  Union,  as 
a  State,  and  that  the  requisition  of  the  treaty 
would  be  discharged  by  merely  suffering  that 
country  to  remain  appended  by  a  Territorial 
government.  The  terms  of  the  treaty  are, 
however,  too  palpable  to  admit  of  hesitation ; 
they  provide  both  for  the  protection  of  the 
country,  as  a  territory,  and  for  the  admission 
of  the  same  afterwards,  as  a  State  or  States ; 
the  third  article  providing  that  the  inhabitants 
shnll  be  incorporated  in  the  union  of  the  United 
States,  and  admitted,  as  soon  as  possible,  ac- 
cording to  the  principles  of  the  Federal  Con- 
stitution, to  the  enjoyment  of  all  the  rights, 
advantages,  and  immunities,  of  citizens  of  the 
United  States,  and,  in  the  mean  time,  they  shall 
be  protected,  &c.  It  being  not  an  act  of  Con- 
gress, but  the  Federal  Constitution,  which  is  to 
govern  the  admission,  and  it  only  providing  for 
the  admission  of  new  States,  the  admission  as 
a  State  or  States  must  have  been  intended. 
Permit  me  to  ask  the  gentleman  what  is  meant 
by  the  protection  to  be  afforded  in  the  mean 
time,  or  what  that  mean  time  is? 

We  have  long  been  convinced  that  ours  is 
the  only  free  country  on  earth ;  that  the  colo- 
nies adjacent  to  us  are  the  objects  of  tyranny, 
cruelty,  and  oppression,  at  all  times  willing  to 
become  ours  by  revolt  or  otherwise,  and  that 
the  advantage  of  such  connection  is  incalculable 
to  them.  Let  us,  however,  beware  of  the  in- 


pride.  It  is  certain  that  Louisiana  has  been 
aggrandized  by  her  connection  with  the  United 
States,  but  a  review  of  her  condition,  previous 
to  her  change  of  masters,  may  occasion  a  doubt 
whether  the  old  inhabitants,  on  whose  behalf 
the  stipulations  of  the  treaty  were  inserted, 
were  improved  in  their  circumstances  by  the 
cession.  The  Spanish  Government  afforded  the 
inhabitants  their  land,  gratuitously.  By  the 
ordinance  of  1Y93,  the  inhabitants  of  Louisiana 
and  the  Floridas  were  admitted  to  a  free  com- 
merce with  Europe  and  America.  No  excep- 
tion as  to  the  articles  sent  or  to  be  received. 
Tobacco  and  all  other  articles,  the  introduction 
of  which  into  Spain  had  been  prohibited  from 
other  places,  were  allowed  to  be  taken  from 
these  provinces.  The  importation  of  foreign 
rice  into  Spain  was  prohibited  for  the  avowed 
purpose  of  encouraging  its  growth  in  Louisiana 


DEBATES  OF  CONGRESS. 


531 


FEBRUARY,  1820.] 


The  Missouri  Bill— Restriction  on  the  State. 


[H.  or  R. 


and  the  Floridas;  all  articles  exported  from 
Spain  to  these  provinces  were  free  of  duty,  and 
a  drawback  of  the  duties  which  had  been  paid 
on  foreign  articles  was  allowed.  The  articles 
exported  from  those  provinces  to  Spain  were 
free  of  duty,  whether  consumed  in  Spain,  or 
re-exported  to  foreign  countries.  The  same 
ordinance  had  also  provided  that  a  preference 
should  he  given  to  all  the  productions  of  Lou- 
isiana and  the  Floridas,  by  prohibiting  their 
importation  from  foreign  countries,  whenever 
those  provinces  should  produce  sufficient  quan- 
tities for  the  consumption  of  Spain.  The  gov- 
ernments of  these  provinces  were  mild  and 
provident,  having  been  guided  by  a  policy 
which  afforded  a  security  against  Indian  depre- 
dation, which  had  not  always  been  the  good 
fortune  of  our  frontiers.  I  think,  if  this  peo- 
ple were  indeed  miserable,  their  sufferings  were 
not  imputable  to  their  old  Government.  We 
have  divorced  them  from  their  ancient  associa- 
tions, and  given  birth  and  encouragement  in 
that  country  to  new  objects  of  emulation,  by 
engaging  to  couple  their  destiny  (in  the  lan- 
guage of  Governor  Claiborne)  with  our  own 
unexampled  prosperity,  and  the  world  must 
now  witness  with  what  sincerity  or  ill  faith  we 
are  to  meet  the  demand  for  a  performance  of 
our  compact. 

MONDAY,  February  14. 
The  Missouri  Bill. 

Mr.  PIXCKXEY,  of  South  Carolina,  addressed 
the  Chair  as  follows : 

Mr.  Chairman :  It  was  not  my  intention  at 
first,  and  it  is  not  now  my  wish,  to  rise  on  this 
important  question :  one  that  has  been  so  much 
and  so  ably  discussed  in  both  branches  of  Con- 
gress :  one  that  has  been  the  object  of  so  many 
meetings  of  the  people  of  the  different  States, 
and  of  so  many  resolutions  of  the  legislatures, 
and  instructions  to  their  members:  but  I  am 
so  particularly  circumstanced,  that  it  is  impos- 
sible to  avoid  it.  Coming  from  one  of  the  most 
important  of  the  Southern  States,  whose  inter- 
ests are  deeply  involved,  and  representing  here 
a  city  and  district  which,  I  believe,  export  more 
of  our  native  products  than  any  other  in  the 
Union  ;  having  been  also  a  member  of  the  Old 
Congress,  some  important  acts  of  which  are 
brought  into  question  on  this  occasion,  and, 
above  all,  being  the  only  member  of  the  Gen- 
eral Convention  which  formed  the  Constitution 
of  the  United  States,  now  on  this  floor,  and  on 
whose  acts  rests  the  great  question  in  contro- 
versy, how  far  you  are  or  are  not  authorized  to 
adopt  this  measure,  it  will,  from  all  these  cir- 
cumstances, be  seen  that  it  is  impossible  for  me 
to  avoid  requesting  yoor  permission  to  state 
some  observations  in  support  of  the  vote  I  shall 
give  on  a  question,  certainly  the  most  impor- 
tant that  can  come  before  Congress :  one,  to  say 
the  least  of  it,  on  which  may  depend,  not  only 
the  peace,  the  happiness,  and  the  best  interests, 
but,  not  improbably,  the  existence  of  that 


Union  which  has  been,  since  its  formation,  the 
admiration  of  the  world,  and  the  pride,  the 
glory,  and  the  boast,  of  every  American  bosom 
that  beats  within  it. 

In  performing  this  solemn  duty,  I  trust  I 
shall  do  it  with  that  deference  to  the  opinions 
of  others  which  it  is  always  my  duty  to  show 
on  this  respectable  floor,  and  that  I  shall  be  as 
short  as  the  nature  of  the  subject  will  permit, 
and  completely  moderate.  Indeed,  in  questions 
of  this  importance,  moderation  appears  to  me 
to  be  indispensable  to  the  discovery  of  truth. 
I,  therefore,  lament  extremely  that  so  much, 
warmth  has  been  unnecessarily  excited,  and 
shall,  in  the  remarks  I  may  make,  studiously 
avoid,  what  I  conceive  the  decorum  of  debate 
ought  to  enjoin  upon  every  member. 

At  the  time  I  left,  or  sailed,  from  the  city  I 
here  represent,  scarcely  a  word  was  said  of  the 
Missouri  question ;  no  man  there  ever  supposed 
that  one  of  such  magnitude  was  before  you.  I 
therefore,  have,  since  the  serious  aspect  this 
subject  has  assumed,  received  numerous  in- 
quiries on  it,  and  wishes  to  know  my  opinion 
as  to  the  extent  and  consequences  of  it.  I 
have  candidly  replied,  that,  so  far  as  respects 
the  regaining  an  ascendency  on  both  the  floors 
of  Congress ;  of  regaining  the  possession  of  the 
honors  and  offices  of  our  Government ;  and  of, 
through  this  measure,  laying  the  foundation  of 
forever  securing  their  ascendency,  and  the 
powers  of  the  Government,  the  Eastern  and 
Northern  States  had  a  high  and  deep  interest. 
That,  so  far  as  respects  the  retaining  the  hon- 
ors and  offices  and  the  powers  of  the  Govern- 
ment, and  the  preventing  the  establishment  of 
principles  to  interfere  with  them,  the  Southern 
and  Western  States  had  equal  interest  with  the 
Northern.  But,  that,  when  we  consider  to 
what  lengths  the  right  of  Congress  to  touch  the 
question  of  slavery  at  all  might  reach,  it  be- 
came one,  indeed,  of  tremendous  import. 

Among  the  reasons  which  have  induced  me 
to  rise,  one  is  to  express  my  surprise.  Sur- 
prise, did  I  say  ?  I  ought  rather  to  have  said, 
my  extreme  astonishment,  at  the  assertion  I 
heard  made  on  both  floors  of  Congress,  that,  in 
forming  the  Constitution  of  the  United  States, 
and  particularly  that  part  of  it  which  respects 
the  representation  on  this  floor,  the  Northern 
and  Eastern  States,  or,  as  they  are  now  called, 
the  non-slaveholding  States,  have  made  a  great 
concession  to  the  Southern,  in  granting  them  a 
representation  of  three-fifths  of  their  slaves; 
that  they  saw  the  concession  was  a  very  great 
and  important  one  at  the  time,  but  that  they 
had  no  idea  it  would  so  soon  have  proved  itself 
of  such  consequence ;  that  it  would  so  soon  have 
proved  itself  to  be  by  far  the  most  important 
concession  that  had  been  made.  They  say,  that 
it  was  wrung  from  them  by  their  affection  to  the 
Union,  and  their  wish  to  preserve  it  from  dis- 
solution or  disunion ;  that  they  had,  for  a  long 
tune,  lamented  they  had  made  it ;  and  that,  if 
it  was  to  do  over,  no  earthly  consideration 
should  again  tempt  them  to  agree  to  so  unequal 


532 


ABRIDGMENT  OF  THE 


H.  OP  R.] 


The  Missouri  Bill — Restriction  on  the  State. 


[FEBRUARY,  1820. 


and  BO  ruinous  a  compromise.  By  this,  I  sup- 
pose, Mr.  Chairman,  is  meant,  that  they  could 
have  had  no  idea  that  the  Western  and  South- 
ern States  would  have  grown  with  the  rapidity 
they  have,  and  filled  so  many  of  the  seats  in 
this  House ;  in  other  words,  that  they  would  so 
soon  have  torn  the  sceptre  from  the  East. 

It  was,  sir,  for  the  purpose  of  correcting  this 
great  and  unpardonable  error;  unpardonable, 
because  it  is  a  wilful  one,  and  the  error  of  it  is 
well  known  to  the  ablest  of  those  who  make 
it ;  of  denying  the  assertion,  and  proving  that 
the  contrary  is  the  fact,  and  that  the  concession, 
on  that  occasion,  was  from  the  Southern  and 
the  "Western  States,  that,  among  others,  I  have 
risen. 

It  is  of  the  greatest  consequence  that  the 
proof  I  am  about  to  give  should  be  laid  before 
this  nation  ;  for,  as  the  inequality  of  represent- 
ation is  the  great  ground  on  which  the  North- 
ern and  Eastern  States  have  always,  and  now 
more  particularly  and  forcibly  than  ever,  raised 
all  their  complaints  on  this  subject,  if  I  can 
show  and  prove  that  they  have  not  even  a 
shadow  of  right  to  make  pretences  or  com- 
plaints ;  that  they  are  as  fully  represented  as 
they  ought  to  be ;  while  we,  the  Southern  mem- 
bers, are  unjustly  deprived  of  any  representa- 
tion for  a  large  and  important  part  of  our  pop- 
ulation, more  valuable  to  the  Union,  as  can  be 
shown,  than  an  equal  number  of  inhabitants  in 
the  Northern  and  Eastern  States  can,  from  their 
situation,  climate,  and  productions,  possibly  be. 
If  I  can  prove  this,  I  think  I  shall  be  able  to 
show  most  clearly  the  true  motives  which  have 
given  rise  to  this  measure ;  to  strip  the  thin, 
the  cobweb  veil  from  it,  as  well  as  the  pre- 
tended ones  of  religion,  humanity,  and  love  of 
liberty ;  and  to  show,  to  use  the  soft  terms  the 
decorum  of  debate  oblige  me  to  use,  the  ex- 
treme want  of  modesty  in  those  who  are  al- 
ready as  fully  represented  here  as  they  can  be, 
to  go  the  great  lengths  they  do  in  endeavoring, 
by  every  effort  in  their  power,  public  and  pri- 
vate, to  take  from  the  Southern  and  Western 
States,  which  are  already  so  greatly  and  un- 
justly deprived  of  an  important  part  of  the 
representation,  a  still  greater  share ;  to  endeavor 
to  establish  the  first  precedent,  which  extreme 
rashness  and  temerity  have  ever  presumed, 
that  Congress  has  a  right  to  touch  the  question 
and  legislate  on  slavery  ;  thereby  shaking  the 
property  in  them,  in  the  Southern  and  Western 
States,  to  its  very  foundation,  and  making  an 
attack  which,  if  successful,  must  convince  them 
that  the  Northern  and  Eastern  States  are  their 
greatest  enemies ;  that  they  are  preparing 
measures  for  them  which  even  Great  Britain, 
in  the  heat  of  the  Eevolutionary  war,  and 
when  all  her  passions  were  roused  by  hatred 
and  revenge  to  the  highest  pitch,  never  ven- 
tured to  inflict  upon  them.  Instead  of  a  course 
like  this,  they  ought,  in  my  judgment,  sir,  to 
be  highly  pleased  with  their  present  situation  ; 
that  they  are  fully  represented,  while  we  have 
lost  so  great  a  share  of  our  representation ; 


they  ought,  sir,  to  be  highly  pleased  at  the  dex- 
terity and  management  of  their  members  in 
the  Convention,  who  obtained  for  them  this 
great  advantage ;  and,  above  all,  with  the  mod- 
eration and  forbearance  with  which  the  South- 
ern and  Western  States  have  always  borne 
their  many  bitter  provocations  on  this  subject, 
and  now  bear  the  open,  avowed,  and,  by  many 
of  the  ablest  men  among  them,  undisguised  at- 
tack on  our  most  valuable  rights  and  proper- 
ties. 

At  the  commencement  of  our  Revolutionary 
struggle  with  Great  Britain,  all  the  States  had 
slaves.  The  New  England  States  had  numbers 
of  them,  and  treated  them  in  the  same  manner 
the  Southern  did.  The  Northern  and  Middle 
States  had  still  more  numerous  bodies  of  them, 
although  not  so  numerous  as  the  Southern. 
They  all  entered  into  that  great  contest  with 
similar  views,  properties,  and  designs.  Like 
brethren,  they  contended  for  the  benefit  of  the 
whole,  leaving  to  each  the  right  to  pursue  its 
happiness  in  its  own  way. 

They  thus  nobly  toiled  and  bled  together, 
really  like  brethren ;  and  it  is  a  most  remarka- 
ble tact  that,  notwithstanding  in  the  course  of 
the  Revolution  the  Southern  States  were  con- 
tinually overrun  by  the  British,  and  that  every 
negro  in  them  had  an  opportunity  of  leaving 
then-  owners,  few  did;  proving  thereby  not  only 
a  most  remarkable  attachment  to  their  owners, 
but  the  mildness  of  the  treatment,  from  which 
their  affection  sprang.  They  then  were,  as 
they  still  are,  as  valuable  a  part  of  our  popula- 
tion to  the  Union  as  any  other  equal  number  of 
inhabitants.  They  were,  in  numerous  in- 
stances, the  pioneers,  and  in  all  the  laborers,  of 
your  armies.  To  their  hands  were  owing  the 
erection  of  the  greatest  part  of  the  fortifications 
raised  for  the  protection  of  our  country ;  some 
of  which,  particularly  Fort  Moultrie,  gave,  at 
that  early  period  of  the  inexperience  and  un- 
tried valor  of  our  citizens,  immortality  to 
American  arms;  and  in  the  Northern  States 
numerous  bodies  of  them  were  enrolled  into 
and  fought  by  the  sides  of  the  whites  the  bat- 
tles of  the  Revolution. 

Things  went  on  in  this  way  until  the  period 
of  our  attempt  to  form  our  first  national  com- 
pact, the  Confederation,  in  which  the  equality 
of  vote  was  preserved,  and  the  first  squeamish- 
ness  on  the  subject  of  not  using,  or  even  allud- 
ing to,  the  word  slavery,  or  making  it  a  part  of 
our  political  machinery,  was  shown.  In  this 
compact,  the  value  of  the  lands  and  improve- 
ments was  made  the  rule  for  apportioning  the 
public  burdens  and  taxes.  But  the  Northern 
and  Eastern  States,  who  are  always  much  more 
alive  to  their  interests  than  the  Southern,  found 
that  their  squeamishness  was  inconsistent  with 
their  interest ;  and,  as  usual,  made  the  latter 
prevail.  They  found  it  was  paying  too  dear 
for  their  qualms  to  keep  their  hand  from  the 
slaves  any  longer.  At  then"  instance,  and  on 
their  motion,  as  will  appear  by  a  reference  to 
the  Journals  of  the  Old  Congress,  the  making 


DEBATES  OF  CONGRESS. 


533 


FEBRUARY,  1820.] 


The  Missouri  Bill— Restriction  on  the  State. 


[H.  OF  R 


lands  the  rule  was  changed,  and  people,  includ- 
ing the  whites  and  three-fifths  of  other  de- 
scriptions was  adopted.  It  was  not  until  in 
1781,  that  the  Confederation  was  adopted  by, 
and  became  binding  on,  all  the  States.  This 
miserable,  feeble  mockery  of  Government 
crawled  on  until  1785,  when,  from  New  York's 
refusing  to  agree  with  all  the  States  to  grant  to 
Congress  the  impost,  (I  am  not  sure,  but  I  be- 
lieve she  stood  alone  in  the  refusal,)  the  States 
determined  no  longer  to  put  up  with  her  con- 
duct, and  absolutely  rebelled  against  the  Gov- 
ernment. The  first  State  that  did  so  was  New 
Jersey,  who,  by  a  solemn  act,  passed  in  all  its 
proper  forms  by  her  legislature  and  government, 
most  positively  and  absolutely  refused  any 
longer  to  obey  the  requisitions  of  Congress,  or 
to  pay  another  dollar.  As  there  was  no  doubt 
other  States  would  soon  follow  their  example — 
as  Pennsylvania  shortly  did — Congress,  aware 
of  the  mischiefs  which  must  arise  if  a  dissolution 
took  place  of  the  Union  before  a  new  Govern- 
ment could  be  formed,  sent  a  deputation  of 
their  own  body  to  address  the  Legislature  of 
New  Jersey,  of  which  I  was  appointed  chair- 
man. We  did  repair  there,  and  addressed  them, 
and  I  had  the  honor  and  happiness  to  carry  back 
with  me  to  Congress  the  repeal  of  her  act  by 
New  Jersey — a  State,  during  the  whole  of  the 
Revolutionary  war,  celebrated  for  her  patriot- 
ism, and  who,  in  this  noble  self-denial,  and 
forgetfulness  of  injuries  inflicted  by  New  York 
on  her  and  the  rest  of  the  Union,  exhibited  a 
disinterestedness  and  love  of  Union  which  did 
her  the  highest  honor. 

The  revolt  of  New  Jersey  and  Pennsylvania 
accelerated  the  new  constitution.  On  a  motion 
from  Virginia  the  Convention  met  at  Philadel- 
phia, where,  as  you  will  find  from  the  Journals, 
we  were  repeatedly  in  danger  of  dissolving 
without  doing  any  thing;  that  body  being 
equally  divided  as  to  large  and  small  States,  and 
each  having  a  vote,  and  the  small  States  insisting 
most  pertinaciously,  for  near  six  weeks,  on 
equal  power  in  both  branches — nothing  but  the 
prudence  and  forbearance  of  the  large  States 
saved  the  Union.  A  compromise  was  made, 
that  the  small  States  and  large  should  be  equally 
represented  in  the  Senate,  and  proportionally 
in  the  House  of  Representatives.  I  am  now 
arrived  at  the  reason  for  which  I  have,  sir, 
taken  the  liberty  to  make  these  preliminary 
remarks.  For,  as  the  true  motive  for  all  this 
dreadful  clamor  throughout  the  Union,  this 
serious  and  eventful  attack  on  our  most  sacred 
and  valuable  rights  and  properties,  is,  to  gain  a 
fixed  ascendency  in  the  representation  in  Con- 
gress; and,  as  the  only  flimsy  excuse  under 
which  the  Northern  and  Eastern  States  shelter 
themselves,  is,  that  they  have  been  hardly 
treated  in  the  representation  in  this  House,  and 
that  they  have  lost  the  benefit  of  the  compro- 
mise they  pretend  was  made,  and  which  I  shall 
most  positively  deny,  and  show  that  nothing 
like  a  compromise  was  ever  intended. 

By  all  the  public  expenses  being  borne  by  in- 


direct taxes,  and  not  direct,  as  was  expected ; 
if  I  can  show  that  all  their  pretensions  and 
claims  are  wholly  untrue  and  unfounded,  and 
that  while  they  are  fully  represented,  they  did, 
by  force,  or  something  like  it,  deprive  us  of  a 
rightful  part  of  our  representation,  I  shall  then 
be  able  to  take  the  mask  from  all  their  pretend- 
ed reasons  and  excuses,  and  show  this  unpar- 
donable attack,  this  monster,  in  its  true  and 
uncovered  hideousness. 

Long  before  our  present  public  distresses  had 
convinced  even  the  most  ignorant  and  unin- 
formed politician  of  the  truth  of  the  maxim  I 
am  about  to  mention,  all  the  well-informed 
statesmen  of  our  Union  knew  that  the  only  true 
mode  for  a  large  agricultural  and  commercial 
country  to  flourish,  was  never  to  import  more 
than  they  can  pay  for  by  the  export  of  their 
own  native  products ;  that,  if  they  do,  they  will 
be  sure  to  plunge  themselves  into  the  distressing 
and  disgraceful  situation  this  country  is  in  at 
present. 

If,  then,  this  great  political  truth  or  maxim, 
or  call  it  what  you  please,  is  most  unquestion- 
able, let  us  now  see  who  supports  this  Govern- 
ment; who  raises  your  armies,  equips  your 
navies,  pays  your  public  debt,  enables  you  to 
erect  forts,  arsenals,  and  dock  yards.  Who 
nerves  the  arm  of  this  Government  and  enables 
you  to  lift  it  for  the  protection,  the  honor,  and 
extension  of  our  beloved  Republic  into  regions 
where  none  but  brutes  and  savages  have  before 
roamed?  Who  are  your  real  sinews  in  war, 
and  the  best — I  had  almost  said  nearly  the 
only — sinews  and  sources  of  your  commerce  in 
peace  ?  I  will  presently  tell  you. 

If,  as  no  doubt,  you  will  in  future  confine 
your  imports  to  the  amount  of  your  exports  of 
native  products,  and  all  your  revenue  is  to  be, 
as  it  is  now,  raised  by  taxes  or  duties  on  your 
imports,  I  ask  you  who  pays  the  expense,  and 
who,  in  fact,  enables  you  to  go  on  with  your 
Government  at  all,  and  prevents  its  wheels  from 
stopping  ?  I  will  show  you  by  the  papers  which 
I  hold  in  my  hand.  This,  sir,  is  your  Secretary 
of  the  Treasury's  report,  made  a  few  weeks 
ago,  by  which  it  appears  that  all  the  exports  of 
native  products,  from  Maine  to  Pennsylvania, 
inclusive,  for  the  last  year,  amounted  to  only 
about  eighteen  millions  of  dollars ;  while  those 
among  the  slaveholding  States,  to  the  south- 
ward of  Pennsylvania,  amounted  to  thirty-two 
millions  or  thereabouts,  thereby  enabling  them- 
selves, or  acquiring  the  right,  to  import  double 
as  much  as  the  others,  and  furnishing  the  Treas- 
ury with  double  the  amount  the  Northern  and 
Eastern  States  do.  And  here  let  me  ask,  from 
whence  do  these  exports  arise  ?  By  whose 
hands  are  they  made  ?  I  answer,  entirely  by 
the  slaves ;  and  yet  these  valuable  inhabitants, 
without  whom  your  very  Government  could 
not  go  on,  and  the  labor  of  two  or  three  of 
whom  in  the  Southern  States  is  more  valuable 
to  it  than  the  labor  of  five  of  their  inhabitants 
in  the  Eastern  States,  the  States  owning  and 
possessing  them  are  denied  a  representation  but 


534 


ABRIDGMENT  OF  THE 


H.  OP  R.] 


The  Missouri  Bill — Restriction  on  the  State. 


[FEBBUAKY,  1820. 


for  three-fifths  on  this  floor,  while  the  whole  of 
the  comparatively  unproductive  inhabitants  of 
the  Northern  and  Eastern  States  are  fully  rep- 
resented here.  Is  it  just — is  this  equal?  And 
yet  they  have  the  modesty  to  complain  of  the 
representation,  as  unjust  and  unequal ;  and  that 
they  have  not  the  return  made  them  they  ex- 
pected, by  taxing  the  slaves,  and  making  them 
bear  a  proportion  of  the  public  burdens.  Some 
writers  on  political  economy  are  of  opinion  that 
the  representation  of  a  State  ought  always  to 
be  equally  founded  on  population  and  taxation. 
It  is  my  duty  to  believe  that  these  are  the  true 
criterions ;  for  my  own  State  (South  Carolina) 
having,  in  her  House  of  Representatives,  124 
members,  62  of  them  are  apportioned  by  the 
white  population,  and  62  on  taxation ;  thus  rep- 
resenting the  contributions  of  our  citizens  in 
every  way,  whether  arising  from  services  or 
taxes. 

Before  I  proceed  to  the  other  parts  of  this 
question,  I  have  thus  endeavored  to  give  a  new 
view  of  the  subject  of  representation  in  this 
House ;  to  show  now  much  more  the  Eastern 
and  Northern  States  are  represented  than  the 
Southern  and  Western;  how  little  right  the 
former  have  to  complain,  and  how  unreasonable 
it  is  that,  while,  to  continue  the  balance  of  rep- 
resentation in  the  Senate,  we  consent  to  give  ad- 
mission to  Maine,  to  make  up  for  Missouri,  they 
most  unconscionably  require  to  have  both,  and 
thus  add  four  to  the  number  now  preparing, 
most  cruelly,  to  lift  the  arm  of  the  Government 
against  the  property  of  the  Southern  and  West- 
ern States. 

If  I  have  succeeded,  as  I  hope  I  have,  in  prov- 
ing the  unreasonableness  of  the  complaints  of 
the  Eastern  and  Northern  States  on  the  subject 
of  representation,  it  would,  I  suppose,  appear 
extraordinary  to  the  people  of  this  nation  that 
this  attempt  should  now  be  made,  even  if  Con- 
gress should  be  found  to  possess  the  right  to 
legislate  or  interfere  in  it.  But  if,  in  addition 
to  this,  it  should  be  in  my  power  to  show  that 
they  have  not  the  most  distant  right  to  inter- 
fere, or  to  legislate  at  all  upon  the  subject  of 
slavery,  or  to  admit  a  State  in  any  way  what- 
ever except  on  terms  of  perfect  equality ;  that 
they  have  no  right  to  make  compacts  on  the 
subject,  and  that  the  only  power  they  have  is 
to  see  that  the  government  of  the  State  to  be 
admitted  is  a  republican  one,  having  legislative, 
executive,  and  judiciary  powers,  the  rights  of 
conscience,  jury,  a  habeas  corpus,  and  all  the 
great  leading  principles  of  our  republican  sys- 
tems, well  secured,  and  to  guarantee  them  to  it : 
if  I  shall  be  able  to  do  this,  of  course  the  attempt 
must  fail,  aud  the  amendment  be  rejected. 

The  supporters  of  the  amendment  contend 
that  Congress  have  the  right  to  insist  on  the 
prevention  of  involuntary  servitude  in  Missouri ; 
and  found  the  right  on  the  ninth  section  of  the 
first  article,  which  says,  "•  the  migration  or  im- 
portation of  such  persons  as  the  States  now 
existing  may  think  proper  to  admit,  shall  not 
be  prohibited  by  the  Congress  prior  to  the  year 


1808,  but  a  tax  or  duty  may  be  imposed  on 
such  importation  not  exceeding  ten  dollars." 

In  considering  this  article,  I  will  detail,  as 
far  as  at  this  distant  period  is  possible,  what 
was  the  intention  of  the  Convention  that  formed 
the  constitution  in  this  article.  The  intention 
was,  to  give  Congress  a  power,  after  the  year 
1808,  to  prevent  the  importation  of  slaves 
either  by  land  or  water  from  other  countries. 
The  word  import,  includes  both,  and  applies 
wholly  to  slaves.  Without  this  limitation,  Con- 
gress might  have  stopped  it  sooner  under  their 
general  power  to  regulate  commerce;  and  it 
was  an  agreed  point,  a  solemnly  understood 
compact,  that,  on  the  Southern  States  consent- 
ing to  shut  their  ports  against  the  importation 
of  Africans,  no  power  was  to  be  delegated  to 
Congress,  nor  were  they  ever  to  be  authorized 
to  touch  the  question  of  slavery  ;  that  the  prop- 
erty of  the  Southern  States  in  slaves  was  to  be 
as  sacredly  preserved,  and  protected  to  them, 
as  that  of  land,  or  any  other  kind  of  property 
in  the  Eastern  States  were  to  be  to  their  citizens. 

The  term,  or  word,  migration,  applies  wholly 
to  free  whites ;  in  its  constitutional  sense,  as  in- 
tended by  the  Convention,  it  means  "  voluntary 
change  of  servitude,"  from  one  country  to  an- 
other. The  reasons  of  its  being  adopted  and 
used  in  the  constitution,  as  far  as  I  can  recollect, 
were  these :  that  the  constitution,  being  a  frame 
of  government,  consisting  wholly  of  delegated 
powers,  all  power,  not  expressly  delegated, 
being  reserved  to  the  people  or  the  States,  it 
was  supposed,  that,  without  some  express  grant 
to  them  of  power  on  the  subject,  Congress  would 
not  be  authorized  ever  to  touch  the  question  of 
migration  hither,  or  emigration  to  this  country, 
however  pressing  or  urgent  the  necessity  for 
such  a  measure  might  be;  that  they  could 
derive  no  such  power  from  the  usages  of  na- 
tions, or  even  the  laws  of  war ;  that  the  latter 
would  only  enable  them  to  make  prisoners  of 
alien  enemies,  which  would  not  be  sufficient, 
as  spies  or  other  dangerous  emigrants,  who 
were  not  alien  enemies,  might  enter  the  coun- 
try for  treasonable  purposes,  and  do  great  in- 
jury; that,  as  all  Governments  possessed  this 
power,  it  was  necessary  to  give  it  to  our  own, 
which  could  alone  exercise  it,  and  where,  on 
other  and  much  greater  points,  we  had  placed 
unlimited  confidence ;  it  was,  therefore,  agreed 
that,  in  the  same  article,  the  word  migration 
should  be  placed;  and  that,  from  the  year  1808, 
Congress  should  possess  the  complete  power  to 
stop  either  or  both,  as  they  might  suppose  the 

rblic  interest  required ;  the  article,  therefore, 
a  negative  pregnant,  restraining  for  twenty 
years,  and  giving  the  power  after. 

The  reasons  for  restraining  the  power  to  pre- 
vent migration  hither  for  twenty  years,  were, 
to  the  best  of  my  recollection,  these :  That,  as 
at  this  time,  we  had  immense  and  almost  im- 
measurable territory,  peopled  by  not  more  than 
two  millions  and  a  half  of  inhabitants,  it  was 
of  very  great  consequence  to  encourage  the 
emigration,  of  able,  skilful,  and  industrious 


DEBATES  OF  CONGRESS. 


FEBRUARY,  1820.] 


The  Missouri  Bill— Restriction  on  the  State. 


[H.  or  R. 


Europeans.  The  wise  conduct  of  William  Penn, 
and  the  unexampled  growth  of  Pennsylvania, 
were  cited.  It  was  said,  that  the  portals  of  the 
only  temple  of  true  freedom  now  existing  on 
earth  should  be  thrown  open  to  all  mankind ; 
that  all  foreigners  of  industrious  habits  should 
be  welcome,  and  none  more  so  than  men  of 
science,  and  such  as  may  bring  to  us  arts  we  are 
unacquainted  with,  or  the  means  of  perfecting 
those  in  which  we  are  not  yet  sufficiently  skilled 
— capitalists  whose  wealth  may  add  to  our  com- 
merce or  domestic  improvements;  let  tho  door  be 
ever  and  most  affectionately  open  to  illustrious 
exiles  and  sufferers  in  the  cause  of  liberty ;  in 
short,  open  it  liberally  to  science,  to  merit,  and 
talents,  wherever  found,  and  receive  and  make 
them  your  own.  That  the  safest  mode  would  be 
to  pursue  the  course  for  twenty  years,  and  not, 
before  that  period,  put  it  at  all  into  the  power 
of  Congress  to  shut  it ;  that,  by  that  time,  the 
Union  would  be  so  settled,  and  our  population 
would  be  so  much  increased,  we  could  proceed 
on  our  own  stock,  without  the  farther  accession 
of  foreigners ;  that,  as  Congress  were  to  be  pro- 
hibited from  stopping  the  importation  of  slaves 
to  settle  the  Southern  States,  as  no  obstacle 
was  to  be  thrown  in  the  way  of  their  increase 
and  settlement  for  that  period,  let  it  be  so  with 
the  Northern  and  Eastern,  to  which,  particularly 
New  York  and  Philadelphia,  it  was  expected 
most  of  the  emigrants  would  go  from  Europe  : 
and  it  so  happened,  for,  previous  to  the  year 
1808.  more  than  double  as  many  Europeans  em- 
igrated to  these  States,  as  of  Africans  were  im- 
ported into  the  Southern  States. 

The  people  of  Europe,  from  their  total  igno- 
rance of  our  country  and  Government,  have  al- 
ways augured  that  its  great  extent,  when  it 
came  to  be  thickly  peopled,  would  occasion  its 
separation ;  this  is  still  the  opinion  of  all,  and 
the  hope  of  many  there ;  whereas,  nothing  can 
be  more  true  in  our  politics  than  that,  in  pro- 
portion to  the  increase  of  the  State  governments, 
the  strength  and  solidity  of  the  Federal  Gov- 
ernment are  augmented ;  so  that,  with  twenty 
or  twenty-two  governments,  we  shall  be  much 
more  secure  from  disunion  than  with  twelve, 
and  ten  times  mere  so  than  if  we  were  a  single 
or  consolidated  one.  By  the  individual  States 
exercising,  as  they  do,  all  the  powers  necessary 
for  municipal  or  individual  purposes — trying  all 
questions  of  property,  and  punishing  all  crimes 
not  belonging,  in  either  case,  to  the  federal 
courts,  and  leaving  the  General  Government  at 
leisure  and  in  a  situation  solely  to  devote  itself 
to  the  exercise  of  the  great  powers  of  war  and 
peace,  commerce  and  our  connections  with 
foreigners,  and  all  the  natural  authorities,  dele- 
gated by  the  constitution,  it  eases  them  of  a 
vast  quantity  of  business  that  would  very  much 
disturb  the  exercise  of  their  general  powers. 
Nor  is  it  clear  that  any  single  government,  in  a 
country  so  extensive,  could  transmit  the  full 
influence  of  the  laws  necessary  to  local  purposes 
through  all  its  parts;  whereas,  the  Stati- L'«>V- 
ernments,  having  all  a  convenient  surrounding 


territory,  exercise  these  powers  with  ease,  and 
are  always  at  hand  to  give  aid  to  the  federal 
tribunals  and  officers  placed  among  them  to 
execute  their  laws,  should  assistance  be  neces- 
sary. Another  great  advantage  is,  the  almost 
utter  impossibility  of  erecting  among  them  the 
standard  of  faction,  to  any  alarming  degree, 
against  the  Union,  so  as  to  threaten  its  dissolu- 
tion, or  produce  changes  in  any  but  a  constitu- 
tional way.  It  is  well  known  that  faction  is 
always  much  more  easy  and  dangerous  in  small 
than  large  countries;  and  when  we  consider 
that,  to  the  security  afforded  by  the  extent  of 
our  territory  are  to  be  added,  the  guards  of  the 
State  Legislatures,  which  being  selected  as  they 
are,  and  always  the  most  proper  organs  of  their 
citizens'  opinions  as  to  the  measures  of  the 
General  Government,  stand  as  alert  and  faith- 
ful sentinels  to  disprove,  as  they  did  in  the 
times  that  are  past,  such  acts  as  appear  impolitic 
or  unconstitutional,  or  to  approve  and  support, 
as  they  have  frequently  done  since,  such  as  were 
patriotic  or  praiseworthy.  With  such  guards 
it  is  impossible  for  any  serious  opposition  to  be 
made  to  the  Federal  Government  on  slight  or 
trivial  grounds ;  nor,  through  such  an  extent  of 
territory  or  number  of  States,  would  any  but 
the  most  tyrannical  or  corrupt  acts  claim  serious 
attention;  and,  whenever  they  occur,  we  can 
always  safely  trust  to  a  sufficient  number  of 
the  States  arraying  themselves  in  a  manner  to 
produce  by  their  influence  the  necessary  reforms, 
in  a  peaceable  and  legal  mode.  With  twenty- 
four  or  more  States  it  will  be  impossible,  sir, 
for  four  or  five  States,  or  any  comparatively 
small  number,  ever  to  threaten  the  existence  of 
the  Union.  They  will  be  easily  seen  through 
by  the  other  eighteen  or  twenty,  and  frowned 
into  insignificance  and  submission  to  the  general 
will,  in  all  cases  where  the  proceedings  of  the 
Federal  Government  are  approved  by  them. 
And,  even  in  cases  where  doubts  may  arise  as 
to  the  wisdom  or  policy  of  their  measures,  all 
factious  measures  will  bte  made  to  wait  consti- 
tutional redress,  in  the  peaceable  manner  pre- 
scribed by  the  constitution. 

Without  the  instrumentality  of  the  States  in 
a  country  so  large  and  free,  and  with  their  Gov 
ernment  at  a  great  distance  from  its  extremities, 
there  would  be  considerable  danger  of  faction ; 
but  at  present  there  is  very  little,  and,  as  the 
States  increase,  the  danger  will  lessen ;  and  it 
is  this  admirable  expanding  principle  or  system, 
if  I  may  use  the  term,  which,  while  it  carries 
new  States  and  governments  into  our  forests 
and  increases  the  population  and  resources  of 
the  Union,  must  unquestionably,  at  the  same 
time,  add  to  its  means  to  resist  and  repress  with 
ease  all  attacks  of  foreign  hostility  or  domestic 
faction.  It  is  this  system,  which  is  not  at  all 
understood  in  Europe  and  too  little  among  our- 
selves, that  will  long  keep  us  a  strong  and  unit- 
ed people ;  nor  do  I  see  any  question,  but  the 
one  which  respects  slavery,  that  can  ever  divide 
us. 

The  question  being  the  admission  of  a  new 


536 


ABRIDGMENT  OF  THE 


H.  OF  R.] 


The  Missouri  Bill — Restriction  on  the  State. 


[FEBRUARY, 


State,  I  hope  these  remarks  will  be  considered 
as  in  point,  as  they  go  to  show  the  importance 
of  the  State  governments,  and  how  really  and 
indeed  indispensably  they  are  the  pillars  of  the 
Federal  Government,  and  how  anxious  we 
should  be  to  strengthen  and  not  to  impair  them, 
to  make  them  all  the  strong  and  equal  sup- 
porters of  the  federal  system. 

With  respect  to  Louisiana,  Congress  have 
already  by  their  acts  solemnly  ratified  the  treaty 
which  extends  to  all  the  States,  created  out  of 
that  purchase,  the  benefits  of  an  admission  into 
the  Union  on  equal  terms  with  the  old  States ; 
they  gave  to  Louisiana  first,  and  afterwards  to 
Missouri  and  Arkansas,  Territorial  governments, 
in  all  of  which  they  agreed  to  the  admission  of 
slaves.  Louisiana  was  incorporated  into  the 
Union,  allowing  their  admission ;  Missouri  was 
advanced  to  the  second  grade  of  Territorial  gov- 
ernment, without  the  prohibition  of  slavery : 
thus,  for  more  than  sixteen  years,  Missouri  con- 
sidered herself  precisely  in  the  situation  of  her 
sister  Louisiana,  and  many  thousands  of  slaves 
have  been  carried  by  settlers  there.  To  deny 
it,  then,  now,  will  operate  as  a  snare,  unworthy 
the  faith  of  this  Government.  What  is  to  be 
done?  Are  the  slaves  now  there  to  be  man- 
umitted, or  their  masters  obliged  to  carry  them 
away,  break  up  all  their  settlements,  and,  in 
this  unjust  and  unexpected  manner,  to  be  hurled 
into  ruin  ?  If  we  are  to  pay  no  respect  to  the 
constitution,  or  to  treaties,  are  we  to  pay  no 
respect  to  our  own  laws,  by  which  the  faith  of 
the  nation  has,  for  sixteen  years,  been  solemnly 
pledged,  that  no  prohibition  would  take  place, 
as  to  slavery,  in  those  States  ?  I  have  said  so 
much,  to  show  how  important  it  is  to  the  firm- 
ness and  duration  of  the  American  Union,  to 
preserve  the  States  and  their  government  in  the 
full  possession  of  all  the  rights  secured  by  the 
constitution. 

I  have  hitherto  said  nothing  of  the  treaty,  as 
I  consider  the  rights  of  Missouri  to  rest  on  the 
constitution  so  strongly,  as  not  to  require  the  aid 
of  the  treaty.  But,  I  will,  at  the  same  time 
say,  that,  if  there  was  no  right  under  the  con- 
stitution, the  treaty,  of  itself,  is  sufficient,  and 
fully  so,  to  give  it  to  her.  Let  us,  however, 
shortly  examine  the  treaty.  The  words  are 
these :  "  The  inhabitants  of  the  ceded  territory 
shall  be  incorporated  in  the  Union  of  the  Unit- 
ed States,  and  admitted,  as  soon  as  possible,  ac- 
cording to  the  principles  of  the  Federal  Consti- 
tution, to  the  enjoyment  of  all  the  rights,  ad- 
vantages, and  immunities,  of  the  citizens  of  the 
United  States."  Of  these  it  is  particularly  ob- 
servable, that,  to  leave  no  doubt  on  the  mind 
of  either  of  the  Governments  which  formed  it, 
or  of  any  impartial  man,  so  much  pains  are 
taken  to  secure  to  Louisiana  all  the  rights  of 
the  States  of  the  American  Union,  a  singular 
and  uncommon  surplusage  is  introduced  into 
the  article.  Either  of  the  words,  immunities, 
rights,  or  advantages,  would  have  been,  of  it- 
self, fully  sufficient.  Immunity  means  privi- 
lege, exemption,  freedom — right  means  justice, 


just  claim,  privilege — advantage  means  conven- 
ience, gain,  benefit,  favorable  to  circumstances. 
If  either  word,  therefore,  is  sufficient  to  give 
her  a  right  to  be  placed  on  an  equal  footing 
with  the  other  States,  who  shall  doubt  of  her 
right,  when  you  now  find  that  your  Govern- 
ment has  solemnly  pledged  herself  to  bestow  on, 
and  guarantee  to,  Louisiana  all  the  privileges, 
exemptions,  and  freedom,  rights,  immunities, 
and  advantages,  justice,  just  claims,  conven- 
iences, gains,  benefits,  and  favorable  circum- 
stances, enjoyed  by  the  other  States  ? 

In  speaking  of  treaties,  Vattel  states  as  fol- 
lows :  "  The  implicit  submission  to  their  author- 
ity which  is  exhibited  everywhere,  proves  the 
strength^  indeed,  unanswerable  strength,  in 
which  it  is  founded." 

These  writers  say,  that  every  thing  which  the 
public  safety  renders  inviolable  is  sacred  in  so- 
ciety. Who,  then,  can  doubt  that  treaties  are 
in  the  number  of  those  things  that  are  held 
most  sacred  by  nations?  They  determine  the 
most  important  affairs,  give  rules  to  their  pre- 
tensions, and  secure  their  most  precious  in- 
terests. But  treaties  are  only  vain  words,  if  they 
are  not  considered  as  inviolable  rules  to  sover- 
eigns, and  as  sacred  throughout  the  whole  world. 
Treaties  are,  then,  most  holy  and  sacred  among 
nations;  and,  if  people  are  not  wanting  to 
themselves,  infamy  must  ever  be  the  share  of 
him  who  violates  his  faith ;  for,  in  doing  so,  he 
violates  the  law  of  nations;  he  despises  that 
faith  which  they  declare  sacred ;  he  is  doubly 
guilty — he  does  an  injury  to  all  nations,  and 
wounds  the  whole  human  race. 

Having  thus,  I  trust,  proved  clearly  that  you 
have  no  right  to  adopt  this  inhibition  of  slave- 
ry, but  are  forbid  to  do  so  by  the  constitution, 
as  well  as  by  the  treaty,  I  ought  perhaps  to 
stop  here;  but  there  are  some  other  points 
which  I  ought  not  to  pass  unnoticed.  One  of 
these  is  the  ordinance  of  July,  1787,  passed  by 
the  Old  Congress,  at  the  period  of  the  sitting  of 
the  Convention  in  Philadelphia,  for  forming  the 
constitution,  by  which  that  body  (the  Old  Con- 
gress) undertook  to  form  a  code  for  the  future 
settlement,  government,  and  admission  into  the 
Union,  of  all  the  Territory  Northwest  of  the 
river  Ohio,  ceded  by  Virginia  to  the  United 
States  in  1785  ;  which  cession  has  so  often  been 
read  to  the  House  in  this  discussion.  On  this 
subject,  I  beg  leave  to  remark  that,  by  the  Con- 
federation of  the  United  States,  the  Old  Con- 
gress had  no  power  whatever  but  that  of  ad- 
mitting new  States,  provided  nine  States  as- 
sented. By  this,  it  is  most  unquestionable, 
that  no  number  of  States  under  nine  had  any 
right  to  admit  new  States.  Of  course,  it  was 
the  intention  of  the  Confederation  that,  on  so 
important  a  measure  as  the  establishment  of 
governments  for,  and  the  admission  of,  new 
States,  Congress  should  never  possess  the  pow- 
er to  act,  unless  nine  States  were  represented  in 
that  body  at  the  time  of  their  doing  so.  This 
ordinance,  therefore,  in  prescribing  the  forms 
of  government,  as  they  respected  legislative, 


DEBATES  OF  CONGRESS. 


537 


FEBRUARY,  1820.] 


The  Missouri  Bill — Restriction  on  the  State. 


[H.  OF  R. 


executive,  and  judiciary  powers,  in  establishing 
bills  of  rights,  and  the  times  and  terms  of  their 
admission  into  the  Union,  and  inhibiting  servi- 
tude therein,  is  chargeable  with  ingratitude, 
and  usurpation.  It  is  chargeable  with  ingrati- 
tude, when  we  reflect  that  the  cession  of  the 
great  tract  of  country — this  rising  empire  of 
freemen — was  gratuitously,  and  with  noble  dis- 
interestedness and  patriotism,  made  by  Vir- 
ginia, that  the  passing  of  an  ordinance  which 
contained  a  provision  which  could  not  but  go 
to  prevent  the  admission  of  Virginians  there,  as 
they  could  not  move  there  with  their  slaves, 
was  a  most  ungracious  and  ungrateful  return 
to  that  State  for  her  liberality,  and  could  not 
but  meet  with  the  disapprobation  of  this  na- 
tion. 

Let  us,  sir,  recollect  the  circumstances  the 
Old  Congress  were  in  at  the  time  they  passed 
this  ordinance :  they  had  dwindled  almost  to 
nothing ;  the  Convention  had  been  then  three 
months  in  session ;  it  was  universally  known  a 
constitution  was  in  its  essentials  agreed  to ;  and 
the  public  were  daily  expecting  (what  soon 
happened)  the  promulgation  of  a  new  form  of 
Government  for  the  Union.  I  ask,  sir,  was  it 
under  these  circumstances  proper  for  a  feeble, 
dwindled  body,  that  had  wholly  lost  the  con- 
fidence of  the  nation,  and  which  was  then 
waiting  its  supercession  by  the  people — a  feeble, 
inefficient  body,  in  which  only  seven  or  eight 
States  were  represented,  the  whole  of  which 
consisted  of  but  seventeen  or  eighteen  men — a 
number  smaller  than  your  large  committees ;  a 
body  literally  in  the  very  agonies  of  political 
death  ; — was  it,  sir,  even  decent  in  them  (not  to 
say  lawful  or  constitutional)  to  have  passed  an 
ordinance  of  such  importance  ?  I  do  not  know 
or  recollect  the  names  of  the  members  who 
voted  for  it,  but  it  is  to  be  fairly  presumed  they 
could  not  have  been  among  the  men  who  pos- 
sessed the  greatest  confidence  of  the  Union,  or 
at  that  very  time  they  would  have  been  mem- 
bers of  the  Convention  sitting  at  Philadelphia.* 


*  This  ordinance  is  constantly  quoted  as  of  the  year  1787, 
and,  consequently,  as  the  work  of  the  members  of  the  Con- 
tinental Congress  of  that  year ;  but  it  is,  in  reality,  of  the 
date  of  1784,  and  of  the  members  of  that  year,  headed  by 
Mr.  Jefferson.  Virginia  made  her  great  cession  of  the 
Northwest  Territory  in  1781,  and  perfected  it  by  deed  of 
cession  in  April,  17S4;  and  being  the  great  grantor  of  that 
great  domain,  and  upon  conditions  for  her  own  and  the 
common  benefit,  her  delegation  in  Congress  naturally  took 
the  lead  in  making  the  cession  available  according  to  its  in- 
tent. Mr.  Jefferson  was  then  a  delegate  in  the  Continental 
Congress,  and  one  of  the  three  members  who  signed  and 
delivered  the  deed.  His  organizing  mind  naturally  charged 
itself  with  the  measures  which  were  to  grow  out  of  the  ces- 
sion, and  the  first  of  that  charge  was  an  ordinance  for  the 
government  of  the  Northwest  Territory,  containing  every 
thing  in  the  ordinance  of  1787,  except  the  clause  for  the  re- 
covery of  fugitives  from  service;  and  laying  its  foundations 
in  compact  The  anti-slavery  clause  was  in  it ;  but  that 
clause  was  rejected  because  the  recovery  clause  was  not 
added.  With  that  exception  the  ordinance  then  passed,  and 
continued  in  force  until  it  was  superseded  by  the  amended 


Let  those  acquainted  with  the  situation  of 
the  people  of  Asia  and  Africa,  where  not  one 
man  in  ten  can  be  called  a  freeman,  or  -whose 
situation  can  be  compared  with  the  comforts  of 
our  slaves,  throw  their  eyes  over  them,  and 
carry  them  to  Russia,  and  from  the  North  to 
the  South  of  Europe,  where,  except  Great  Brit- 
ain, nothing  like  liberty  exists.  Let  them  view 
the  lower  classes  of  their  inhabitants,  by  far 
the  most  numerous  of  the  whole;  the  thou- 
sands of  beggars  that  infest  their  streets,  more 
than  half  starved,  half  naked,  and  in  the  most 
wretched  state  of  human  degradation.  Let  him 
then  go  to  England ;  the  comforts,  if  they  have 
any,  of  the  lower  classes  of  whose  inhabitants 
are  far  inferior  to  those  of  our  slaves.  Let  him, 
when  there,  ask  of  their  economists,  what  are 
the  numbers  of  millions  daily  fed  by  the  hand 
of  charity ;  and,  when  satisfied  there,  then  let 
him  come  nearer  home,  and  examine  into  the 
situation  of  the  free  negroes  now  resident  in 
New  York  and  Philadelphia,  and  compare  them 
with  the  situation  of  our  slaves,  and  he  will 
tell  you  that,  perhaps,  the  most  miserable  and 
degraded  state  of  human  nature  is  to  be  found 
among  the  free  negroes  of  New  York  and 
Philadelphia,  most  of  whom  are  fugitives  from 
the  Southern  States,  received  and  sheltered  in 
those  States.  I  did  not  go  to  New  York,  but  I 
did  to  Philadelphia,  and  particularly  examined 
this  subject  while  there.  I  saw  their  streets 
crowded  with  idle,  drunken  negroes,  at  every 
corner ;  and,  on  visiting  their  penitentiary, 
found,  to  my  astonishment,  that,  out  of  five  hun- 
dred convicts  there  confined,  more  than  one- 
half  were  blacks;  and,  as  all  the  convicts 


ordinance  of  1787 — efforts  having  been  made  at  each  cession, 
without  effect,  to  insert  the  anti-slavery  clause.  This  was 
done  in  1787— Virginia  again  taking  the  lead.  The  commit- 
tee who  reported  it  had  two  Virginia  members  upon  it, 
(Messrs.  Carrington  and  E.  H.  Lee,)  and  one  South  Caro- 
linian, (Mr.  Kean,)  and  two  members  from  non-slaveholding 
States,  (Messrs.  Dane  of  Massachusetts,  and  Smith  of  New 
York.)  They  reported  the  bill  as  it  now  stands,  (the  anti- 
slavery  and  fugitive  slave  recovery  clause  added ;)  and  it 
passed  unanimously,  and  within  the  exact  time  which  the 
forms  of  legislation  permitted.  They  reported  on  Wednes- 
day, the  llth  of  July,  when  it  was  read  the  first  time,  and 
ordered  to  a  second  reading  the  next  day.  The  next  day  it 
was  read  the  second  time,  and  ordered  to  a  third  reading  the 
day  after:  and  on  that  day,  Friday,  the  18th,  it  was  read 
the  third  time,  and  unanimously  passed.  It  repealed  the 
ordinance  of  1784,  which  had  thus  been  in  force  three  years; 
and  containing,  as  originally  drawn,  all  the  provisions  of  the 
ordinance  of  1787,  except  the  provision  relative  to  fugitives 
from  service,  its  date  may  be  considered  that  of  the  ordi- 
nance of  1787  in  all  that  concerns  its  merits  or  demerits. 
At  the  adoption  of  the  ordinance  of  1787— iu  re-enactment, 
with  the  anti-slavery  clause  added— there  were  but  three 
free  States  present;  to  wit:  Massachusetts,  New  York, 
New  Jersey :  while  of  slave  States  there  were  five  present; 
to  wit:  Delaware,  Virginia,  North  Carolina, South  Carolina, 
Georgia.  From  tho  slave  States  every  delegate  from  every 
State  voted  for  the  ordinance:  of  the  free  States,  one  mem- 
ber from  one  State,  (Mr.  Yates  of  New  York,)  voted  against 
it 


538 


ABRIDGMENT  OF  THE 


H.  OF  R.] 


The  Missouri  Bill — Restriction  on  the  State. 


[FEBRUARY,  1820. 


throughout  that  State  are  sent  to  that  peniten- 
tiary, and,  if  Pennsylvania  contains  eight  hun- 
dred thousand  white  inhabitants,  and  only 
twenty-six  thousand  blacks,  of  course  the 
crimes  and  vices  of  the  blacks  in  those  States 
are,  comparatively,  twenty  times  greater  than 
thoses  of  the  whites  in  the  same  States,  and 
clearly  proves  that  a  state  of  freedom  is  one  of 
the  greatest  curses  you  can  inflict  on  them. 

From  the  opinions  expressed  respecting  the 
Southern  States  and  the  slaves  there,  it  appears 
to  me  most  clear,  that  the  members  on  the  op- 
posite side  know  nothing  of  the  Southern 
States,  their  lands,  products,  or  slaves.  Those 
who  visit  us,  or  go  to  the  southward,  find  so 
great  a  difference  that  many  of  them  remain 
and  settle  there.  I  perfectly  recollect  that 
when,  in  1791,  General  Washington  visited 
South  Carolina,  he  was  so  surprised  at  the 
richness,  order,  and  soil  of  our  country,  that  he 
expressed  his  great  astonishment  at  the  state  of 
agricultural  improvement  and  excellence  our 
tide-lands  exhibited.  He  said  he  had  no  idea 
the  United  States  possessed  it.  Had  I  then 
seen  as  much  of  Europe  as  I  have  since,  I  would 
have  replied  to  him,  that  he  would  not  see  its 
equal  in  Europe.  Sir,  when  we  recollect  that 
our  former  parent  State  was  the  original  cause 
of  introducing  slavery  into  America,  and  that 
neither  ourselves  nor  ancestors  are  chargeable 
with  it ;  that  it  cannot  be  got  rid  of  without 
mining  the  country,  certainly  the  present  mild 
treatment  of  our  slaves  is  most  honorable  to 
that  part  of  the  country  where  slavery  exists. 
Every  slave  has  a  comfortable  house,  is  well 
fed,  clothed,  and  taken  care  of;  he  has  his 
family  about  him,  and  in  sickness  has  the  same 
medical  aid  as  his  master,  and  has  a  sure  and 
comfortable  retreat  in  old  age,  to  protect  him 
against  its  infirmities  and  weakness.  During 
the  Avhole  of  his  life  he  is  free  from  care,  that 
canker  of  the  human  heart,  which  destroys  at 
least  one-half  of  the  thinking  part  of  mankind, 
and  from  which  a  favored  few,  very  few,  if  in- 
deed any,  can  be  said  to  be  free.  Being  with- 
out education,  and  born  to  obey,  to  persons  of 
that  description  moderate  labor  and  discipline 
are  essential.  The  discipline  ought  to  be  mild, 
but  still,  while  slavery  is  to  exist,  there  must 
be  discipline.  In  this  state  they  are  happier 
than  they  can  possibly  be  if  free.  A  free  black 
can  only  be  happy  where  he  has  some  share  of 
education,  and  has  been  bred  to  a  trade,  or 
Borne  kind  of  business.  The  great  body  of 
slaves  are  happier  in  their  present  situation  than 
they  could  be  in  any  other,  and  the  man  or  men 
who  would  attempt  to  give  them  freedom, 
would  be  their  greatest  enemies. 

All  the  writers  who  contend  that  the  slaves 
increase  faster  than  the  free  blacks,  if  they  as- 
sert what  is  true,  prove  that  the  black,  when  in 
the  condition  of  a  slave,  is  happier  than  when 
free,  as,  in  proportion  to  the  comfort  and  hap- 
piness of  any  kind  of  people,  such  will  be  the 
increase ;  and  the  next  census  will  show  what 
has  been  the  increase  of  both  descriptions,  free, 


and  slave,  and  will,  I  think,  prove  the  truth  of 
these  opinions. 


TUESDAY,  February  15. 
The  Missouri  Bill. 

The  House  then  again  resolved  itself  into  a 
Committee  of  the  Whole,  on  this  bill. 

Mr.  EANKIN,  of  Mississippi,  took  the  floor, 
and  spoke  more  than  an  hour  against  the  re- 
striction. 

Mr.  R.  observed,  that  Creon,  King  of  Thebes, 
had  been  represented  by  Euripides,  to  have  sent 
a  herald  to  Athens,  who  inquired  for  the  King 
of  Athens.  Theseus  replied,  "  You  seek  him  in 
vain ;  this  is  a  free  city,  and  the  sovereign  pow- 
er is  in  all  the  people."  In  our  Government, 
all  admit  the  sovereignty  of  the  people;  but,  if 
the  arguments  of  gentlemen  who  advocate  this 
restriction  be  correct,  Congress  possesses  abso- 
lute sovereignty,  and  the  people  are  their  ser- 
vants. It  is  urged  that,  although  Congress  has 
no  express  delegation  of  power  in  the  constitu- 
tion, yet  Congress  may,  by  virtue  of  its  sov- 
ereign power,  impose  any  conditions  on  the 
admission  of  Missouri  into  the  Union.  There 
is  no  sovereignty  in  Congress,  known  to  the 
constitution,  except  such  as  is  expressly  dele- 
gated ;  the  limits  of  which  are  clearly  marked 
and  defined  by  that  instrument.  Even  State 
governments,  which  derive  their  powers  imme- 
diately from  the  people,  are  but  a  portion  of 
natural  liberty  or  absolute  sovereignty,  dele- 
gated to  rulers,  to  be  exercised  for  the  common 
welfare.  The  Federal  Government,  emanating 
from  the  States,  and  wielding  an  authority 
regulating  and  protecting  the  community  of 
States,  is  one  degree  farther  removed  from  the 
source  of  power.  In  such  a  Government,  we 
are  not  required,  as  gentlemen  have  contended, 
to  search  the  constitution  for  prohibitions,  but 
we  search  for  what  is  delegated.  The  silence 
of  the  constitution  is  our  law — a  mandate  as 
prohibitory  to  our  exercise  of  legislation,  as  the 
voice  of  the  Almighty  to  the  waves  of  ocean. 
Its  language  is,  "  Thus  far  shall  you  go,  and  no 
farther."  Depart  from  these  principles,  and 
you  tread  on  dangerous  grounds.  Imagine  you 
possess  an  undefined,  unlimited  sovereignty, 
not  delegated,  but  resting  on  your  capricious 
will,  superior  to  all  constitution  and  laws,  and 
you  sap  the  foundation  of  your  liberty ;  sooner 
or  later  you  are  buried  in  the  ruins  of  the  su- 
perstructure. Despotism  is  equally  dangerous, 
odious,  and  oppressive,  whether  exercised  by 
an  individual  or  the  National  Legislature. 
Despotism  is  but  the  arbitrary  exercise  of  pow- 
ers limited,  defined,  and  bounded  by  no  law 
but  the  sovereign  will  of  the  despot. 

Without  resorting  to  general  principles  and 
reasoning,  the  language  of  the  constitution 
itself  is  sufficiently  explicit  as  to  what  we  may 
do  constitutionally.  The  first  article  declares, 
that  all  powers  therein  "  granted  are  vested  in 
the  Congress  of  the  United  States."  We  have, 
then,  to  inquire,  is  the  power  to  impose  this 


DEBATES  OF  CONGRESS. 


FEBRUARY,  1820.] 


The  Missouri  Bill — Restriction  on  the  State. 


[H.  OF  R. 


restriction  "  granted  "  by  the  constitution  ?  If 
there  be  any  doubt  on  that  subject,  prudence, 
at  least,  forbids  us  to  proceed  farther.  The  9th 
and  10th  articles  of  the  amendments  declare, 
"  that  the  enumeration  in  the  constitution  of 
certain  rights  shall  not  be  construed  to  deny  or 
disparage  others  retained  by  the  people ;  "  and 
"that  the  powers  not  delegated  to  the  United 
States  by  the  constitution,  nor  prohibited  by  it 
to  the  States,  are  reserved  to  the  States,  re- 
spectively, or  to  the  people."  I  have  been  par- 
ticular in  making  these  preliminary  remarks, 
because  gentlemen  who  have  occupied  a  distin- 
guished ground  in  favor  of  the  restriction  ap- 
pear to  rely  much  on  the  sovereignty  of  Con- 
gress. It  is  necessary  that  a  thing  so  power- 
ful in  its  operations  should  be  clearly  understood. 

Regarding  the  principles  already  laid  down, 
let  us  proceed  to  examine  the  different  clauses 
and  sections  of  the  constitution  which  are  sup- 
posed to  enable  us  constitutionally  to  impose 
this  restriction  on  Missouri.  In  pursuing  the 
course  which  I  had  originally  designed  for  my- 
self, (said  Mr.  R.,)  I  must  necessarily  tread  on 
some  of  the  grounds  occupied  by  the  gentlemen 
who  have  preceded  me  in  the  debate.  This  is 
a  misfortune  arising  from  the  necessity  which 
has  compelled  me  to  delay  my  argument  until 
this  period,  but  would  not  justify  presenting  it 
to  the  committee  mutilated  and  imperfect. 

By  the  9th  section  of  the  first  article  of  the 
constitution,  it  is  declared,  "the  migration  or 
importation  of  such  persons  as  any  of  the 
States  now  existing  shall  think  proper  to  ad- 
mit, shall  not  be  prohibited  by  Congress  prior 
to  the  year  1808,"  &c.  Does  this  delegate  any 
power  to  Congress  to  prohibit  the  importation 
of  slaves,  even  after  the  year  1808?  A  gentle- 
man from  Pennsylvania  (Mr.  SERGEANT)  says, 
that  a  prohibition  of  the  exercise  of  a  power 
necessarily  implies  that  there  is  a  power  to  be 
restricted.  This  conclusion  is  by  no  means  ne- 
cessary. It  may  proceed  from  abundant  cau- 
tion, in  order  to  avoid  the  doctrine  of  implied 
powers,  which  have  been  so  much  used  in  this 
discussion.  But  even  this  restriction,  which 
might,  at  the  time  the  article  was  prepared, 
have  appeared  necessary,  in  order  to  reconcile 
the  contrariety  of  opinions  that  then  existed, 
and  quiet  the  jealousies  of  the  States,  became 
unnecessary  when  the  amendments  were  sub- 
sequently adopted,  confining  the  exercise  of  the 
powers  of  Congress  to  what  was  expressly  dele- 
gated. Many  enlightened  statesmen  viewed 
the  Federal  Government  as  a  monster  crouch- 
ing over  the  State  sovereignties,  already  pos- 
sessed of  powers,  which  at  some  future  day  it 
would  exert,  sufficient  to  annihilate  them,  and 
therefore  imposed  checks  and  barriers  where 
none  were  necessary.  This  is  mentioned,  not 
with  a  view  of  disturbing  antecedent  It  icislu- 
tion,  but  to  show  that,  in  the  united  zeal  of  the 
North  and  South  to  terminate  the  slave  trade, 
they  have  exercised  a  power  at  least  questiona- 
ble. But,  if  questionable  in  relation  to  that 
which  implication  favors,  how  much  more  so 


in  regard  to  this  new,  undefined,  unlimited  as- 
sumption of  sovereignty  ? 

In  the  construction  of  this  section,  said  Mr. 
R.,  we  should  adopt  the  rules  dictated  by  com- 
mon sense,  applicable  to  such  subjects.  Con- 
strue it  either  literally  or  according  to  the  spirit 
and  meaning.  Gentlemen  in  favor  of  this  re- 
striction, may  adopt  either,  or  both,  as  will 
best  suit  their  purpose.  Gentlemen,  not  satis- 
fied with  this,  ask  us  to  admit  that  the  word 
"persons,"  means  negroes  or  slaves,  which 
meaning  they  derive  from  the  spirit  and  mean- 
ing of  the  section,  and  adopt  a  literal  sense  for 
the  word  "  migration,"  which  is  said  to  mean 
a  transition  from  one  State  into  another,  al- 
though you  may  not  travel  a  mile  in  the  pas- 
sage. Heretofore,  when  any  man  was  asked 
what  is  the  meaning  of  this  section,  he  imme- 
diately replied,  "to  enable  Congress  to  pro- 
hibit the  slave  trade  after  the  year  1808."  But, 
sir,  to  what  conclusion  do  we  arrive  in  con- 
struing this  section  literally?  The  word 
"persons,"  is  a  generic  term,  embracing  every 
description  of  human  beings,  no  matter  of  what 
complexion,  while  the  words  "  migration  and 
importation"  are  of  equally  extensive  significa- 
tion ;  the  former  including  such  persons  as 
have  volition,  and  can  migrate ;  and  the  latter, 
such  as  have  no  volition,  but  are  imported  or 
carried  along  by  the  will  of  the  master.  This 
signification  to  the  word  migration,  appears  to 
comport  with  its  original,  or,  what  a  gentleman 
from  Delaware  (Mr.  MoLASEJwas  pleased  to  call 
its  technical  use,  being  applied  to  the  passage 
of  birds  from  one  region  into  another,  changing 
their  climate  at  pleasure,  free  as  the  air  they 
skim  in  the  transition.  It  has  been  subse- 
quently used  to  signify  a  voluntary  change  of 
country  by  individuals  and  families,  but  never 
to  signify  an  involuntary  removal. 

If  this  word  "  migration  "  must  have  a  mean- 
ing unconnected  with,  and  different  from  "  im- 
portation," why  not  use  it,  as  many  contend  it 
was  originally  designed  by  the  Convention,  to 
enable  Congress  to  prohibit  the  influx  or  migra- 
tion of  foreigners  to  our  country,  after  a  lim- 
ited period?  This  word  "migration"  was, 
therefore,  either  intended  to  apply  to  emigra- 
tion from  Europe,  or,  what  appears  equally 
probable,  was  intended,  in  connection  with  the 
word  "  persons,"  to  disguise  this  anti-republican 
feature  in  our  republican  constitution.  For 
why  should  the  Convention  conceal  the  words 
"  negroes  or  slaves,"  under  the  word  "  persons," 
and,  in  the  same  sentence,  speak  of  the  "  impor- 
tation "  of  "  persons  "  as  they  would  of  a  bale 
of  merchandise?  The  words  "shall  think 
proper  to  admit,"  point  strongly  to  an  admis- 
sion from  abroad,  and  not  to  a  mere  change  of 
residence  within  the  United  States. 

Some  regard,  as  gentlemen  in  opposition  to 
the  principles  I  advocate  have  very  justly  con- 
tended, ought  to  be  paid  to  a  long-continued 
exposition  of  this  section,  by  legislation  in  rela- 
tion to  its  provisions.  The  authorities  pro- 
duced by  the  friends  of  restriction,  to  show  the 


540 


ABRIDGMENT  OF  THE 


H.  OF  R.] 


The  Missouri  Bill — Restriction  on  the  State. 


[FEBRUABY,  1820. 


respect  which  tribunals  of  justice  pay  to  this 
principle,  will  be  applied  by  them  while  we 
trace  the  course  of  legislation  adopted  by  Con- 
gress in  relation  to  this  subject.  Upwards  of 
thirty  years  have  elapsed  since  the  adoption 
of  the  constitution,  during  which  period  Con- 
gress have,  with  a  vigilance  that  never  reposed, 
directed  their  efforts  to  the  abolition  of  the 
slave  trade,  without  even  suspecting  they  pos- 
sessed the  power  now  attempted  to  be  assumed 
— a  power  to  prevent  an  American  citizen  from 
changing  his  residence,  and  carrying  with  him 
his  slave  to  any  section  of  the  Union  where 
slavery  is  not  prohibited.  How  easily  might 
every  preceding  Congress  have  exercised  their 
"humanity"  in  preventing  an  "extension  of 
the  evils  of  slavery  "  to  the  States  of  Kentucky, 
Tennessee,  Louisiana,  Mississippi,  and  Alabama ! 
But  the  wisdom  of  1819  was  alone  competent 
to  this  arduous  task;  this  discovery  of  "nega- 
tives pregnant,"  and  latent  and  dormant  powers. 

In  1794,  Congress  prohibited  "  residents"  in, 
or  "  citizens  "  of,  the  United  States,  from  fitting 
out  vessels  for  the  slave  trade,  and,  in  1800, 
from  having  an  interest  in  vessels  fitted  out  for 
that  purpose.  The  act  of  1803  prohibited  the 
importation  of  slaves  into  States  where  slavery 
was  prohibited  by  law,  and  that  of  1807,  passed 
in  anticipation  of  the  period  fixed  in  the  consti- 
tution, was  intended  for  ever  to  terminate  that 
traffic  to  the  United  States.  From  that  period 
until  the  last  session  of  Congress,  it  was  be- 
lieved by  all  sides  that,  whatever  power  was 
delegated  by  this  section,  had  been  expended 
in  legislation. 

What  construction  was  given  this  article  by 
contemporaneous  expositions?  In  that  most 
able  commentary  on  the  Constitution  of  the 
United  States,  called  the  Federalist,  which  is 
known  to  be  the  joint  production  of  Mr.  Madi- 
son, General  Hamilton,  and  "  that  great  civil- 
ian, Mr.  Jay,"  we  have  a  construction  which 
will  be  found  in  No.  42  of  that  work.  Add  to 
this  an  authority,  which  gentlemen  in  favor  of 
this  restriction  will  certainly  be  disposed  to  re- 
spect, the  opinion  of  the  Massachusetts  Con- 
vention, when  in  debate  on  the  Constitution 
of  the  United  States.  They  say  that,  by  the 
old  Articles  of  Confederation,  the  General 
Government  had  no  power  to  prevent  the  im- 
portation of  slaves  into  the  States,  and  rejoice  that 
a  period  is  fixed  when  Congress  may  interpose 
its  authority,  and  for  ever  terminate  this  traffic. 

The  meaning  of  this  section  we  have  from  a 
very  distinguished  man,  who  was  a  member  of 
the  General  Convention  that  formed  the  Con- 
stitution of  the  United  States.  There  was  a 
time  when  the  brilliancy  of  this  man's  mind 
illumined  the  path  of  reason  and  penetrated  the 
labyrinths  of  art  and  science ;  yesterday  he  was 
within  these  walls,  but  no  longer  what  he  was ; 
he  stands  the  melancholy  wreck  of  intellectual 
greatness,  teaching  humiliation  to  human  pride, 
and  showing  how  low  man  can  be  depressed 
when  enervating  disease  palsies  his  frame,  and 
the  hand  of  the  Almighty  presses  upon  him.  I 


refer  to  Luther  Martin,  of  Maryland.  When 
called  upon  by  the  Legislature  of  his  State  to 
declare  his  objections  to  the  constitution,  pre- 
viously to  its  adoption,  in  a  written  communi- 
cation to  that  body,  he  declares : 

"  By  the  ninth  section  of  this  article,  the  importa- 
tion of  such  persons  as  any  of  the  States  now  existing 
shall  think  proper  to  admit,  shall  not  be  prohibited, 
prior  to  the  year  1808,  but  a  duty  may  be  imposed 
on  such  importation." 

"  The  design  of  this  clause  is  to  prevent  the  Gen- 
eral Government  from  prohibiting  the  importation  of 
slaves  ;  that  the  same  reasons  which  caused  them  to 
strike  out  the  word  '  national,'  and  not  admit  the  word 
'  stamps,'  influenced  them  here  to  guard  against  the 
word  slaves ;  they  anxiously  sought  to  avoid  the  ad- 
mission of  expressions  which  might  be  odious  in  the 
ears  of  Americans,  although  they  were  willing  to  ad- 
mit into  their  system  those  things  which  the  expres- 
sion signified  ;  and  hence  it  is,  that  the  clause  is  so 
worded  as  to  authorize  the  General  Government  to 
impose  a  duty  of  ten  dollars  on  every  foreigner  who 
comes  into  a  State  to  become  a  citizen,  whether  he 
comes  absolutely  free,  or  qualified  so  as  a  servant ; 
although  this  is  contrary  to  the  design  of  the  framcrs, 
and  the  duty  was  only  meant  to  extend  to  the  im- 
portation of  slaves."  P.  55. 

After  observing  that  the  committee  of  detail 
had  reported  this  clause,  without  limitation  as 
to  the  time  of  importation,  which  provision  the 
Convention  rejected,  he  says :  "  they  were  in- 
formed by  the  delegates  from  South  Carolina 
and  Georgia  that  their  States  never  would  agree 
to  any  system  which  put  it  in  the  power  of  the 
General  Government  to  prevent  the  importa- 
tion of  slaves,  and  that  they,  as  delegates  from 
those  States,  must  withhold  their  assent  from 
such  system."  A  committee,  composed  of  one 
member  from  each  State,  was  chosen,  to  whom 
this  subject,  together  with  that  part  of  the  re- 
port of  the  committee  of  detail  which  declared 
"  that  no  navigation  act  shall  be  passed,  with- 
out the  assent  of  two-thirds  of  the  members 
present  in  each  House,"  was  referred.  "This 
committee,"  says  he,  "  of  which  also  I  had  the 
honor  to  be  a  member,  met,  and  took  into  their 
consideration  the  subjects  committed  to  them ; 
I  found  the  Eastern  States,  notwithstanding 
their  aversion  to  slavery,  very  willing  to  in- 
dulge the  Southern  States,  at  least  with  a  tem- 
porary liberty  to  prosecute  the  slave  trade, 
provided  the  Southern  States  would,  in  their 
turn,  gratify  them  by  laying  no  restriction  on 
the  navigation  acts;  and  after  a  very  little 
time  the  committee,  by  a  great  majority,  agreed 
on  a  report,  by  which  the  General  Government 
was  to  be  prohibited  from  preventing  the  im- 
portation of  slaves,  for  a  limited  time,  and  the 
restrictive  clause  relative  to  navigation  acts  was 
to  be  omitted." 

He  adds,  in  page  58,  "  You  will  perceive,  sir, 
not  only  that  the  General  Government  is  pro- 
hibited from  interfering  in  the  slave  trade,  be- 
fore the  year  1808,  but  there  is  no  provision  in 
the  constitution  that  it  shall  afterwards  be  pro- 
hibited, nor  any  security  that  such  prohibition 
will  ever  take  place." 


DEBATES  OF  CONGRESS. 


541 


FEBRUARY,  1820.] 


The  Missouri  Bill — Restriction  on  the  State. 


[H.  OF  R. 


This  statement  is  not  made  from  frail  mem- 
ory, after  time  had  almost  effaced  the  recollec- 
tion of  scenes  long  transpired,  but  is  history  it- 
self, recording  events  while  transacting. 

Mr.  HENDEICKS,  of  Indiana,  spoke  as  follows : 

Mr.  Chairman,  the  history  of  the  Northwest- 
ern Territory  is  connected  with  the  earliest  and 
the  proudest  days  of  this  Republic,  and  its  his- 
tory in  times  to  come  will  show  it  warmly  and 
devotionally  attached  to  the  rights  of  the  States 
and  the  integrity  of  the  Union.  Sir,  there  is 
nothing  fortuitous  or  uncertain  in  this  opinion. 
The  States  of  Ohio,  Indiana,  and  Illinois,  are 
standing  monuments  of  the  magnanimity  of  an 
ancient  and  respectable  State,  (Virginia.)  They 
are  monuments  also  of  a  wise  and  liberal  policy, 
whence  springs  their  happy  institutions,  and 
their  freedom  from  slavery,  that  great  evil  of 
the  South.  They  show  a  policy  of  the  General 
Government,  which,  should  it  roll  on  with  the 
flood  of  emigration  to  the  West,  will  add  a  con- 
stellation to  your  Union,  equal  in  lustre  to  the 
brightest  star  of  the  East.  This  is  the  view  of 
the  amendment  under  discussion — an  amend- 
ment which  commands  my  approbation  and 
coerces  my  support.  An  amendment,  objec- 
tionable, say  gentlemen,  because  Congress  have 
not  the  constitutional  power  to  enact  it.  Those 
who  oppose  the  restriction  of  slavery  in  Mis- 
souri call  for  the  constitutional  provision,  which 
authorizes  the  measure — call  for  the  speaking 
index  which  points  to  this  question,  as  though 
every  measure  of  the  Government  could  have 
been  anticipated,  and  all  its  future  incidents 
seen  by  the  framers  of  the  constitution. 

Mr.  Chairman,  the  language  of  the  constitu- 
tion is  plain  enough  for  me.  And  here  let  me 
remark,  that  this  amendment  presents  itself  to 
my  mind  in  a  point  of  view  different  from  that 
in  which  it  appears  to  be  considered  by  most 
gentlemen  who  have  spoken  of  it.  This  amend- 
ment is  objected  to,  because  it  is  understood  to 
propose  conditions  for  the  State  of  Missouri. 
This  is  not  the  way  I  understand  it.  It  speaks  to 
the  people  of  Missouri  Territory,  and  not  to  the 
State  of  Missouri.  To  the  people  of  the  Missouri 
Territory,  and  to  the  people  of  all  the  territories, 
we  have  been  in  the  habit  of  speaking.  Even 
gentlemen  on  the  opposite  side  of  the  question 
admit  we  may  speak  to  them. 

Sir,  I  think,  in  the  progress  of  this  discussion, 
it  has  been  clearly  made  out  that  Congress  may 
impose  conditions.  Indeed,  this  seems  of  neces- 
sity to  be  admitted  on  all  hands,  for  without 
admitting  this  principle  we  cannot  justify  the 
government  we  hold  over  the  territories,  or  the 
control  we  hold  over  the  public  lands  within 
the  limits  of  the  new  States.  Sir,  in  this  case, 
we  do  not  dictate  to,  or  impose  conditions  on, 
the  State.  We  only  say  to  the  people  of  the 
Territory  what  we  consider  necessary -for  their 
constitution  to  contain,  and  without  which 
they  are  not  to  expect  admission  into  the 
Union.  They  are  not  possessed  of  sovereign 
State  powers  when  making  this  constitution, 
nor  when  it  is  made,  until  Congress  shall  admit 


them  into  the  Union.  This  ceremony  of  ad- 
mission has  been  deemed  necessary  in  the  his- 
tory of  our  Government,  in  relation  to  ah1  the 
new  States.  Their  sovereign  State  power  is 
derived  from  the  constitution,  which  has  not 
force  or  efficacy  until  approved  by  Congress. 
It  is  true  the  power  which  made  this  constitu- 
tion was  in  existence  before,  but  it  was  chaos 
reduced  by  these  proceedings  to  consistency 
and  order. 

But,  it  is  said,  that  by  this  amendment  you 
require  these  conditions  to  be  adopted  by  Mis- 
souri, and  to  come  from  her,  because  Congress 
have  not  the  power  to  make  or  impose  them. 
This,  sir,  is  true,  and  is  correct,  in  the  same 
way  that  the  first  party  to  a  contract  must  ob- 
tain the  consent  of  the  second  party  before  the 
contract  is  complete ;  but,  after  that  consent  is 
obtained,  the  first  party  has  the  same  advantage 
from  it,  and  it  is  as  binding  on  the  second  pyty 
as  if  all  had  been  originally  in  the  power  of  the 
first  party ;  for,  in  truth,  this  is  nothing  more 
or  less  than  a  contract,  and  it  is  one  of  those 
contracts  which,  though  made  in  the  minority 
of  Missouri,  will  be  binding  on  her  after  she 
shall  arrive  at  full  age.  I  deny,  then,  Mr.  Chair- 
man, that  any  thing  required  by  this  amend- 
ment is  to  be  done  in  the  character  or  capacity 
of  a  State,  on  the  part  of  Missouri. 

Again,  sir,  the  treaty.  The  third  article  of 
the  treaty  so  much  spoken  of  in  this  debate, 
could  not  have  been  intended  to  pass  the  boun- 
daries of  the  constitution.  If  such  were  its  stipu- 
lations those  stipulations  could  not  be  carried 
into  effect.  Sir,  what  created  the  treaty-mak- 
ing power?  The  constitution;  and  the  mo- 
ment the  treaty-making  power  passes  the  boun- 
daries of  the  constitution,  that  moment  its  pow- 
ers become  annihilated.  "We  are  told  that  it 
is  now  too  late  to  object  to  the  treaty — that  it 
has  been  ratified  by  the  Senate,  and  sanction- 
ed by  the  House  of  Representatives,  in  the  pas- 
sage of  laws  to  carry  it  into  effect.  Sir,  I  do 
not  object  to  the  validity  of  the  treaty.  The 
acquisition  of  Louisiana  was  one  of  the  hap- 
piest epochs  of  our  political  history  since  the 
close  of  the  Revolution.  But  I  object  to  any 
construction  of  that  treaty  unknown  to  and 
unauthorized  by  the  constitution.  I  object  to 
any  construction  of  the  treaty  which  would  do 
away  the  discretion  of  Congress  in  the  admis- 
sion of  new  States.  Can  any  unconstitutional 
stipulation  in  a  treaty  gain  strength  by  the 
ratification  of  the  Senate,  or  the  passage  of  a 
law  by  Congress  to  carry  that  treaty  into  effect  ? 
Surely  not.  Suppose,  for  instance,  that  the 
treaty-making  power  had  stipulated  that  the 
appointment  of  the  officers,  and  the  authority 
of  training  the  militia  of  the  States  to  be  form- 
ed west  of  the  Mississippi,  should  be  reserved 
to  the  Government  of  the  United  States, — 
would  gentlemen  tell  us  that  the  stipulation 
could  be  carried  into  effect  ?  No ;  because  such 
stipulation  would  be  contrary  to  the  Consti- 
tution of  the  United  States.  Such  stipulation 
would  be  an  infringement  of  the  rights  of  the 


542 


ABRIDGMENT  OF  THE 


H.  OP  R.] 


The  Missouri  Bill — Restriction  on  the  State. 


[FEBRUARY,  1820. 


States.  And  are  we  not  to  guard  the  rights  of 
the  General  Government,  as  well  as  those  of 
the  States  ?  The  treaty,  then,  I  understand  as 
placing  the  inhabitants  of  the  province  of  Louis- 
iana in  the  same  situation  they  would  have 
been  in  if  they  had  been  included  within  the 
original  limits  established  by  the  Treaty  of 
Peace. 

Sir,  if  the  treaty-making  power  can  pass  the 
limits  of  the  constitution,  it  could  have  provid- 
ed that  the  States  to  be  formed  in  the  province 
of  Louisiana  could  have  the  power  of  making 
war  or  peace,  or  of  creating  titles  of  nobility. 
The  language  of  the  treaty  is,  in  substance,  the 
language  of  the  constitution ;  and  the  privileges 
and  immunities  conferred  on  the  Louisianian 
must  be  such  privileges  and  immunities  as  the 
Government  of  the  United  States  can  bestow  ; 
for,  according  to  the  principles  of  the  gentle- 
men opposed,  neither  the  treaty  nor  the  consti- 
tution can  confer  on  the  ancient  inhabitant  of 
Louisiana  the  rights  and  privileges  which  result 
from  the  regulations  of  a  State,  and  which  are 
the  offspring  of  municipal  law,  because  these 
things,  say  gentlemen,  are  the  prerogatives  of 
State  sovereignties,  and  cannot  be  exercised  by 
Congress.  Then,  what  are  the  privileges  and 
immunities  of  an  inhabitant  of  Louisiana  under 
the  treaty  and  the  constitution?  They  are 
simply  those  of  a  citizen,  distinguished  from  a 
foreigner  or  an  alien.  The  inhabitant  of  Louisi- 
ana is  not  subject  to  the  requisitions  of  an  alien 
law ;  he  becomes  at  once  a  citizen  of  the  United 
States.  The  treaty,  then,  does  not  seem  to 
stand  in  the  way  of  the  free  operation  of  the 
constitution — the  practice  and  policy  of  the 
Government — in  the  admission  of  new  States. 
There  is  no  guarantee  in  the  treaty  in  favor  of 
adventurers  to  the  country,  or  in  favor  of  the 
Louisianian,  after  he  shall  have  become  a  mem- 
ber of  the  State  government. 

The  force  of  the  treaty  then  fails,  gentlemen. 
It  is  imposing  conditions  on  him,  in  the  char- 
acter of  a  citizen  of  a  State,  of  which  they  com- 
plain ;  and  in  such  character  the  treaty  has  no 
guarantee  in  his  favor,  and  it  would  be  absurd 
if  it  had.  It  would  be  France  stipulating  for 
the  privileges  and  immunities  of  citizens,  not 
only  of  the  United  States,  but  of  a  particular 
State. 

But,  sir,  to  the  positive  language  of  the  con- 
stitution :  "  Congress  shall  have  power  to  dis- 
pose of,  and  to  make  all  needful  rules  and  regu- 
lations respecting  the  territory,  or  other  prop- 
erty belonging  to  the  United  States."  Here 
there  is  a  direct  power ;  absolute  control  over 
the  most  important  and  first  object  of  sov- 
ereignty. Here  is  a  constitutional  power,  more 
extensive  than  is  necessary  for  the  amendment 
before  the  committee.  Congress  owns,  in  fee 
simple,  the  soil  of  the  country.  This  soil  may 
be  retained  by  its  owners,  or  it  may  be  parted 
with  on  conditions.  It  may  be  leased  for  life 
or  for  years.  These  leases  may  contain  as 
many  conditions  as  may  be  agreed  on.  One  of 
these  may  be,  that  the  soil  shall  not  be  culti- 


vated by  a  slave,  and  that  it  shall  not  be  the 
residence  of  a  slave.  Sir,  the  citizen  of  the 
United  States,  no  matter  whether  he  be  from 
the  South  or  North,  may  constitutionally  be 
prevented  from  settling  that  soil.  Your  stand- 
ing armies  and  your  militia  may  be  marched 
from  every  State  to  dispossess  him.  This  is  a 
policy  which  the  Government  will  very  seldom 
adopt,  but  the  power  to  adopt  it  is  found  in  the 
constitution,  and  it  is  the  constitutional  power 
to  adopt  this  measure  which  we  are  now  in 
search  of,  and  not  its  expediency.  Sir,  this 
part  of  the  constitution  is  not  a  dead  letter. 
Look  at  your  statute  book.  There  you  will 
find  laws  specifying  this  power  and  authorizing 
its  exertion,  in  driving  intruders  from  the  pub- 
lic lands.  It  is  but  a  few  years,  sir,  since  the 
President's  proclamation  required  the  exercise 
of  this  power,  and,  but  for  the  relaxing  policy 
of  the  Government,  the  military  force  of  the 
country  would  have  been  employed  in  carrying 
it  into  effect.  Here,  then,  is  a  case  in  which 
Congress  may  constitutionally  exclude  the  fur- 
ther introduction  of  freemen  from  that  soil; 
much  easier,  do  I  apprehend,  may  she  exclude 
slaves ;  mere  property.  A  case  in  which  Con- 
gress may,  after  the  admission  of  a  State  with- 
out restriction  of  slavery,  hold  a  direct  and  ab- 
solute negative  over  the  peopling  her  territory 
with  slaves. 

Sir,  the  third  section  of  the  fourth  article  of 
the  constitution  says,  "  that  new  States  may  be 
admitted  by  the  Congress  into  this  Union." 
Here,  sir,  is  all  the  power  known  to  the  con- 
stitution, on  the  subject  of  admitting  new 
States.  Congress  may  admit,  and  may  refuse 
admission.  Congress  may  exercise  abroad  an 
uncontrollable  discretion  on  the  subject;  but,  in 
the  proper  exercise  of  this  discretion,  Congress 
may  not  reject  without  a  cause.  If  a  cause  of 
rejection  exist,  this  House  will  know  it.  Con- 
gress may  then  examine  the  boundaries  ex- 
hibited in  the  constitution  submitted,  to  see 
that  they  do  not  pass  the  limits  and  boundaries 
of  this  Government ;  for,  if  the  doctrine  con- 
tended for  by  many  gentlemen  on  this  floor  bo 
correct,  that  Congress  can  only  determine 
whether  the  constitution  be  republican  or  not, 
then  the  question  of  boundary  would  be  an  im- 
proper inquiry  for  this  House.  The  people 
claiming  admission  might  stop  at  the  Sabine, 
or  go  to  the  Kio  del  Norte.  They  might  in- 
clude the  more  western  provinces  of  Mexico, 
or  go  to  the  Isthmus  of  Darien.  This  doctrine 
established,  with  the  binding  obligations  of  the 
treaty  to  admit  the  people  of  Missouri,  as  con- 
tended for  by  other  gentlemen,  and  the  question 
of  boundary  with  Spain  is  no  longer  under  the 
sole  direction  of  the  treaty-making  power.  The 
people  of  Missouri  may  go  to  the  West  and  to 
the  South,  to  the  furthermost  boundary  ever 
claimed  by  the  Government.  You  are  bound 
by  treaty,  say  gentlemen,  to  admit  them,  and, 
once  admitted,  you  are  bound  by  the  constitu- 
tion to  protect  them  against  invasion. 

Mr.  Chairman,  I  am  not  at  liberty  to  inquire 


DEBATES  OF  CONGRESS. 


543 


FKBHDART,  1820.] 


The  Missouri  Bill— Restriction  on  the  State 


[H.  OF  R 


how  the  slaves  of  the  South  became  slaves.  I  am 
not  at  liberty  to  inquire  what  ruthless  hand  first 
manacled  the  slave,  and  trampled  on  the  natural 
rights  of  man.  I  may  not  travel  out  of  the 
record,  the  constitution.  In  that  instrument, 
although  the  terms  manacle  and  slave  are  not 
to  be  found,  this  species  of  property  is  recog- 
nized by  strong  language,  and  by  definition  too 
plain  to'be  mistaken.  With  pleasure  do  I  hear, 
from  the  representatives  of  the  South,  that  this 
evil  does  not  lie  at  their  door ;  and  with  equal 
pleasure  do  I  find,  in  the  history  of  my  country, 
the  proof  of  this  fact.  Slavery,  personal  slavery, 
was  introduced  into  this  country  by  that  Gov- 
ernment whose  policy  it  was  to  rivet  the  fetters 
of  political  slavery  on  the  freemen  of  the  colo- 
nies. It  is  a  vestige  of  British  policy  which  the 
storms  of  the  Revolution  could  not  do  away, 
and  which  had  too  deep  root  in  the  Govern- 
ment to  be  eradicated  by  reform.  It  was  an 
evil  of  so  much  magnitude  that  it  became  neces- 
sary to  provide  for  it  in  the  constitution ;  but, 
being  an  evil,  the  provisions  of  the  constitution 
never  meant  to  foster  and  cherish  it  in  the  Gov- 
ernment. It  was  not  intended  to  grow  with  its 
growth,  and  strengthen  with  its  strength;  to 
grow  faster,  and  become  stronger,  than  this 
Government,  which  it  would  do  by  planting  it 
in  the  fertile  regions  beyond  the  Mississippi. 
Sir,  it  is  not  fairer  to  say  that  slavery  has  been 
adopted  by  this  Government,  because  its  exist- 
ence is  found  in  the  constitution,  than  it  would 
be  to  say  that  crimes  of  the  deepest  dye  are 
sanctioned  by  this  Government,  because  their 
existence  is  recognized  and  admitted  by  the 
constitution.  Sir,  evil  is  more  frequently  the 
object  of  legislation  than  good.  For  good,  and 
for  good  men,  constitutions  and  governments 
are  not  necessary.  They  are  made  for  evil,  for 
vicious,  and  for  bad  men.  The  existence  of 
every  crime  is  admitted  in  a  constitution,  but  it 
would  be  an  inference,  from  this,  entirely  inad- 
missible, that  murder  was  sanctioned  by  the 
constitution,  and  ought  not  to  be  punished  by 
law. 

Sir,  I  understand  the  constitution  to  recognize 
the  slave  of  the  South  as  the  property  of  his 
master.  As  such,  he  is  protected  by  the  consti- 
tution, and  his  situation  is  unalterable  by  law  ; 
but.,  like  all  other  property,  he  is  liable  to  the 
restraints  of  law.  Sir,  an  honorable  gentleman, 
endeavoring,  as  I  understood  him,  to  reconcile 
slavery  with  abstract  principle,  has  said,  that 
any  thing  is  right  and  proper  to  be  done  which 
the  safety  of  a  people  may  require.  Will  the 
honorable  gentleman  permit  us  to  change  a  little 
the  direction  of  that  argument,  and  to  bring  it 
to  bear  more  immediately  on  the  question? 
Suppose,  then,  the  safety  of  this  great  Republic 
to  require  the  restriction  of  slavery.  If  the 
gentleman's  argument  be  a  good  one,  it  furnishes 
at  once,  on  the  ground  of  expediency,  all  that  is 
necessary  with  which  to  support  the  amend- 
ment before  the  committee.  Sir,  from  the  ex- 
istence of  slavery  in  the  constitution  and  Gov- 
ernment, we  are  not  chargeable  with  crime; 


but,  when  we  adopt  a  new  constitution,  or  re- 
ceive a  new  constitution  recognizing  slavery — 
when  we  introduce  an  evil  in  the  Government, 
then  we  become  chargeable  with  that  eviL 
Then  it  is  we  create  the  condition  of  slavery, 
which  before  that  time  had  no  sanction  of  a 
permanent  law.  Then  it  is  that  we  are  at  lib- 
erty to  inquire  into  first  principles,  and  to  com- 
pare the  situation  of  a  slave  with  the  natural 
rights  of  man. 

Sir,  on  this  question  I  should  be  willing  to 
rest  on  the  wisdom  of  those  who  have  gone  be- 
fore me.  I  should  be  willing  to  say,  that  the 
construction  of  the  constitution,  from  the  com- 
mencement of  the  Government  to  this  period — 
the  precedents  furnished,  and  the  system  of 
legislation,  from  the  much  famed  ordinance  of 
1787  almost  to  the  present  day,  are  sufficient, 
lights  for  me  on  this  occasion.  I  should  say 
that  a  system  of  legislation  continued  for  thirty 
years — a  system  which  existed  before  the  con- 
stitution, and  under  the  constitution  producing 
the  happiest  political  results,  is  one  which  I 
would  not  readily  believe  to  be  founded  in 
usurpation,  and  tending  to  the  destruction  of 
the  Government.  Such,  sir,  is  the  ordinance 
of  1787  for  the  government  of  the  Northwestern 
Territory ;  the  propositions  offered  by  Congress 
to  the  people  of  Ohio,  in  the  law  authorizing 
them  to  form  for  themselves  a  constitution  and 
State  government ;  the  provisions  of  the  con- 
stitution of  that  State  inhibiting  slavery.  Such 
were  the  propositions  of  Congress  to  the  people 
of  Indiana,  in  1816,  in  the  law  authorizing  them 
to  form  a  constitution  and  State  government. 
Such  was  the  positive  and  absolute  condition 
requiring  that  the  constitution  of  Indiana  when 
formed,  should  be  republican,  and  not  repugnant 
to  the  articles  of  the  ordinance  of  1787,  one  of 
which  prohibited  slavery;  and  such  were  the 
provisions  of  the  constitution  of  that  State  in- 
hibiting slavery.  Such,  also,  were  the  propo- 
sitions offered  to  Illinois  on  a  similar  occasion. 
Sir,  for  further  notice  of  some  of  the  principles 
of  this  ordinance,  and  for  additional  links  in  this 
chain  of  legislation,  I  refer  yon  to  the  acts  of 
cession  of  North  Carolina  and  Georgia  to  the 
General  Government — to  the  acts  of  Congress 
preparatory  to  the  admission  of  Kentucky  into 
the  Union — to  the  act  relative  to  the  Territory 
of  Orleans,  authorizing  the  people  of  that  Terri- 
tory to  form  for  themselves  a  constitution  and 
State  government.  Permit  me,  sir,  to  turn  the 
attention  of  the  committee  to  some  of  the  con- 
ditions and  restrictions  of  that  act.  The  proviso 
to  the  third  section  is  in  these  words : 

"  Provided,  The  constitution  to  be  formed  in  vir- 
tue of  the  authority  herein  given,  shall  be  republi- 
can, and  consistent  with  the  Constitution  of  the  United 
States  ;  that  it  shall  contain  the  fundamental  princi- 
ples of  civil  and  religious  liberty  ;  that  it  shall  secure 
to  the  citizen  the  trial  by  jury  in  all  criminal  cases, 
and  the  privilege  of  the  writ  of  habeas  corpus,  con- 
formably to  the  provisions  of  the  Constitution  of  the 
United  States ;  and  that,  after  the  admission  of  the 
Territory  of  Orleans  as  a  State  into  the  Union,  the 


544 


ABRIDGMENT  OF  THE 


H.  OF  R.] 


The  Missouri  Bill — Restriction  on  the  State. 


[FEBBUABY,  1820. 


laws  which  such  State  may  pass  shall  be  promulgated, 
and  its  records  of  every  description  shall  be  preserved, 
and  its  judicial  and  legislative  written  proceedings 
conducted,  in  the  language  in  which  the  laws  and 
the  judicial  and  legislative  written  proceedings  of  the 
United  States  are  now  published  and  conducted  ;  and 
that  the  river  Mississippi,  and  the  navigable  rivers 
and  waters  leading  into  the  same,  or  into  the  Gulf  of 
Mexico,  shall  be  common  highways,  and  forever  free, 
as  well  to  the  inhabitants  of  the  said  States  as  to  other 
citizens  of  the  United  States,  without  any  duty,  im- 
post, or  toll  therefor,  imposed  by  the  said  State." 

Of  the  same  character  is  the  act  prohibiting 
the  taking  of  slaves  to  the  Territory  of  Orleans. 
All  this,  sir,  I  cannot  believe  to  have  been  the 
offspring  of  inattention  in  those  who  have  legis- 
lated since  the  commencement  of  this  Govern- 
ment. I  believe,  sir,  that  precedents  and  con- 
structions of  a  constitution,  are  as  binding  on 
Legislatures  as  decisions  are  binding  on  the 
courts  of  law.  And  the  reason  which  requires 
a  written  constitution,  requires  that  this  should 
be  so.  Why,  sir,  is  a  written  constitution  neces- 
sary ?  It  is  necessary  that  the  lines  and  boun- 
daries be  clearly  delineated  and  certainly  known. 
It  is  necessary  that  the  powers  of  the  Govern- 
ment be  defined  and  rendered  certain;  and, 
where  doubts,  ambiguities,  and  uncertainties 
exist,  precedents  and  constructions  define  and 
make  certain.  And,  sir,  precedents  have  addi- 
tional force  and  efficacy  when  formed  under 
circumstances  calculated  to  impress  a  character 
of  intelligence  and  stability  upon  them — when 
formed  in  the  cairn  of  tranquillity  and  reason, 
remote  from  party  excitement  and  political 
strife.  Such,  sir,  are  the  precedents  to  which 
I  have  alluded. 

Mr.  CUTHBEBT,  of  Georgia,  followed,  and  oc- 
cupied the  floor  also  about  an  hour  against  the 
restriction,  when  the  committee  rose,  on  motion 
of  Mr.  JOHNSON,  of  Virginia,  and  the  House  ad- 
journed. 

WEDNESDAY,  February  16. 
Another  member,  to  wit,  from  New  Jersey, 
CHABLES  KINSEY,  appeared,  produced  his  cre- 
dentials, was  qualified,  and  took  his  seat. 

The  Missouri  Bill. 

The  House  then  resumed,  as  in  Committee  of 
the  Whole,  the  consideration  of  the  proposed 
amendment  to  this  bill. 

Mr.  JOHNSON,  of  Virginia,  addressed  the  Chair 
as  follows : 

Mr.  Chairman :  Without  occupying  your  at- 
tention by  any  unnecessary  apologies,  I  shall  at 
once  proceed  to  the  examination  of  the  princi- 
ples involved  in  the  question  which  now  occu- 
pies the  attention  of  this  committee,  and  which, 
it  is  said,  moves  the  great  ocean  of  popular  feel- 
ing even  to  the  bed  on  which  for  some  time  it 
has,  with  so  much  tranquillity,  reposed.  In  pro- 
portion to  the  magnitude  of  the  effect  is  the 
solicitude  of  the  human  mind  to  trace  to  its 
source  the  cause  by  which  it  has  been  produced. 
What  then,  sir,  has  produced  this  degree  of  ex- 


citement which  gentlemen  assure  us  exists  in 
the  nation  ?  Is  it  the  mere  question  whether 
the  lands  of  Missouri  shall  be  cultivated  by  free- 
men or  by  slaves  ?  No,  sir — no,  sir — no."  It  is 
a  question  about  power ;  power — that  idol  which 
has  a  charm,  an  irresistible  fascination,  for  the 
human  heart.  It  is  a  question  calculated  to  test 
the  powers  of  the  Federal  Government ;  to  de- 
termine how  much  sovereignty  or  power  is  left 

Gentlemen  tell  us  that  there  is  great  excite- 
ment in  the  country,  and  desire  us  to  be  quiet 
and  patient,  lest  we  should  add  to  the  excite- 
ment. And  pray,  sir,  by  whom  has  this  excite- 
ment been  produced  ?  From  what  quarter  did 
the  proposition  come  ?  Where  have  town  and 
county  meetings  been  gotten  up,  to  manufacture 
resolutions  of  thanks  to  individual  members  of 
Congress,  to  stimulate  them  to  go  on  with  this 
choice  work  of  excitement  ?  Not  in  the  slave- 
holding  States — not  in  Virginia;  but  in  the 
States  north  and  east  of  the  Potomac — in  New 
York  and  in  New  England.  Do  gentlemen  be- 
lieve that  they  will  be  permitted  to  produce  a 
state  of  general  excitement  and  agitation  in  the 
country,  and  then  to  avail  themselves  of  the 
state  of  public  feeling,  in  order  to  silence  oppo- 
sition ?  Gentlemen  will  excuse  us  if  we  cannot 
imitate  the  meekness  of  the  lamb,  which  crops 
the  flowery  flood,  and  licks  the  hand  just  raised 
to  shed  his  blood. 

The  political  doctors  of  the  day,  not  satisfied 
with  resorting  to  the  different  clauses  of  the  con- 
stitution, which  give  to  Congress  power  to  make 
all  needful  rules  and  regulations  respecting  the 
territory  and  other  property  belonging  to  the 
United  States ;  to  admit  new  States  into  the 
Union  ;  to  regulate  commerce ;  to  provide  for 
the  common  defence  and  general  welfare ;  have 
most  strangely  resorted  to  the  9th  section  of  the 
1st  article  of  the  constitution,  to  derive  for 
Congress  this  omnipotent  power  of  fixing  im- 
mutably the  fundamental  principle,  by  which 
the  people  of  Missouri  and  their  posterity  are  to 
be  governed.  This  section,  from  the  beginning 
to  the  end,  contains  nothing  but  prohibitions 
and  restrictions  on  the  powers  of  Congress. 
The  ficst  clause  of  this  section  contains  the  pro- 
hibition, on  the  power  of  Congress,  relative  to 
the  migration  or  importation  of  such  persons  as 
any  of  the  States  shall  think  proper  to  admit 
prior  to  the  year  1808.  I  shall  not  dwell  on 
the  terms  migration  and  importation,  which 
have  been  so  often  repeated,  during  this  debate, 
as  to  cause  them  to  grate  on  the  ear  as  harshly 
and  disagreeably  as  the  chains  of  the  convict. 

I  am  very  happy  that  the  gentleman  from 
South  Carolina,  (Mr.  PINCKNEY,)  a  member  of 
the  Convention  which  formed  the  Constitution 
of  the  United  States,  has  given  an  account  of 
the  understanding  of  the  Convention,  as  to  the 
true  import  and  meaning  of  these  terms,  which 
corresponds  completely  with  the  definitions 
given  of  them  by  the  most  learned  and  the  best 
speakers  who  have  taken  part  in  this  debate,  to 
wit,  that  migration  was  applied  to  all  persons 


DEBATES  OF  CONGRESS. 


545 


FEBKCARY,  1820.] 


The  Missouri  Bill— Restriction  on  the  State. 


[H.  OF  R. 


of  whatever  color  or  description,  who  should 
voluntarily  remove  to  the  United  States,  or  any 
particular  State — importation,  to  all  persons 
•who  should  be  brought,  by  the  will  of  others, 
into  any  of  the  States.  All  contracts  or  com- 
pacts may  grant  more  or  less  than  the  contract- 
ing parties  designed  to  convey.  If  Congress 
possess- no  other  power  over  the  subject  of  mi- 
gration or  importation,  than  what  can  be  derived 
from  this  9th  section,  it  is,  to  my  mind,  most 
perfectly  clear,  that  not  a  single  power  is  pos- 
sessed over  the  subject. 

It  will  be  recollected  by  the  committee,  that 
the  preceding  section  contains  an  enumeration 
of  the  powers  designed  to  be  intrusted  to  the 
Congress  of  the  United  States.  Would  it  not  be 
a  most  singular  inconsistency  for  men  of  very 
inferior  perspicacity  and  intelligence  to  those 
who  framed  the  Constitution  of  the  United 
States,  who  should  be  engaged  in  a  work  of  such 
deep  and  momentous  importance  as  that  of  pre- 
paring a  form  of  government  for  a  free  people, 
who  were  jealous  and  watchful  of  their  liberties, 
in  order  to  form  a  government  of  limited  and 
denned  powers  which  should  be  peiiectly  secure 
from  abuse?  First,  to  enumerate,  with  care 
and  accuracy,  the  several  powers  intended  to  be 
intrusted  to  the  representatives  of  the  people — 
yielding  to  the  well-founded  jealousy  entertained 
of  the  propensity  of  man  to  abuse  delegated 
powers,  that  the  very  singular  mode  should  have 
been  adopted  to  confer  new  and  more  extensive 
powers,  by  prohibiting,  except  under  peculiar 
circumstances,  or  for  a  limited  time,  the  exercise 
of  some  of  the  most  important  powers,  expressly 
delegated,  or  resulting  by  necessary  and  una- 
voidable implication,  from  powers  thus  con- 
ferred. Sir,  there  is  no  rule  of  construction ; 
no  principle  of  reason  which  is  not  opposed  to 
such  a  mode  of  imparting  power.  I  know  I  may 
be  met  with  the  objection,  that  it  is  from  this 
clause  that  Congress  derives  the  power  to  sus- 
pend the  writ  of  habeas,  corpus.  To  which  I 
answer,  that  Congress  derives  from  this  clause 
no  power  over  the  writ  of  habeas  corpus ;  that 
it  was  designed  to  furnish  a  rule  of  construction, 
to  prevent  the  abuse  of  power  by  suspending 
this  writ,  on  which  the  personal  security  and 
liberty  of  the  citizen  so  much  depended.  The 
people  of  this  country  had  not  long  shaken  oif 
the  yoke  of  a  foreign  tyrant.  They  had  had 
many  painful  evidences  of  the  abuse  of  power 
by  the  British  Government  in  suspending  the 
great  and  efficacious  writ.  But  can  it  for  a 
moment  be  doubted  that  Congress  has  the  con- 
stitutional power  to  suspend  the  writ  of  habeas 
corpus?  But  for  the  prohibition  contained  in 
this  section  on  the  exercise  of  this  power,  it 
might  have  been  very  much  abused.  Are  not 
the  powers  delegated  to  Congress,  in  their  na- 
ture sovereign?  Is  not  the  power  to  declare 
war  a  high  sovereign  power,  confided  by  the 
people  to  their  representatives?  Is  not  the 
power  to  create  tribunals  inferior  to  the  Supreme 
Court,  expressly  given?  Is  not  the  whole  judi- 
ciary of  the  United  States  organized  by  an  act 
VOL.  VI.— 35 


of  Congress  ?  Are  not  the  forms  of  writs,  and 
the  rules  of  proceeding,  prescribed  by  Congress? 
Can  it  be  at  all  doubtful  that  the  power  which, 
under  the  constitution,  prescribes  the  rule  of 
action ;  in  other  words,  gives  the  law  to  the 
courts  and  the  people,  when  the  public  interest 
demands  it,  can  suspend  even  this  highly  im- 
portant and  remedial  writ  ?  This  was  known 
to  the  Convention  ;  the  prohibition  was  wisely 
inserted,  as  a  necessary  guard  to  the  liberty  of 
the  citizen. 

Again,  it  may  be  contended  that,  from  the 
10th  section  of  the  same  article,  which  contains 
nothing  but  restraints  and  prohibitions  upon  the 
exercise  of  certain  powers  by  the  States,  that 
they,  when  actually  invaded,  or  in  such  immi- 
nent danger  as  will  not  admit  of  delay,  derive 
the  power  to  keep  troops  and  ships  of  war,  to 
enter  into  compacts  with  each  other,  with  for- 
eign powers,  and  even  to  engage  in  war.  Not 
so,  sir.  It  serves  merely  as  a  rule  of  construc- 
tion, as  an  additional  evidence  of  the  jealousy 
of  the  people  of  this  country  of  their  rights  and 
liberties,  and  of  the  propensity  of  man  to  abuse 
power  when  intrusted  to  him.  Not  a  right  is 
conferred  on  the  States  by  this  section.  The 
States,  in  relation  to  the  General  Government, 
and  in  reference  to  their  defence,  occupy  the 
same  ground  as  individuals.  Whenever  a  gov- 
ernment is  unable  to  defend  the  citizen,  the 
right  of  self-defence,  a  natural  right,  recurs  to 
him  ;  so  of  the  States.  When  the  General  Gov- 
ernment is  unable  to  defend  the  States,  the  natu- 
ral and  inalienable  right  of  self-defence  reverts 
to  the  States,  and  authorizes  them  to  defend  and 
preserve  themselves. 

Shall  I  be  permitted  to  invite  the  attention  of 
the  committee  to  the  amendments  to  the  Consti- 
tution of  the  United  States,  articles  first  and 
second  ?  These  articles  contain  prohibitions  of 
a  very  singular  character,  on  the  exercise  of 
powers  by  Congress.  I  confess  that  I  have  never 
seen  these  articles  without  regret.  I  have  con- 
sidered them  as  disgraceful  to  the  high  and 
lofty  character  of  the  American  people.  I  pre- 
sume, if  a  convention  were  now  called,  to  frame 
a  constitution  for  the  people  of  the  United  States, 
that,  instead  of  embodying  a  few  general  and 
fundamental  principles,  contained  in  a  little 
pamphlet  like  this,  [holding  the  constitution  in 
his  hand,]  it  would  require  a  large  folio  volume 
to  contain  the  necessary  restrictions  and  prohi- 
bitions on  the  Government  against  undue  and 
unwarrantable  exercise  of  power.  What  are 
the  prohibitions  in  these  articles  ?  "  Congress 
shall  make  no  law  respecting  an  establishment 
of  religion,  or  prohibiting  the  free  exercise 
thereof;  or  abridging  the  freedom  of  speech, 
or  of  the  press ;  or  the  right  of  the  people  peace- 
ably to  assemble,  and  to  petition  the  Government 
for  a  redress  of  grievances.  A  well-regulated 
militia  being  necessary  to  the  security  of  a  free 
State,  the  right  of  the  people  to  keep  and  bear 
arms  shall  not  be  infringed."  I  ask  the  com- 
mittee to  pause  for  a  moment,  and  to  reflect 
on  the  character  of  these  prohibitions.  What 


546 


ABRIDGMENT  OF  THE 


H.  OF  R] 


The  Missouri  Bill — Restriction  on  the  State. 


[FEBRUARY,  1820. 


must  have  been  the  jealousy  of  those  who 
deemed  it  necessary  to  guard  against  the  abuse 
of  power,  by  such  restrictions,  on  a  Government 
of  limited,  denned,  and  delegated  authority? 
Under  what  pretence  could  Congress  dare  to 
interfere  with  aifairs  of  religion — with  the  free- 
dom of  speech  or  of  the  press  ?  Under  what  state 
of  things  could  it  be  presumed  to  be  necessary 
for  the  sovereign  people  of  the  United  States  to 
retain  to  themselves  the  poor  privilege  of  as- 
sembling peaceably  to  petition,  not  their  sover- 
eign lords  and  masters,  but  their  public  servants 
and  agents,  for  a  redress  of  grievances?  To 
what  daring  usurpations  must  they  have  looked, 
when  it  was  deemed  necessary  to  secure  to 
freemen  the  privilege  of  keeping  and  bearing 
arms  ?  But,  sir,  constitutional  securities  against 
the  abuse  of  power,  of  delegated  and  limited 
power,  seem  to  be  but  beautiful  and  splendid 
illusions. 

The  doctrines  of  humanity  and  religion  have 
not  been  much  pressed  into  service  by  the  re- 
strictionists  latterly.  It  is  somewhat  singular 
that  the  passion  of  humanity  should,  at  the  same 
instant  of  time,  have  seized  so  strongly  upon 
New  England  and  Old  England ;  that  this  pas- 
sion should  have  been  so  strongly  and  so  sin- 
gularly enlisted  in  favor  of  the  black  slaves  in 
the  United  States.  Slavery  on  every  other  por- 
tion of  the  globe  seems  to  have  had  no  effect  on 
the  sympathies  of  these  philanthropists.  They 
have  not  been  excited  by  the  condition  of  the 
.white  slaves  of  Europe ;  nor  by  the  sufferings 
of  the  white,  black,  and  party-colored  slaves  of 
;the  Indies.  The  African  slave  trade — the  en- 
slaved descendants  of  Africans  in  the  United 
States— are  the  subjects  of  peculiar  sensibility 
.and  interest  to  those  who  have  recently  engaged 
in  proclaiming  the  doctrines  of  benevolence  and 
humanity.  The  peculiar  and  strongly-marked 
hostility  of  Old  England  to  the  people  of  the 
Southern  aod  Western  States,  the  holders  of 
black  slaves,  is  well  known.  Let  the  people  of 
England — of  Great  Britain — cast  their  eyes  on 
the  map  of  the  earth,  and  see  what  a  large  pro- 
portion of  its  habitable  part  is  covered,  and  by 
millions  of  human  beings  held  in  the  most 
wretched  state  of  bondage,  by  the  policy  of 
their  own  Government.  In  the  West  Indies,  in 
.Europe,  in  the  East  Indies,  millions  of  human 
beings,  presenting  every  sliade  of  color,  and 
.every  grade  of  suffering  and  misery,  testify  by 
iheir  execrations  that  they  are  the  victims  of 
British  policy — of  British  cruelty  and  ambition. 
Yet  we  find  the  pages  of  every  public  journal 
in  Great  Britain  filled  with  exclamations  and 
denunciations  against  the  holders  of  black  slaves 
in  the  United  States.  England,  despotic  and 
heartless  as  she  is,  still  endeavors  to  preserve 
the  appearance  of  some  regard  and  respect  for 
the  opinions  of  the  world.  She  still  can  blush, 
or  appear  to  blush,  by  keeping  the  veil  closely 
drawn.  It  would  not  do  for  her  to  express 
much  sympathy  for  white  slaves.  Her  half-fed 
and  badly-clothed  subjects  in  the  highlands  of 
Scotland;  her  enslaved  subjects  in  Ireland; 


would  attract  painful  attention.  The  miserable 
condition  of  the  people  in  the  East  Indies,  ren- 
dered thus  miserable  by  her  despotic  pulley, 
would  intrude  itself.  The  white  slaves  in 
every  part  of  Europe,  therefore,  fail  to  excite 
her  humanity.  The  Hungarian  peasant,  whose 
state  of  slavery  and  subjugation,  according  to 
Bright,  are  infinitely  more  oppressive  than  that 
of  the  black  slave  in  America,  excites  no  por- 
tion of  her  sympathy  or  humanity.  Can  Eng- 
land disguise  the  fact — can  her  friends  conceal  it 
— that  she  has  done  more  to  entail  misery  on  the 
African  race,  and  their  descendants,  than  all  the 
other  powers  of  the  earth  ? 

Humility  is  said  to  be  the  most  odious  garb  in 
which  Pride  can  be  dressed.  This  may  be  true, 
sir ;  but  it  is  still  more  odious  to  see  Ambition 
dressed  out  in  the  meek  habiliments  of  religion, 
with  humanity  on  her  lips,  whilst  the  love  of 
power  swells  her  heart.  We  need  take  but  a 
glance  at  the  history  of  the  times  that  are  past, 
to  see  this  same  Ambition,  covered  with  the 
mantle  of  religion,  profaning  the  God  whom 
it  affected  to  adore ;  poisoning  the  stream  of 
human  felicity ;  rioting  on  the  sufferings  of  the 
innocent.  Shall  we  look  for  examples  to  the 
land  which  is  sometimes  called  the  land  of  our 
ancestors — to  Great  Britain — to  happy  Eng- 
land? If  we  look  to  the  reign  of  the  bloody 
Mary  or  the  present  Regent,  we  shall  see  the 
spirit  of  ambition  arrayed  on  the  side  of  human- 
ity and  religion  ;  how  happily,  let  the  blood 
and  the  tears  of  the  Catholics  of  Ireland,  shed 
by  the  same  sabre  which  has  been  drawn  in  de- 
fence of  the  Catholics  of  Spain,  testify.  The 
worship  of  the  Deity  has  been  proscribed  to  the 
Catholics  at  home — to  the  Catholics  of  Ireland 
— whilst  the  Spanish  Catholic  has  been  sustain- 
ed by  the  same  authority,  even  at  the  point  of 
the  bayonet,  to  his  altar  and  his  God.  And  all 
this  has  been  done  in  the  name  of  humanity, 
and  under  the  pretext  of  devotion  to  religion! 

Sir,  I  am  attached,  to  the  Union ;  but  it  is  a 
rational  attachment.  I  have  no  superstitious 
attachment,  either  to  the  Union  or  any  thing 
else.  I  am  attached  to  the  Union,  because  I 
believe  it  calculated  to  secure  the  political 
rights,  tranquillity,  prosperity,  and  happiness,  of 
the  people  of  this  country.  The  moment  the 
Union  shall  fail  to  secure  and  promote  these 
objects  I  shall  detest  it,  as  I  would  any  other 
species  of  despotism. 

With  what  propriety  can  those  who,  during 
the  Revolution,  embarked  with  us  their  fortunes 
and  their  hopes  on  board  the  same  ship ;  who 
gladly  clung  to  us  during  the  hour  of  danger, 
after  it  stood  the  storm  during  the  Revolu- 
tionary conflict,  and  rode  triumphantly  through 
the  tempest  during  the  late  war  with  Great 
Britain — passing  safely  over  the  rough  sea 
which  set  in  from  abroad,  undisturbed  by  the 
ripple  added  by  domestic  faction — now  that  all 
is  peace  and  sunshine,  turn  upon  us,  and  upbraid 
us  with  the  stains  and  spots  of  negro  slavery  ; 
a  species  of  slavery  which  existed  before  and 
during  the  Revolution  in  every  State  in  the 


DEBATES  OF  CONGRESS. 


547 


FEBRUARY,  1820.] 


The  Missouri  Bill— Restriction  on  the  State. 


[H.  OF  R. 


Union ;  which  has  always  existed  since  the 
Revolution,  in  portions  of  this  country,  and 
which  they  bound  themselves,  by  the  most 
sacred  of  all  compacts,  never  to  disturb  ?  Let 
the  parties  to  the  compact,  who  have  been  borne 
thus  safely  and  happily  in  this  old  ship,  but  ad- 
here to  the  charter-party — the  constitution — I 
have  no  doubt  she  will  glide  in  safety  on  the 
wave  of  time  to  the  end  of  the  present  century, 
prepared,  at  that  period,  still  to  go  on  with  the 
fairest  prospect  of  a  successful  voyage  to  the 
close  of  the  next  century.  Permit  me  to  bor- 
row the  dying  words  of  the  immortal  Lawrence, 
while  his  eye  was  glazed  by  death :  honor  and 
glory  brightened  on  his  brow — he  exclaimed, 
"  don't  give  up  the  styp  ?"  I  say  to  you,  hold 
on  to  the  Union — don't  give  up  the  political  ship 
— cling  to  the  original  charter-party — the  con- 
stitution ;  all  will  be  well— the  nation  will  be 
happy. 

Is  there  a  citizen  of  the  United  States  who 
has  not  felt  his  bosom  warmed  and  animated  by 
the  sun  of  our  political  confederacy  ?  The  sun 
which  on  the  4th  of  July,  1776,  rose  with  such 
unusual  brightness  and  matchless  splendor, 
which,  for  more  than  forty  years,  has  warmed 
and  animated  this  society,  and  lighted  its  path 
to  glory  and  to  happiness.  Shall  the  political 
balance  and  harmony  of  our  system  be  destroy- 
ed, and  that  sun  be  precipitated,  with  disastrous 
ruin,  on  the  bosom  of  this  society,  which  it  has 
so  often  cheered  and  brightened  into  joy  and 
felicity?  I  trust  that  Heaven  will  avert  the 
sad  calamity.  That,  under  the  genial  influence 
of  this  sun,  that  flowering  wreath  which  has  so 
long  bound  in  concord  and  harmony  this  Con- 
federacy, will  maintain  an  imperishable  verdure 
— that  its  bloom  will  be  perpetual,  its  fragrance 
immortal ! 

Mr.  DAP.LIXGTON,  of  Pennsylvania,  addressed 
the  chair  as  follows : 

Mr.  Chairman,  I  wish  to  submit  a  few  re- 
marks on  this  question ;  and  I  trust  the  com- 
mittee will  be  disposed  to  extend  their  indul- 
gence towards  me  for  a  few  moments,  when 
they  recollect  that  I  am  not  in  the  habit  of  tres- 
passing upon  their  patience  in  this  way.  I  am 
very  sensible  that  I  shall  not  be  able  to  do  jus- 
tice even  to  my  own  views  of  the  subject ;  for 
I  am  utterly  unpractised  in  the  business  of  pub- 
lic speaking  ;  yet,  believing  that  this  is  a  ques- 
tion of  vital  importance,  not  only  to  the  char- 
acter of  this  nation,  but  likewise  to  its  safety, 
prosperity,  and  happiness ;  and  believing  also, 
that  some  erroneous  impressions  exist,  in  rela- 
tion to  many  of  those  who  advocate  the  amend- 
ments before  you,  I  feel  constrained  to  attempt 
a  few  observations. 

I  shall  not  presume  to  undertake  an  exposi- 
tion of  ambiguous  constitutional  points,  after  the 
very  able  and  learned  discussions  which  \ve 
have  had  from  gentlemen  who  have  piv<vd,.<l 
me.  Such  an  attempt  would,  in  my  opinion,  be 
as  unnecessary  now,  as  it  certainly  would  lie 
presumptuous  in  me  at  any  time.  I  shall,  there- 
fore, content  myself,  at  this  stage  of  the  debate, 


with  offering  some  of  those  views  which  present 
themselves  to  a  common  understanding.  And 
here,  sir,  as  an  American,  proud  and  jealous  of 
our  national  character,  I  trust  I  may  be  permit- 
ted to  say,  that  it  is  a  source  of  no  little  mortifi- 
cation to  me  to  see  the  Congress  of  these  United 
States,  in  the  44th  year  of  our  independence, 
seriously  sustaining  the  question  whether  it  be 
rightful  and  expedient,  without  an  uncontrolla- 
ble necessity,  to  sanction  human  slavery  in  the 
new  republics  which  are  to  be  added  to  this 
Confederacy?  I  had  once  fondly  hoped  that 
such  a  spectacle  would  never  have  been  exhibit- 
ed by  us,  to  gratify  the  malignant  envy  of  the 
despots,  and  their  execrable  parasites,  who  out- 
rage the  rights  of  mankind  in  the  Old  World, 
and  who  sicken  at  the  idea  of  their  conservation 
here.  I  had  hoped,  that  we  should  have  per- 
severed with  unanimity,  as  we  have  hitherto 
done,  in  erecting  new  republics  upon  the  true 
and  genuine  principles  of  our  Government,  ex- 
cluding human  slavery  with  the  utmost  care 
and  solicitude,  wherever  it  should  be  in  our 
power  to  do  so.  The  generous  and  predomi- 
nant sentiments  of  the  American  people,  as  far 
as  I  have  had  an  opportunity  to  be  acquainted 
with  those  sentiments,  seemed  to  me  to  warrant 
such  a  hope  ;  and  I  cannot  yet  relinquish  the 
idea. 

We  have  been  told,  indeed — and  I  feel  it  my 
duty,  as  a  Representative  of  Republican  Penn- 
sylvania, to  notice  the  remark — we  have  been 
told,  Mr.  Chairman,  that,  however  laudable  may 
be  the  motives  of  many  who  are  in  favor  of  re- 
stricting slavery,  yet  that  there  are  political  jug- 
glers behind  the  scenes,  who  are  making  use  of 
the  proposition  and  its  advocates,  as  the  forlorn 
hope,  and  the  last  desperate  effort  of  an  expir- 
ing party.  Sir,  where  I  am  best  known,  it 
would  be  needless  to  say  that  I  have  nothing 
to  do  with  their  views,  their  efforts,  or  their 
hopes ;  that  I  have  never  had  any  concern  or 
connection  with  that  expiring  party.  From  my 
earliest  youth,  upwards,  I  have  been  a  demo- 
cratic republican ;  and  I  leave  it  to  those  who 
have  once  belonged  to  the  aforesaid  expiring 
party,  if  there  be  any  such  here,  to  develop  the 
schemes  of  their  jugglers.  I  have  never  been  in 
their  secrets ;  but  I  cannot  help  observing,  that 
I  see  gentlemen  who  are  avowed  members  of 
that  unfortunate  party,  zealously  engaged  in 
the  ranks  of  our  opponents,  in  endeavors  to 
defeat  this  amendment.  Sir,  I  do  not  believe 
it  is  a  question  of  party  views  with  any  man 
who  loves  his  country,  or  feels  an  interest  in  its 
reputation  and  permanent  welfare.  But,  sir,  I 
have  always  been  taught  to  believe,  that  it  was 
no  part  of  republicanism  to  authorize,  or  even 
to  connive  at,  slavery,  in  the  formation  of  gov- 
ernments, where  it  could  possibly  be  prevent- 
ed. I  will  here  frankly  confess,  too,  that  it  is 
cause  of  pain  and  regret  to  be  opposed  to  gen- 
tlemen for  whom  I  have  the  highest  regard, 
and  with  whom  it  has  generally  been  the  pride 
and  the  happiness  of  myself  and  my  colleagues 
to  co-operate.  But,  on  this  occasion,  I  must 


548 


ABRIDGMENT  OF  THE 


H.  OF  R.] 


The  Missouri  Bill— Restriction  on  the  State. 


[FEBRUARY,  1820. 


pursue  a  course,  however  opposite  to  that  of 
ray  Southern  friends,  which  a  solemn  sense  of 
duty  renders  imperative ;  and  I  ask  gentlemen 
to  exercise  their  accustomed  liberality  towards 
us.  If  they  think  it  strange  that  we,  who  have 
generally  acted  with  them,  are  opposed  to  them 
on  this  subject,  we  can  only  say,  that  we  think 
it  equally  strange,  and  we  do  most  sincerely 
regret,  to  find  them  in  opposition  to  us. 

The  sparse  population  now  in  Missouri  may 
not  yet  perceive  the  evils  of  slavery ;  and  may, 
therefore,  be  willing  to  indulge  in  the  danger- 
ous gratifications  which  it  affords,  until  it  is  too 
late.  So  it  was  in  South  Carolina  and  Georgia. 
Those  States  wished  for  more  slaves.  They  in- 
sisted on  the  privilege  (which,  unhappily  for 
themselves,  and  the  whole  nation,  was  conced- 
ed to  them)  of  importing  that  description  of 
persons  for  twenty  years  after  the  adoption  of 
the  Federal  Constitution.  But,  Mr.  Chairman, 
what  do  they  say  now  ?  Do  they  not  see  their 
error?  Nay,  do  they  not  feel  it,  and  deplore 
it  ?  And  are  we  never  to  profit  by  woful  ex- 
perience? Are  we  to  go  on,  wilfully,  and  per- 
verse, blindfold,  in  this  fatal  career,  until  slavery 
shall  be  extended  over  three-fourths  of  the  re- 
publics in  this  Confederacy?  I  hope  not.  I 
pray  to  God  that  we  may  have  the  virtue  and 
the  firmness  to  restrain  its  progress,  before  we 
are  irretrievably  lost  in  the  dreadful  abyss. 
Some  of  the  learned  gentlemen  of  the  bar,  who 
oppose  this  amendment,  have  exercised  their 
ingenuity  in  subtle  distinctions,  and  technical 
rules  of  deduction,  borrowed  from  their  pro- 
fession. They  were,,  no  doubt,  very  applicable 
to  the  subject ;  and,  as  far  as  I  understand  them, 
I  listened  with  pleasure — I  hope  with  profit. 
They  also  borrowed  some  of  their  illustrations 
from  my  profession ;  and  there,  I  think,  I  un- 
derstood them  better.  But,  Mr.  Chairman,  I 
could  by  no  means  assent  to  their  correctness, 
when  they  came  within  my  province.  I  trust 
they  were  more  correct  while  on  their  own 
grounds.  Gentlemen  compared  the  evil  of 
slavery  to  a  malignant  poison  ;  and  they  called 
upon  us  to  dilute  it,  by  diffusion,  in  order  to 
render  it  more  tolerable.  Sir,  it  is  a  malignant 
poison,  or  rather,  I  would  say,  it  is  a  malignant 
disease  in  the  body  politic,  whose  deleterious 
ravages  are  extended  with  all  the  certainty  and 
inveteracy  of  specific  contagion.  It  is  more 
loathsome  than  the  small-pox  itself;  and  its  des- 
olating influence  ought,  by  all  means,  to  be 
confined  within  the  smallest  possible  limits. 
"Would  you  diffuse  contagion  in  a  community, 
by  way  of  relief?  "Would  you  disseminate  small- 
pox, with  a  view  to  dilate  its  malignity,  or  to 
mitigate  its  effects?  No,  sir,  that  would  be 
quackery  without  a  parallel  in  the  darkest  ages 
of  the  profession.  Sir,  the  immortal  ordinance 
of  1787,  respecting  the  territories  northwest  of 
the  Ohio,  was  the  grand  Jennerian  discovery  in 
relation  to  the  malady  of  slavery  in  our  coun- 
try ;  and  I  trust  we  shall  continue  to  avail  our- 
selves of  the  blessing.  The  Congress  of  1787 
introduced  a  sort  of  political  vaccination  into 


the  constitutions  of  Ohio,  Indiana,  and  Illinois, 
which  effectually  secured  those  States  from  the 
evil ;  and  I  am  also  for  extending  the  same 
salutary  process  to  our  infant  sister,  Missouri. 
And  why  ?  Is  it  to  injure  her  ?  Is  it  to  muti- 
late or  disfigure  her  ?  No,  sir,  it  is  to  secure 
her  health,  and  to  preserve  her  beauty  1  Mr. 
Chairman,  should  you  deem  these  observations 
to  savor  unduly  of  the  shop,  I  must  plead,  in 
mitigation  of  your  censure,  the  precedent  set  by 
the  gentlemen  of  the  green  satchel.  Much  has 
been  said,  Mr.  Chairman,  on  both  sides,  about 
religion,  as  connected  with  this  question.  I 
shall  not  adduce  religious  arguments  in  aid  of 
my  opinions,  because  I  am  well  aware  that  the 
sacred  name  of  religion  has  been  too  often  im- 
properly used  for  political  purposes.  I  have, 
indeed,  heard  the  benevolent  principles  of  Chris- 
tianity urged,  with  unanswerable  force,  in  my 
estimation,  against  the  further  extens/on  of  this 
crying  enormity  ;  and  yet  I  have  also  recently 
seen,  with  feelings  which  I  shall  not  attempt  to 
describe,  the  holy  scriptures  cited  as  authority 
in  favor  of  the  practice  of  holding  mankind  as 
slaves !  But  I  am  not  disposed  to  mingle  poli- 
tics with  religion.  I  am  for  keeping  Church 
and  State  separate,  on  all  occasions.  I  cannot, 
however,  help  noticing  a  remark  of  the  gentle- 
man from  South  Carolina,  (Mr.  PETOKNEY.)  I 
understood  him  to  say,  that  slavery  could  not 
be  inconsistent  with  religion,  because  the  Deity 
permits  a  large  portion  of  the  human  race  to  be 
held  in  bondage.  I  am  sure  the  gentleman  did 
not  reflect  on  the  extent  to  which  such  an  argu- 
ment would  go,  or  he  would  not  have  advanced 
it.  Sir,  if  that  doctrine  were  correct,  it  would 
go  to  sanction  every  evil  that  is  permitted  to 
exist  in  society ;  and  we  should  find  little  rea- 
son to  smile,  or  be  surprised,  at  the  quaint  de- 
termination of  the  liberty- loving  fathers  and 
founders  of  New  England,  who,  we  are  told, 
resolved  that  they  would  be  governed  by  the 
laws  of  God  until  they  could  enact  others  better 
suited  to  their  condition.  But,  sir,  I  must  beg 
leave  to  say,  that  the  religion  which  sanctifies 
the  unnecessary  existence  of  slavery,  is  not  the 
religion  which  we  profess  in  Pennsylvania. 

It  has  been  said,  Mr.  Chairman,  in  opposition 
to  this  amendment,  that  all  the  citizens  of  the 
United  States  have  a  right  to  the  territory  west 
of  the  Mississippi,  inasmuch  as  it  was  purchased 
wtth  their  money;  that,  therefore,  Congress 
cannot  prevent  citizens  from  removing  thither 
with  their  slaves  and  other  property.  But  it  is 
admitted  that  the  people  of  Missouri  may,  them- 
selves, exclude  slavery.  Now,  if  it  be  a  right 
which  belongs  to  a  citizen  of  the  United  States, 
as  such,  to  remove  there  with  every  description 
of  property,  how  comes  it  that  his  slaves  may 
be  thus  excluded  ?  Can  sixty  thousand  people, 
by  forming  a  State  government  in  one  of  your 
territories,  abridge  the  rights  of  citizens  of  the 
United  States?  When  the  public  lands  aro 
thrown  into  the  market,  can  these  Missourians 
exclude  all  purchasers  who  wish  to  come  there 
with  their  slaves  ?  It  would  seem  that  they 


DEBATES  OF  CONGRESS. 


549 


FEBRUARY,  1820.] 


The  Missouri  Bill — Restriction  on  the  State. 


[H.  OF  R 


can  ;  and  this,  to  my  mind,  conclusively  shows 
that  the  right  to  carry  slaves  into  the  new 
States  is  not  a  right  of  a  United  States  citizen, 
as  such.  But  again :  it  is  generally  conceded, 
that  Congress  may  prohibit  slavery  in  a  terri- 
tory; and  yet,  if  holding  and  carrying  slaves 
were  one  of  the  rights  of  a  citizen  as  aforesaid, 
such  prohibition  would  seem  to-be  a  more  direct 
infringement  of  that  right,  because  the  territory 
is  the  common  property  of  the  people  of  the 
United  States.  My  inference,  therefore,  is,  that 
the  right  to  carry  slaves  into  a  new  State,  or 
territory,  is  not  a  federal  right.  I  consider  the 
right,  if  it  may  be  so  called,  of  holding  man- 
kind as  slaves,  to  be  a  local  one,  derived  from 
those  State  institutions  where  slavery  is  already 
permitted. 

THURSDAY,  February  17. 
The  Missouri  Bill. 

The  House  then  again  proceeded,  in  Commit- 
tee of  the  Whole,  to  the  consideration  of  this 
bill,  and  the  amendment  proposed  thereto  by 
Mr.  TAYLOR. 

Mr.  SIMKIXS,  of  South  Carolina,  resumed  the 
debate,  and  spoke  more  than  an  hour  against 
the  restriction. 

Mr.  DENNISON,  of  Pennsylvania,  took  the 
other  side,  and  spoke  some  time  in  support  of 
the  restriction. 

Mr.  TYLER,  of  Virginia,  addressed  the  Chair 
as  follows  : 

Mr.  T.  said  that  he  regretted  that  the  state  of 
his  health  had  been  such  as,  heretofore,  to  have 
prevented  him  from  taking  part  in  this  debate ; 
that,  although  he  had  not  entirely  recovered 
from  that  indisposition,  yet  that  he  felt  himself 
called  on  by  a  sense  of  duty  to  express  his  sen- 
timents on  this  important  question ;  important, 
not  only  as  to  the  actors  of  this  day ;  important, 
not  only  as  to  the  present  point  of  time,  but 
vitally  so,  as  to  the  permanency  of  our  political 
institutions,  and,  of  consequence,  important  to 
the  interests  of  ages  yet  unborn.  The  day  has 
not  long  passed,  said  he,  in  which  this  country 
was  divided  between  two  great  parties;  the 
struggle  then  was  for  office.  That  state  of 
things  might  be  considered  as  natural  to  a  re- 
public. But  party  spirit  has  almost  entirely 
disappeared.  When  at  its  greatest  height  what 
did  it  amount  to?  It  gave  to  you  some  uneasi- 
ness, it  is  true,  in  the  time  of  your  travail  and 
difficulty,  but,  under  its  influence,  the  country 
prospered,  and  our  most  anxious  wishes  were 
consummated.  But  behold  now  our  situation ! 
You  have  no  longer  the  man  of  the  North 
against  the  man  of  the  North,  but  State  against 
State — the  North  and  East  against  the  South 
and  West — one  moiety  of  this  country  arrayed 
against  the  other.  Sir,  the  republican  of  the 
North  has  now  turned  his  back  on  the  republi- 
can of  the  South.  I  call  on  him  to  pause;  I  re- 
quire of  him  to  remember  the  days  which  we 
have  seen  together.  In  times  of  great  peril  we 
have  been  united;  difficulties  have  vanished 


before  us ;  and,  by  our  united  policy,  the  high 
destinies  of  our  common  country  have  been  ad- 
vanced. Say  that  you  triumph  on  this  occasion. 
Over  whom  do  you  triumph?  I  will  tell  you  : 
over  those  who  have  heretofore  been  your 
friends;  over  those  who  waded  with  you 
through  the  perils  and  difficulties  of  your  Rev- 
olutionary struggle ;  over  men  whose  destinies 
have  been  united  with  yours  since  the  dark 
period  of  1798  and  1799;  whom,  since  that 
period,  you  have  met  here  as  firm  and  steadfast 
friends.  Poor  is  the  triumph — unworthy  the 
trophy ! 

Sir,  said  he,  we  have  heard  much  of  excite- 
ment, of  irritation.  How  has  it  arisen,  and 
who  has  produced  it  ?  Let  it  be  set  down  in 
the  tablets  of  your  memory  that  it  is  the  work 
of  the  North,  and  not  of  the  South.  A  bill  is 
reported  in  the  usual  form  for  the  admission  of 
a  Territory  as  an  independent  State  into  this 
Union ;  and  the  unusual  and  extraordinary  pro- 
position is  made  to  abridge  it  in  the  exercise  of 
an  essential  right.  We  have  a  right  to  demand 
the  reason  of  this  innovation.  Other  States 
have  been  admitted  without  this  restriction. 
.Why  is  it  that  you  now  assume  to  yourselves 
the  exercise  of  this  power  ?  Are  the  people  of 
Missouri  less  capable  of  adopting  measures  cal- 
culated to  advance  their  happiness  than  the 
people  of  the  other  States?  Who  are  they? 
They  are  identified  with  ourselves ;  they  are 
emigrants  from  all  the  States.  They  have  car- 
ried with  them  the  very  principles  which  we 
possess ;  their  stock  of  intelligence  is  as  great, 
in  proportion  to  their  numbers,  as  is  to  be  found 
elsewhere.  Be  sure,  then,  that  you  have  the 
right,  and  that  it  is  good  policy  to  adopt  this 
limitation  on  the  powers  of  that  people.  If 
you  doubt  as  to  either  the  right  or  the  policy, 
remember  that,  as  to  the  first,  you  cannot  satisfy 
your  consciences  by  the  exercise  of  doubtful 
power ;  and  that,  as  to  the  last,  to  doubt  should 
induce  you  to  abstain  from  acting.  All  experi- 
ence proves  that  they  who  act  in  obedience  to 
the  dictates  of  a  doubtful  policy  may,  by  possi- 
bility, be  right,  but  that  they  are  much  more 
often  wrong  than  right. 

Gentlemen  have  attempted  to  show  the  con- 
stitutional right  to  impose  this  condition,  and 
in  what  manner  ?  They  have  hunted  through 
every  section  of  the  constitution ;  one  fixes  on  one 
clause,  another  on  another,  and  by  a  course  of 
ingenuity  almost  intangible,  have  attempted  to 
extract  this  grand  desideratum  of  powers.  For 
one,  on  such  an  occasion,  I  not  only  require  that 
you  shall  reason  ingeniously,  but  that  you  shall 
render  your  power  clear  and  manifest.  Tell  me 
not  of  implied  and  doubtful  powers;  against 
them  I  weigh  the  very  nature  of  our  Govern- 
ment, and  the  spirit  of  our  institutions.  They 
Are  founded  on  the  great  principle  that  man  ia 
capable  of  self-government ;  that  he  requires  no 
foreign  aid  in  regulating  his  domestic  concerns. 
Our  Revolution  was  founded  on  this  principle ; 
England  denied  to  us  the  right  to  legislate,  ex- 
cept by  her  special  authority ;  nay,  she  pro- 


550 


ABRIDGMENT  OF  THE 


H.  OF  R.] 


The  Missouri  Bill — Restriction  on  the  State. 


[FEBRDABY,  1820. 


claimed  the  very  principle  which  you  now  pro- 
claim as  applicable  to  Missouri — the  right  to 
bind  you  by  her  own  system  of  legislation.  To 
this  the  American  spirit  did  not  bow.  It  went 
forth  to  the  battle,  in  the  majesty  of  its  strength, 
and  achieved  the  victory  of  our  independence. 
But,  sir,  the  principle  which  we  are  called  on 
to  adopt,  goes,  by  a  sightless  distance,  farther 
than  England  ever  dared  to  go.  Her  acts  of 
legislation  were  fleeting  and  ephemeral ;  liable 
at  all  times  to  repeal ;  but  we  are  to  legislate, 
not  only  for  the  present  day,  but  for  all  ages  to 
come.  This  restriction,  if  adopted,  is  unalter- 
able and  interminable  in  its  duration.  No  suc- 
ceeding generation  have  any  power  over  it.  It 
constitutes  the  very  essence  of  the  political  ex- 
istence of  Missouri.  It  is  the  condition  prece- 
dent, and  must,  through  all  future  time,  attach 
to  the  estate.  Gentlemen  have  exultingly  read 
to  us  the  Declaration  of  Independence.  From 
it  they  have  gathered  that  which,  as  an  abstract 
truth,  I  am  not  disposed  to  deny :  "  that  all 
men  are,  by  nature,  equally  free,  sovereign,  and 
independent."  Can  this  proposition  admit  of 
application  to  a  state  of  society  ?  Does  not  its 
fallacy  meet  you  in  every  walk  of  life  ?  Dis- 
tinctions will  exist.  Virtue  and  vice,  wealth 
and  poverty,  industry  and  idleness,  constitute 
so  many  barriers,  which  human  power  cannot 
break  down,  and  which  will  ever  prevent  us 
from  carrying  into  operation,  in  extenso,  this 
great  principle.  Take  this  principle  and  preach 
it  up  to  the  monarchs  of  the  world ;  will  they 
descend  from  their  lofty  eminences,  or  raise 
mankind  to  a  level  with  themselves?  No,  sir, 
the  principle,  although  lovely  and  beautiful, 
cannot  obliterate  those  distinctions  in  society 
which  society  itself  engenders  and  gives  birth 
to.  Liberty  and  equality  are  captivating  sounds ; 
but  they  often  captivate  to  destroy.  England 
had  her  Jack  Cades  and  levellers.  Look,  I  pray 
you,  to  revolutionary  France.  These  were  the 
principles  of  that  day.  Mark  the  consequences ! 
Murder  and  rapine  stalked  over  the  land,  and 
the  guillotine,  the  work,  too,  of  a  philanthropist 
of  that  day,  was  the  sad  monument  of  this  fal- 
lacy. Liberty  and  equality  was  proclaimed  by 
Eobespierre  and  his  associates,  at  the  very  mo- 
ment when  they  were  enriching  the  fields  of 
France  with  the  blood  of  her  citizens.  Nor 
was  the  doctrine  confined  to  political  institu- 
tions, but,  advancing  with  a  daring  step,  fought 
even  with  the  Creator,  and  mocked  at  the  im- 
mutable truth  of  religion. 

Turn  your  eyes  also  to  South  America.  The 
throne  of  the  Incas  was  washed  from  under 
them  by  the  tide  which  flowed  in  from  Spain. 
The  native  of  the  forest  was  deprived  of  his 
freedom,  and  made  to  toil  for  his  new  master. 
Then,  too,  sprung  up  a  philanthropist,  who 
claimed  for  the  Indian  an  equal  rank  in  creation 
with  the  inhabitants  of  Spain.  His  claim  was 
admitted,  and  Africa  mourned  over  the  mistake, 
and  her  deepest  curses  may  still  be  uttered 
against  the  memory  of  Las  Casas.  But,  Mr. 
Chairman,  although  I  do  not  believe  that  this 


principle  of  equality  can  be  applied  to  man  in 
extenso,  yet  I  love  it,  and  admire  it  as  an  ab- 
stract truth,  and  will  carry  it  into  operation 
whensoever  I  can ;  and,  sir,  I  call  on  gentlemen 
to  lend  me  their  aid  in  the  present  instance.  If 
we  cannot  raise  the  black  man  up  to  the  level 
with  the  white — and  that  we  have  not  the  con- 
stitutional power  to  do  so  none  here  have  denied 
— let  us  raise,  at  least,  the  white  man  up  to  this 
level.  Extend  an  equality  of  rights  to  the 
people  of  Missouri.  Place  them  upon  a  footing 
with  the  people  of  New  York,  Connecticut,  and 
of  the  other  States.  What  are  the  rights  of  the 
people  of  Connecticut  and  the  other  States? 
They  have  the  right  to  alter,  to  amend,  to 
abolish  their  constitutions.  Connecticut  has 
lately  done  so.  Will  you  deny  to  the  people  of 
Missouri  this  right?  You  say  to  the  people  of 
New  York,  alter  your  constitution  as  you  see 
fit  in  all  its  parts.  Will  you  say  in  the  same 
breath  to  the  people  of  Missouri,  you  shall  not 
exercise  this  right  in  regard  to  your  constitu- 
tion ?  Is  this  your  boasted  equality  ?  If  it  be, 
sir,  "  I  will  have  none  of  it."  It  is  base  coin, 
and  will  not  pass  current.  This  is  said,  too,  to 
be  a  parental  care  for  Missouri.  I  am  pleased 
with  plain  and  simple  illustrations:  would  a 
father  act  in  the  way  in  which  you  propose  to 
act?  His  child  has  attained  the  age  of  twenty- 
one  ;  by  the  laws  of  society  that  child  is  en- 
titled to  an  equality  of  rights  with  himself;  and 
what  would  you  think  of  the  parent  who  should 
say  to  the  child,  "Sir,  you  are  now  a  man,  but 
you  shall  not  exercise  the  rights  of  a  man,  ex- 
cept upon  conditions  f  "  Would  the  child  sub- 
mit? Would  a  kind  parent  hold  such  language? 
No ;  he  would  resort  to  advice ;  would  adopt 
the  course  which  is  recommended  by  the  gen- 
tleman from  Connecticut,  (Mr.  FOOT,)  in  a  res- 
olution which  he  has  presented.  If  he  pursued 
any  other,  he  would  be  pronounced  arbitrary 
and  cruel.  Let  us  avoid  such  an  imputation. 
Missouri  is  now  full  grown ;  this,  your  offspring, 
has  attained  full  age;  attempt  no  longer  to 
trammel  her ;  let  her  set  up  for  herself,  and,  al- 
though you  may  advise  her,  do  not  attempt  to 
force  her.  Sir,  she  will  not,  and  ought  not  to 
submit  to  force ;  she  would  disgrace  her  parent 
stock  if  she  did  so.  The  proud  Koman  spirit 
which  inhabits  every  portion  of  this  country, 
spurns  control.  Would  you  humble  this  spirit 
if  you  could  ?  If  you  would,  you  cannot  do  it ; 
but  if  you  could,  your  country  would  have  no 
cause  to  thank  you  for  so  doing. 

What  will  be  the  consequences,  if  you  persist 
in  this  measure  ?  A  sectional  feeling  is  already 
generated  ;  a  geographic  line  is  drawn.  Tell 
me  not  of  that  policy  which  shall  divide  the 
people  of  this  country  by  local  feelings  and  pre- 
judices. This  is  the  bane  of  a  Republic— it  is 
the  rock  which  ought  to  be  most  cautiously 
avoided — sir,  it  is  the  greatest  of  all  dangers  to 
the  union  of  these  States.  Take  not  my  poor 
word  for  it.  Nay,  disregard  the  admonitions  of 
him  who  has  so  often  been  called  the  Father  of 
his  Country.  Forget  the  valedictory  address  of 


DEBATES  OF  CONGRESS. 


551 


FEBRUARY,  1820.] 


The  Missouri  Bill— Restriction  on  the  State. 


[H.  OF  R. 


WASHINGTON.  But  can  you,  or  will  you,  close 
your  eyes  to  the  lights  of  experience?  Re- 
member ancient  Rome  :  she  conquered  mighty 
powers ;  the  world  obeyed  her  nod  ;  but  she, 
in  the  end,  conquered  herself.  The  people  di- 
vided among  themselves,  and  these  divisions 
led  to  the  erection  of  the  Throne  of  the  Caesars 
over  her  prostrate  liberty.  So,  too,  with  the 
Grecian  republics:  united  Greece  stood  up  suc- 
cessfully against  the  mighty  power  of  Xerxes ; 
and  the  fall  of  Leonidas  was  but  the  precursor 
of  the  glory  achieved  at  Marathon  and  Platsea. 
But  Sparta  wished  to  domineer  over  Athens, 
and  their  intestine  feuds  opened  the  channel  to 
that  flood  of  vandalism  which  deluged  Greece, 
and  obliterated  all  trace  of  freedom.  Such, 
too,  was  the  fate  of  the  Achaian  league.  I  be- 
seech gentlemen  then  to  pause,  lest  they  pro- 
duce a  similar  division-  of  sentiment  in  this 
happy  land.  What  else  can  retard  our  onward 
march  ?  What  were  you  fifty  years  ago  ?  By 
Europe  we  were  esteemed  as  little  better  than 
savages  ;  nay,  dozing  philosophers  had  ventured 
to  pronounce  that  all  animated  nature  here  wore 
a  degenerate  aspect.  But  history  has  refuted 
and  thrown  back  this  slander  in  the  teeth  of 
those  who  uttered  it.  We  emerged  with  great 
brightness  from  the  struggles  of  the  Revolution. 
Our  prosperity  continued  to  advance.  We  have 
emerged  from  a  second  conflict,  with  additional 
radiance.  We  bearded  the  Hercules  of  the 
other  hemisphere,  and  we  lost  naught  by  the 
conflict.  Our  proud  banners  floated  in  triumph 
over  the  waves.  What  now  is  our  condition? 
Kings  and  potentates  court  our  amity.  We  are 
lifted  up  to  a  high  station  among  the  nations  of 
the  earth.  Say  that  our  march  is  not  impeded, 
who  can  set  limits  to  our  glory  ?  Tyre  rose  a 
little  speck  above  the  ocean,  and  she  was  con- 
sidered strong  and  mighty.  England,  with  an 
area  scarcely  exceeding  that  of  some  of  these 
States,  controls  the  destinies  of  Europe.  And 
what  shall  be  their  glory,  in  comparison  with 
ours?  We  direct  the  destinies  of  a  mighty 
continent.  Our  resources  are  unlimited:  our 
means  unbounded.  If  we  be  true  to  ourselves, 
the  glory  of  other  nations,  in  comparison  with 
ours,  shall  resemble  but  a  tale  from  the  days  of 
chivalry.  Our  mighty  and  refulgent  sun  shall 
almost  obscure,  by  its  radiance,  the  little  stars 
of  their  renown.  Let  us,  then,  avoid  a  question 
like  the  present :  disappoint  not  these  fond 
hopes.  Gentlemen  on  the  opposite  side  may 
yield  without  dishonor.  They  pursue  but  a 
scheme  of  policy ;  we  are  differently  situated ; 
we  cannot,  without  violation  of  our  oaths,  sup- 
port this  measure.  We  believe,  in  our  con- 
sciences, that  the  constitution  confers  on  us  no 
such  power,  For  myself,  I  cannot,  and  will 
not,  yield  one  inch  of  ground.  Let  me,  then, 
adjure  our  brethren  from  the  North  to  come 
and  sit  down  once  more  by  our  side.  I  call  on 
them  to  heal  the  dilferences  which  this  measure 
has  produced.  Your  course  is  palpable  and 
plain.  You  have  two  roads  before  you  ;  take 
this,  and  all  is  harmony  and  peace  ;  over  that, 


hang  doubts  and  fears.  I  invoke  the  Genius  of 
the  Constitution  to  cover  and  protect  us  against 
the  evils  which  threaten  us.  What  if  you  im- 
pose the  restriction,  and  Missouri,  instead  of 
submitting,  shall  form  herself  into  a  commu- 
nity and  demand  admittance,  or  sever  from  the 
Union?  Will  you  then  retract?  How  much 
more  honorable  to  do  it  now!  Or,  do  you 
mean  to  persist  iu  your  object  at  all  hazards, 
and,  if  she  prove  refractory,  reduce  her  to  sub- 
mission ?  Do  you  believe  that  Southern  bayo- 
nets will  ever  be  plunged  in  Southern  hearts  ? 
I  know  not  how  this  may  be,  but  I  require  you 
to  pause  and  deeply  to  reflect  before  you  have 
to  resort  to  this  extremity. 

Mr.  RICH,  of  Vermont,  rose  and  addressed 
the  Chair  as  follows : 

Mr.  Chairman :  Whilst  I  consider  the  present 
question  of  greater  interest  by  far  than  any 
which  has  been  agitated  since  the  adoption  of 
the  constitution,  or  any  other  on  which  I  can 
expect  it  will  ever  become  my  duty  to  give  a 
vote  ;  and,  while  I  reflect  on  some  circumstances 
in  relation  to  it,  which  to  me  are  not  a  "litne 
extraordinary,  I  feel  it  to  be  due,  both  to  the 
committee  and  myself,  that  I  should  occupy  a 
small  portion  of  your  time  in  explaining  my 
views  upon  the  subject,  and  my  reasons  for  the 
vote  I  am  about  to  give.  The  fact  that,  at  the 
last  session,  every  member  south  of  the  State  of 
Delaware,  and  of  the  river  Ohio,  gave  their 
votes  in  favor  of  an  unlimited  extension  of 
slavery,  while  those  to  the  north  of  those  limits 
gave  almost  as  unanimous  a  vote  against  it,  has 
caused  me  to  entertain  fears  that,  either  from 
motives  of  interest  or  some  peculiar  feelings, 
we  had,  on  the  one  hand  or  the  other,  lost  sight 
of  the  great  principles  on  which  a  wise  and  just 
legislation  is  founded. 

The  circumstance,  too,  that  a  large  portion 
of  those  now  opposed  to  me  are  the  same  gentle- 
men with  whom  I  have  acted  in  times  the  most 
difficult  and  perplexing ;  whose  opinions  I  have 
highly  approved,  and  with  whose  votes  my  own 
have  been  usually  recorded ;  has  induced  me  to 
give  the  most  attentive  consideration  to  the 
subject,  in  all  the  forms  in  which  it  has  been 
presented  to  my  mind,  lest  it  should  happen 
that  feelings,  perhaps  peculiar  to  myself,  might 
have  betrayed  my  judgment  into  an  error.  I 
have  paused — I  have'  considered,  and  made  up 
my  mind  upon  the  most  mature  deliberation. 
It  is  not  my  intention,  sir,  to  attempt  to  follow 
gentlemen  who  have  gone  before  me,  on  the 
opposite  side  of  the  question;  and,  except  so 
far  as  may  be  necessary  to  connect  my  views? 
upon  the  subject,  I  shall  endeavor  to  avoid  :\ 
repetition  of  the  arguments  employed  by  others  > 
on  the  side  I  have  the  honor  to  advocate.  It 
will  be  my  purpose  to  attempt  to  show  that 
slavery  does  not  proceed  from  the  exercise  of  a 
legitimate  attribute  of  sovereignty,  and  that 
hence,  admitting  all  for  which  gentlemen  con- 
tend, as  to  a  want  of  power  in  Congress  to  in- 
terfere with  "  State  rights,"  their  constitutional 
objections  must  fail  them.  If,  in  this  part  oi 


552 


ABRIDGMENT  OF  THE 


H.  OF  R.] 


The  Missouri  Bill— Restriction  on  the  State. 


[FEBRUARY,  1820. 


my  argument  I  shall  be  successful,  I  trust  there 
are  few  who  will  object  to  the  expediency  of 
the  proposition. 

The  fact  that  the  word  "  slave"  is  nowhere  to 
be  found  in  the  constitution,  or  other  words  so 
employed  as  to  convey  an  idea  that  the  fraraers 
of  that  instrument  intended  to  recognize  slavery, 
has  satisfied  my  mind  that,  as  from  a  condition 
of  things  beyond  their  control,  or  that  of  their 
country,  they  could  not  prohibit  it  in  the  then 
"  existing  States,"  and  as,  for  obvious  reasons, 
they  were  obliged  indirectly  to  admit  the  fact 
of  its  existence,  they  purposely,  and  very  care- 
fully, avoided  the  use  of  any  expressions  from 
which,  by  fair  construction,  even  an  argument 
could  be  derived  in  favor  of  its  legitimacy. 
Consequently,  the  legality  of  it  must  be  deter- 
mined by  a  reference  to  the  laws  of  nature  and 
natural  rights,  and  not  to  the  constitution ;  and 
to  me  it  is  a  matter  of  utter  astonishment,  that, 
because  the  original  States  were  recognized 
with  their  existing  institutions,  some  of  which 
had  been  under  an  absolute  necessity  to  permit 
slavery,  it  should  from  thence  be  contended 
that,  on  admitting  a  new  State,  we  have  no 
power  to  exclude  slavery  from  it,  on  the  ground 
of  its  having  been  recognized  as  an  attribute  of 
sovereignty  over  which  we  have  no  control. 

If,  then,  it  be  true,  that  there  is  danger  of 
domestic  violence  from  the  existence  of  slavery, 
which  I  am  confident  none  will  deny,  I  should 
apprehend  that  a  law,  the  object  and  certain 
tendency  of  which  is  to  diminish  the  relative 
number  of  slaves  in  our  country,  and  spread  a 
tree  white  population  over  the  fairest  portions 
of  it,  must  not  only  be  proper,  but  indispensa- 
bly necessary,  to  guard  against  the  occurrence 
of  violence,  and  preserve  the  United  States  in 
a  condition  to  discharge  its  duties.  All  admit 
that  slavery  is  an  evil ;  and  I  contend  that  its 
extension  over  the  boundless  regions  of  the 
West,  would  be  an  extravagant  and  unnecessary 
extension  of  an  evil  which  must  affect  every 
section  of  the  Union,  and  every  class  of  the 
community ;  and,  if  thus  extended,  an  evil  from 
which  our  innocent  posterity  will  never  escape. 
But  we  are  told  that,  be  the  evil  what  it  may, 
Congress  has  no  power  which  it  can  exercise 
over  the  subject.  And,  sir,  is  it  true  that,  in 
one-third  of  a  century  from  the  adoption  of 
the  constitution,  we  have  made  the  unfortunate 
discovery  that  an  evil  may  threaten  our  exist- 
ence, and  one  too  which  the  people,  who  have 
not  the  means  for  making  a  united  effort,  cannot 
overcome,  and  yet  Congress,  which  alone  has 
power  to  prescribe  the  national  policy  and 
direct  its  energies,  may  look  on  and  weep  for 
the  calamity,  but  cannot  extend  the  arm  of 
relief,  because  the  wisdom  of  our  fathers  was 
not  sufficient  to  provide  for  the  exigency? 
Long,  very  long,  sir,  will  be  the  period  that  will 
have  elapsed  before  I  shall  have  come  to  that 
conclusion. 

If  it  can  be  demonstrated  that  a  right  to  hold 
a  human  being  in  slavery  beyond  its  necessity, 
is  among  the  legitimate  attributes  of  sovereignty, 


and  that  slavery  is  not  an  evil,  I  shall  cheerfully 
yield  the  ground  to  those  now  opposed  to  me ; 
but  until  this  shall  be  made  to  appear,  I  shall 
adhere  to  my  positions,  and  shall  contend  that, 
as  in  every  country,  a  right  to  guard  itself 
against  impending  dangers  must  somewhere 
exist;  and  as  in  this  country,  and  upon  this 
subject,  it  is  impossible  for  it  to  be  exercised 
with  effect,  but  by  the  General  Government,  we 
ought,  on  this  occasion,  as  does  the  honorable 
Speaker,  and  many  others,  now  opposed  to  me, 
when  on  the  subject  of  internal  improvements, 
"  give  such  an  enlarged  and  liberal  construction 
to  the  constitution,"  as  will  enable  us  "  to  pro- 
vide for  the  common  defence  and  general  wel- 
fare," in  the  best  practicable  manner,  while  no  at- 
tribute of  sovereignty  shall  be  thereby  infringed. 

Hitherto,  slavery  has  not  been  so  recognized 
by  the  General  Government,  as  to  cause  our  na- 
tional character  to  be  materially  affected  by  it ; 
for,  although  there  are  States  in  the  Union 
which,  from  the  necessity  of  the  case,  may  be 
termed  slaveholding  States,  it  cannot,  with  truth, 
be  alleged  that,  as  a  nation,  we  have  permitted 
slavery.  But  if,  under  present  circumstances, 
Congress  shall  solemnly  decide  that  it  cannot 
restrain  the  unlimited  extension  of  it,  and  that 
a  want  of  power  to  do  so  results  from  an  un- 
qualified recognition  of  it  by  the  constitution, 
our  national  character  will  become  identified 
with  it ;  and  instead  of  its  being  considered,  as 
heretofore,  a  local  malady,  and  susceptible  of 
cure,  it  must  henceforth  be  regarded  as  affecting 
the  whole  system,  and  past  the  hope  of  possi- 
bility of  a  remedy.  Permit  me  then  to  express 
a  hope  that  gentlemen  will  yet  find  it  consist- 
ent with  their  views  of  the  constitution  and  the 
best  interests  of  their  country,  to  join  with  us 
in  limiting  an  evil  which  cannot  at  present  be 
removed ;  and  that  we  may  continue  our  united 
efforts  to  cause  the  blessings  which  naturally 
result  from  the  labors  of  our  fathers,  to  be  uni- 
versally felt  and  acknowledged  ;  while  evils, 
which  are  local  in  their  nature,  and  which  can- 
not be  diminished  by  dispersion,  may  be  made 
to  continue  local  till  removed,  and  our  national 
character  thereby  preserved. 

Could  I  feel  certain  there  would  be  no  acces- 
sion to  the  present  number  of  slaves,  other  than 
by  procreation,  uninfluenced  by  an  extraordi- 
nary demand,  a  question,  differing  very  widely 
from  the  present,  would  be  presented  for  my 
decision.  But,  sir,  we  must  take  men  and 
things  as  they  are.  Permit  it,  then,  over  the- 
boundless  regions  of  the  West,  and  the  time 
will  not  only  never  arrive  when  slavery  can  be 
extinguished,  not  even  with  the  universal  con- 
sent of  the  masters,  but  the  absolute  certainty 
that  the  scenes  which  have  been  acted  at  St. 
Domingo  will,  at  some  period,  be  acted  in  this 
country — will,  to  my  mind,  be  established  be- 
yond a  doubt ;  for  "  the  justice  of  the  Almighty 
cannot  sleep  forever,"  nor  has  he  any  "  attri- 
butes which  could  take  sides  with  us  in  such  a 
contest."  And  I  will  here  remark,  that,  al- 
though this  nation  is  not  chargeable  with  the 


DEBATES  OF  CONGRESS. 


553 


FEBRUARY,  1820.]         Maine  and  Missouri — Senate's  Amendments  to  the  Maine  Bill. 


[H.  OF  R. 


original  introduction  of  slavery,  yet,  unless  it 
shall  employ  all  practicable  means  to  ameliorate 
its  condition,  and  finally  extinguish  it,  we  must, 
in  the  view  of  Heaven,  of  reason,  and  common 
sense,  be  regarded  as  trespassers  from  the  be- 
ginning, and  held  answerable  for  all  the  direful 
consequences. 

The  increase  by  procreation  is  capable  of 
being  extended  almost  without  limits;  and,  un- 
til man  shall  cease  to  make  merchandise  of  his 
fellow,  it  will  extend  with  the  extension  of  de- 
mand ;  and  you  may  pass  what  laws  you  will 
against  the  importation,  employ,  if  you  please, 
the  whole  army  and  navy  of  the  country  to 
enforce  them,  and  yet,  if  the  demand  be  great, 
the  unfortunate  Africans  will  be  torn  from  their 
country,  and,  with  thousands  of  the  American 
free  blacks,  doomed  to  supply  the  demand.  All 
our  experience  proves,  that  wherever  there  is  a 
demand  for  a  commodity,  it  will  be  supplied ; 
and,  if  the  demand  cease,  the  commodity  will 
disappear.  It  is  by  limiting  the  demand,  then, 
and  by  that  alone,  that  I  can  look  with  the 
smallest  degree  of  confidence,  to  a  period  when 
slavery  and  its  miseries  and  misfortunes  shall 
cease  to  exist,  or  our  country  rendered  safe 
against  some  dreadful  catastrophe. 

I  admit,  that  to  limit  the  demand,  will  affect 
the  value  of  that  species  of  property,  (if  such 
gentlemen  will  call  it,)  so  far  as  its  value  de- 
pends on  its  conveniency  as  an  article  of  mer- 
chandise ;  and  so  far  also,  as  a  right  of  property 
can  exist  in  unborn  millions  of  the  human  race. 
But  I  submit  to  the  candor  and  good  sense  of 
that  portion  of  my  fellow-citizens  who  are  pos- 
sessed of  it,  whether  they  can  reasonably  re- 
quire from  us,  that  we  should  keep  open  an  un- 
limited demand,  at  the  expense  of  our  national 
character,  as  we  believe ;  in  opposition  to  the 
influence  of  religion,  and  the  dictates  of  human- 
ity ;  and  in  a  total  disregard  for  the  perpetuity 
of  our  institutions,  and  the  happiness  of  all 
succeeding  generations  ? 

I  certainly  feel  no  disposition  to  confine  the 
present  slave  population  within  so  narrow  lim- 
its as  to  render  their  miserable  condition  more 
miserable ;  and  when  the  country  between 
Pennsylvania  on  the  north,  the  Gulf  of  Mexico 
on  the  south,  the  Atlantic  on  the  east,  and  the 
Ohio,  the  Mississippi,  and  the  western  boundary 
of  Louisiana,  on  the  west,  or  so  much  of  it  as 
shall  continue  to  permit  slavery,  a  large  portion 
of  which  is  yet  a  wilderness,  shall  become  so 
populous  as  to  render  an  extension  necessary, 
either  for  the  happiness  of  the  slave  or  the 
safety  of  the  master,  I  would  then,  and  not  till 
then,  agree  to  its  extension.  But  I  never  can 
consent,  under  any  circumstances,  to  give  my 
aid  in  furnishing  new  facilities  for  acquiring  and 
perpetuating  a  property  in  human  beings. 


SATURDAY,  February  19. 
Maine  and  Missouri — Senate's  Amendments  to 

the  Maine  Bill. 
The  House  took  up  the  amendments  of  the 


Senate  to  the  bill  for  the  admission  of  Maine  ; 
which  amendments  propose  to  authorize,  by  the 
same  bill,  the  people  of  Missouri  to  form  a  State 
government,  without  the  slave  restriction,  but 
containing  a  clause  to  exclude  slavery  from  all 
the  territory  West  of  the  Mississippi  which  lies 
North  of  thirty -six  degrees  thirty  minutes  North 
latitude,  except  the  proposed  State  of  Missouri. 

Mr.  TAYLOR  moved  that  the  amendments  01 
the  Senate  be  disagreed  to  by  the  House. 

Mr.  SCOTT,  of  Missouri,  moved  that  they  be 
committed  to  the  Committee  of  the  Whole, 
which  at  present  has  under  consideration  the 
Missouri  bill  of  this  House — which  motion  had 
precedence  of  the  motion  to  disagree. 

On  these  motions,  and  those  that  are  subse- 
quently mentioned,  along  and  animated  discus- 
sion took  place,  of  which  the  following  is 

men  who  spoke,  and  an  indication  of  the  sides 
they  respectively  took. 

Mr.  HOLMES  hoped  the  amendments  would  not 
be  committed.  If  they  were,  it  would  be  some 
time  before  they  could  be  acted  on,  as  there  were, 
he  believed,  at  least  thirty  speeches  yet  to  be 
delivered  on  the  restrictive  proposition  now  be- 
fore that  committee  ;  and  until  that  proposition 
was  decided,  the  Committee  of  the  Whole  would 
not  take  up  the  amendments  of  the  Senate :  in 
the  mean  time,  the  period  allowed  by  the  law  of 
Massachusetts  (the  3d  of  March)  for  the  consent 
of  Congress  to  the  admission  of  Maine  would  ar- 
rive, and  all  that  had  been  done  will  be  lost. 
He  hoped,  therefore,  that  the  House  would  act 
promptly  on  these  amendments ;  separate  the 
two  subjects,  and  give  its  consent  to  the  admis- 
sion of  Maine,  to  whch  no  one  had  objected,  or 
could  object,  &c. 

Mr.  CULPEPEE  was  willing  to  admit  Maine 
unconnected  with  Missouri :  but  as  they  had 
been  united  by  the  other  branch  of  the  Legis- 
lature, the  amendment  ought  to  take  the  usual 
course,  and  be  treated  with  that  courtesy  and 
respect  which  the  source  of  the  amendments 
entitled  them  to,  &c. 

Mr.  SMYTH,  of  Virginia,  for  the  purpose  of 
allowing  time  for  the  debate  on  the  restriction 
to  be  brought  to  a  close  before  the  amendments 
of  the  Senate  should  be  taken  up,  moved  that 
they  be  postponed  to  next  Monday  week ;  which 
motion  was  lost  by  a  large  majority. 

Mr.  S.  then  moved  their  postponement  to  next 
Monday ;  which  was  also  negatived. 

Mr.  EDWABDS,  of  North  Carolina,  was  in  favor 
of  the  commitment,  because  they  would  con- 
sume no  more  time  if  they  took  that  course, 
which  was  usual  and  proper,  than  if  taken  up 
in  the  House,  where  they  would  be  just  as  much 
debated,  &c. 

Mr.  STROTHEE  was  against  an  immediate  de- 
cision of  the  amendments,  and  in  favor  of  their 
commitment.  The  amendments  contained  new 
features,  which  required  reflection;  that  pro- 
POMM.U'  ;i  compromise,  for  instance.  These  quos- 
tions  the  House  could  not  be  prepared  to  decide 
at  once,  because  its  attention  had  been  exclu- 


554 


ABRIDGMENT  OF  THE 


ii. 


R.] 


Maine  and  Missouri — Senate's  Amendments  to  the  Maine  Bill.         [FEBRUARY,  1820. 


sively  taken  up  in  considering  the  restrictive 

ristion.  It  was  not  proper  that  the  House 
uld  be  driven  into  the  instant  decision  of 
questions  of  such  immense  magnitude.  He 
wished  not  any  long  period  of  postponement ; 
but  was  averse  to  acting  hastily,  and  without 
deliberation.  Mr.  S.  spoke  at  some  length  to 
enforce  and  illustrate  the  opinions  stated  here 
in  substance  only. 

Mr.  LIVERMOBE  strongly  disapproved  of  the 
connection  of  the  bills  as  they  came  from  the 
Senate ;  but  he  saw  something  in  the  amend- 
ments which  seemed  likely  to  put  an  end  to  the 
disagreeable  subject  which  now  occupied  the 
House.  He  wished  the  subject  separated,  and 
then  some  course  might  be  adopted  similar  to 
the  compromise  proposed  by  the  Senate,  and 
the  matter  ended  happily  and  harmoniously. 
He  argued  earnestly  in  favor  of  the  claims  which 
Maine  had  to  admission  without  delay,  and 
against  a  course  which  would,  by  allowing  the 
time  to  which  she  was  limited  to  pass  by,  and 
thus  her  reasonable  expectations  be  defeated. 
He  deprecated  the  fee-lings  of  irritation  which 
such  an  unkind  course  would  produce  in  her 
citizens,  &c. 

Mr.  WHITMAN  opposed  the  commitment  with 
much  earnestness  and  at  considerable  length. 
He  disapproved  most  pointedly  and  emphati- 
cally the  connection  of  the  bills,  and  argued  in 
favor  of  a  prompt  decision  of  the  question.  He 
felt  as  one  personally  interested,  (being  a  mem- 
ber from  the  District  of  Maine,)  and  confessed 
that  his  feelings  were  stronger  than  he  could 
find  proper  language  to  express  them  in,  and  he 
could  scarcely  trust  himself  to  speak  on  the 
subject  of  the  amendments. 

Mr.  STORES  observed  that  it  was  well  known 
that  no  man  was  more  in  favor  of  a  compromise 
of  the  unhappy  subject  than  himself;  but  even 
this  he  would  not  agree  to  on  compulsion.  He 
was  opposed  to  the  commitment  of  the  amend- 
ments ;  it  would  be  of  no  utility,  as  the  question 
now  before  the  committee  would  be  first  de- 
cided before  the  amendments  would  be  taken 
up ;  and  then  a  bill  would  have  previously 
passed  on  the  same  subject.  The  subject  of  the 
amendments  was  a  legal  one,  he  admitted ;  but 
the  object  of  the  connection  was  to  coerce  this 
House,  by  operating  on  those  members  particu- 
larly interested  in  the  admission  of  Maine  into 
the  Union.  This  course  he  thought  was  disap 
proved  by  the  House,  and  the  proper  way  to 
show  it  was  by  a  prompt,  a  very  prompt,  rejec- 
tion of  the  amendments.  Such  was  the  course 
taken  by  the  House  on  a  former  occasion,  when 
an  amendment  was  inserted  in  an  appropriation 
bill  by  the  Senate,  providing  for  brevet  pay, 
which  the  House  had  previously  stricken  out. 
Mr.  S.  repeated  that  he  was  in  favor  of  the  com- 
promise, but  he  would  not  give  up  the  right 
giving  a  distinct  and  unshackled  vote  for  the 
admission  of  Maine. 

Mr.  SIMKINS  conceived  it  would  be  extremely 
wrong  not  to  allow  some  time  to  reflect  on  this 
subject.  The  amendments  were  long,  and  con- 


ained  numerous  provisions,  some  of  them  of  the 
lighest  importance.  How  were  they  to  be  un- 
lerstoodfrom  the  single  reading  of  them  by  the 
Clerk?  He  wished  them  to  be  printed,  and 
ime  allowed  to  examine  and  consider  them, 
le  trusted  that  the  majority,  because  they  had 
he  power,  would  not  force  members  at  once  to 
lecide  on  so  important  a  matter  without  know- 
ng  scarcely  on  what  it  was  they  were  to  vote. 
?he  Senate  had  deemed  the  two  subjects  com- 
atible,  and  had  thought  proper  to  join  them  : 
t  was  not  proper  by  any  means  to  ascribe  im- 
)roper  motives  to  the  Senate  for  so  doing.  Re- 
ipect  for  the  Senate  required  that  their  amend- 
ments should  not  be  treated  with  so  much  pre- 
jipitation  and  so  little  deference.  He  was  in 
avor  of  the  commitment. 

Mr.  GBOSS,  of  New  York,  said  he  was  glad  of 
in  opportunity  of  stating,  in  his  place,  what  he 
bought  of  the  conduct  of  the  Senate  in  this 
affair ;  and  proceeded  to  remark  that  he  thought 
t  did  not  deserve  the  respect  of  this  House,  but 
was  stopped  by  the  Speaker,  as  such  expressions, 
icre,  applied  to  the  other  branch  of  the  Legis- 
.ature,  were  out  of  order.  Mr.  G.  then  re- 
marked, that,  come  from  where  it  might,  the 
imendment  was  an  attempt  to  coerce  the  mem- 
bers of  this  House,  and  he  decidedly  disapproved 
of  it,  &c. 

Mr.  WALKEB,  of  North  Carolina,  made  a  few 
remarks  in  favor  of  the  commitment,  which 
were  not  at  all  heard. 

Mr.  MEBCEB  supported  the  right  of  the  Senate 
to  annex  any  amendment  to  a  bill  from  this 
House,  and  that  the  House  had  no  right  to  know 
the  motives  of  the  Senate,  merely  from  the 
prir,ia  facie  evidence  of  the  amendments.  It 
was  not  proper  to  allude  to  them  in  debate, 
much  less  to  impute  improper  ones  to  that  body. 
The  course  adopted  by  the  Senate  in  this  in- 
stance was  justified  by  the  practice  of  the  Brit- 
ish Parliament,  from  which  our  rules  of  pro- 
ceeding are  drawn — instances  of  which  Mr.  M. 
mentioned.  He  could  imagine  very  strong 
reasons,  of  the  most  honorable  character,  for 
the  amendments  of  the  Senate,  but  it  was  not 
right  that  he  should  advert  to  them ;  and  he 
could  not  enter  into  the  examination  of  views, 
such  as  had  been  imputed  by  others.  If  the 
proposition  from  the  Senate  be,  as  was  believed, 
the  olive  branch  of  peace  on  the  most  momentous 
question  that  had  ever  agitated  the  councils  of 
the  nation  since  the  foundation  of  the  Govern- 
ment, was  it  proper  thus  to  treat  it?  As  to  the 
case  stated  by  Mr.  STOKES,  the  present  one  bore 
no  sort  of  analogy  to  it :  that  was  a  question  on 
the  right  of  the  Senate  to  originate  in  a  money 
bill  a  clause  making  an  appropriation.  In  this 
case,  if  the  proposition  from  the  Senate  should 
happily  put  to  rest  the  divisions  in  the  House, 
and  heal  the  wounds  inflicted  throughout  the 
nation  by  this  question,  they  would  deserve 
immortal  honor. 

Mr.  SERGEANT  was  against  the  commitment, 
and  in  favor  of  an  immediate  decision  on  these 
amendments.  Without  speaking  or  acting  im- 


DEBATES  OF  CONGRESS. 


555 


FEBRUARY,  1820.] 


Commodore  Perry. 


[a  OF  R. 


properly  towards  the  Senate,  respect  for  them- 
selves required  the  House  to  act  promptly.  Mr. 
S.  opposed  the  amendments  at  some  length. 
One  reason  for  it  was,  that  the  bill  came  with 
too  much ;  they  did  not  belong  to  the  bill ;  it 
proposed  to  connect  with  Maine  all  the  ques- 
tions belonging  to  the  Missouri  subject,  and, 
what  was  more,  connected  with  Maine  the  sub- 
ject called  a  compromise.  Could  gentlemen 
seriously  call  this  an  amendment  ?  They  might 
call  it  what  they  pleased,  but  it  would  be 
just  as  proper  to  annex  to  it  a  pension  law  or 
a  bankrupt  bill,  and  call  it  an  amendment. 
Whatever  the  object  of  this  amendment,  it 
•would  appear  to  have  an  improper  end  in  view, 
and  such  would  be  its  effect  on  the  public 
mind,  &c. 

Mr.  SMITH,  of  North  Carolina,  was  in  favor 
of  the  commitment,  and  (as  well  as  he  could  be 
heard)  spoke  to  show  that  the  amendments 
were  not  improper ;  that  the  course  taken  by 
the  Senate  was  not  unusual  or  unnatural ;  and 
that,  whatever  the  decision  on  them  here,  he 
doubted  whether  that  body  would  recede. 

Mr.  SMITH,  of  Maryland,  opposed  the  commit- 
ment as  useless,  and  argued  to  show  that  it 
would  not  save  time :  that  it  would  be  attended 
with  inconvenience,  without  producing  any 
benefit,  &c. 

Mr.  BBOWN,  of  Kentucky,  spoke  at  consider- 
able length,  and  very  warmly,  against  the  pro- 
position to  force  members  into  an  instant  deci- 
sion of  this  important  question.  He  maintained 
the  justice  and  fairness  of.  allowing  time  for  an 
examination  of  the  amendments,  and  for  pre- 
paration for  a  decision ;  and  condemned  strong- 
ly the  attempt  to  coerce  the  House  into  an  im- 
mediate vote  on  a  subject  so  little  understood 
and  so  important. 

Mr.  MCLANE,  of  Delaware,  was  in  favor  of 
committing  the  bill,  not  because  he  was  in  fa- 
vor of  uniting  Maine  and  Missouri,  for  he  was 
decidedly  opposed  to  the  union ;  and  if  he  sup- 
posed the  commitment  would  retard  the  admis- 
sion of  Maine,  he  should  be  opposed  to  it ;  but 
this  could  not  be  the  effect ;  it  would  be  decided 
as  soon  as  the  question  now  under  consideration 
could  be.  He  had  opposed  the  union  of  the  bills 
when  the  subject  was  originally  before  the  House ; 
he  was  still  opposed  to  it,  because  he  deemed  it  a 
dangerous  mode  of  legislation,  and  would  vote 
to  disunite  them,  whenever  the  subject  should 
come  distinctly  before  the  House.  But  the 
union  of  Missouri  with  Maine  was  not  the  only 
amendment  the  Senate  had  made:  they  had 
introduced  another  of  equal,  if  not  of  greater 
importance — that  which  prohibited  the  intro- 
duction of  slavery  into  the  Territories.  He  was 
in  favor  of  this  proposition ;  he  presumed  all 
the  advocates  of  restriction  would  also  be  in 
favor  of  it.  It  was  an  amendment  of  vast  im- 
portance, which  might  as  properly  be  introduced 
into  the  bill  for  the  admission  of  Maine  as  in  one 
for  the  admission  of  Missouri,  or  in  a  distinct 
bill.  It  was  because  this  was  an  important  sub- 
ject that  he  wished  it  to  be  duly  weighed  and 


considered.  It  also  embraced  the  basis  of  a 
compromise,  which  had  been  adjusted  in  the 
Senate,  after  great  deliberation.  Desirous  as 
he  was  of  quieting  public  excitement,  on  some 
principle  of  compromise,  he  hoped  time  would 
be  afforded  to  test  its  practicability.  If  Mis- 
souri should  be  stricken  from  the  bill,  this 
amendment,  being  a  distinct  proposition,  would 
remain,  and  deserved  to  be  considered.  If  he 
were  now  forced  to  vote  upon  the  rejection  of 
the  amendments  of  the  Senate,  opposed  as  he 
was  to  the  union  of  Maine  with  Missouri,  he 
should  be  compelled  to  vote  against  both  pro- 
visions, and  thus  aid  in  defeating  a  compromise 
which  he  was  so  anxious  to  effect.  He  hoped, 
therefore,  that  the  bill  would  be  committed. 

The  question  was  then  taken  on  committing 
the  bill  and  amendments,  and  decided  in  the 
negative — yeas  70,  nays  107. 

Mr.  SMYTH,  of  Virginia,  then  moved  to  lay 
the  amendments  on  the  table,  and  print  them, 
that  the  House  might  at  least  see  what  it  -was 
called  on  to  decide;  which  motion  was  also 
lost — yeas,  77,  nays  96. 

The  question  recurring  on  the  motion  to  dis- 
agree to  the  amendments — 

Mr.  SIMKIXS  moved  that  the  amendments  bo 
postponed  to  Tuesday,  and  be  printed ;  declar- 
ing that  he  was  wholly  unprepared  at  present 
to  vote  on  the  subject ;  and  supported  his  mo- 
tion in  a  speech  of  some  length.  The  motion  ' 
was  assented  to  by  Mr.  TAYLOB,  and  supported 
by  Messrs.  RHEA,  CULPEPEB,  STEVENS,  STORES, 
and  BALDWIN  ;  the  last-named  gentleman,  among 
other  remarks,  denying  that  the  amendment 
called  a  compromise,  could  be  called  so  with 
propriety,  inasmuch  as  it  was  inconsistent  with 
the  constitution,  and  the  whole  course  of  legis- 
lation for  thirty  years. 

The  motion  to  postpone  was  opposed  by 
Messrs.  WHITMAN,  LIVEBMOBE,  and  HOLMES, 
because  they  were  opposed  to  any  delay,  as  it 
might  endanger  the  fate  of  the  Maine  bill, 
which  they  desired  to  have  separated  from  the 
other  subject  immediately,  and  disposed  of  as 
justice  and  fairness  required. 

The  question  being  taken  on  postponing  the 
bill  to  Tuesday,  and  printing  the  amendments, 
was  carried  by  a  large  majority ;  and  the  House 
adjourned. 

TUESDAY,  February  22. 
Commodore  Perry. 

Mr.  LOWNDES  offered  the  following  resolution 
for  consideration : 

Resolved,  That  the  Committee  on  Naval  Affairs  be 
instructed  to  inquire  into  the  expediency  of  extend- 
ing to  the  widow  of  Captain  Oliver  Hazard  Perry, 
the  provision  which  is  now  made  by  law  for  the 
widows  and  children  of  naval  officers  who  die  from 
wounds  received  in  action. 

Mr.  L.  observed  that  it  was  conceived  that 
the  family  of  Commodore  Perry  was  embraced 
by  the  existing  laws  which  provide  for  pen- 
sions, as  it  was  not  to  be  supposed  the  gene- 


556 


ABRIDGMENT  OF  THE 


H.  OF  R.] 


Maine  and  Missouri. 


[FEBRUARY,  1820. 


rosity  or  magnanimity  of  Congress  did  not  in- 
tend to  comprehend  such  a  case ;  but  as  this 
appeared  to  be  doubted,  he  had  deemed  it 
proper  to  propose  the  inquiry  which  he  had 
submitted. 

The  resolution  was  adopted  nem.  con. 

Mr.  RANDOLPH  rose  to  offer  a  motion.  He 
believed  it  would  be  very  difficult  for  any  mem- 
ber of  this  House — certainly  it  was  not  possible 
for  him — to  keep  pace  with  the  honorable  gen- 
tleman from  South  Carolina,  (Mr.  LOWNDES,) 
in  the  race  of  honor  and  public  utility.  That 
gentleman  had,  by  the  motion  which  had  just 
been  adopted,  anticipated  him,  in  part,  in  a 
proposition  which  he  (Mr.  R.)  had  intended  on 
this  particular  day,  for  reasons  which  would 
suggest  themselves  to  the  mind  of  every  one, 
to  offer  to  the  House.  When  he  had  this 
morning  heard  the  tower-guns  announcing  the 
return  of  the  birth-day  of  WASHINGTON,  Mr.  R. 
said  the  thought  had  come  across  his  mind — in 
reference  to  certain  proceedings  in  this  House 
and  elsewhere — "this  people  draw  nigh  unto 
me  with  their  lips,  and  honor  me  with  their 
mouth,  but  their  hearts  are  far  from  me."  His 
purpose,  Mr.  R.  stated,  was  to  make  a  motion 
in  relation  to  the  wife  and  children  of  the  late 
Oliver  Hazard  Perry,  of  the  United  States 
Navy.  It  was  his  opinion,  Mr.  R.  said,  whether 
correct  or  not,  that  the  country  owed  more  to 
that  man,  in  its  late  contest  with  Great  Britain, 
than  to  any  other  whatever,  always  excepting 
Isaac  Hull — that  man  who  had  first  broken  the 
prestige,  the  cuirass  of  British  invincibility. 
He  had  frequently,  Mr.  R.  said,  heard  persons 
of  that  country  speak  in  terms  of  admiration  of 
the  achievement  of  Captain  Hull,  in  his  escape 
from  a  fleet  of  the  enemy  in  the  Constitution 
frigate ;  of  the  admirable  seamanship  which  he 
had  displayed;  of  his  professional  skill ;  but  he 
had  never  heard  any  of  them  speak  with  cor- 
dial applause  of  his  achievement  with  the 
Guerriere,  that  proud  frigate  of  the  first  class 
which  had  carried  her  name,-  in  defiance,  em- 
blazoned in  large  letters  on  her  foretopsail, 
that  the  American  picaroons  might  beware  of 
His  Majesty's  ship,  and  make  no  mistakes. 
That  was  an  event  on  which  they  were  gen- 
erally silent,  or  their  praise  very  faint.  Mr.  R. 
believed  that  Old  England  would  consent  that 
forty  Pakenhams,  with  all  their  legions,  should 
have  been  buried  in  the  alluvial  lands  of  the 
Mississippi,  to  take  back  the  single  action  of  the 
Guerriere ;  because  that  action  had  done  more 
than  any  thing  else  to  open  the  eyes  of  Europe, 
and  dispel  the  illusion  of  British  supremacy  on 
the  ocean.  Next  in  glory  to  the  victory  over 
the  Guerriere,  was  that  on  Lake  Erie,  by  the 
gallant  Perry ;  and  this,  Mr.  R.  said,  was  not 
inferior  in  lustre  to  any  event  in  the  naval  his- 
tory of  England,  from  that  of  La  Hogue,  under 
Admiral  Russell.  One,  said  Mr.  R.,  has  shown 
us  the  way  to  victory  with  single  ships,  the 
other  with  fleets.  Shall  we  suffer  his  family 
to  melt  up  the  plate  that  was  given  to  him  by 
his  countrymen,  by  corporate  and  legislative 


bodies,  in  compliment  to  his  gallantry,  to  buy 
bread  ?  He  would  say  no  more,  but  at  once 
offer  the  following  resolution : 

Resolved,  That  provision  be  made  by  law  for  the 
support  of  the  family  of  the  late  Oliver  Hazard  Perry, 
Esq.,  of  the  United  States  Navy,  and  for  the  educa- 
tion of  his  children. 

Mr.  LOWNDES  concurred  with  great  cordiality 
in  Mr.  R.'s  resolution.  He  felt  in  its  fullest 
force  the  sentiment  of  gratitude  to  the  man 
who  had  first  taught  his  country  to  hope  for 
victory  by  fleets,  as  well  as  by  single  ships; 
and  Mr.  L.  said  it  was  only  because  he  had 
supposed  that  the  House  would  not  at  this  time 
give  its  approbation  to  a  proposition  such  as 
Mr.  RANDOLPH  had  offered,  that  he  had  con- 
tented himself  with  the  very  inferior  one  which 
he  had  submitted. 

Mr.  HAZARD,  of  Rhode  Island,  did  not  rise  to 
say  much  on  a  subject  which  he  said  he  could 
scarcely  trust  himself  to  speak  on  at  all.  But 
he  rose  to  offer  his  thanks  to  the  gentleman 
from  Virginia  and  the  gentleman  from  South 
Carolina,  in  behalf  of  the  name  of  Perry — to 
thank  them  in  behalf  of  the  State  which  gave 
him  birth — to  thank  them  in  the  name  of  his 
amiable  widow — to  thank  them  in  the  name 
of  their  common  country. 

The  resolution  was  adopted ;  and,  on  motion 
of  Mr.  RANDOLPH,  a  committee  of  three  was 
appointed  to  bring  in  a  bill  in  pursuance  there- 
to. 

Maine  and  Missouri. 

The  House  resumed  the  consideration  of  the 
amendments  of  the  Senate  to  the  Maine  bill, 
(proposing  to  incorporate  therein  the  Missouri 
bill,  embracing  the  amendment  called  the  com- 
promise.) 

The  amendments  having  been  read — 

Mr.  RANDOLPH  delivered  a  speech  of  more 
than  two  hours'  length,  against  the  feature  of 
the  amendments  of  the  Senate,  which  propose 
to  exclude  the  further  migration  or  transpor- 
tation of  slaves  into  any  of  the  Territories  of 
the  United  States  north  of  36°  30'  north  lati- 
tude. 

Mr.  RHEA  commenced  a  speech ;  but,  from 
the  lateness  of  the  hour,  after  two  or  three  un- 
successful divisions  on  motions  for  the  purpose, 
the  House  adjourned. 


WEDNESDAY,  February  23. 

Maine  and  Missouri. 

The  House  then  resumed  the  consideration 
of  the  amendments  of  the  Senate  to  the  bill  for 
the  admission  of  Maine  into  the  Union. 

Mr.  RHEA  spoke  about  an  hour  on  the  sub- 
ject, particularly  on  the  inapplicability  of  the 
ordinance  of  1787  to  the  territory  west  of  the 


A  division  of  the  question  was  called  for ; 
and,  on  the  question,  Will  the  House  disagree 
to  so  much  of  the  said  amendments  as  is  com- 
prised in  the  words  following,  to  wit: 


DEBATES  OF  CONGRESS. 


557 


FEBRUARY,  1820.] 


The  Missouri  Bill — Restriction  on  the  State. 


[H.  OF  R. 


"  And  to  enable  the  people  of  Missouri  Territory 
to  form  a  constitution  and  State  government,  and 
for  the  admission  of  such  State  into  the  Union  on 
an  equal  footing  with  the  original  States : 

"  SEC.  2.  And  be  it  further  enacted,  That  the  in- 
hahitants  of  that  portion  of  the  Missouri  Territory 
included  within  the  boundaries  hereinafter  designa- 
ted, be,  and  they  are  hereby,  authorized  to  form  for 
themselves  a  constitution  and  State  government,  and 
to  assume  such  name  as  they  shall  deem  proper : " 

It  passed  in  the  affirmative — yeas  93,  nays 
72. 

So  the  House  disagreed  to  the  amendment 
of  the  Senate  which  proposed  to  annex  the 
Missouri  hill  to  the  Maine  bill. 

The  question  was  then  taken  on  disagreeing 
to  the  residue  of  the  amendments  of  the  Sen- 
ate, (the  details  of  the  Missouri  bill,)  with  the 
exception  of  that  which  embraces  what  is 
familiarly  called  the  compromise  amendment, 
and  decided  also  by  yeas  and  nays,  in  the  af- 
firmative— for  disagreeing  102,  against  it  68,  as 
follows : 

YEAS. — Messrs.  Adams,  Allen  of  Massachusetts, 
Allen  of  New  York,  Anderson,  Baldwin,  Beecher, 
Bloomfield,  Boden,  Brown,  Brush,  Buffum,  Butler  of 
New  Hampshire,  Campbell,  Case,  Clagett,  Clark, 
Crafts,  Cushman,  Darlington,  Dennison,  Dewitt, 
Dickerson,  Dowse,  Eddy,  Edwards  of  Connecticut, 
Edwards  of  Pennsylvania,  Fay,  Folger,  Ford,  For- 
rest, Fuller,  Fullerton,  Gross  of  New  York,  Gross  of 
Pennsylvania,  Guyon,  Hackley,  Hall  of  New  York, 
Hazard,  Hemphill,  Hendricks,  Herrick,  Hibshman, 
Hill,  Holmes,  Hostetter,  Kendall,  Kinsey,  Kinsley, 
Lathrop,  Lincoln,  Linn,  Livermore,  Lyman,  Maclay, 
McLane  of  Delaware,  McLean  of  Kentucky,  Mallary, 
Marchand,  Mason,  Meech,  Meigs,  R.  Moore,  S.  Moore, 
Monell,  Morton,  Mosely,  Murray,  Nelson  of  Virginia, 
Parker  of  Massachusetts,  Patterson,  Phelps,  Philson, 
Pitcher,  Plumer,  Rich,  Richards,  Richmond,  Rogers, 
Ross,  Russ,  Sampson,  Sergeant,  Silsbee,  Sloan, 
Southard,  Stevens,  Storrs,  Street,  Strong  of  Vermont, 
Strong  of  New  York,  Tarr,  Taylor,  Tomlinson, 
Tompkins,  Tracy,  Trimble,  Upham,  Van  Rensselaer, 
Wallace,  Wendovor,  Whitman,  and  Wood. 

NAYS.— Messrs.  Abbot,  Alexander,  Allen  of  Ten- 
nessee, Archer  of  Maryland,  Archer  of  Virginia,  Ball, 
Barbour,  Bayly,  Brevard,  Bryan,  Burton,  Bnrwell, 
Butler  of  Louisiana,  Cannon,  Cobb,  Cocke,  Crowell, 
Cnlbreth,  Culpeper,  Cuthbert,  Davidson,  Earle,  Ed- 
wards of  North  Carolina,  Ervin,  Fisher,  Floyd, 
Garnett,  Hall  of  North  Carolina,  Hardin,  Hooks, 
Johnson,  Jones  of  Tennessee,  Kent,  Little,  Lowndes, 
McCoy,  McCreary,  Mercer,  Metcalf,  Neale,  Newton, 
Overstreet,  Parker  of  Virginia,  Pinckney,  Quarles, 
Rankin,  Reed,  Rhea,  Ringgold,  Robertson,  Settle, 
Simkins,  Slocumb,  Smith  of  New  Jersey,  Smith  of 
Maryland,  B.  Smith  of  Virginia,  A.  Smyth  of  Vir- 
ginia, Smith  of  North  Carolina,  Strother,  Swearin- 
cen,  Terrell,  Tucker  of  Virginia,  Tucker  of  South 
Carolina,  Tyler,  Walker  of  North  Carolina,  Warfield, 
Williams  of  Virginia,  and  Williams  of  North  Carolina. 

The  question  was  then  taken,  Will  the  House 
disagree  to  the  said  ninth  section,  (being  the 
last  of  the  said  amendments,)  contained  in  the 
words  following,  to  wit : 

SEC.  9.  And  be  it  further  enacted,  That,  in  all  that 
territory  ceded  by  France  to  the  United  States,  under 


the  name  of  Louisiana,  which  lies  north  of  thirty-six 
degrees  and  thirty  minutes  north  latitude,  excepting 
only  such  part  thereof  as  is  included  within  the  limits 
of  the  State  contemplated  by  this  act,  slavery  and 
involuntary  servitude,  otherwise  than  in  the  punish- 
ment of  crimes,  whereof  the  party  shall  have  been 
duly  convicted,  shall  be,  and  is  hereby,  for  ever  pro- 
hibited :  Provided,  always,  That  any  person  escaping 
into  the  same,  from  whom  labor  or  service  is  lawfully 
claimed,  in  any  State  or  Territory  of  the  United 
States,  such  fugitive  may  be  lawfully  reclaimed,  and 
conveyed  to  the  person  claiming  his  or  her  labor  or 
service  as  aforesaid : 

And  also  determined  in  the  affirmative — yeas 
159,  nays  18. 

FRIDAY,  February  25. 
The  Missouri  Bill. 

The  SPEAKER  having  announced  the  orders 
of  the  day — 

Mr.  HILL,  of  Massachusetts,  rose,  and  said  he 
did  not  now  wish  to  consume  the  time  of  the 
House  upon  a  subject,  the  progress  of  which 
seemed  to  be  stamped  with  all  the  marks  of  eter- 
nity. But  he  rose  merely  to  move  that  the 
Committee  of  the  Whole  be  discharged  from  any 
further  consideration  of  the  Missouri  bill. 

Mr.  LOWNDES  said,  that  if  the  gentleman  from 
Massachusetts  insisted  on  this  motion  being  put, 
he  would  cheerfully  vote  in  favor  of  it ;  yet,  if 
he  would  consent  to  withdraw  his  motion  for 
the  present,  to  give  two  or  three  gentlemen 
more  an  opportunity  to  speak  to-day,  he  thought 
it  might  be  a  saving  of  time,  and  the  motion 
could  be  renewed  again,  if  necessary,  to-morrow 
morning,  which  would  then,  he  thought,  receive 
a  decided  support. 

Mr.  HILL  acquiesced  in  this  suggestion,  and 
withdrew  his  motion. 

The  House  then  again  went  into  a  Commit- 
tee of  the  Whole,  Mr.  COBB  in  the  chair,  on 
this  bill. 

Mr.  EBVIJT,  of  South  Carolina,  took  the  floor, 
and  spoke  at  considerable  length  against  the  re- 
striction. 

Mr.  SCOTT,  of  Missouri,  said,  it  had  been  erro- 
neously stated  that  Missouri  demanded  that 
which  she  ought  more  modestly  to  sue  for  as  a 
matter  of  special  grace  and  favor.  In  the  re- 
marks which  he  should  now  have  the  honor  to 
submit  on  the  subject,  he  did  not  wish  to  be 
again  misunderstood  by  the  honorable  gentle- 
man 'from  New  York,  (Mr.  TAYLOR,)  or  any 
other  quarter.  Mr.  S.  did  not  sound  the  tocsin 
of  alarm — he  did  not  beat  up  for  volunteers  in 
rebellion  against  the  constituted  authorities  of 
his  country — but  he  should  degrade,  counteract, 
and  even  misrepresent,  the  wishes  of  the  peo- 
ple of  Missouri,  was  he  to  press  their  claim  for 
admission  into  the  Union  by  obsequious  suppli- 
cations and  prayers,  suited  alone  to  the  taste 
and  palates  of  sycophants  or  of  tyrants.  Sir, 
said  Mr.  S.,  Missouri  asks,  in  the  true  American 
character  of  moderation  and  firmness,  your  as- 
sistance to  organize  her  State  government,  as 
preparatory  to  her  admission  into  the  Union. 


558 


ABRIDGMENT  OF  THE 


H.  OF  R.] 


The  Missouri  Bill — Restriction  on  the  Slate. 


[FEBRUARY,   1820. 


She  did  not  sink  herself  beneath  notice,  by  an 
affectation  of  inferiority,  meekness,  dependence, 
and  submission,  which  she  did  not  feel,  nor  did 
she,  by  any  rash  declarations,  or  warlike  atti- 
tudes, authorize  the  uftgenerous  insinuations 
tbat  there  was  in  that  people  a  moral  unfitness 
for  self-government.  There  had  been  no  ex- 
hibition of  such  a  spirit  of  boisterous  domina- 
tion as  ought  to  induce  you  to  shun  their  com- 
pany, or  to  avoid  associating  with  them  as  a 
member  of  the  federal  family.  Missouri  pre- 
sented herself  with  the  Constitution  of  the 
United  States  in  one  hand,  and  the  treaty  of 
cession  in  the  other,  and  asked  admission  into 
the  Union.  She  exhibited,  as  preliminaries,  a 
long  apprenticeship  under  the  guardianship  of 
your  laws ;  a  moral  capacity  and  fitness  in  the 
people  for  self-government ;  a  devoted  attach- 
ment to  the  constitution  and  laws  of  the  land; 
a  firm  and  fixed  republican  character;  and 
numbers  sufficient  to  entitle  her  to  two  Repre- 
sentatives. She  did  not  attempt  to  deceive 
Congress  in  reference  to  her  territory,  or  the 
number  of  her  inhabitants;  she  presented  an 
actual  map  of  the  surveys  of  the  country,  by 
which  a  calculation  might  be  made,  within  a 
few  miles,  of  the  exact  extent  of  her  bounda- 
ries ;  she  produced  documents  in  support  of  her 
population,  sufficient  to  satisfy  the  most  consci- 
entious and  scrupulous ;  she  was  not  driven  to 
the  subterfuge  of  counting  her  citizens  and 
travellers  in  every  county  through  which  they 
might  pass,  to  make  out  her  pretensions  to  ad- 
mission, and  then,-  to  take  off  the  odium  of  this 
deception,  to  christen  the  transaction  with  the 
name  of  pious  fraud,  because  the  great  object  in 
view  was  to  jump  into  the  Union,  and  obtain 
the  blessed  privilege  of  dictating  to  her  supe- 
riors and  her  neighbors.  Mr.  S.  regretted  that 
this  question  had  produced  so  much  excitement ; 
he,  however,  disclaimed  the  responsibility  of 
ultimate  measures,  because  he  was  acting  only 
on  the  defensive,  and  was  not  one  of  the  pro- 
posers or  supporters  of  the  proposition  that  had 
caused  it.  If  it  was  of  recent  date,  he  would 
entertain  some  hopes  of  its  short  duration. 
But,  for  more  than  one  year,  this  question  had 
agitated  many  sections  of  this  Government ;  it 
had  mixed  and  mingled  with  every  topic;  it 
had  operated  on,  and  even  controlled,  elections. 
He  had  seen  one  instance  of  its  powerful  influ- 
ence in  an  adjoining  State,  and  he  feared  simi- 
lar sacrifices  had  or  would  be  made  in  other 
quarters,  of  honorable  men,  for  thejr  integrity 
and  attachment  to  the  principles  of  the  con- 
stitution. 

After  an  extended  argument  against  the  right 
and  expediency  of  the  restriction,  Mr.  S.  con- 
cluded with  saying, 

That  this  was  not  a  question  "  whether 
slavery  should  exist,"  but  merely  where 
should  the  slaves,  now  in  America,  be  per- 
mitted to  reside  ?  The  mistake  of  this  propo- 
sition seemed  to  have  measurably  produced  all 
this  contention  and  strife.  Was  this  an  origi- 
nal question,  whether  we  should  subject  a  por- 


tion of  our  fellow-beings  to  a  state  of  servitude 
and  degradation,  he  believed  that  the  people  of 
Missouri,  from  their  innate  love  of  liberty, 
equality,  and  independence,  would  be  among 
the  first  to  declare  against  the  principle.  But 
the  absolute  condition  of  that  description  of 
persons  did  exist,  and  actually  had  existed  long 
before  even  the  first  settlements  were  formed 
in  Missouri ;  and  if  there  were  any  advantages 
to  be  derived  from  holding  that  description  of 
property,  the  people  of  Missouri,  as  citizens  of 
the  United  States,  had  the  right,  in  common 
with  others.  Congress,  in  deciding  that  they 
should  not  be  introduced,  as  one  of  the  species 
of  property  under  our  constitution  and  laws, 
were  doing  that  section  of  country  a  wrong,  be- 
cause it  placed  them,  in  powers  and  privileges, 
below  other  States  in  the  Union ;  and  when  a 
wrong  was  meditated  on  any  people  they  alone 
were  the  judges;  such  had  been  the  current 
doctrine,  and  so  considered  by  the  United  States 
themselves,  when  they  determined  on  that 
course  with  regard  to  Great  Britain,  which  led 
to  American  independence.  If  gentlemen  were 
not  predetermined  to  fix  this  restriction  on  Mis- 
souri, and  would  take  the  trouble  to  mount  up 
to  first  principles,  they  would  find  that  it  was 
not  a  mere  question  of  power,  growing  out  of 
the  construction  of  the  constitution,  but  that 
there  was  another  law,  paramount  to  all  writ- 
ten rules  and  regulations,  that  operated  on  and 
controlled  the  question — it  was  the  law  of 
man ;  it  was  his  eternal  and  indefeasible  right 
to  self-government.  It  was  an  idle  calculation 
to  believe  that  the  State  of  Missouri  would  lose 
sight  of  this  law  of  man  in  adjusting  their  con- 
stitution or  contending  for  their  rights.  It  was 
true  that  the  people  of  Missouri  had  been  a  long 
time  in  pupilage  and  wardship,  but  they  had 
never  been  in  bondage.  Although  derived 
from  Spain,  the  citizens  were  not  the  poor 
remnant  of  Spanish  despotism — the  great  por- 
tion of  them  had  been  in  a  land  of  liberty ; 
they  are  your  relations,  your  frtends,  your 
brothers;  each  State  in  the  Union  had  some 
interest  there;  and  they  were  freemen,  who 
knew  how  to  appreciate,  maintain,  and  defend 
their  rights.  A  maxim  might  with  great  pro- 
priety be  here  applied ;  it  was,  that  whenever 
illegal  or  improper  objects  were  to  be  attained, 
that  they  drove  the  supporters  of  them  to  im- 
proper and  illegal  means  to  effect  the  object. 
The  Parliament  of  Great  Britain,  although 
deemed  omnipotent,  never  had,  in  reference  to 
the  colonies,  attempted  any  thing  that  would 
bear  a  comparison  with  this  restriction,  though 
the  powers  of  Congress  were  express,  limited, 
and  defined.  The  force  of  precedent  had  been 
illustrated  in  the  course  of  this  debate.  Let 
this  restriction  prevail,  and  then  States  beware  ! 
for  it  was  thus  that  a  tyrant,  about  to  subju- 
gate the  liberties  of  a  people,  selected  an  ob- 
scure individual,  whose  fate  would  excite  no 
alarm,  and,  in  his  destruction,  fixed  an  example, 
to  which,  in  turn,  the  most  lordly  were  taught 
to  bow.  And  thus  Congress  selected  a  distant 


DEBATES  OF  CONGRESS. 


559 


FEBRUARY,  1820.] 


[H.  OF  R. 


and  feeble  Territory,  whose  murmurs  could  be 
but  indistinctly  heard,  just  o'er  the  verge  of 
Heaven ;  and  in  the  sacrifice  of  its  rights,  and 
prostration  of  its  authority,  established  a  pre- 
cedent that  saps  the  foundation  of  State  au- 
thority, and  produces  consolidation,  or,  in  the 
end,  disunion. 

Mr.  S.  remarked  that  he  had  much  more  to 
say,  but,  from  indisposition  and  exhaustion,  was 
unable  to  proceed ;  the  committee  were  also 
fatigued ;  the  question  of  expedience  and  other 
topics  he  had  left  entirely  untouched ;  but,  from 
the  labored  and  able  investigation  the  subject 
had  received,  he  was  willing  to  trust  the  rights, 
the  happiness,  the  fate  of  Missouri,  with  the 
House.  Her  present  prosperity  and  future 
greatness  depended  on  the  decision ;  if  gentle- 
men could  take  the  power,  he  entreated  them 
not  to  exercise  it;  the  affections  of  the  people 
of  Missouri  had  been  put  to  many  severe  trials 
in  the  course  of  eighteen  years,  but  they  could 
not  endure  forever;  and  he  appealed  to  gen- 
tlemen's unquestionable  knowledge  of  right  and 
native  love  of  justice,  not  to  add  this  restric- 
tion to  the  list  of  grievances  of  that  people. 

Mr.  MEIGS,  of  New  York,  spoke  for  some  tune 
against  restriction. 

Mr.  ADAMS,  of  Massachusetts,  made  a  few  re- 
marks in  favor  of  the  restriction. 

Mr.  TUCKER,  of  Virginia,  said  he  should  not 
have  ventured  to  trespass  further  on  the  time  of 
the  committee,  if  his  objections  to  the  proposed 
amendment,  particularly  as  to  its  expediency, 
had  been  anticipated  by  those  who  had  gone 
before  him  in  the  debate.  There  is,  indeed, 
said  he,  Mr.  Chairman,  something  peculiar  in 
every  man's  views  of  the  subject,  who  exercises 
his  own  powers  of  reflection,  and  it  is  only  by 
looking  at  it  under  these  different  phases  that 
we  can  form  a  just  estimate  of  its  bearings  and 
dimensions.  I  am  the  more  desirous  of  speak- 
ing on  the  policy  of  the  proposed  restriction, 
because  a  distinguished  member  from  Pennsyl- 
vania (Mr.  SERGEANT)  has  said  that  Virginia 
had  no  interest  in  this  question.  Sir,  I  think 
I  can  show,  to  every  unprejudiced  mind,  that 
it  threatens,  not  only  the  peace  and  welfare  of 
Virginia,  in  common  with  all  the  slaveholding 
States,  but  their  very  political  existence. 

Mr.  T.  then  spoke  at  great  length  in  support 
of  the  positions  he  had  taken. 

When  Mr.  T.  had  concluded— 

Mr.  SMITH,  of  Maryland,  rose  and  observed, 
that  a  large  number  of  his  constituents  had  ex- 
pressed their  opinion  in  opposition  to  the  opin- 
ion which  he  was  known  to  entertain  on  this 
subject,  and  it  might  be  presumed  that  he  de- 
sired to  deliver  his  reasons  for  the  vote  which 
he  should  give.  But,  Mr.  S.  said,  the  public 
business  was  suffering  by  the  protraction  of  the 
debate;  the  members  are  weary  of  it;  every 
one's  opinion  was  made  up  on  it ;  and  he  was 
unwilling  to  consume  the  time  of  the  commit- 
tee by  any  remarks  on  the  question.  He  there- 
fore forbore,  and  he  hoped  the  question  would 
be  taken. 


Mr.  WALKER,  of  North  Carolina,  rose  then  to 
address  the  committee  on  the  question  ;  but  the 
question  was  called  for  so  clamorously  and  so 
perseveringly,  that  Mr.  W.  could  proceed  no 
farther  than  to  move  that  the  committee  rise. 

The  committee  refused  to  rise,  by  almost  a 
unanimous  vote. 

Mr.  BEECHER,  of  Ohio,  then  stated  that  it  was 
his  wish  to  be  heard  on  the  question ;  and,  if 
not  allowed  an  opportunity  of  speaking  in  com- 
mittee, he  should  do  so  in  the  House,  unless 
prevented  by  force ;  and  he  moved  that  the 
committee  should  then  rise. 

This  motion  was  lost  by  a  very  large  ma- 
jority. 

Mr.  SMITH,  of  North  Carolina,  said  the  course 
he  was  about  to  propose  was  unusual,  and  per- 
haps without  precedent — that  was,  to  call  the 
previous  question  in  Committee  of  the  "Whole ; 
but,  as  he  conceived  the  motion  would  be  sus- 
tained by  the  rules  and  orders  of  the  House, 
and  to  put  an  end  to  any  further  debate  on  the 
amendment,  he  moved  for  the  previous  ques- 
tion thereon. 

The  Chair  conceived  that  the  motion  was  not 
in  order. 

Mr.  RANDOLPH  asked  leave  of  the  mover  of 
this  course,  to  suggest  to  him  a  less  invidious 
mode  of  getting  at  his  object.  If  the  commit- 
tee should  consent  to  rise,  and  the  House  would 
refuse  it  leave  to  sit  again,  the  question  would 
then  be  in  the  House  ;  and  that  was  the  only 
way,  Mr.  R.  said,  that  the  committee,  worn 
down  by  what  was  called  a  discussion,  could  be 
relieved  from  it.  He  hoped,  wherever  possi- 
ble, that  the  previous  question  should  be  dis- 
pensed with ;  but  if  some  mode  were  not  de- 
vised of  getting  clear  of  this  debate,  he  believed 
he  should  become  reconciled  to  it — though  a 
man  convinced  against  his  will  was  of  the  same 
opinion  still. 

Mr.  CLAY  (Speaker)  observed,  that  the  pre- 
vious question  would  not  effect  the  object  of 
the  gentleman  who  moved  it ;  because  its  effect 
would  be  to  put  aside  the  question  on  the 
amendment  altogether ;  and  though  that  might 
be  a  very  happy  effect,  yet  it  wcs  not,  he  pre- 
sumed, desired  by  the  committee,  and  he  thought 
it  fair  to  warn  gentlemen  of  an  effect  that  he 
supposed  was  not  anticipated. 

Mr.  SMITH,  of  North  Carolina,  though  he  had 
felt  himself  at  entire  liberty  to  make  a  motion, 
intended  to  stop  the  debate,  inasmuch  as  he  had 
not  troubled  the  committee  with  a  speech  on 
the  subject ;  yet,  as  the  effect  would  be  what 
had  been  stated  by  the  Speaker,  he  would  with- 
draw his  motion. 

The  question  was  then  taken  on  Mr.  TAY- 
LOR'S proposed  restriction,  and  agreed  to,  by 
from  12  to  18  votes. 

Mr.  TAYLOR  then  moved  that  the  committee 
rise,  as  he  presumed  it  was  not  prepared  to  go 
into  the  various  details  of  the  bill  this  evening, 
several  of  which  were  important,  and  would 
give  rise  to  many  questions. 

This  motion  was  opposed  by  Mr.  SCOTT  and 


560 


ABKIDGMENT  OF  THE 


H.  OF  R.] 


Elaine  and  Missouri. 


[FEBRUARY,  1820. 


Mr.  STROTHER,  and  supported  by  Mr.  SERGEANT. 
It,  however,  finally  prevailed,  and 

The  committee  obtained  leave,  ayes  90,  to  sit 
again ;  and,  about  five  o'clock,  the  House  ad- 
journed. 

SATITBDAY,  February  26. 
The  Missouri  Bill— Compromise. 

The  order  of  the  day  being  announced  from 
the  Chair,  being  the  unfinished  business  of  yes- 
terday— 

Mr.  HILL  renewed  the  motion  which  he  made 
yesterday,  that  the  Committee  of  the  Whole  be 
discharged  from  the  further  consideration  of  the 
Missouri  bill ;  but  the  motion  was  not  sustained 
by  a  majority  of  the  House. 

The  House  then  resolved  itself  into  a  Com- 
mittee of  the  Whole,  on  the  said  bill. 

Mr.  STOBBS,  of  New  York,  moved  to  amend 
the  bill  by  inserting,  in  the  4th  section,  (imme- 
diately preceding  the  restrictive  amendment 
adopted  yesterday,)  the  following  proviso  : 

"  That  in  all  that  tract  of  country  ceded  by  France 
to  the  United  States,  under  the  name  of  Louisiana, 
which  lies  north  of  thirty-six  degrees  and  thirty 
minutes  north  latitude,  excepting  only  such  part 
thereof  as  is  included  within  the  limits  of  the  State  con- 
templated by  this  act,  there  shall  be  neither  slavery 
nor  involuntary  servitude,  otherwise  than  in  the  pun- 
ishment of  crimes,  whereof  the  party  shall  have  been 
duly  convicted :  Provided,  always,  That  any  person 
escaping  into  the  same,  from  whom  labor  or  service 
is  lawfully  claimed  in  any  State  or  Territory  of  the 
United  States,  such  fugitive  may  be  lawfully  re- 
claimed, and  conveyed  to  the  person  claiming  his  or 
her  labor  or  service  as  aforesaid." 

Mr.  STORRS  supported  his  amendment  in  a 
speech  of  considerable  length  ;  embracing,  inci- 
dentally, in  the  range  of  his  remarks,  an  exam- 
ination of  the  right  of  imposing  the  slavery  re- 
striction 011  Missouri. 

Mr.  RANDOLPH  next  rose,  and  spoke  more 
than  four  hours  against  the  amendment,  and  on 
the  topics  connected  with  it,  the  subject  of  re- 
striction, &c.  When  he  had  concluded,  (about 
half-past  four  o'clock,)  an  ineffectual  motion 
was  made  for  the  committee  to  rise. 

Mr.  BEECHER,  of  Ohio,  then  took  the  floor, 
and  proceeded  a  short  time  in  a  speech  on  the 
subject,  when  he  gave  way  for  a  motion  for  the 
committee  to  rise,  which  prevailed,  and  about 
five*  o'clock  the  House  adjourned. 


MONDAY,  February  28. 
Maine  and  Missouri. 

A  message  was  received  from  the  Senate,  by 
their  secretary,  announcing  that  the  Senate  in- 
sist on  their  amendments  to  the  bill  for  the 
admission  of  Maine  into  the  Union,  which  had 
been  disagreed  to  by  this  House. 

Mr.  TAYLOR  moved  that  the  House  insist  on 
its  disagreement  to  the  said  amendments. 

Mr.  COBB  inquired  of  the  Chair  whether  the 
question  could  be  divided  so  as  to  be  taken 


separately  on  each  principle  embraced  in  the 
amendments. 

Mr.  LOWNDES  remarked,  in  substance,  that  it 
appeared  to  him  there  would  be  much  diili- 
culty  in  coming  to  any  conclusion  on  these 
amendments  in  which  the  two  Houses  would 
concur ;  that  he  thought  therefore  that  it  would 
be  better  to  lay  them  aside  until  this  House  had 
matured  and  finally  acted  on  the  bill  now  be- 
fore it,  for  the  admission  of  Missouri,  and  as* 
certained  how  it  was  received  by  the  Senate, 
&c. ;  with  this  view  he  moved  that  the  amend- 
ments be  laid  on  the  table.  , 

On  this  question  the  House  divided,  and  the 
motion  was  negatived — yeas  74,  nays  85. 

Mr.  CDLPEPER,  then,  after  some  remarks  to 
show  the  propriety  and  necessity  of  mutual  for- 
bearance on  a  question  so  important  and  deli- 
cate ;  and  from  the  hope,  that,  by  acting  con- 
clusively on  the  bill  now  before  the  House  and 
sending  it  to  the  Senate,  all  difficulty  would  be 
gotten  over,  &c. — moved  that  the  amendments 
be  postponed  until  to-morrow. 

This  motion  was  opposed  by  Mr.  HOLMES, 
and  Mr.  WHITMAN,  who  were  averse  to  delay- 
ing a  final  decision  on  these  amendments  with 
which  the  admission  of  Maine  was  connected, 
and  which  they  wished  to  separate  from  it  as 
promptly  as  possible. 

The  motion  to  postpone  the  amendments  was 
negatived  without  a  count. 

The  main  question  then  recurring,  it  was  80 
divided,  on  motion  of  Mr.  BUTLER,  of  Louisiana, 
as  to  be  first  taken  on  insisting  on  the  disagree- 
ment of  this  House  to  the  first  eight  sections, 
(connecting  with  the  Maine  bill  provisions  for 
the  admission  of  Missouri,)  and  was  decided,  by 
yeas  and  nays,  as  follows : 

YEAS.— Messrs.  Adams,  Allen  of  New  York,  Bate- 
man,  Beecher,  Boden,  Brush,  Buffum,  Butler  of  New 
Hampshire,  Campbell,  Case,  Clagett,  Cook,  Crafts, 
Cushman,  Darlington,  Dennison,  Dewitt,  Dickinson, 
Dowse,  Eddy,  Edwards  of  Connecticut,  Edwards  of 
Pennsylvania,  Fay,  Folger,  Foot,  Ford.  Forrest,  Ful- 
ler, Gross  of  New  York,  Gross  of  Pennsylvania,  Guyon, 
Hackley,  Hall  of  New  York,  Hazard,  Hemphill,  Hen- 
dricks,  Herrick,  Hibshman,  Heister,  Hill,  liolmes, 
Hostetter,  Kendall,  Kinsey,  Lathrop,  Lincoln,  Linn, 
Livermore,  Lyman,  Maclay,  Mallary,  Marchand, 
Mason,  Meech,  Meigs,  R.  Moore,  S.  Moore,  Mono  11, 
Morton,  Mosely,  Murray,  Nelson  of  Massachusetts, 
Nelson  of  Virginia,  Parker  of  Massachusetts,  Pat- 
terson, Phelps,  Philson,  Pitcher,  Plumer,  Rich,  Rich- 
ards, Richmond,  Rogers,  Ross,  Russ,  Sampson,  Ser- 
geant, Silsbee,  Sloan,  Smith  of  New  Jersey,  Southard, 
Stevens,  Storrs,  Street,  Strong  of  Vermont,  Strong  of 
New  York,  Tarr,  Taylor,  Tomlinson,  Tompkins, 
Tracy,  Upham,  Van  Rensselaer,  Wallace,  Wendover, 
Whitman,  and  Wood— 97. 

NAYS.— Messrs.  Abbot,  Alexander,  Allen  of  Ten- 
nessee, Anderson,  Archer  of  Maryland,  Archer  of 
Virginia,  Baldwin.  Ball,  Barbour,  Bloomfield,  Bre- 
vard,  Brown,  Bryan,  Burton,  Burwell,  Butler  of 
Louisiana,  Cannon,  Cobb,  Cocke,  Crawford,  Cul- 
breth,  Culpeper,  Cuthbert,  Davidson,  Earle,  Edwards 
of  North  Carolina,  Ervin,  Fisher,  Floyd,  Fullerton, 
Garnett,  Hardin,  Hooks,  Johnson,  Jones  of  Virgiuia, 


DEBATES  OF  CONGRESS. 


561 


FEBRUARY,  1820.] 


The  Missouri  Sill— Restriction  on  the  State. 


[H.  OF  R. 


Jones  of  Tennessee  Kent,  Little,  Lowndes,  McCoy, 
McCreary,  McLean  of  Kentucky,  Mercer,  Metcalf, 
Neale,  Newton,  Overstreet,  Parker  of  Virginia, 
Pinckney,  Pindall,  Quarles,  Randolph,  Rankin,  Reed, 
Rhea,  Rin<;gold,  Robertson,  Settle,  Shaw,  Simkins, 
Slocumb,  Smith  of  Maryland,  B.  Smith  of  Virginia, 
A.  Smyth  of  Virginia,  Smith  of  North  Carolina, 
Strother,  Swearingen,  Terrell,  Trimble,  Tucker  of 
Virginia,  Tucker  of  South  Carolina,  Tyler,  Walker 
of  North  Carolina,  Warfield,  Williams  of  Virginia, 
and  Williams  of  North  Carolina— 76. 

The  question  was  then  stated  on  insisting  on 
the  disagreement  of  the  House  to  the  remain- 
ing amendments  of  the  Senate,  (being  the  9th 
section,  embracing  the  compromise  principle.) 

Mr.  LOWXDES  wished  to  remark,  before  this 
question  was  taken,  that,  although  he  should 
always  be  ready  to  vote  for  such  a  proposition, 
substantially,  when  presented  to  him,  combined 
with  the  free  admission  of  Missouri;  yet,  as 
the  amendment  relative  to  Missouri  had  been 
disagreed  to,  it  would  be  useless  to  retain  this 
amendment  in  connection  with  the  Maine  bill 
alone,  and,  as  he  should  therefore  now  vote 
against  retaining  it,  he  wished  his  motive  to  be 
understood. 

Mr.  MCCBEARY  made  a  remark  or  two  to  the 
same  effect ;  when — 

The  question  was  taken  on  insisting  on  the 
disagreement  of  the  House  to  the  9th  section 
of  the  Senate's  amendments,  and  carried — yeas 
160,  nays  14. 

So  the  House  insisted  on  its  disagreement  to 
the  whole  of  the  Senate's  amendments  to  the 
Maine  bill ;  and  the  Clerk  was  directed  to  ac- 
quaint the  Senate  therewith. 

A  message  from  the  Senate  informed  the 
House  that  the  Senate  ask  a  conference  on  the 
subject-matter  of  the  disagreeing  votes  of  the 
two  Houses,  on  the  amendments  of  the  Senate 
to  the  bill,  entitled  "  An  act  for  the  admission 
of  the  State  of  Maine  into  the  Union,"  and  have 
appointed  managers  at  the  said  conference  on 
their  part. 

The  Missouri  Bill. 

The  House  then  again  went  into  Committee 
of  the  Whole,  (Mr.  COBB  in  the  chair,)  on  the 
Missouri  bill — -Mr.  STOEES'S  proposition  to  in- 
sert therein  the  clause  to  exclude  slavery  from 
the  territory  of  the  United  States  west  of  the 
Mississippi,  and  north  of  thirty-six  degrees 
thirty  minutes  north  latitude,  (excepting  the 
proposed  State  of  Missouri,)  being  still  under 
consideration. 

Mr.  BEECHBR  resumed  and  concluded  the 
speech  which  he  commenced  on  Saturday, 
against  the  amendment,  and  in  defence  of  the 
right  of  Congress  to  impose  the  slavery  restric- 
tion, heretofore  discussed. 

Mr.  liANDOLi'ii  again  rose,  and  spoke  some 
time  against  the  amendment,  and  in  reply  to 
some  of  the  arguments  of  Mr.  BEECHEK. 

Mr  MALLART,  of  Vermont,  spoke  some  time 
in  explanation  of  the  reasons  which  would  in- 
duce him  to  vote  against  the  amendment,  though 
VOL.  VI.— 36 


he  was  in  favor  of  restriction  on  the  territories 
west  of  the  Mississippi,  &c. 

Mr.  STORES  next  addressed  the  committee,  in 
a  short  but  earnest  speech,  in  support  of  his 
amendment. 

Mr.  LIVERMORE  made  a  few  remarks  against 
the  amendment. 

Mr.  BALDWIN  spoke  a  short  time  in  favor  of 
the  amendment,  and  in  reply  to  a  point  or  two 
of  Mr.  BEEOHER'S  remarks. 

The  question  was  then  taken  on  Mr.  STOBBS'S 
amendment,  and  decided  in  the  negative — 
ayes  33. 

The  committee  then  proceeded  to  fill  up  the 
details  of  the  bill. 

Mr.  TAYLOR  moved  an  amendment  thereto, 
going  to  strike  out  all  that  part  providing  the 
apportionment  of  delegates  to  the  convention 
among  the  several  counties,  and  substituting 
therefor,  in  substance,  a  provision  leaving  the 
apportionment  to  the  General  Assembly  of 
the  Territory,  according  to  the  free  population 
thereof. 

Mr.  RANDOLPH  rose  to  offer  a  little  amend- 
ment to  the  amendment,  which  he  supposed 
had  dropped  out  of  it  by  accident :  it  was  the 
word  white — a  matter,  he  observed,  of  some  im- 
portance yet  to  those  on  the  south  side,  as  they 
said — and  proceeded  to  extend  his  remarks  on 
the  subject;  when 

Mr.  TAYLOR  accepted  the  amendment  with 
pleasure.  He  had  omitted  it,  because  it  was 
sufficiently  expressed  in  subsequent  parts,  and 
he  had  not  deemed  it  important  here. 

Considerable  discussion  ensued  on  Mr.  TAY- 
LOR'S amendment,  in  which  it  was  opposed  by 
Messrs.  SCOTT,  WHITMAN,  and  CLAY,  and  was 
supported  by  the  mover  and  Mr.  LIVERMORE  ; 
and 

The  question  being  taken  thereon,  was  de- 
cided in  the  negative,  by  a  large  majority. 

Mr.  ALLEN,  of  Massachusetts,  then  moved  to 
amend  the  third  section  of  the  bill,  by  striking 
out  of  the  clause  which  designates  the  kind  of 
persons  who  shall  vote  for  delegates  to  the  con- 
vention of  the  State,  the  word  white,  so  as  to 
extend  the  privilege  of  voting  to  all  "free  male 
citizens ; "  and  spoke  at  some  length  in  sup- 
port of  his  motion,  and  in  explanation  of  has 
opinions  on  other  points  which  had  been  intro- 
duced in  the  debate  of  the  bill. 

Mr.  RANDOLPH  rose  in  opposition  to  this 
amendment,  and  spoke  about  an  hour  and  a 
half  on  this  motion,  and  other  topics  which  he 
embraced  in  its  consideration. 

Some  proceedings  took  place  on  a  point  of 
order  which  was  made ;  after  which  the  ques- 
tion was  put  on  Mr.  ALLEN'S  motion,  and  a  di- 
vision required,  when  it  appeared  that  but  one 
member  (the  mover  of  the  amendment)  rose  in 
its  support. 

After  filling  the  blanks  in  the  bill,  according 
to  the  motions  of  Mr.  SCOTT,  of  Missouri, 

Mr.  TAYLOR  moved  an  amendment,  [one 
which  he  had  offered  on  the  first  day  that  the 
bill  was  taken  up,  and  then  withdrawn,]  by 


562 


ABRIDGMENT  OF  THE 


H.  OF  R.] 


The  Missouri  Bill— Restriction  on  the  State. 


[FEBRUARY,  1820. 


adding  to  the  last  section  the  following  clause : 
"  And  if  the  same  [the  constitution]  shall  be  ap- 
proved by  Congress  at  their  next  session  after 
the  receipt  thereof,  the  said  territory  shall  be 
admitted  into  the  Union  as  a  State  upon  the 
same  footing  as  the  original  States." 

This  motion  was  advocated  by  the  mover, 
and  earnestly  opposed  by  Messrs.  SCOTT,  CLAY, 
and  MERCER  ;  and,  after  some  remarks  by  Mr. 
BUTLER,  of  Louisiana,  touching  the  case  of 
Louisiana,  referred  to  in  the  debate, 

The  question  was  taken  on  Mr.  TAYLOR'S 
motion,  and  negatived — ayes  75,  noes  84. 

Mr.  STORRS  then  offered  an  amendment,  in 
effect  to  transfer  the  restrictive  amendment  al- 
ready adopted,  to  the  sixth  section  of  the  bill, 
(which  embraces  those  provisions  in  the  nature 
of  compact,)  and  so  modify  it  as  to  make  it  a 
recommendation  for  the  free  acceptance  or  re- 
jection of  the  convention  of  Missouri,  as  an 
article  of  compact,  to  exclude  slavery,  instead 
of  enjoining  it  as  an  absolute  condition  of  their 
admission. 

Mr.  CLAY  seconded  the  motion,  and,  with  the 
mover,  zealously  urged  the  adoption  of  the 
amendment.  It  was  opposed  as  zealously  by 
Messrs.  TAYLOR,  SERGEANT,  and  GROSS,  of  New 
York. 

The  debate  had  continued  some  time,  with 
much  animation ;  when,  in  consequence  of  the 
doubts  expressed  whether  the  amendment,  in 
its  present  shape,  was  in  order,  Mr.  STORRS 
withdrew  it. 

Mr.  CLAY  renewed  the  amendment  in  sub- 
stance, but  so  changing  the  manner  of  inserting 
it  in  the  bill  as  to  avoid  the  objection  as  to  the 
point  of  order.* 

The  debate  was  renewed  On  the  proposition, 
and  continued  with  undiminished  zeal,  by  Mr. 
CLAY,  in  its  support,  and  by  Messrs.  TAYLOR, 
SERGEANT,  EANDOLPH,  and  COOK,  against  it. 

The  question  being  put,  the  committee  divid- 
ed, and  the  amendment  was  negatived,  as  fol- 
lows :  For  the  amendment  82,  against  it  92. 

No  other  amendment  being  offered,  about 
half  past  nine  o'clock  the  committee  (having 
rejected  several  motions,  in  the  course  of  the 
evening,  to  rise  and  report  progress)  rose  and 
reported  the  bill  to  the  House. 

TUESDAY,  February  29. 

Maine  Bill 
The  House  took  up,  and  proceeded  to  consider, 


*  None  of  Mr.  Clay's  speeches  on  the  Missouri  question 
were  reported,  and  he  did  not  vote  upon  the  adoption  of 
the  compromise— which  he  could  not  do,  being  Speaker  of 
the  House,  and  the  vote  not  a  tie.  But  his  course  during 
the  whole  question  is  fully  seen  in  the  brief  notices  taken 
of  it— against  the  restriction,  and  for  th«  compromise— but 
not  taking  a  prominent  lead  in  either  measure.  It  was 
Afterwards,  and  when  the  constitution  formed  by  Missouri 
was  resisted  on  account  of  the  free  negro  and  mulatto 
clause,  and  which  revived  the  original  question  with  all  its 
portentous  consequences,  that  Mr.  Clay  took  the  le»d  which 
.earned  lor  him  the  title  of  Pacificator. 


the  message  from  the  Senate  asking  a  conference 
upon  the  subject-matter  of  the  disagreeing  votes 
of  the  two  Houses  on  the  amendments  proposed 
by  the  Senate  to  the  bill,  entitled  "  An  act  for 
the  admission  of  the  State  of  Maine  into  the 
Union ;"  whereupon, 

Resolved,  That  this  House  do  agree  to  the 
conference  asked  by  the  Senate  upon  the  sub- 
ject-matter of  the  disagreeing  votes  of  the  two 
Houses  on  the  amendments  depending  to  the 
bill  aforesaid,  and  that  managers  be  appointed 
to  the  same  on  their  part. 

Ordered,  That  Mr.  HOLMES,  Mr.  TAYLOR,  Mr. 
LOWNDES,  Mr.  PARKER,  of  Massachusetts,  and 
Mr.  KINSEY,  be  the  managers  at  the  said  con- 
ference on  the  part  of  this  House. 

Missouri  Bill. 

The  House  took  up,  and  proceeded  to  consider, 
the  amendments  reported  by  the  Committee  of 
the  Whole  to  the  bill  to  authorize  the  people  of 
the  Territory  of  Missouri  to  form  a  constitution 
and  State  government,  and  for  the  admission  of 
such  State  into  the  Union  on  an  equal  footing 
with  the  original  States ;  and,  the  said  amend- 
ments being  read,  were  concurred  in  by  the 
House,  with  the  exception  of  the  following : 

"  And  shall  ordain  and  establish,  that  there  shall 
be  neither  slavery  nor  involuntary  servitude  in  the 
said  State,  otherwise  than  in  the  punishment  of  crimes 
whereof  the  party  shall  have  been  duly  convicted : 
Provided,  always,  That  any  person  escaping  within 
the  same,  from  whom  labor  or  service  is  lawfully 
claimed  in  any  other  State,  such  fugitive  may  be 
lawfully  reclaimed,  and  conveyed  to  the  person 
claiming  his  or  her  labor  or  service  as  aforesaid ; 
Provided,  nevertheless,  That  the  said  provision  shall 
not  be  construed  to  alter  the  condition  or  civil  rights 
of  any  person  now  held  to  service  or  labor  in  the  said 
Territory." 

The  question  was  then  stated  to  concur  in  the 
said  amendment ;  when, 

Mr.  STORRS  moved  to  amend  the  same  by 
striking  out  these  words:  "And  shall  ordain 
and  establish  .that;"  and,  in  lieu  thereof,  to 
insert  the  following,  to  wit : 

"  And  be  it  further  enacted,  That  the  following 
propositions  be,  and  the  same  are  hereby,  offered  to 
the  said  convention,  for  their  free  acceptance  or  re- 
jection, to  be  incorporated  into  the  constitution  of 
the  said  State,  as  articles  of  compact  between  the 
said  State  and  the  United  States,  viz  :  That  there  be 
neither  slavery  nor  involuntary  servitude  in  the  said 
State,  otherwise  than  in  the  punishment  of  crimes 
whereof  the  party  shall  have  been  duly  convicted ; 
Provided,  always,  That  any  person  escaping  within 
the  same  from  whom  labor  or  service  is  lawfully 
claimed  in  any  other  State,  such  fugitive  may  be 
lawfully  reclaimed,  and  conveyed  to  the  person  claim- 
ing his  or  her  labor  or  service  as  aforesaid  ;  Provided, 
nevertheless,  That  the  said  provision  shall  not  be  con- 
strued to  alter  the  condition  or  civil  rights  of  any 
person  now  held  to  service  or  labor  in  the  said  Terri- 
tory." 

Mr.  KHEA  spoke  near  an  hour  against  the  re- 
striction. 


DEBATES  OF  CONGRESS. 


563 


FEBRUARY,  1820.] 


The  Missouri  B ill—  Restriction  on  the  State. 


[H.  OF  R. 


Mr.  WALKER,  of  North  Carolina,  spoke  a  short 
time  on  the  same  side. 

Mr.  FOBD,  of  New  York,  spoke  half  an  hoar 
in  answer  to  the  remarks  of  several  gentlemen 
-who  had  opposed  the  restriction. 

Mr.  JOHNSON,  of  Virginia,  replied  briefly  to 
Mr.  F.,  and  in  explanation  of  remarks  which  he 
had  before  made. 

Mr.  NELSON,  of  Virginia,  next  rose,  and  en- 
tered into  a  general  examination  of  the  restric- 
tion in  the  proposed  case ;  to  show  that  Con- 
gress possessed  no  right  to  impose  it. 

Mr.  RANDOLPH  spoke  some  time  against  Mr. 
STORE  s's  amendment. 

Mr.  SMITH,  of  Maryland,  followed,  and  ad- 
dressed the  House  at  considerable  length  against 
the  right  of  restriction,  &c. 

Mr.  FOEREST,  of  Pennsylvania,  spoke  as  fol- 
lows: 

Mr.  Speaker :  I  rise  to  give  my  reasons  why 
I  shall  vote  for  the  restriction  and  against  the 
amendment  offered  to  it,  or,  in  other  words, 
more  in  unison  with  my  feelings,  why  I  shall 
vote  against  the  extension  of  slavery  beyond 
the  bounds  of  the  old  United  States.  I  rise 
with  unfeigned  deference  to  those  who  have 
gone  before  me,  whose  abilities  are  so  pre-emi- 
nent, whose  research  has  been  so  profound,  and 
whose  powers  and  eloquence  have  been  so  im- 
pressive on  the  subject,  that  very  little  is  left 
for  me  to  say.  I  have  possessed  myself  of  sun- 
dry notes  from  the  constitution  and  other  doc- 
uments, to  aid  me  in  iny  feeble  attempt,  lest  I 
should  be  embarrassed,  not  being  accustomed 
to  public  speaking,  and  having  but  small  hopes, 
and  less  expectation,  of  being  able  to  cast  a  sin- 
gle ray  of  new  light  on  the  subject.  I  shall 
commence  by  declaring  that  the  constitution, 
so  far  as  slavery  may  be  inferred  from  it,  is 
nothing  but  the  creature  of  compromise,  which 
I  can  testify,  on  a  retrospect  of  my  feelings  at 
the  time  of  its  adoption,  or  rather  when  it  was 
promulgated  for  the  consideration  of  the  public. 
It  was  a  compromise  to  prevent  disunion ;  it 
was  a  dereliction  of  first  principles  upon  which 
the  independence  of  our  country  was  achieved ; 
it  was  an  acquiescence  in  "the  bondage  of  those 
of  our  fellow-men  in  whose  services  their  pos- 
sessors conceived  they  had  a  property.  It  was 
a  compromise  fop  the  sake  of  peace,  and  con- 
fined wholly  to  the  then  United  States,  and  not 
extended  to  the  territory  possessed  or  to  be 
acquired. 

[The  argumentative  part  of  his  speech  was  then 
gone  into,  and  after  it  was  finished,  Mr.  F.  went  on 
to  say:] 

I  will  relievo  the  committee  from  further  at- 
tention, after  a  very  few  remarks  on  observa- 
tions that  have  been  made  by  members  opposed 
to  the  amendment.  The  member  from  Virginia, 
who  is  not  now  in  his  place,  but  who  I  have 
in  my  eye,  when  on  the  floor  dealt  out  denun- 
ciations of  disunion,  massacre,  civil  war,  horror, 
and  blood,  exclaiming  that,  if  the  restriction 
should  be  carried,  this  would  be  the  darkest  day 


our  country  ever  saw.  Here  I  must  differ  with 
the  member.  No;  the  morning  of  the  26th 
day  of  December,  1776,  let  me  tell  the  youth, 
whose  father  was  a  fellow-soldier  of  mine,  a 
Revolutionary  compatriot  in  the  cause  of  liberty, 
was  the  darkest  time  our  country  ever  saw.  It 
was  then  WASHINGTON  led  his  patriot  band  of 
freemen  to  the  battle  of  Trenton,  the  forlorn 
hope  of  the  independence  of  his  country.  It 
was  then  he  commanded  the  rifle  corps  under 
Captains  Washington  and  Monroe  to  drive  in 
the  Hessian  pickets.  Methinks  I  see  the  strip- 
lings skipping  in  obedience.  The  action  be- 
came general,  and  WASHINGTON,  at  their  head, 
pouring  forth  his  patriotic  exhortation,  in  words 
that  will  ever  be  remembered  by  me,  and  ought 
to  be  impressed  on  the  minds  of  every  friend  to 
liberty:  "That  the  darkest  time  of  night  was 
just  before  day ;"  which  was  soon  verified  by 
the  surrender  of  the  Hessians,  an  event  that 
gave  a  preponderance  to  the  invisible  balance 
held  by  the  hand  of  Him  who  weighs  the  fate 
of  nations.  It  was  that  event  that  laid  the 
foundation  of  our  country's  independence,  and 
to  which  we  are  indebted  for  our  seats  at  this 
day,  in  this  splendid  hall,  once  more  engaged  hi 
the  cause  of  liberty.  When  WASHINGTON  led 
on  his  little  patriot  band,  to  them  he  was  as  a 
modern  Moses ;  he  went  before  them  as  a  pillar 
of  smoke  by  day,  and  a  column  of  fire  by  night; 
his  sympathy  in  their  distress  and  sufferings 
allayed  their  hunger  and  quenched  their  thirst. 
They  followed  him  as  the  modern  Israelites, 
the  Israelites  of  the  day,  with  their  urim  and 
thummim  on  then*  breasts,  the  insignia  of  their 
cause  inscribed  on  escutcheons  of  brass,  fixed  on 
their  bayonets  and  sword-belts — liberty  or  death 
— united  we  stand,  divided  we  fall — 'tis  for 
posterity  we  die.  Posterity!  what,  posterity 
perpetuate  slavery !  How  shall  I  express  my- 
self ?  Oh  pour  un  mantle  pour  couvrir  Us  faces 
de  ceux  qui  sont  les  fih  de  mes  compatriots, 
who  with  me  in  battle,  fell,  whose  death  I  then  re- 
gretted as  premature  and  unfortunate,  snatched, 
as  I  then  thought,  from  a  participation  in  the 
blessings  of  a  happy  independence,  in  the  full 
enjoyment  of  every  civil  and  religious  liberty. 
But  now  I  have  occasion  to  rejoice ;  yes,  rejoice 
overmuch,  that  they  were  not,  like  me,  per- 
mitted to  live  to  see  posterity  outgrow  the  re- 
membrance of  the  patriotic  virtues  of  their 
fathers,  by  an  act  for  the  extension  of  slavery. 

It  has  been  a  source  of  very  considerable  pain 
to  me,  and  an  afflicting  exercise  of  mind,  to  hear 
members  on  one  side  of  the  House,  or  those 
who  are  opposed  to  restriction,  use  such  lan- 
guage against  their  fellow-members  on  the 
other  side,  as  does  not  comport  with  their  dig- 
nified standing  on  this  floor.  Denunciation, 
sarcasm,  and  insinuation,  serve  to  irritate  and 
excite  warmth  with  some,  but  with  me  they 
only  produce  sorrow,  that  the  exemplary  and 
conciliatory  language  of  Abraham,  the  elder,  to 
Lot  the  younger  brother,  did  not  pervade  our 
feelings :  "  Let  there  be  no  strife  between  thee 
and  me,  between  thy  herdsmen  and  mine ;  are. 


564 


ABRIDGMENT  OF  THE 


H.  OF  R.] 


The  Missouri  Bill— Restriction  on  the  State. 


[FEBBUART,  1820. 


we  not  brethren  ?"  I  shall  notice  an  allusion 
to  me  by  a  member  when  on  the  floor,  who 
was  pleased  to  characterize  the  extremes  of  my 
life,  by  portraying  the  previous  part  in  all  the 
habiliments  and  trappings  of  a  soldier  in  uniform 
clothes  and  epaulettes.  The  friend  must  have 
had  but  a  very  imperfect  knowledge  of  the 
Revolutionary  Army,  if  he  supposed  that  they 
were  as  neatly  dressed  and  equipped  as  the 
officers  of  the  present  day.  No,  it  waa  the 
inability  of  Congress  to  furnish  the  means  to 
either  feed,  pay,  or  clothe  the  army,  that  re- 
duced them  to  starvation,  and  to  the  necessity 
of  cutting  up  their  only  blankets  to  make  a  coat 
and  overalls ;  and  as  to  rank,  it  could  not  be 
distinguished  for  the  want  of  epaulettes.  I  was 
in  hopes  the  little  service  I  rendered  to  my 
country  would  not  have  been  sufficient  to  have 
brought  me  into  notice  at  this  day ;  it  is  a  part 
of  my  life  I  wish  to  forget,  being  opposed  to 
war,  believing  it  to  be  unlawful  in  the  sight  of 
God.  But,  if  the  extension  of  slavery  grows 
out  of  the  question  before  the  committee,  I 
shall  think  the  small  share  I  have  had  in  the 
Revolution  was  the  blackest  part  of  my  life. 

My  plainness  of  dress  and  manners  were  also 
noticed  and  complimented,  as  belonging  to  the 
society  of  Friends,  otherwise  called  Quakers.  I 
trust  I  am  a  member  of  the  church  militant,  and 
in  spiritual  unison  with  friends,  whose  charac- 
ter is  peace  and  good  will  to  all  men ;  and  I  am 
authorized  to  say,  that  I  would  cheerfully  give 
np  the  Territory  to  the  inhabitants  to  free  their 
fellow-men,  to  avert  what  has  been  threatened, 
but  which  I  cannot  think  will  ever  be  realized. 
However,  I  cannot  do  an  evil  that  good  may 
come  out  of  it. 

I  now  shall  conclude,  with  expressions  of  re- 
spect for  the  members  from  Virginia  and  Ken- 
tucky, who  were  pleased  to  compliment  the 
State  of  which  I  am  a  humble  Representative, 
by  ascribing  its  dignified  standing  in  the  Union 
to  the  exemplary  conduct  of  the  people  called 
Quakers.  Would  to  God  we  were  all  Quakers; 
there  would  be  less  strife,  more  harmony  and 
brotherly  love  among  us ;  and,  if  we  were  to 
follow  their  precepts  and  emulate  their  virtues, 
we  should  do  as  they  do ;  they  build  all  their 
churches  without  a  lottery;  they  do  not  sell 
their  pews  to  the  highest  bidder;  but  sit  on 
benches,  master  and  man ;  they  maintain  their 
own  poor,  and  pay  their  tax  assessed  for  the 
maintenance  of  the  poor  of  the  township  they 
live  in ;  they  believe  God  to  be  a  spirit,  and 
worship  in  spirit  and  truth. 

Mr.  PARKER,  of  Virginia,  occupied  the  floor 
about  half  an  hour,  on  the  other  side.  "When 
Mr.  P.  concluded— 

The  question  to  agree  to  the  amendment  pro- 
posed by  Mr.  STOKES,  was  put,  and  decided  in 
the  negative— yeas  82,  nays  98. 

Mr.  SCOTT  then  offered  an  amendment  to  the 
restrictive  amendment,  having  for  its  object,  in 
substance,  to  prevent  the  operation  of  the  re- 
striction either  on  the  slaves  now  in  Missouri  or 
on  their  increase. 


This  proposition  was  advocated  by  Mr.  CAMP- 
BELL of  Ohio ;  but, 

Mr.  SCOTT,  at  the  suggestion  of  several  of  his 
friends,  withdrew  his  amendment. 

The  question  was  then  taken  on  concurring  in 
the  restrictive  amendment,  adopted  in  Commit- 
tee of  the  Whole,  on  the  motion  of  Mr.  TAYLOR, 
and  decided  in  the  affirmative,  by  yeas  and  nays, 
as  follows: 

YEAS. — Messrs.  Adams,  Allen  of  Massachusetts, 
Allen  of  New  York,  Baker,  Bateman,  Beech er,  Boden, 
Brush,  Bnflum,  Butler  of  New  Hampshire,  Campbell, 
Case,  Clagett,  Clark,  Cook,  Crafts,  Cushman,  Dar- 
lington, Dennison,  Dewitt,  Dickinson,  Dowse,  Eddy, 
Edwards  of  Connecticut,  Edwards  of  Pennsylvania, 
Fay,  Folger,  Ford,  Forrest,  Fuller,  Gross  of  New 
York,  Gross  of  Pennsylvania,  Guyon,  Hackley,  Hall 
of  New  York,  Hazard,  Hemphill,  Hendricks,  Herrick, 
Hibshman,  Heister,  Hostetter,  Kendall,  Kinsey,  Kins- 
ley, Lathrop,  Lincoln,  Linn,  Livermore,  Lyman, 
Maclay,  Mallary,  Marchand,  Meech,  R.  Moore,  S. 
Moore,  Monell,  Morton,  Mosely,  Murray,  Nelson  of 
Massachusetts,  Parker  of  Massachusetts,  Patterson, 
Phelps,  Philson,  Pitcher,  Plumer,  Rich,  Richards, 
Richmond,  Rogers,  Ross,  Russ,  Sampson,  Sergeant, 
Silsbee,  Sloan,  Smith  of  New  Jersey,  Southard,  Street, 
Stevens,  Strong  of  Vermont,  Strong  of  New  York, 
Tarr,  Taylor,  Tomlinson,  Tompkins,  Tracy,  Upham, 
Van  Rensselaer,  Wallace,  Wendover,  Whitman,  and 
Wood— 94. 

NAYS.— Messrs.  Abbot,  Alexander,  Allen  of  Ten- 
nessee, Anderson,  Archer  of  Maryland,  Archer  of  Vir- 
ginia, Baldwin,  Ball,  Barbour,  Bloomfield,  Brevard, 
Brown,  Bryan,  Burton,  Burwell,  Butler  of  Louisiana, 
Cannon,  Cobb,  Cocke,  Crawford,  Crowell,  Culbreth, 
Culpeper,  Cuthbert,  Davidson,  Earle,  Edwards  of 
North  Carolina,  Ervin,  Fisher,  Floyd,  Foot,  Fullerton, 
Garnett,  Hall  of  North  Carolina,  Hardin,  Hill,  Holmes, 
Hooks,  Johnson,  Jones  of  Virginia,  Jones  of  Tennes- 
see, Kent,  Little,  Lowndes,  McCoy,  McCreary, 
McLane  of  Delaware,  McLean  of  Kentucky,  Mason, 
Meigs,  Mercer,  Metcalf,  Neale,  Nelson  of  Virginia, 
Newton,  Overstreet,  Parker  of  Virginia,  Pinckney, 
Pindall,  Quarles,  Randolph,  Rankin,  Reed,  Rhea, 
Ringgold,  Robertson,  Settle,  Shaw,  Simkins,  Slocumb, 
Smith  of  Maryland,  B.  Smith  of  Virginia,  A.  Smyth 
of  Virginia,  Smith  of  North  Carolina,  Storrs,  Strother, 
Swearingen,  Terrell,  Trimble,  Tucker  of  Virginia, 
Tucker  of  South  Carolina,  Tyler,  Walker  of  North 
Carolina,  Warfield,  Williams  of  Virginia,  and  Wil- 
liams of  North  Carolina — 86. 

So  the  House  concurred  in  the  restriction. 

Mr.  TAYLOR  then  renewed  a  motion  which  he 
had  made  unsuccessfully  in  committee,  to  amend 
the  last  section  of  the  bill,  by  striking  out  the 
words  "  and  the  said  States,  when  formed,  shall 
be  admitted  into  the  Union  on  an  equal  footing 
with  the  original  States,"  and  inserting  in  lieu 
thereof  the  following :  "  and  if  the  same  (the 
constitution)  shall  be  approved  by  Congress, 
the  said  Territory  shall  be  admitted  into  the 
Union  as  a  State,  upon  an  equal  footing  with 
the  original  States." 

This  question  was  briefly  supported  by  the 
mover,  and  was  opposed  by  Messrs.  SCOTT, 
LOWNDES,  MERCER,  FLOYD,  and  HEXDRICKS- 
and  the  question  being  taken  thereon,  it  was  de- 
cided in  the  negative,  by  yeas  49,  and  nays  125. 


DEBATES  OF  CONGRESS. 


565 


MARCH,  1820.] 


Death  of  David  Walker. 


[H.  OF 


The  question  recurring  on  ordering  the  bill  to 
be  engrossed  and  read  a  third  time, 

Mr.  STORKS  moved  to  amend  the  bill,  by  add- 
ing thereto  a  new  section,  providing  for  the  ex- 
clusion of  slavery  from  all  the  Territories  of  the 
United  States  west  of  the  Mississippi  and  north 
of  thirty-six  degrees  thirty  minutes  of  north 
latitude,  excepting  the  proposed  State  of  Mis- 
souri— (the  amendment  commonly  called  the 
compromise.) 

Mr.  RANDOLPH  spoke  a  short  time  against 
this  amendment. 

Mr.  FOOT  moved  to  amend  the  amendment  by 
striking  out  the  words  "  thirty -six  degrees  thirty 
minutes  north  latitude,"  so  as  to  leave  the  pro- 
vision applicable  to  all  the  Territories  of  the 
United  States. 

Mr.  CLARK  made  a  few  remarks  against  the 
propriety  of  introducing  the  amendment  offered 
by  Mr.  STORRS  in  this  bill. 

Mr.  RANDOLPH  stated  much  at  large,  the 
reasons  why  he  should  vote  against  the  com- 
promise. 

Mr.  FOOT  explained  the  object  of  his  motion, 
which  was,  chiefly  to  attempt  an  accommoda- 
tion of  conflicting  opinions  on  this  subject,  of 
stripping  the  question  of  the  constitutional  diffi- 
culty, and  to  test  the  sincerity  of  those  who  had 
maintained  the  restriction. 

Mr.  COBB  spoke  at  considerable  length,  and 
very  warmly,  against  all  restriction  whatever, 
as  tending  to  universal  emancipation. 

Mr.  STORKS  rose  and  stated  that,  from  the 
consideration  that  his  proposition  might  create 
delay  in  the  passage  of  the  bill,  by  drawing  out 
a  long  discussion,  and  thus,  by  procrastinating 
any  result  from  the  conference  between  the 
two  Houses,  operate  to  delay  the  admission  of 
Maine  beyond  the  4th  of  March,  the  time  to 
which  she  had  been  limited  by  the  parent  State 
— he  would  withdraw  his  proposition. 

The  question  was  then  at  length  taken,  on 
ordering  the  bill  to  be  engrossed,  and  read  a 
third  time,  and  decided  in  the  affirmative  by 
yeas  and  nays,  as  follows : 

YEAS. — Messrs.  Adams,  Allen  of  New  York,  An- 
derson, Baker,  Bateman,  Beecher,  Boden,  Brush, 
Buffum,  Bntler  of  New  Hampshire,  Campbell,  Case, 
Clagett,  Clark,  Cook,  Crafts,  Cushman,  Darlington, 
Dennison,  Dewitt,  Dickinson,  Dowse,  Eddy,  Edwards 
of  Connecticut,  Edwards  of  Pennsylvania,  Fay,  Fol- 
ger,  Ford,  Forrest,  Fuller,  Gross  of  New  York,  Gross 
of  Pennsylvania,  Guyon,  Hackley,  Hall  of  New  York, 
Heniphill,  Hendricks,  llerrick,  Hibshman,  Heister, 
Hill,  Hostetter,  Kendall,  Kinsey,  Kinsley,  Lathrop, 
Lincoln,  Linn,  Lyman,  Maclay,  Mallary,  Marchand, 
Meech,  R.  Moore,  S.  Moore,  Monell,  Morton,  Mose- 
ly,  Murray,  Nelson  of  Massachusetts,  Parker  of 
Massachusetts,  Patterson,  Phelps,  Philson,  Pitcher, 
Plumer,  Rich,  Richards,  Richmond,  Rogers,  Ross, 
Russ,  Sampson,  Sergeant,  Silsbee,  Sloan,  Smith  of 
New  Jersey,  Southard,  Stevens,  Street,  Strong  of 
Vermont,  Strong  of  New  York,  Tarr,  Taylor,  Tom- 
linson,  Tompkins,  Tracy,  Upham,  Van  Rensselaer, 
Wallace,  Wendover,  Whitman,  and  Wood— 93. 

NAYS.— Messrs.  Abbot,  Alexander,  Allen  of  Tenn., 
Archer  of  Maryland,  Archer  of  Virginia,  Baldwin, 


Ball,  Barbonr,  Bloomfield,  Brevard,  Brown,  Bryan, 
Burton,  Burwell,  Butler  of  Louisiana,  Cannon,  Cobb, 
Cocke,  Ciawford,  Crowell,  Culbreth,  Culpeper,  Cuth- 
bert,  Davidson,  Earle,  Edwards  of  North  Carolina, 
Ervin,  Fisher,  Floyd,  Foot,  Fullerton,  Garnett,  Hall 
of  North  Carolina,  Hardin,  Holmes,  Hooks,  Johnson, 
Jones  of  Virginia,  Jones  of  Tennessee,  Kent,  Little, 
Livermore,  Lowndes,  McCoy,  McCreary,  McLane  of 
Delaware,  McLean  of  Kentucky,  Mason,  Meigs,  Mer- 
cer, Metcalf,  Neale,  Nelson  of  Virginia,  Newton, 
Overstreet,  Parker  of  Virginia,  Pinckney,  Pindall, 
Quarles,  Randolph,  Rankin,  Reed,  Rhea,  Ringgold, 
Robertson,  Settle,  Shaw,  Simkins,  Slocumb,  Smith  of 
Maryland,  B.  Smith  of  Virginia,  A.  Smyth  of  Virgi- 
nia, Smith  of  North  Carolina,  Storrs,  Strotber,  Swear- 
ingen,  Trimble,  Tucker  of  Virginia,  Tucker  of  South 
Carolina,  Tyler,  Walker  of  North  Carolina,  Warfield, 
Williams  of  Virginia,  and  Williams  of  North  Carolina 
—84. 

The  bill  was  then  ordered  to  be  read  a  third 
time  to-morrow  ;  and  a  little  after  8  o'clock,  the 
House  adjourned. 


WEDNESDAY,  March  1.    ' 
Death  of  David  Walker. 

Mr.  Qr/ARLEs,  of  Kentucky,  rose,  he  said,  with 
feelings  which  he  could  not  express,  and  with  a 
melancholy  very  seldom  experienced  by  him,  to 
announce  to  the  House  the  distressing  intelli- 
gence of  the  death  of  one  of  its  body;  my  friend 
and  colleague  Major  DAVID  WALKER,  with 
Christian  fortitude,  about  eight  o'clock  this 
morning,  exchanged,  said  Mr.  Q.,  a  world  of 
cares,  of  toils  and  difficulties,  for,  I  hope,  a 
mansion  of  bliss. 

I  offer,  said  Mr.  Q.,  for  consideration,  res- 
olutions comporting  with  the  wish  of  the  de- 
ceased. While  living,  my  colleague,  by  pro- 
fession and  practice,  in  private  and  public  life, 
was  a  plain,  unaffected  man.  He,  from  educa- 
tion, had  an  abhorrence  of  pomp  and  parade. 
He  desired  that  the  body  that  was  clad  with 
mourning  should  weep  with  mental  distress. 
He  had  seen  numerous  carriages,  filled  with 
persons  attending  funerals,  at  this  and  other 
places,  moving  with  solemnity  to  the  burial 
ground,  and  returning  from  it  with  no  evi- 
dences of  sorrow.  And  to  prevent  a  similar 
spectacle,  connected  with  his  remains,  did  he 
make  the  request  contained  in  the  resolutions  I 
now  offer.  The  Representatives  from  Ken- 
tucky, the  relatives  of  the  deceased,  and  also 
those  gentlemen  who  lived  with  him,  and 
whose  kindness  was  generously  afforded  him  in 
his  sickness,  have  been  consulted  with  regard 
to  the  propriety  of  the  course  which  is  now- 
proposed,  and  have  approved  it.  I  wish  that 
this  body  will  consider  the  departure  from  the 
usual  course  of  proceeding  on  former  occasions 
of  this  kind,  as  arising  from  none  other  than 
the  purest  motives — the  most  sincere  respect  to 
our  colleague — and  in  this  House  a  desire  to 
carry  into  execution  the  dying  wish  of  one  of 
its  body.  I  hope  that  I  shall  have  the  kind  in- 
dulgence of  my  brother  members,  in  permitting 
the  repeated  wishes  of  my  colleague  to  be  car- 


566 


ABRIDGMENT  OF  THE 


H.  OP  R.1 


Death  of  David  Walker. 


[MARCH,  1820. 


ried  into  effect,  conformably  to  the  spirit  of  the 
resolutions  now  proposed. 

Mr.  Q  then  submitted  the  following  resolu- 
tions : 

Resolved,  unanimously,  That  a  committee  be  ap- 
pointed to  take  order  for  superintending  the  funeral 
of  DAVID  WALKER,  deceased,  late  a  Representative 
from  the  State  of  Kentucky. 

Resolved,  That  the  said  DAVID  WALKER  having 
communicated  to  the  SPEAKER  of  this  House,  and 
the  honorable  JAMES  BARBOUR,  of  the  Senate,  shortly 
before  his  death,  his  wish  that  he  might  be  buried 
without  pomp  or  parade,  attended  by  a  few  only  of 
his  friends,  in  compliance  with  his  wish  this  House 
will,  on  this  occasion,  not  conform  to  the  practice 
which  has  heretofore  prevailed,  of  adjourning,  to  at- 
tend the  funeral  of  a  deceased  member. 

Resolved,  further,  That,  in  conformity  with  the  spirit 
of  the  same  wish  of  the  deceased,  the  members  of 
this  House  will  depart  from  the  usage  of  wearing 
crape  for  one  month,  with  the  exception  of  those  who 
may  voluntarily  choose  to  conform  to  said  usage. 

Mr.  EANDOLPH  said  it  was  from  a  very  dif- 
ferent sentiment  indeed  than  that  of  disrespect 
to  their  departed  brother  who  had  gone  to  his 
account,  that  he  rose  to  say  any  thing  on  this 
melancholy  occasion.  There  is  no  man  in  this 
body,  said  Mr.  E.,  in  whose  eyes,  at  this  time 
— may  it  be  so  at  all  times ! — the  wretched 
strife  and  contention  of  ambition  appears  so 
contemptible,  or  at  least  more  low  and  con- 
temptible, than  in  the  eyes  of  him  who  now 
addresses  you.  Sir,  I  cannot  consent  to  con- 
tinue that  strife  under  existing  circumstances ; 
1  will,  as  far  as  in  me  lies,  conform  to  the  let- 
ter and  the  spirit  of  the  request  of  the  de- 
ceased. But,  while  I  conform  to  the  letter  and 
spirit  of  that  request — and,  sir,  it  is  such  a 
one  as  I  should  wish  made  in  my  own  be- 
half, under  similar  circumstances* — I  cannot 
consent  to  protract  the  discussion  of  the  most 
agitating  and  invidious  question  which  was 
ever  presented  to  the  Congress  of  the  United 
States  since  the  institution  of  this  Government. 
I  do  not  mean  to  cavil  about  the  point  that  a 
motion  not  to  adjourn  is  never  in  order,  al- 
though a  motion  to  adjourn  is  always  in  order 
— far  be  such  a  spirit  from  me  at  all  times,  but 
more  especially  at  the  present  time.  But,  said 
Mr.  R.,  I  wish  to  adhere  to  precedents  set  in 
good  times,  on  such  mournful  occasions,  in  this 


*  Of  this  Mr.  Randolph  gave  the  appropriate  evidence  six 
years  afterwards,  on  an  occasion  when  the  probabilities  ot 
death  -were  sufficiently  strong  to  make  him  prepare  for  the 
event  He  placed  a  draft  for  $1,000  in  the  hands  of  a,  friend, 
to  have  his  body  carried  home,  and  buried  at  his  own  ex- 
pense—forbidding all  parade  and  pageantry.  What  was 
said  and  done  upon  this  occasion  of  the  death  of  Mr.  "Walk- 
er, contrasted  with  what  is  now  said  and  done  on  the  death 
of  a  member,  is  a  pregnant  instance  of  the  tendency  of  the 
Government  to  slide  from  its  foundations  in  all  its  work- 
ings. Mr.  "Walker  was,  what  his  dying  request  showed 
him  to  be,  a  man  of  native  dignity  of  mind ;  and  his  last  act 
was  one  of  devotion  to  duty,  having  himself  brought  dying 
into  the  House  to  give  his  vote  on  the  portentous  Missouri 
question. 


House.  And,  if  precedents  are  valuable  on 
any  occasion,  they  are  to  be  adhered  to  in 
those  decorous  and  solemn  rites  which  all  peo- 
ple, even  the  most  savage,  pay  to  the  last  sad 
relics  of  departed  humanity,  and  in  which  the 
infringement  of  established  custom  strikes  as  a 
jarring  discord  upon  the  heart.  The  first  death 
which  took  place  of  a  member  of  this  House — 
and  I  ought  well  to  remember  it— for  it  was 
one  of  my  nearest  relatives,  the  only  near  one 
left  on  the  maternal  side — it  took  place  in  New 
York,  in  the  month  of  June,  1790,  when  Con- 
gress sat  in  that  city — the  House  resolved  that 
the  delegation  of  Virginia  then  present  (con- 
sisting, when  full,  of  only  ten  members)  should 
be  a  committee  to  see  performed  the  last  sad 
offices  for  the  deceased.  The  next  day  they 
"  resolved,  unanimously,  that  the  members  of 
this  House,  from  a  sincere  desire  of  showing 
every  mark  of  respect  due  to  the  memory  of 
Tbeodorick  Bland,  deceased,  late  a  member 
thereof,  will  go  in  mourning  for  him  one  month, 
by  the  usual  mode  of  wearing  crape  on  the  left 
arm.1'  As  the  member  in  question  was,  if  not 
in  affluent,  yet  in  independent  circumstances, 
it  was  ordered  that  a  sum  equal  to  his  travel- 
ling expenses,  had  he  lived  to  return  to  Virgi- 
nia, should  be  allowed  for  the  expense  of  re- 
moving him  to  his  last  sad  home  in  this  world. 
I  mean,  sir,  the  travelling  allowance  was  viewed 
as  a  fund  to  which  the  deceased  member's  ex- 
ecutors might  be  entitled,  and  therefore  appli- 
cable, under  the  direction  of  his  colleagues,  to 
the  rites  of  sepulture.  His  executors  might, 
if  they  pleased,  have  removed  the  body  to  the 
family  burial  ground.  The  funeral  was  neither 
pompous  nor  expensive  ;  it  was,  what  it  ought 
to  have  been,  decent  Christian  burial.  Other 
cases  had  occurred,  Mr.  K.  continued,  which  he 
remembered,  in  Philadelphia;  two  particularly, 
of  members  from  North  Carolina.  On  those 
occasions,  a  particular  friend  of  his,  who  has 
been  a  member  of  Congress  from  the  time  of 
the  adoption  of  the  constitution  by  North  Car- 
olina, was  appointed  on  the  committee  to  make 
the  necessary  arrangements  for  interment,  in 
the  case  of  Mr.  Burgess,  of  Edenton,  he  be- 
lieved, and  in  that  of  Mr.  Bryan,  of  Newbern, 
he  was  sure,  in  conjunction  with  a  colleague  of 
his,  (Mr.  Thomas  Blount,)  since  also  gone 
where  all  flesh  must  go.  On  that  occasion  this 
rule  was  also  observed.  During  the  first  ses- 
sion of  Congress  here,  (the  last  of  Mr.  Ad- 
ams's administration,)  this  House  lost  one  of 
its  most  valuable  members,  in  the  person  of  a 
gentleman  from  Georgia,  (Mr.  Jones.)  In  this 
case  the  rule  was  still  adhered  to.  But,  at  a 
succeeding  session,  the  first  under  the  new  ad- 
ministration, and  the  only  bad  example  set  at 
the  time — Mr.  K.  regretted  it  the  more,  as  he 
felt  his  full  share  of  all  responsibility  incurred 
at  that  time — on  the  death  of  the  delegate  from 
the  Territory  of  Mississippi,  (Mr.  Hunter,)  the 
rule  was  departed  from ;  then,  for  the  first 
time,  was  the  practice  adopted  of  providing  a 
funeral  at  the  public  expense,  be  that  expense 


DEBATES  OF  CONGRESS. 


567 


MARCH,  1820.] 


The  Missouri  Bill — Compromise. 


[H.  OF  R. 


what  it  might;  and  that  rule,  under  which 
gross  abuses  have  been  practised,  has  continued 
ever  since  to  be  observed,  or  rather  to  be 
abused ;  and  this  without  any  change  in  the 
accustomed  form  of  attending  the  funeral  and 
wearing  crape  for  a  month.  Why  not,  then,  in 
this  case,  said  Mr.  R.,  comply  w'ith  the  letter 
and  spirit  of  the  request  of  the  deceased,  with- 
out departing  from  the  established  form,  and 
yet  get  back,  if  I  may  so  express  myself,  to 
first  principles,  on  this  melancholy  occasion  ? 
Mr.  R.  adverted  to  the  funeral  of  a  former  Vice 
President.  To  what  man  does  the  cause  of 
American  Independence  owe  more,  with  one 
single  exception,  than  to  George  Clinton  ? 
None ;  none,  sir.  If  any  man's  remains  might 
claim  a  funeral  at  the  public  expense,  surely  it 
is  those  of  him  whose  death  bathed  a  nation  in 
tears.  Next  to  that  man,  or  as  near  as  any,  in 
the  cause  of  the  Revolution,  stood  George  Clin- 
ton. But  a  funeral  at  the  public  expense  ought 
to  be  considered  as  the  highest  public  honor 
which  the  nation  could  bestow.  Ought  it, 
then,  to  be  considered  a  matter  of  course,  that, 
whenever  a  member  of  either  House  of  Con- 
gress, or  a  Territorial  Delegate,  or  a  Vice  Pres- 
ident, or  even  a  President  of  the  United  States, 
shall  leave  this  bustling,  sorry  world,  we  shall 
follow  him  (perhaps  nothing  loath)  to  the 
grave,  and  the  sumptuous  funeral  be  defrayed 
at  the  public  charge  ?  It  was  not  the  money 
price  of  which  he  spoke.  Recollect  the  case 
of  the  late  William  Pitt.  What  was  the  dis- 
tinction taken  on  that  occasion  ?  And  by 
whom  was  a  public  funeral  of  that  great  states- 
man, who  for  more  than  twenty  years  had 
filled  the  first  place  in  the  eyes  of  Europe,  op- 
posed ?  By  a  man  whom  I  may  call,  and  will 
call,  ultimus  Anglorum — by  William  Windham ; 
by  the  favorite  disciple  of  Edmund  Burke,  the 
fourth  but  not  the  least  star  in  the  great  con- 
stellation of  English  statesmen  that  is  set  for 
ever.  It  was  this — he  would  pay  the  debts  of 
this  eminent  man ;  his  great  and  disinterested 
public  services  deserved  it  at  the  hands  of  the 
nation ;  but  he  would  give  no  unsuccessful 
statesman,  and  such  he  considered  Mr.  Pitt  to 
have  been,  a  funeral  at  the  public  expense. 
Mr.  R.  hoped  the  House  would,  in  the  present 
case,  go  on  in  the  usual  course ;  and  that,  while 
it  complied  with  the  established  form,  it  would 
at  the  same  time  comply  in  such  a  manner  as 
to  fulfil  the  letter  and  spirit  of  the  request  of 


The  SPEAKER  rose  and  observed  that,  as  he 
was  referred  to  in  the  resolutions,  he  would 
ask  leave  of  the  House  to  state  what  had  passed 
between  the  deceased  and  himself  on  the  sub- 
ject. The  SPKAKBB  then  briefly  recapitulated 
the  conversations  which  had  taken  place  be- 
tween himself  and  the  deceased,  which  corrob- 
orated and  supported  the  statement  contained 
in  the  resolution. 

A  few  remarks  were  subjoined  by  Mr.  CLARK 
and  Mr.  CULPEPEE,  in  approbation  of  the  wishes 
of  the  deceased,  when  the  question  was  taken 


on  each  resolution  separately,  (a  division  of  the 
question  having  been  required  by  Mr.  WALKEB, 
of  North  Carolina,)  and  they  were  severally 
agreed  to,  nem.  con. 

A  committee  was  appointed  accordingly,  con- 
sisting of  the  entire  delegation  from  Kentucky, 
with  the  exception  of  Mr.  CLAY,  (Speaker.)  and 
with  the  addition  of  Messrs.  BARBOUR,  SHAW, 
TAYLOR,  and  CUTHBEBT. 

On  motion  of  Mr.  RAXDOLPH,  the  House 
agreed  that  when  it  adjourned,  it  would  adjourn 
to  twelve  o'clock  to-morrow. 

Mr.  R.  then  moved  an  adjournment,  but  tho 
motion  was  not  agreed  to. 

The  Missouri  Bill. 

The  engrossed  bill  to  authorize  the  people  of 
the  Missouri  Territory  to  form  a  constitution 
and  State  government,  and  for  the  admission 
of  such  State  into  the  Union,  upon  an  equal 
footing  with  the  original  States,  was  read  the 
third  time,  and  the  question  stated,  "  Shall  the 
bill  pass?" 

Mr.  RANDOLPH  rose,  and  spoke  more  than 
three  hours  against  the  passage  of  the  bill,  on 
the  ground  of  the  unconstitutional  and  unjust 
restrictions  which  it  imposed  on  the  people  of 
Missouri,  as  a  condition  of  their  admission  into 
the  Union,  &c.  When  Mr.  R.  had  concluded, 

Mr.  HOLMES  called  for  the  previous  ques- 
tion. 

The  call  being  sustained  by  the  House,  the 
previous  question  was  accordingly  stated,  u  Shall 
the  main  question  be  now  put?  "  which  being 
agreed  to,  the  question  was  taken  on  passing 
the  bill,  and  decided  in  the  affirmative — yeas 
91,  nays  82. 

So  the  bill  was  passed,  and  sent  to  the  Sen- 
ate for  concurrence ;  and  the  House  adjourned. 


THURSDAY,  March  2. 

JAMES  WOODSON  BATES  appeared,  produced 
his  credentials,  was  qualified,  and  took  his  seat 
as  the  Delegate  from  the  Territory  of  Arkan- 
sas. 

The  Missouri  Bill — Compromise. 

The  message  received  from  the  Senate  an- 
nounced that  they  had  passed  the  Missouri  bill, 
with  an  amendment ;  which  amendment  was, 
in  substance,  to  strike  out  the  slavery  restric- 
tion, and  insert,  in  lieu  thereof,  the  clause  (Mr. 
THOMAS'S  and  Mr.  STORBS'S  original  proposition) 
to  exclude  slavery  frotn  all  the  territory  of  the 
United  States  west  of  the  Mississippi,  north  of 
36°  30'  north  latitude,  except  within  the  pro- 
posed State  of  Missouri. 

On  motion  of  Mr.  HOLMES,  this  message  was 
laid  on  the  table  long  enough  to  give  him  an. 
opportunity  to  make  a  report  from  the  com- 
mittee of  conference ;  which  report  is  as  fol- 
lows: 

Mr.  HOLMES,  from  the  managers  appointed  on  the 
part  of  this  House,  to  attend  a  conference  with  the 
managers  appointed  on  the  part  of  the  Senate,  upon 
the  subject-matter  of  the  disagreeing  Totes  of  the 


568 


ABKIDGMENT  OF  THE 


H.  OF  R.] 


The  Missouri  Bill— Compromise. 


1820. 


two  Houses  on  the  amendments  proposed  by  the 
Senate  to  the  bill  of  this  House,  entitled  "  An  act 
providing  for  the  admission  of  the  State  of  Maine 
into  the  Union,"  made  the  following  report : 

1.  That  they  recommend  to  the  Senate  to  recede 
from  their  amendments  to  the  said  bill. 

2.  That  they  recommend  to  the  two  Houses  to 
agree  to  strike  out  the  fourth  section  of  the  bill  from 
the  House  of  Representatives,  now  pending  in  the 
Senate,  entitled  "  An  act  to  authorize  the  people  of 
Missouri  to  form  a  constitution  and  State  govern- 
ment, and  for  the  admission  of  such  State  into  the 
Union  on  an  equal  footing  with  the  original  States," 
the  following  proviso,  in  the  following  words  :   "And 
shall  ordain  and  establish  that  there  shall  be  neither 
slavery  nor  involuntary  servitude,  otherwise  than  in 
the  punishment  of  crimes,  whereof  the  party  shall 
have  been  duly  convicted  :  Provided,  always,  That 
any  person  escaping  into  the  same,  from  whom  labor 
or  service  is  lawfully  claimed  in   any  other  State, 
such  fugitive  may  be  lawfully  reclaimed,  and  con- 
veyed to  the  person  claiming  his  or  her  labor  or  ser- 
vice as   aforesaid:    Provided,   nevertheless,   That  the 
said  provision  shall  not  be  construed  to  alter  the  con- 
dition or  civil  rights  of  any  person  now  held  to  ser- 
vice or  labor  in  the  said  Territory." 

And  that  the  following  provision  be  added  to 
the  bill: 

SEC.  8.  And  be  it  further  enacted,  That,  in  all  that 
territory  ceded  by  France  to  the  United  States,  under 
the  name  of  "Louisiana,"  which  lies  north  of  thirty- 
six  degrees  and  thirty  minutes  north  latitude,  not 
included  within  the  limits  of  the  State  contemplated 
by  this  act,  slavery  and  involuntary  servitude,  other- 
wise than  in  the  punishment  of  crimes  whereof  the 
party  shall  have  been  duly  convicted,  shall  be,  and  is 
hereby,  forever  prohibited:  Provided,  always,  That 
any  person  escaping  into  the  same,  from  whom  labor 
or  service  is  lawfully  claimed  in  any  other  State,  or 
Territory  of  the  United  States,  such  fugitive  may  be 
lawfully  reclaimed,  and  conveyed  to  the  person 
claiming  his  or  her  labor  or  service  as  aforesaid. 

The  report  was  read,  and  ordered  to  lie  on 
the  table. 

Mr.  BEEOIIEB  then  moved  to  print  the  re- 
port. 

This  motion  was  opposed  by  Mr.  LOWNDES, 
on  the  ground  that  it  would  imply  a  determi- 
nation in  the  House  to  delay  a  decision  of  the 
subject  to-day,  which  he  had  hoped  the  House 
was  fully  prepared  for. 

Some  conversation  passed  on  this  motion  be- 
tween Mr.  TATLOE  and  Mr.  LOWNDES,  on  the 
propriety  of  proceeding  to  act  in  this  House, 
on  the  recommendation  »f  the  committee,  be- 
fore the  Senate  had  given  the  pledge  required 
of  them  of  first  adopting  the  report  by  receding 
from  the  amendments  to  the  Maine  bill,  in 
which  Mr.  TAYLOK  opposed  such  proceeding, 
and  Mr.  LOWNDES  was  in  favor  of  it ;  inasmuch 
as  it  would  be  wrong 'to  put  in  jeopardy  a  sat- 
isfactory settlement  of  this  question,  from  an 
adherence  to  a  mere  point  of  etiquette  and  or- 
der; that  the  House  could  not  fear  that  the 
Senate  would  adopt  the  recommendation  to  re- 
cede from  their  amendments,  as  the  committee 
of  conference  was  unanimous  in  their  report, 


with  the  exception  of  one  member  from  this 
House,  (Mr.  TAYLOK,)  and  became  us  further, 
as  the  disposition  of  the  Senate  to  admit  Maine 
could  not  be  doubted,  they  would  have  no  mo- 
tive to  adhere  to  their  amendments  if  this  House 
should  adopt  the  report,  &c. 

A  long  debate  took  place  on  the  question  of 
printing,  or  rather  on  the  question  whether 
this  House  should  act  on  the  second  and  third 
propositions  of  the  committee  of  conference, 
before  the  Senate  had  acted  on  the  first.  Those 
against  acting  immediately,  and  in  favor  of  the 
printing,  were  Messrs.  TAYLOR,  LIVEKMORE,  and 
WHITMAN  ;  and  those  who  opposed  the  print- 
ing, were  Messrs.  LOWNDES,  HOLMES,  KIXSEY, 
STOKES,  RANDOLPH,  BEOWN.  STKOTHEK,  CAMP- 
BELL, and  PABKEK,  of  Virginia. 

The  debate  had  continued  about  three  hours, 
when  Mr.  BEECHEK  withdrew  his  motion. 

The  House  then  resumed  the  consideration 
of  the  amendments  of  the  Senate  to  the  Mis- 
souri bill. 

The  question  was  divided  so  as  first  to  be 
taken  on  striking  out  the  restriction. 

Mr.  LOWNDES  spoke  briefly  in  support  of  the 
compromise  recommended  by  the  committee  of 
conference,  and  urged  with  great  earnestness 
the  propriety  of  a  decision  which  would  restore 
tranquillity  to  the  country — which  was  demand- 
ed by  every  consideration  of  discretion,  of  mod- 
eration, of  wisdom,  and  of  virtue. 

Mr.  HOLMES  followed  in  a  short  speech,  near- 
ly to  the  same  effect. 

Mr.  ADAMS,  of  Massachusetts,  spoke  at  some 
length  in  favor  of  the  restriction,  and  against  a 
compromise. 

Mr.  KINSEY,  of  New  Jersey,  spoke  as  fol- 
lows: 

Mr.  Speaker,  a  period  has  now  arrived  when 
it  becomes  necessary  to  close  this  protracted 
debate,  and,  as  I  shall  vote  for  .the  compromise 
offered  by  the  Senate,  it  is  proper  to  state  my 
reasons  for  so  doing.  We  have  arrived  at  an 
awful  period  in  the  history  of  our  empire,  when 
it  behooves  every  member  of  this  House  now 
to  pause  and  consider  that  on  the  next  step  we 
take  depends  the  fate  of  unborn  millions.  I 
firmly  believe  that  on  the  question  now  before 
us  rests  the  highest  interests  of  the  whole  hu- 
man family.  Now,  sir,  is  it  to  be  tested, 
whether  this  grand  and  hitherto  successful  ex- 
periment of  free  government  is  to  continue,  or, 
after  more  than  forty  years'  enjoyment  of  the 
choicest  blessings  of  Heaven  under  its  adminis- 
tration, we  are  to  break  asunder  on  a  dispute 
concerning  the  division  of  territory.  Gentle- 
men of  the  majority  have  treated  the  idea  of  a 
disunion  with  ridicule ;  but,  to  my  mind,  it 
presents  itself  in  all  the  horrid,  gloomy  features 
of  reality ;  and  when  we  unfold  the  volume  of 
past  ages,  and,  in  the  history  of  man,  trace  the 
rise  and  fall  of  governments,  we  find  trifles, 
light  as  air  compared  to  this,  dissolving  the 
most  powerful  confederacies,  and  overturning 
extensive  empires.  If  we  inquire  what  causes 
operated  to  destroy  the  Amphictyonic  league 


DEBATES  OF  CONGRESS. 


569 


MARCH,  1820.] 


The  Missouri  Sill— Compromise. 


[H.  OF  R. 


or  dissolve  the  German  Confederacy,  in  almost 
every  case,  we  find  questions  of  territorial  ju- 
risdiction. And  what,  for  past  ages,  has  del- 
uged Europe  in  blood?  Disputes  concerning 
territorial  government.  On  questions  of  this 
high  and  mighty  import,  it  behooves  us  to  ap- 
proach with  the  most  awful  considerations. 
What  at .  this  period  is  matter  of  conjecture, 
may,  in  a  short  time,  become  real  history.  It 
is  not  a  question  like  that  heretofore,  in  which 
a  diversity  of  opinion  commingled  in  the  same 
society  where  a  division  of  sentiment,  on  sub- 
jects political,  spread  itself  over  the  whole 
Union  ;  but,  on  this  question,  the  States  are  al- 
most equally  divided.  And  what  is  the  case 
now  before  us?  Opinions  from  which  every 
gentleman,  a  few  months  past,  would  have  re- 
coiled back  with  horror,  as  treason  to  imagine, 
are  now  unhesitatingly  threatened ;  that  which 
had  no  ideal  existence,  engendering  as  this  dis- 
cussion progresses,  assumes  a  positive  shape, 
and,  mixing  with  this  unpropitious  debate,  pre- 
sents itself  in  all  the  dreadful  appearances  of 
reality.  May  God,  in  mercy,  inspire  us  with  a 
conciliatory  spirit,  to  disperse  its  fury  and  dis- 
pel its  terrible  consequences. 

On  this  question,  which  for  near  six  weeks 
has  agitated  and  .convulsed  this  House,  I  have 
voted  with  the  majority.  I  voted  the  same  at 
the  last  session.  But  I  am  convinced,  should 
we  persist  to  reject  the  olive  branch  now  of- 
fered, the  most  disastrous  consequences  will 
follow.  Those  convictions  are  confirmed  by 
that  acerbity  of  expression  arising  from  the 
most  irritated  feelings,  wrought  upon  by  what 
our  Southern  brethren  conceive  unkind,  unjust, 
determined  perseverance  of  the  majority :  and 
to  those  I  now  beg  leave  to  address  myself.  Do 
our  Southern  brethren  demand  an  equal  divi- 
sion of  this  wide-spread,  fertile  region;  this 
common  property,  purchased  with  the  common 
funds  of  the  nation?  No ;  they  have  agreed  to 
fix  an  irrevocable  boundary,  beyond  which 
slavery  shall  never  pass ;  thereby  surrendering 
to  the  claims  of  humanity  and  the  non-slave- 
holding  States,  to  the  enterprising  agriculturist 
of  the  North,  the  Middle  and  Eastern  States, 
nine-tenths  of  the  country  hi  question.*  In 
rejecting  so  reasonable  a  proposition,  we  must 
have  strong  and  powerful  reasons  to  justify  our 
refusal;  and  notwithstanding  you  may  plead 
your  conscientious  scruples,  be  it  remembered 
you  must  shortly  account  to  that  august  and 
stern  tribunal — impartial  history  and  the  strict 
scrutiny  of  public  opinion.  Can  you  plead  con- 
science in  bar  to  such  a  compromise  ?  If  so, 


*  The  parallel  of  thirty-six  degrees  thirty  minutes  would 
divide  the  ancient  province  of  Louisiana  about  equally,  but 
during  the  pendency  of  the  Missouri  question  a  new  boun- 
dary with  Spain  was  agreed  upon,  which  cut  off  nearly  the 
•whole  lower  half  of  that  province,  leaving  to  the  United 
States  only  the  Territory  of  Arkansas,  and  about  as  much 
more  for  an  Indian  Territory.  The  annexation  of  Texas  re- 
covered the  amputated  part  of  the  province,  and  made  the 
division  between  the  free  and  the  slave  States  about  equal. 


how  reconcile  votes  you  have,  on  similar  ques- 
tions, already  given  ? 

Mr.  STEVENS,  of  Connecticut,  said:  Mr. 
Speaker,  in  this  question  of  compromise  now 
to  be  decided,  I  am  more  fortunate,  I  now  have 
the  floor,  and  must  avail  myself  of  this  first 
opportunity  to  state  explicitly,  that  I  have 
listened  with  pain  to  the  very  long,  protracted 
debate,  that  has  been  had  on  this  unfortunate 
question ;  I  call  it  unfortunate,  sir,  because  it 
has  drawn  forth  the  worst  passions  of  man  in 
the  course  of  the  discussion.  I  have  heard 
gentlemen,  and  I  must  in  candor  say  gentle- 
men on  both  sides  of  the  question,  boast  of  sec- 
tional prowess,  and  of  sectional  achievements ; 
and  remind  gentlemen  from  opposite  sections 
of  the  Union,  that  they  had  not  so  fought  and 
so  conquered ;  or  left  such  conclusion  irresisti- 
bly to  follow. 

If  the  deadliest  enemy  this  country  has,  or 
ever  had,  could  dictate  language  the  most  likely 
to  destroy  your  glory,  prosperity,  and  happi- 
ness, would  it  not  be  precisely  what  has  been 
so  profusely  used  in  this  debate — sectional 
vaunting  ?  Most  undoubtedly  it  would.  If  the 
fell  Spirit  of  Discord,  the  prime  mover  of  se- 
dition and  rebellion  in  the  heavenly  realms, 
should  rack  his  hellish  invention  for  the  same 
malicious  purpose,  he  would  undoubtedly  pull 
the  cord  of  sectional  prowess  ;  he  would  mag- 
nify the  valorous  deeds  of  each  particular  State 
or  party  division,  and  distort  or  obliterate  all 
the  rest.  The  arch  planner  of  the  first  sedition 
and  rebellion  must  for  ever  despair  of  improv- 
ing on  the  sad  invention. 

If  gentlemen  are  in  favor  of  any  compromise, 
it  is  a  fit  tune  to  discuss  that  subject,  and  see  if 
any  can  be  hit  on  that  will  give  general  satis- 
faction. 

Few  gentlemen  have  risen  in  debate  on  this 
question,  without  deeply  lamenting  (and  I  think 
with  great  reason)  the  existence  of  parties,  de- 
signated by  geographical  lines  and  boundaries. 
I  also  deprecate  it,  as  being  a  division  of  the 
Union  into  parties  so  equal  in  number,  wealth, 
intelligence,  and  extent  of  territory.  Indeed, 
sir,  there  is  no  view  of  this  'unhappy  division 
of  our  country,  but  must  be  sickening  to  the 
patriot,  and  in  direct  violation  of  the  dictate 
of  wisdom,  and  the  last,  though  not  least,  im- 
portant advice  of  the  Father  and  Friend  of  his 
Country.  He  forbids  the  use  of  the  words 
Northern  and  Southern,  Atlantic  and  Western, 
as  descriptive  of  the  various  parts  of  your 
country. 

But,  sir,  we  have  now  arrived  at  a  point  at 
which  every  gentleman  agrees  something  must 
be  done.  A  precipice  lies  before  us,  at  which 
perdition  is  inevitable.  Gentlemen  on  both 
sides  of  this  question,  and  hi  both  Houses,  hi 
1  doors  and  out  of  doors,  have  evinced  a  deter- 
j  mination  that  augurs  ill  of  the  high  destinies 
I  of  this  country !  And  who  does  not  tremble 
|  for  the  consequences? 

I  do  not  here  speak  of  that  feeling  which  re- 
sults from  an  apprehension  of  personal  danger. 


570 


ABRIDGMENT  OF  THE 


H.  OF  R.] 


The  Missouri  Bill — Compromise. 


[MARCH,  1820. 


No,  sir;  I  speak  of  that  feeling  which  agitates 
the  soul  of  every  patriot  when  his  country  is  in 
danger.  I  speak  of  that  feeling,  without  a  sus- 
ceptibility of  which,  a  man  is  no  ornament  to 
any  country.  I  wish  not  to  be  misunderstood, 
sir.  I  don't  pretend  to  say  that  in  just  five 
calendar  months  your  Union  will  be  at  an  end ; 
your  constitution  destroyed;  your  proud  tro- 
phies, won  in  the  most  valiant  combat,  profan- 
ed ;  glories  of  half  a  century,  gained  by  your- 
selves and  your  departed  friends,  and  unequalled 
in  the  history  of  any  country  or  people  on  the 
face  of  the  earth,  made  the  sport  of  an  envying 
world ;  and  all  this  in  a  sacrilegious  contest,  at 
the  end  of  which  no  wise  man  would  give  a 
pea-straw  for  his  choice  on  which  side  to  be 
found,  as  the  victors  would  have  lost  all,  and 
the  vanquished  have  nothing  left  to  excite 
envy. 

But,  sir,  I  do  say,  and  for  the  verity  of  the 
remark,  cite  the  lamentable  history  of  our  own 
time,  that  the  result  of  a  failure  to  compromise 
at  this  time,  in  the  way  now  proposed,  or  in 
some  other  way  satisfactory  to  both,  would  be 
to  create  ruthless  hatred,  irradicable  jealousy, 
and  a  total  forgetfulness  of  the  ardor  of  patriot- 
ism, to  which,  as  it  has  heretofore  existed,  we 
owe,  under  Providence,  more  solid  national 
glory  and  social  happiness,  than  ever  before 
was  possessed  by  any  people,  nation,  kindred, 
or  tongue,  under  Heaven. 

Mr.  MERGER  followed  on  the  same  side,  with 
great  earnestness ;  and  had  spoken  about  half 
an  hour,  when  he  was  compelled  by  indispo- 
sition to  resume  his  seat. 

The  previous  question  was  then  called ;  and, 
the  House  having  sustained  the  call  by  103 
votes,  the  main  question  was  put  on  concurring 
with  the  Senate  in  striking  out  of  the  bill  the 
slavery  restriction  on  the  State  of  Missouri, 
and  decided  in  the  affirmative— yeas  90,  nays 
87,  as  follows : 

YEAS.— Messrs.  Abbot,  Alexander,  Allen  of  Ten- 
nessee, Anderson,  Archer  of  Maryland,  Archer  of 
Virginia,  Baldwin,  Barbonr,  Bayly,  Bloomfield,  Bre- 
vard,  Brown,  Bryan,  Burton,  Burwell,  Butler  of  Lou- 
isiana, Cannon,  Cobb,  Cocke,  Crawford,  Crowell, 
Culbreth,  Culpeper,  Cnthbert,  Davidson,  Earle,  Eddy, 
Edwards  of  North  Carolina,  Erwin,  Fisher,  Floyd, 
Foot,  Fullerton,  Garnett,  Hall  of  North  Carolina, 
Hardin,  Hill,  Holmes,  Hooks,  Johnson,  Jones  of 
Virginia,  Jones  of  Tennessee,  Kent,  Kiusey,  Little, 
Lowndes,  McCoy,  McCreary,  McLane  of  Delaware, 
McLean  of  Kentucky,  Mason,  Meigs,  Mercer,  Met- 
calf,  Neale,  Nelson  of  Virginia,  Newton,  Overstreet, 
Parker  of  Virginia,  Pinckney,  Pindall,  Quarles,  Ran- 
dolph, Rankin,  Reed,  Rhea,  Ringgold,  Robertson, 
Settle,  Shaw,  Simkins,  Slocumb,  Smith  of  New  Jer- 
sey, Smith  of  Maryland,  B.  Smith  of  Virginia,  A. 
Smyth  of  Virginia,  Smith  of  North  Carolina,  Stevens, 
Storrs,  Strother,  Swearingen,  Terrell,  Trimble,  Tucker 
of  Virginia,  Tucker  of  South  Carolina,  Tyler,  Walker 
of  North  Carolina,  Warfield,  Williams  of  Virginia, 
and  Williams  of  North  Carolina— 90. 

NAYS. — Messrs.  Adams,  Allen  of  Massachusetts, 
Allen  of  New  York,  Baker,  Bateman,  Beecher, 
Boden,  Brush,  Buffum,  Butler  of  New  Hampshire, 


Campbell,  Clagett,  Clark,  Cook,  Crafts,  Cushman, 
Darlington,  Dennison,  Dewitt,  Dickinson,  Dowse, 
Edwards  of  Pennsylvania,  Fay,  Folger,  Ford,  For- 
rest, Fuller,  Gross  of  New  York,  Gross  of  Pennsyl- 
vania, Guyon,  Hackley,  Hall  of  New  York,  Hazard, 
Hemphill,  Hendricks,  Herrick,  Hibshman,  Heister, 
Hostetter,  Kendall,  Kinsley,  Lathrop,  Lincoln,  Linn, 
Livermore,  Lyman,  Maclay,  Mallary,  Marchand, 
Meech,  R.  Moore,  S.  Moore,  Monell,  Morton,  Mosely, 
Murray,  Nelson  of  Massachusetts,  Parker  of  Massa- 
chusetts, Patterson,  Phelps,  Philson,  Pitcher,  Plu- 
mer,  Rich,  Richards,  Richmond,  Rogers,  Ross,  Russ, 
Sampson,  Sergeant,  Silsbee,  Sloan,  Southard,  Street, 
Strong  of  Vermont,  Strong  of  New  York,  Tarr,  Tay- 
lor, Tomlinson,  Tracy,  Upham,  Van  Rensselaer, 
Wallace,  Wendover,  Whitman,  Wood— 87. 

The  question  was  then  stated  on  the  second 
amendment  of  the  Senate,  when — 

Mr.  TAYLOE  moved  to  amend  the  amendment 
by  striking  out  the  words  "  thirty-six  degrees 
thirty  minutes  north  latitude,"  and  inserting  a 
line  which  would  exclude  slavery  from  all  the 
territory  West  of  the  Mississippi,  except  Lou- 
isiana, Missouri,  and  Arkansas. 

The  previous  question  was  again  demanded, 
and  again  sustained  by  a  majority  of  the  House. 
The  effect  of  the  previous  question  being  to  ex- 
clude the  question  on  the  amendment,  and  to 
bring  it  back  to  the  main  question — 

The  main  question  was  taken  on  concurring 
with  the  Senate  in  inserting  in  the  bill,  in  lieu 
of  the  State  restriction,  the  clause  inhibiting 
slavery  in  the  territory  north  of  thirty -six  de- 
grees thirty  minutes  north  latitude,  and  was 
decided  in  the  affirmative — yeas  134,  nays  42, 
as  follows : 

YEAS.— Messrs.  Allen  of  New  York,  Allen  of  Ten- 
nessee, Anderson,  Archer  of  Maryland,  Baker,  Bald- 
win, Bateman,  Bayly,  Beecher,  Bloomfield,  Boden, 
Brevard,  Brown,  Brush,  Bryan,  Butler  of  New 
Hampshire,  Campbell,  Cannon,  Case,  Clagett,  Clark, 
Cocke,  Cook,  Crafts,  Crawford,  Crowell,  Culbreth, 
Culpeper,  Cnshman,  Cuthbert,  Darlington,  Davidson, 
Dennison,  Dewitt,  Dickinson,  Dowse,  Earle,  Eddy, 
Edwards  of  Pennsylvania,  Fay,  Fisher,  Floyd,  Foot, 
Ford,  Forrest,  Fuller,  Fullerton,  Gross  of  Pennsyl- 
vania, Guyon,  Hackley,  Hall  of  New  York,  Hardin, 
Hazard,  Hemphill,  Hendricks,  Herrick,  Hibshman, 
Heister,  Hill,  Holmes,  Hostetter,  Kendall,  Kent,  Kin- 
sey,  Kinsley,  Lathrop,  Little,  Lincoln,  Linn,  Liver- 
more,  Lowndes,  Lyman,  Maclay,  McCreary,  McLane 
of  Delaware,  McLean  of  Kentucky,  Mallary,  Mar- 
chand, Mason,  Meigs,  Mercer,  R.  Moore,  S.  Moore, 
Monell,  Morton,  Mosely,  Murray,  Nelson  of  Massa- 
chusetts, Nelson  of  Virginia,  Parker  of  Massachusetts, 
Patterson,  Philson,  Pitcher,  Plumer,  Quarles,  Ran- 
kin, Rich,  Richards,  Richmond,  Ringgold,  Kobert- 
son,  Rogers,  Ross,  Russ,  Sampson,  Sergeant,  Settle, 
Shaw,  Silsbee,  Sloan,  Smith  of  New  Jersey,  Smith 
of  Maryland,  Smith  of  North  Carolina,  Southard, 
Stevens,  Storrs,  Street,  Strong  of  Vermont,  Strong  of 
New  York,  Strother,  Tarr,  Taylor,  Tomlinson,  Tomp 
kins,  Tracy,  Trimble,  Tucker  of  South  Carolina, 
Upham,  Van  Rensselaer,  Wallace,  Warfield,  Wendo- 
ver, Williams  of  North  Carolina,  and  Wood— 134. 

NAYS. — Messrs.  Abbot,  Adams,  Alexander,  Allen 
of  Massachusetts,  Archer  of  Virginia,  Barbour,  Buf- 
fum, Burton,  Burwoll,  Butler  of  Louisiana,  Cobb, 


DEBATES  OF  CONGRESS. 


571 


MARCH,  1820.] 


Journal  of  ike  Old  Congress. 


[H.  OF  R. 


Edwards  of  North  Carolina,  Ervin,  Folger,  Garnett, 
Gross  of  New  York,  Hall  of  North  Carolina,  Hooks, 
Johnson,  Jones  of  Virginia,  Jones  of  Tennessee, 
McCoy,  Metcalf,  Neale,  Newton,  Overstreet,  Parker 
of  Virginia,  Pinckney,  PindalJ,  Randolph,  Reed, 
Rhea,  Simkins,  Slocumb,  B.  Smith  of  Virginia,  A. 
Smyth  of  Virginia,  Swearingen,  Terrell,  Tucker  of 
Virginia,  Tyler,  Walker  of  North  Carolina,  and 
Williams  of  Virginia — 42. 

The  amendment  to  the  title  to  add  the  words 
"  and  to  prohibit  slavery  in  certain  Territories," 
was  then  also  concurred  in.  And  so,  all  the 
amendments  being  concurred  in,  the  bill  was 
pasged  by  the  two  Houses. 


FRIDAY,  March  3. 

The  Journal  of  the  proceedings  of  the  House 
on  yesterday  being  read — 

Mr.  RANDOLPH  rose  and  intimated  an  inten- 
tion now  to  move  the  House  to  reconsider  their 
vote  of  yesterday,  by  which  they  concurred 
with  the  Senate  in  striking  the  restriction  from 
the  Missouri  bill. 

The  SPEAKER  declared  the  motion  out  of 
order  until  the  ordinary  business  of  the  morn- 
ing, as  prescribed  by  the  rules  of  the  House, 
should  be  disposed  of.  From  which  opinion  of 
the  Chair,  Mr.  RANDOLPH  appealed. 

The  question  being  taken  on  the  correctness 
of  the  decision,  it  was  affirmed  by  the  House. 

The  House  then  proceeded  in  receiving  and 
referring  petitions ;  when,  petitions  being  called 
for  from  the  members  from  Virginia — 

Mr.  RANDOLPH  moved  that  the  House  retain 
in  their  possession  the  Missouri  bill,  until  the 
period  should  arrive  when,  according  to  rules 
of  the  House,  a  motion  to  reconsider  the  vote 
of  yesterday  on  concurring  in  the  first  amend- 
ment proposed  by  the  Senate  to  the  bill  afore- 
said, should  be  in  order. 

The  SPEAKER  declared  this  motion  out  of 
order,  for  the  reason  assigned  on  the  first  ap- 
plication of  Mr.  RANDOLPH  on  this  day. 

Question  of  Privilege. 

Mr.  RANDOLPH,  being  in  the  majority  on 
that  question,  moved  the  House  now  to  recon- 
sider their  vote  of  yesterday,  in  which  they 
concurred  in  the  first  amendment  proposed  by 
the  Senate  to  the  bill,  which  was  to  strike  out 
tbe  slavery  restriction. 

Mr.  ARCHER,  of  Virginia,  seconded  the  motion. 

The  SPEAKER,  having  ascertained  the  fact, 
stated  to  the  House  that  the  proceedings  of 
the  House  on  that  bill  yesterday,  had  been 
communicated  to  the  Senate,  by  the  Clerk, 
and  that  the  bill  not  being  in  possession  of 
the  House,  the  motion  to  reconsider  could  not 
be  entertained. 

Whereupon,  Mr.  RANDOLPH  submitted  the 
following  resolution : 

Resolved,  That,  in  carrying  the  bill,  entitled  "An 
act  to  authorize  the  people  of  the  Territory  of  Mis- 
souri to  form  a  constitution  and  State  government, 
and  for  the  admission  of  such  State  into  the  Union 
on  an  equal  footing  with  the  original  States,"  after 


a  member  from  Virginia  had  given  notice  of  his  in- 
tention to  move  a  reconsideration  of  the  question 
decided  last  evening,  in  which  the  said  member,  viz : 
Mr.  Randolph,  voted  in  the  majority  on  one  of  the 
amendments  of  the  Senate  thereto,  the  Clerk  is  guilty 
of  a  breach  of  the  privileges  of  a  member  of  this 
House  under  the  rules  thereof. 

And  the  question  being  put  whether  the 
House  would  now  consider  the  said  resolution ;  it 
was  decided  in  the  negative — yeas  61,  nays  71. 

Mr.  RANDOLPH  then  submitted  the  following 
proposition,  which  lies  on  the  table : 

"  That  so  much  of  the  thirty-seventh  rule  as  al- 
lows a  reconsideration  of  any  question  by  motion  of 
any  member  of  the  majority  on  such  question,  on 
the  day  succeeding  that  on  which  such  question  be 
taken,  be  expunged." 

On  motion  of  Mr.  GROSS,  of  New  York— 
Ordered,  That  when  the  House  adjourns,  it 
will  adjourn  to  meet  again  on  Monday  next. 

FRIDAY,  March  10. 
Journal  of  the  Old  Congress. 
Mr.  STROTHER  rose  and  said,  that  he  thought 
it  indispensably  his  duty  to  call  up  a  motion  he 
had  made  some  time  before ;  that  certainly  the 
time  had  arrived,  when  no  reason  could  longer 
exist  for  refusing  to  publish  the  Secret  Journal 
of  the  Old  Congress ;  that,  in  making  this  mo- 
tion, he  did  not  mean  to  allude  to  any  particular 
measures  or  the  actors  in  them.  All  he  should 
say  on  that  subject  was,  that  whatever  they 
contained  should  be  known  to  the  people ;  that, 
if  it  appeared  from  them,  there  were  subjects  of 
great  national  concern  agitated,  the  consequen- 
ces of  which  would  have  been  of  the  highest 
importance,  and  there  were  men  who,  on  those 
occasions,  have  rendered  great  services  to  their 
country  by  their  exertions  in  defending  their 
rights,  Mr.  S.  said  it  ought  to  be  known,  that 
every  man  might  have  that  credit  with  his 
country  he  is  entitled  to.  If,  on  the  contrary, 
there  were  men  who,  in  their  opinion,  had 
acted  wrong,  or  wished  to  sacrifice  any  of  the 
interests  belonging  to  the  Union,  and  which 
they  did  not  consider  as  peculiarly  favorable  to 
the  States  they  represented,  but  which  might 
be  injurious  to  them — if  there  were  such  men 
still  alive,  and  who  might  possibly  be  brought 
forward  as  candidates  for  office,  was  it  not 
equally  proper  that  the  whole  of  their  public 
conduct  should  also  be  known ;  or  how  can  the 
public  judge,  while  the  veil  of  secrecy  is  still 
thrown  over  it  ?  Mr.  S.  thought  that  it  was 
highly  proper  that  nothing  which  was  of  im- 
portance to  the  country,  and  which  had  been 
previously  agitated  in  our  public  councils  at 
that  distant  day,  should  be  kept  from  the  public 
eye.  He  adverted  to  the  strange  appearance  it 
might  have  that  the  Secret  Journal  of  Congress 
should  bo  published  during  the  Revolutionary 
war,  when  the  secrets  might  be  considered  as 
of  more  delicacy  and  importance  than  in  time 
of  peace,  when  there  was  reason  to  suppose 


572 


ABRIDGMENT  OF  THE 


H.  OF  R.] 


Death  of  Commodore  Decatur. 


[MAKCH,  1820. 


none  such,  or  at  least  none  of  equal  importance, 
could  have  existed. 

Mr.  S.  made  many  other  remarks  on  the  sub- 
ject, tending  to  prove  the  extreme  impropriety 
of  any  longer  withholding  from  the  public  a  view 
of  the  Secret  Journal,  which  he  contended 
would  cost  but  very  little,  and  did  not  consist 
of  more  than  sixty  or  eighty  pages,  and  were 
all  transcribed  and  ready  for  publication ;  to 
prove  which  he  read  a  letter  he  held  in  his 
hand,  from  Mr.  Secretary  Adams,  to  that  effect. 

Mr.  S.  then  moved  to  take  up  the  resolution 
he  had  himself  moved,  for  the  publication  of 
the  Secret  Journal. 

After  he  had  closed,  some  desultory  conver- 
sation took  place,  which,  showing  that  many 
members  would  vote  against  it — 

Mr.  0.  PINCKNEY  said  that  he  hoped  the  mo- 
tion would  prevail ;  that  it  was  difficult  to  see 
what  reasons  could  exist  against  it ;  that  if  the 
Secret  Journal  of  the  Old  Congress,  from  1775 
to  1783,  (the  conclusion  of  the  peace,)  were 
ordered  to  be  published,  why  not  these?  In 
the  former,  it  might  have  been  much  more  im- 
proper than  in  the  latter,  because  the  whole  of 
the  Secret  Journals  contained  the  secret  pro- 
ceedings of  Congress  during  the  war,  in  which 
there  may  have  been  many  private  negotiations 
with  different  States  in  Europe,  which  those 
States  might  not  wish  to  have  exposed.  That  was 
the  time,  also,  when  spies,  and  private  emissaries 
and  agents  were  necessary,  and,  in  many  cases, 
indispensable,  some  of  whom  might  be  alive,  or 
their  families,  who  would  not  wish  it  known 
that  their  friends  had  been  engaged  in  practices 
generally  not  deemed  honorable.  But  from  the 
year  1783  to  1789,  the  commencement  of  the 
new  Government,  no  such  secret  could  exist. 
He  understood,  from  information  which  came 
from  the  Secretary  of  State,  that  the  whole  of 
the  remainder  did  not  contain  more  than  sixty 
or  eighty  pages — not  the  size  of  many  of  the 
voluminous  documents  published  this  session — 
the  expense,  therefore,  would  be  but  small.  As 
to  the  contents,  Mr.  P.  said,  he  was  only  in 
Congress  about  half  the  time  from  1783  to 
1789 ;  but,  during  that  time,  an  event  occurred 
which  must  be  recorded  on  the  Secret  Journal, 
which,  in  his  judgment,  alone  made  it  necessary 
that  this  part  of  the  Journal  should  be  published. 
It  was  a  long  time  since  it  had  occurred,  and 
therefore  what  he  stated  would  of  course  be  to 
the  best  of  his  recollection.  If  there  should  be 
any  mistakes,  he  would  be  willing  to  correct 
them  ;  it  was  an  event  of  great  importance,  in 
his  opinion,  in  the  civil  history  of  this  country, 
and  to  which  he  had  alluded,  in  his  observa- 
tions on  the  Missouri  bill,  but  which  he  would 
now  more  particularly  state,  as  he  had  heard 
that  what  he  had  said  before  must  have  been 
misunderstood. 

Mr.  P.  said,  that,  in  1785-'6,  he  believed  '6, 
two  or  three  years  after  the  peace,  Spain  being 
very  anxious  on  the  subject,  sent  out  Don  Diego 
de  Gardoqui,  as  her  Minister,  to  this  country, 
with  instructions  to  offer  to  the  United  States 


a  treaty  of  commerce,  which  she  said  was  an 
advantageous  one,  if  we  would,  in  the  same 
treaty,  consent  to  give  up  the  navigation  of  that 
part  of  the  Mississippi  which  ran  through  the 
Spanish  dominions,  for  twenty-five  years.  Mr. 
John  Jay  was  the  Secretary  of  Foreign  Affairs. 
The  treaty,  according  to  the  then  routine  of 
business,  was  referred  to  him  to  report  his  opin- 
ion, and,  to  the  best  of  his  remembrance,  he 
recommended  its  adoption.  Seven,  being  all 
Eastern  and  Northern  States,  did  vote  for  it : 
but  owing  to  the  Confederation  requiring  nine 
States  as  necessary  to  form  a  treaty,  it  was  de- 
feated. Mr.  P.  said  that,  if  any  part  of  the 
public  business  of  this  country,  in  which  he  had 
any  agency,  gave  him  more  pleasure  than 
another,  it  was  the  agency  he  had  in  association 
with  the  distinguished  gentlemen  now  high  in 
office  in  Washington,  in  preventing  it.  He  be- 
lieved he  might  venture  to  say,  it  was  owing  to 
them  and  another,  now  gone,  that  the  whole  of 
the  Western  country  was  saved  to  us ;  that  the 
Mississippi  still  flows  through  American  lands, 
and  that  her  members  here  so  honorably  fill 
their  seats.  And  having,  as  he  observed  on  the 
Missouri  question,  and,  he  said,  let  him  here 
repeat  it,  contributed,  at  that  distant  day,  to 
save  the  parent,  he  felt  great  pleasure  on  the 
late  great  occasion,  in  contributing  his  humble 
efforts  to  save  her  children. 
The  resolution  was  taken  np  and  passed. 


THURSDAY,  March  23. 

As  soon  as  the  sitting  was  opened — 

Mr.  KANDOLPH  rose,  and,  after  some  feeling 
remarks,  expressive  of  the  grief  with  which  he 
was  filled,  by  the  recent  melancholy  occurrence, 
of  the  death  of  that  distinguished  naval  officer, 
Commodore  Decatur,  which  he  rather  alluded 
to  than  announced,  called  the  attention  of  the 
House  to  sundry  resolutions,  the  import  of 
which  was,  that,  when  it  adjourns,  it  will  ad- 
journ to  meet  again  on  Saturday;  that  it  will 
attend  the  funeral  of  the  late  Commodore  De- 
catur on  to-morrow ;  and  that  its  members  will, 
in  respect  to  the  memory  of  the  deceased,  wear 
crape  on  the  left  arm  for  the  remainder  of  this 
session. 

Mr.  TAYLOR,  of  New  York,  required  a  division 
of  the  question  on  those  resolutions,  to  take  it 
separately  on  each. 

Mr.  KANDOLPH  intimated  that,  if  there  was 
the  least  objection  to  the  resolutions  as  moved, 
he  should  withdraw  them. 

Mr.  TAYLOE,  of  New  York,  said  that,  in  op- 
posing this  motion,  he  felt  it  due  to  himself  to 
state,  that,  in  respect  for  the  memory  and  public 
services  of  the  deceased,  he  yielded  to  no  mem- 
ber of  this  House — not  even  to  the  honorable 
gentleman  from  Virginia.  But  it  is  with  the 
most  painful  regret  (said  Mr.  T.)  I  am  con- 
strained to  say,  that  he  died  in  the  violation  of 
the  laws  of  God  and  his  country.  I  therefore 
cannot  consent,  however  deeply  his  loss  is  de- 
plored by  this  House,  in  common  with  the  na- 


DEBATES  OF  CONGRESS. 


673 


MARCH,  1820.] 


Importation  of  Slaves. 


[H.  OF  R. 


tion,  to  vote  the  distinguished  and  unusual  hon- 
ors proposed  by  these  resolutions. 

Mr.  RANDOLPH  then  withdrew  the  resolves  he 
had  offered,  and  moved  that  the  House  do  now 
adjourn — negatived. 


MONDAY,  March  27. 

Message  from  the  President — Non-ratification 
of  the  Spanish  (Florida  Cession)  Treaty — In- 
terposition of  the  Great  Powers — Forbearance 
of  President  Monroe. 

The  following  Message  was  received  from  the 
PRESIDENT  OF  THE  UNITED  STATES  : 
To  the  House  of  Representatives  of  the  United  States : 
I  transmit  to  Congress  an  extract  of  a  letter  from 
the  Minister  Plenipotentiary  of  the  United  States  at 
St.  Petersburg,  of  the  1st  of  November  last,  on  the 
subject  of  our  relations  with  Spain,  indicating  the 
sentiments  of  the  Emperor  of  Russia  respecting  the 
non-ratification,  by  His  Catholic  Majesty,  of  the 
treaty  lately  concluded  between  the  United  States 
and  Spain,  and  the  strong  interest  which  His  Impe- 
rial Majesty  takes  in  promoting  the  ratification  of 
that  treaty.  Of  this  friendly  disposition,  the  most 
satisfactory  assurance  has  been  since  given  directly 
to  this  Government  by  the  Minister  of  Russia  residing 
here. 

I  transmit,  also,  to  Congress,  an  extract  of  a  letter 
from  the  Minister  Plenipotentiary  of  the  United 
States,  at  Madrid,  of  a  later  date  than  those  hereto- 
fore communicated ;  by  which  it  appears  that,  at  the 
instance  of  the  Charge  des  Affaires  of  the  Emperor 
of  Russia,  a  new  pledge  had  been  given  by  the  Span- 
ish Government,  that  the  Minister  who  had  been 
lately  appointed  to  the  United  States  should  set  out 
on  his  mission  without  delay,  with  full  powers  to 
settle  all  differences  in  a  manner  satisfactory  to  the 
parties. 

I  have  further  to  state  that  the  Governments  of 
France  and  Great  Britain  continue  to  manifest  the 
sentiments  heretofore  communicated  respecting  the 
non-ratification  of  the  treaty  by  Spain,  and  to  inter- 
pose their  good  offices  to  promote  its  ratification. 

It  is  proper  to  add  that  the  Governments  of  France 
and  Russia  have  expressed  an  earnest  desire  that  the 
United  States  would  take  no  step,  for  the  present,  on 
the  principle  of  reprisal,  which  might  possibly  tend  to 
disturb  the  peace  between  the  United  States  and 
Spain.  There  is  good  cause  to  presume,  from  the 
delicate  manner  in  which  this  sentiment  has  been 
conveyed,  that  it  is  founded  in  a  belief,  as  well  as  a 
desire,  that  our  just  objects  may  be  accomplished 
without  the  hazard  of  such  an  extremity. 

On  full  consideration  of  all  these  circumstances,  I 
have  thought  it  my  duty  to  submit  to  Congress 
whether  it  will  not  be  advisable  to  postpone  a  deci- 
sion on  the  questions  now  depending  with  Spain,  un- 
til the  next  session.  The  distress  of  that  nation,  at 
this  juncture,  affords  a  motive  for  this  forbearance, 
which  cannot  fail  to  be  duly  appreciated.  Under 
such  circumstances,  the  attention  of  the  Spanish 
Government  may  be  diverted  from  its  foreign  con- 
cerns, and  the  arrival  of  a  Minister  here  be  longer 
delayed.  I  am  the  more  induced  to  suggest  this 
course  of  proceeding  from  a  knowledge  that,  while 
we  shall  thereby  make  a  just  return  to  the  powers 
whose  good  offices  have  been  acknowledged,  and  in- 
crease, by  a  new  and  signal  proof  of  moderation,  our 


claims  on  Spain,  our  attitude  in  regard  to  her  will 
not  be  less  favorable  at  the  next  session  than  it  is  at 
the  present.* 

JAMES  MONROE. 
WASHINGTON,  March  27,  1820. 

The  Message  and  accompanying  documents 
were  referred  to  the  Committee  on  Foreign 
Affairs. 

FBIDAY,  March  31. 
Importation  of  Slaves. 

The  bill  for  the  relief  of  Delisle,  Dudley,  and 
Van  Cleef,  being  read  a  third  time,  and  the 
question  stated  on  its  passage — 

[This  is  a  case  in  which  the  forfeiture  has 
been  incurred  by  the  importation  of  six  do- 
mestic servants  (slaves)  by  a  captain  of  a  vessel 
from  a  foreign  port — he  being  officially  assured 
by  the  Consul  of  the  United  States  resident 
there,  in  writing,  that  there  was  nothing  in  the 
laws  of  the  United  States  forbidding  the  im- 
portation of  family  slaves,  by  a  person  import- 
ing himself  into  the  United  States.  The  bill 
proposes  a  remission  of  the  forfeiture  thus  in- 
curred without  any  intent  to  violate  the  law.] 

Mr.  FOOT,  of  Connecticut,  said,  the  extreme 
anxiety  and  impatience  of  gentlemen  to  pass 
the  bill  under  consideration  had  surprised  him. 
Six  weeks,  said  he,  have  been  spent  on  a  subject 
involving  no  principle  which  can  compare,  in 
point  of  importance,  with  this  bill.  The  Mis- 
souri question  did  not  involve  the  question  of 
freedom  or  slavery,  but  merely  whether  slaves 
now  in  the  country  might  be  permitted  to  re- 
side in  the  proposed  new  State  ;  and  whether 
Congress  or  Missouri  possessed  the  power  to  de- 
cide. But,  sir,  we  are  called  upon  by  this  bill 
to  remit  a  penalty  incurred  for  a  violation  of 
our  laws  "  to  prohibit  the  importation  of  slaves 
into  our  country  " — a  law  of  all  others  which  in 
my  opinion  should  be  rigidly  enforced  and  most 
sacredly  regarded.  And,  sir,  I  am  astonished 
to  hear  gentlemen,  who,  on  the  Missouri  ques- 
tion, which  not  only  agitated  this  House,  but 
the  whole  country,  to  its  base,  and  threatened 
a  dissolution  of  the  Union ;  and  gentlemen  too, 


*  This  interposition  of  the  three  great  powers,  (Great 
Britain,  Russia,  and  France,)  to  prevent  a  rupture  between 
the  United  States  and  Spain,  and  to  procure  from  the  latter 
the  ratification  of  the  Florida  Cession  Treaty,  (concluded 
the  year  before,)  is  such  high  evidence  of  good  will  towards 
the  United  States,  and  of  desire  to  preserve  peace  among 
nations,  that  it  cannot  be  too  well  remembered  or  too  much 
valued  by  the  American  people.  The  recommendation  of 
Mr.  Monroe  to  Congress,  founded  upon  this  interposition,  is 
also  most  honorable  to  him,  both  as  a  statesman  and  a  just 
man  ;  and  it  is  pleasant  and  gratifying  to  reflect  that  this 
generous  interposition  and  wise  forbearance  had  their  full 
effect— the  delayed  ratification  being  soon  after  given,  and 
Spain  and  the  United  States  left  at  peace  and  good  will 
And  the  names  of  the  sovereigns  thus  obeying  such  en- 
lightened and  philanthropic  impulse,  deserve  also  to  be  re- 
membered, and  are  here  given :  Alexander  the  First,  Em- 
peror of  Russia;  George  the  Fourth,  of  Great  Britain,  then 
Prince  Regent ;  and  Louis  the  Eighteenth,  of  France. 


574 


ABRIDGMENT  OP  THE 


H.  OF  R.] 


The  Spanish  Treaty. 


[APRIL,  1820. 


who,  on  that  occasion,  denounced  all  as  the 
friends  of  slavery  who  honestly  differed  with 
them  in  opinion  on  the  constitutional  power  of 
Congress;  yes,  sir,  and  who  boldly  declared 
that,  fearless  of  all  consequences,  they  would 
impose  the  restriction ; — that  these  gentlemen 
should  now  be  the  advocates  for  a  virtual  re- 
peal of  the  only  law  which  prohibits  the  im- 
portation of  slaves !  Sir,  if  you  pass  this  bill, 
you  open  your  ports  immediately  to  the  impor- 
tation of  slaves,  without  number,  under  the  head 
of  domestics. 

I  entreat  gentlemen  to  pause,  if  indeed,  as 
they  profess,  they  are  disposed  to  prevent  the 
slave  trade.  Go,  sir,  with  me  to  Martinique, 
and  witness  the  attempts  made  by  citizens  of 
the  United  States  to  smuggle  slaves  into  the 
United  States  under  this  pretence!  If  they 
may  be  admitted  as  domestics,  every  vessel  will 
be  full-freighted  with  these  domestic  servants, 
and  the  slave  will  be  as  free  as  before  the  pas- 
sage of  your  law. 

But,  say  the  gentlemen,  this  petitioner  is  in- 
nocent— he  was  ignorant  of  your  laws.  If  so,  I 
would  ask,  why  did  he  apply  to  the  commer- 
cial agent,  to  inquire  whether  domestic  slaves 
might  safely  be  brought  ?  Look,  sir,  at  the  let- 
ter of  the  commercial  agent  to  this  petitioner, 
and  say,  if  you  can,  that  the  petitioner  was 
ignorant  of  our  laws?  No,  sir,  the  petitioner 
knew  our  law — he,  sir,  knew  it  was  in  violation 
of  that  law — and  if,  sir,  after  this,  he  was  dis- 
posed to  trust  the  chance  of  escape  or  evasion 
of  that  law,  which,  of  all  others,  should  be  most 
rigorously  enforced,  I  shall  never  give  my  vote 
for  his  relief. 

Pass  this  bill,  sir,  and  you  may  employ  your 
armies  and  navies  in  vain  to  break  up  this  most 
inhuman  and  barbarous  traffic. 

The  question  on  indefinite  postponement  was 
at  length  decided  in  the  negative — 89  to  67". 

A  doubt  was  then  suggested  by  Mr.  BARBOUR, 
whether  Congress  possessed  the  power  to  remit 
that  portion  of  the  forfeiture  which  by  law  ac- 
crues to  the  informers  or  prosecutors  of  the 
alleged  offence,  and  whether  the  bill  therefore 
did  not,  in  this  respect,  require  a  limitation  to 
that  portion  of  the  penalty  which  accrued  to  the 
United  States. 

Hereupon  further  debate  took  place ;  and  a 
motion  was  made  by  Mr.  PIXDALL  to  recommit 
the  bill,  with  instructions  so  to  amend  it  as  to 
remit  only  that  portion  of  the  forfeiture  which 
has  accrued  to  the  use  of  the  United  States ; 
which  motion  was  decided  affirmatively  by  a 
vote  of  64  to  52. 


MONDAY,  April  3. 
Fugitive  /Slaves. 

Mr.  PINDALL,  of  Virginia,  offered  for  consid- 
eration the  following  resolution,  in  support  of 
which  he  made  some  remarks,  referring  to  the 
current  report  that  an  act  of  the  description 
therein  referred  to  had  recently  passed  the 
Legislature  of  Pennsylvania. 


Resolved,  That  the  Secretary  of  the  Treasury  be 
instructed  to  procure  and  transmit  to  this  House,  as 
soon  as  practicable,  a  copy  of  such  late  act  or  acts  of 
the  Pennsylvania  Legislature  as  prohibit  or  restrain 
the  justices,  aldermen,  or  other  magistrates  or  officers 
of  that  State  from  interposing  in  the  apprehension  or 
surrender  of  fugitive  slaves,  [or  from  carrying  into 
effect  the  act  of  Congress,  entitled  "An  act  respecting 
fugitives  from  justice  and  persons  escaping  from  the 
service  of  their  masters,"  passed  on  the  12th  of  Feb- 
ruary, 1793.] 

Mr.  MACLAY,  of  Pennsylvania,  suggested  that, 
if  the  object  of  the  motion  was  only  to  obtain  a 
copy  of  the  act,  the  latter  clause  of  the  resolve 
was  unnecessary,  and  he  wished  to  see  it  ex- 
punged, because  he  did  not  think  that  any  act 
had  passed  the  Legislature  prohibiting  the  State 
officers  from  carrying  into  effect  the  act  of 
Congress. 

To  obviate  this  objection,  Mr.  PINDALL  con- 
sented to  modify  his  motion  so  as  to  omit  the 
clause  within  brackets,  at  the  close  of  the  above 
resolve. 

The  resolve  was  then  amended,  on  motion,  by 
adding  to  the  end  of  the  resolution  the  words 
following :  ''  Provided  any  such  act  or  acts  shall 
have  been  passed." 

Mr.  S.  MOORE  then  moved  to  lay  the  resolu  - 
tion  on  the  table ;  which  motion  was  opposed 
by  Mr.  STROTHER,  and  it  was  negatived,  and  the 
resolution  was  agreed  to. 

Remission  of  Forfeiture. 
The  bill  for  the  relief  of  Delisle,  Dudley,  and 
Van  Cleef,  providing  for  the  remission  of  a  for- 
feiture incurred  by  an  accidental  importation  of 
six  slaves,  in  the  brig  Sally,  was  read  a  third 
;ime ;  and  the  yeas  and  nays  on  its  passage  being 
required  by  Mr.  TRACY,  stood— For  the  bill  85, 
against  the  bill  73. 

The  Spanish  Treaty. 

The  House  having  resolved  itself  into  a  Com- 
mittee of  the  Whole  on  the  state  of  the  Union, 
and  the  following  resolutions,  submitted  some 
days  ago  by  Mr.  CLAY,  (Speaker,)  being  under 
consideration : 

1.  Resolved,  That  the  Constitution  of  the  United 
States  vests  in  Congress  the  power  to  dispose  of  the 
;erritory  belonging  to  them,  and  that  no  treaty,  pur- 
jorting  to  alienate  any  portion  thereof,  is  valid  with- 
ut  the  concurrence  of  Congress. 

2.  Resolved,  That  the  equivalent  proposed  to  be 
jiven  by  Spain,  to  the  United  States,  in  the  treaty, 
ioncluded  between  them,  on  the  22d  day  of  February, 
1819,  for  that  part  of  Louisiana  lying  west  of  the 

Sabine,  was  inadequate ;  and  that  it  would  be  inex- 
>edient  to  make  a  transfer  thereof  to  any  foreign 
>ower,  or  renew  the  aforesaid  treaty  : 

Mr.  CLAY  said,  that,  whilst  he  felt  very  grate- 
ul  to  the  House  for  the  prompt  and  respectful 
manner  in  which  they  had  allowed  him  to  en- 
,er  upon  the  discussion  of  the  resolutions  which 
le  had  the  honor  of  submitting  to  their  notice, 
he  must  at  the  same  time  frankly  say,  that  he 
;hought  their  character  and  consideration,  in 
,he  councils  of  this  country,  were  concerned  in 


DEBATES  OF  CONGRESS. 


575 


APRIL,  1820.] 


The,  Spanish  Treaty. 


[H.  OF  R. 


not  letting  the  present  session  pass  off  without 
deliberating  upon  our  affairs  with  Spain.  In 
coming  to  the  present  session  of  Congress,  it 
had  been  his  anxious  wish  to  be  able  to  concur 
•with  the  Executive  branch  of  Government  in 
the  measures  which  it  might  conceive  itself 
called  on  to  recommend  on  that  subject,  for  two 
reasons,  qf  which  the  first,  relating  personally 
to  himself,  he  would  not  trouble  the  committee 
with  further  noticing.  The  other  was,  that  it 
appeared  to  him  to  be  always  desirable,  in  re- 
spect to  the  foreign  action  of  this  Government, 
that  there  should  be  a  perfect  coincidence  in  opin- 
ion between  its  several  co-ordinate  branches. 
In  time,  however,  of  peace,  it  might  be  allow- 
able to  those  who  are  charged  with  the  public 
interests,  to  entertain  and  express  their  views, 
although  there  might  be  some  discordance  be- 
tween them.  In  a  season  of  war,  there  should 
be  no  division  in  the  public  councils ;  but  a 
united  and  vigorous  exertion  to  bring  the  war 
to  an  honorable  conclusion.  For  his  part,  when- 
ever that  calamity  may  befall  his  country,  he 
would  entertain  but  one  wish,  and  that  is,  that 
success  might  crown  our  struggle,  and  the  war 
be  gloriously  and  honorably  terminated.  He 
would  never  refuse  to  share  in  the  joys  incident 
to  the  victory  of  our  arms,  nor  to  participate  in 
the  griefs  of  defeat  and  discomfiture.  He  con- 
curred entirely  in  the  sentiment  once  expressed 
by  that  illustrious  hero,  whose  recent  melan- 
choly fall  we  all  so  sincerely  deplore,  that  for- 
tune may  attend  our  country  in  whatever  war 
it  may  be  involved. 

There  were  two  systems  of  policy,  he  said,  of 
which  our  Government  had  had  the  choice. 
The  first  was,  by  appealing  to  the  justice  and 
affections  of  Spain,  to  employ  all  those  persua- 
sives which  could  arise  out  of  abstinence  from 
any  direct  countenance  to  the  cause  of  South 
America,  and  the  observance  of  a  strict  neutral- 
ity. The  other  was,  by  appealing  to  her  justice 
also,  and  to  her  fears,  to  prevail  upon  her  to 
redress  the  injuries  of  which  we  complain — her 
fears,  by  a  recognition  of  the  independent  gov- 
ernments of  South  America,  and  leaving  her  in 
a  state  of  uncertainty  as  to  the  further  step  we 
might  take  in  respect  to  those  governments. 
The  unratified  treaty  was  the  result  of  the  first 
system.  It  could  riot  be  positively  affirmed 
what  effect  the  other  system  would  have  pro- 
duced ;  but  he  verily  believed  that,  whilst  it 
rendered  justice  to  those  governments,  and 
would  have  better  comported  with  that  mag- 
nanimous policy  which  ought  to  have  charac- 
terized our  own,  it  would  have  more  success- 
fully tended  to  an  amicable  and  satisfactory 
arrangement  of  our  differences  with  Spain. 

The  first  system  has  so  far  failed.  At  the 
commencement  of  the  session,  the  President  re- 
commended an  enforcement  of  the  provisions 
of  the  treaty.  After  three  months'  delibera- 
tion, the  Committee  of  Foreign  Affairs,  not 
being  able  to  concur  with  him,  has  made  us  a 
report  recommending  the  seizure  of  Florida,  in 
the  nature  of  a  reprisal  Now,  the  President 


recommends  our  postponement  of  the  subject 
until  the  next  session.  It  has  been  his  (Mr.  C.'s) 
intention,  whenever  the  Committee  of  Foreign 
Affairs  should  engage  the  House  to  act  upon 
their  bill,  to  offer,  as  a  substitute  for  it,  the 
system  which  he  thought  it  became  this  country 
to  adopt,  of  which  the  occupation  of  Texas,  as 
our  own,  would  have  been  a  part,  and  the  re- 
cognition of  the  independent  governments  of 
South  America  another.  If  he  did  not  now 
bring  forward  this  system,  it  was  because  the 
committee  proposed  to  withdraw  their  bill,  and 
because  he  knew  too  much  of  the  temper  of  the 
House  and  of  the  Executive,  to  think  that  it 
was  advisable  to  bring  it  forward.  He  hoped 
that  some  suitable  opportunity  might  occur, 
during  the  session,  for  considering  the  propriety 
of  recognizing  the  independent  governments  of 
South  America. 

Whatever  Mr.  C.  might  think  of  the  discretion 
which  was  evinced  in  recommending  the  post- 
ponement of  the  bill  of  the  Committee  of  Foreign 
Relations,  he  could  not  think  that  the  reasons 
assigned  by  the  President  for  that  recommenda- 
tion were  entitled  to  the  weight  which  he  had 
given  them.  Mr.  C.  thought  that  the  House  was 
called  upon,  by  a  high  sense  of  duty,  seriously 
to  animadvert  upon  some  of  those  reasons.  He 
believed  it  was  the  first  example,  in  the  annals 
of  the  country,  in  which  a  course  of  policy,  re- 
specting one  foreign  power,  which  we  must  sup- 
pose had  been  deliberately  considered,  has  been 
recommended  to  be  abandoned,  in  a  domestic 
communication  from  one  to  another  co-ordinate 
branch  of  the  Government,  upon  the  avowed 
ground  of  the  interposition  of  other  foreign 
powers.  And  what  was  the  nature  of  this  in- 
terposition ?  It  was  evidenced  by  a  cargo  of 
scraps  gathered  up  from  this  Charge  d' Affaires, 
and  that  of  loose  conversations  held  with  this 
foreign  Minister — and  that  perhaps  mere  levee 
conversations,  without  a  commitment  in  writing, 
in  a  solitary  instance,  of  any  of  the  foreign  par- 
ties concerned,  except  only  in  the  case  of  his 
Imperial  Majesty ;  and"  what  was  the  character 
of  his  commitment  we  shall  presently  see.  But 
Mr.  C.  said,  he  must  enter  his  solemn  protest 
against  this  and  every  other  species  of  foreign 
interference  in  our  matters  with  Spain.  What 
have  they  to  do  with  them  ?  Would  they  not 
repel,  as  officious  and  insulting  intrusions,  any 
interference  on  our  part  in  their  concerns  with, 
other  foreign  States  ?  Would  his  Imperial  Ma- 
jesty have  listened  with  complacency  to  our  re- 
monstrances against  the  vast  acquisitions  which 
he  has  recently  made  ?  He  has  lately  crammed 
his  enormous  maw  with  Finland  and  with  the 
spoils  of  Poland,  and,  whilst  the  difficult  process 
of  digestion  is  going  on,  he  throws  himself  upon 
a  couch,  and  cries  out— don't,  don't  disturb  my 
repose  1 

He  charges  his  Minister  here  to  plead  the 
cause  of  peace  and  concord!  The  American 
"  Government  is  too  enlightened  "  (ah !  sir,  how 
sweet  this  unction  is,  which  is  poured  down  our 
backs)  to  take  hasty  steps.  And  his  Imperial 


576 


ABRIDGMENT  OF  THE 


H.  OF  R.] 


The  Spanish  Treaty. 


1820. 


Majesty's  minister  here  is  required  to  engage 
(Mr.  C.  said  he  hoped  that  the  original  expres- 
sion was  less  strong,  but  he  believed  that  the 
French  word  engage  bore  the  same  meaning) 
the  American  Government,  &c.  Nevertheless, 
the  Emperor  does  not  interpose  in  this  discus- 
sion. No !  not  he.  He  makes  above  all  "  no 
pretension  to  exercise  an  influence  in  the  coun- 
cils of  a  foreign  power."  Not  the  slightest. 
And  yet,  at  the  very  instant  when  he  is  pro- 
testing against  the  imputation  of  this  influence, 
his  interposition  is  proving  effectual !  His  Im- 
perial Majesty  lias  at  least  manifested  so  far,  in 
this  particular,  his  capacity  to  govern  his  Em- 
pire, by  the  selection  of  a  sagacious  Minister. 
For  if  Count  Nesselrode  had  never  written 
another  paragraph,  the  extract  from  his  dis- 
patch to  Mr.  Poletica,  which  has  been  trans- 
mitted to  this  House,  would  demonstrate  that 
he  merited  the  confidence  of  his  master.  It  was 
quite  refreshing  to  read  such  State  papers  after 
perusing  those  (he  was  sorry  to  say  it;  he 
wished  there  was  a  veil  broad  and  thick  enough 
to  conceal  them  forever)  which  this  treaty  had 
produced  on  the  part  of  our  own  Government. 

Conversations  between  my  Lord  Castlereagh 
and  our  Minister  at  London  had  also  been  com- 
municated to  this  House.  Nothing  from,  the 
hand  of  his  Lordship  is  produced ;  no  I  he  does 
not  commit  himself  in  that  way.  The  sense  in 
which  our  Minister  understood  him,  and  the 
purport  of  certain  parts  of  despatches  from  the 
British  Government  to  its  Minister  at  Madrid, 
which  he  deigned  to  read  to  our  Minister,  are 
alone  communicated  to  us.  Now  we  know  very 
well  how  diplomatists,  when  it  is  their  pleasure 
to  do  so,  can  wrap  themselves  up  in  mystery. 
No  man  more  than  my  Lord  Castlereagh,  who 
is  also  an  able  Minister,  possessing  much  greater 
talents  than  are  allowed  to  him  generally  in  this 
country,  can  successfully  express  himself  in  am- 
biguous language,  when  he  chooses  to  employ  it. 
Mr.  C.  recollected  himself  once  to  have  wit- 
nessed this  facility,  on  the  part  of  his  Lordship. 
The  case  was  this.  When  Bonaparte  made  his 
escape  from  Elba  and  invaded  France,  a  great 
part  of  Europe  believed  that  it  was  with  the 
connivance  of  the  British  Ministry.  The  oppo- 
sition charged  them,  in  Parliament,  with  it,  and 
they  were  interrogated  to  know  what  measures 
of  precaution  they  had  taken  against  such  an 
event.  Lord  Castlereagh  replied  by  stating  that 
there  was  an  understanding  with  a  certain  naval 
officer  of  high  rank,  commanding  in  the  adjacent 
seas,  that  he  was  to  act  on  certain  contingencies. 
Now,  Mr.  Chairman,  if  you  can  make  any  thing 
intelligible  out  of  this  reply,  you  will  have  much 
more  success  than  the  English  opposition  had. 

The  allowance  of  interference  by  foreign 
powers  in  the  affairs  of  our  Government,  not 
pertaining  to  themselves,  is  against  the  counsels 
of  our  wisest  politicians — those  of  Washington, 
Jefferson,  and,  he  would  add,  also,  those  of  the 
present  Chief  Magistrate  ;  for,  pending  this  very- 
Spanish  negotiation,  the  offer  of  the  mediation 
of  foreign  States  was  declined,  upon  the  true 


ground  that  Europe  had  her  system,  and  we 
ours ;  and  that  it  was  not  compatible  with  our 
policy  to  entangle  ourselves  in  the  labyrinths  of 
hers.  But  a  mediation  is  far  preferable  to  the 
species  of  interference  on  which  it  had  been  his 
reluctant  duty  to  comment.  The  mediator  is  a 
judge,  placed  on  high,  his  conscience  his  guide, 
the  world  the  spectators,  and  posterity  his  judge. 
His  position  is  one,  therefore,  of  the  greatest 
responsibility.  But  what  responsibility  is  there 
attached  to  this  sort  of  irregular  drawing-room, 
intriguing  interposition  ?  He  could  see  no  mo- 
tive for  governing  or  influencing  our  policy,  in 
regard  to  Spain,  furnished  in  any  of  the  com- 
munications which  respected  the  disposition  of 
foreign  powers.  He  regretted,  for  his  part,  that 
they  had  been  at  all  consulted.  There  was 
nothing  in  the  character  of  the  power  of  Spain ; 
nothing  in  the  beneficial  nature  of  the  stipula- 
tions of  the  treaty  to  us,  which  warranted  us  in 
seeking  the  aid  of  foreign  powers,  if  in  any  case 
whatever  that  aid  was  desirable.  He  was  far 
from  saying  that,  in  the  foreign  action  of  this 
Government,  it  might  not  be  prudent  to  keep 
a  watchful  eye  upon  the  probable  conduct  of 
foreign  powers.  That  might  be  a  material  cir- 
cumstance to  be  taken  into  consideration.  But 
he  never  would  avow  to  our  own  people — never 
promulgate  to  foreign  powers,  that  their  wishes 
and  interference  were  the  controlling  cause  of 
our  policy.  Such  promulgation  would  lead  to 
the  most  alarming  consequences.  It  was  to  in- 
vite further  interposition.  It  might,  in  process 
of  time,  create  in  the  bosom  of  our  country  a 
Kussian  faction,  a  British  faction,  a  French  fac- 
tion. Every  nation  ought  to  be  jealous  of  this 
species  of  interference,  whatever  was  its  form 
of  government.  But  of  all  forms  of  government 
the  united  testimony  of  all  history  admonishes  a 
republic  to  be  most  guarded  against  it.  From 
the  moment  that  Philip  intermeddled  in  the 
affairs  of  Greece,  the  liberty  of  Greece  was 
doomed  to  inevitable  destruction. 

Suppose,  said  Mr.  C.,  we  could  see  the  com- 
munications which  have  passed  between  his 
Imperial  Majesty  and  the  British  Government 
respectively,  and  Spain,  in  regard  to  the  United 
States ;  what  do  you  imagine  would  be  their 
character  ?  Do  you  suppose  that  the  same  lan- 
guage has  been  held  to  Spain  and  to  us  ?  Do 
you  not,  on  the  contrary,  believe  that  sentiments 
have  been  expressed  to  her,  consoling  to  her 
pride  ?  That  we  have  been  represented,  per- 
haps, as  an  ambitious  republic,  seeking  to  ag- 
grandize ourselves  at  her  expense  ? 

In  the  other  ground  taken  by  the  President, 
the  present  distressed  condition  of  Spain,  for 
his  recommendation  of  forbearance  to  act  during 
the  present  session,  Mr.  C.  was  sorry  also  to  say 
that  it  did  not  appear  to  him  to  be  solid.  He 
could  well  conceive  how  the  weakness  of  your 
aggressor  might,  when  he  was  withholding  from 
you  justice,  form  a  motive  for  your  pressing 
your  equitable  demands  upon  him  ;  but  he  could 
not  accord  in  the  wisdom  of  that  policy  which 
would  wait  his  recovery  of  strength,  so  as  to 


DEBATES  OF  CONGKESS. 


577 


APRIL,  1820.] 


The  Spanish  Treaty, 


[H.  OF  R. 


enable  him  successfully  to  resist  those  demands. 
Nor  would  it  comport  with  the  practice  of  our 
own  Government  heretofore.  Did  we  not,  in 
1811,  when  the  present  monarch  of  Spain  was 
an  ignoble  captive,  and  the  people  of  the  Penin- 
sula were  contending  for  the  inestimable  privi- 
lege of  self-government,  seize  and  occupy  that 
part  of  Louisiana  which  is  situated  between  the 
Mississippi  and  the  Perdido  ?  "What  must  the 
people  of  Spain  think  of  that  policy  which  would 
not  spare  them,  and  which  commiserates  alone 
an  unworthy  prince,  who  ignominiously  surren- 
dered himself  to  his  enemy ;  a  vile  despot,  of 
whom  I  cannot  speak  in  appropriate  language 
without  departing  from  the  respect  due  to  this 
House  or  to  myself?  What  must  the  people  of 
South  America  think  of  this  sympathy  for  Fer- 
dinand, at  a  moment  when  they,  as  well  as  the 
people  of  the  Peninsula  themselves,  (if  we  are 
to  believe  the  late  accounts,  and  God  send  they 
may  be  true,)  are  struggling  for  liberty  ? 

Again  :  When  we  declared  our  late  just  war 
against  Great  Britain,  did  we  wait  for  a  moment 
when  she  was  free  from  embarrassment  and  dis- 
tress ;  or  did  we  not  rather  wisely  select  a  period 
when  there  was  the  greatest  probability  of  giv- 
ing success  to  our  arms  ?  What  was  the  com- 
plaint in  England ;  what  the  language  of  fac- 
tion here?  Was  it  not  that  we  had  cruelly 
proclaimed  the  war  at  a  time  when  she  was 
struggling  for  the  liberties  of  the  world  ?  How 
truly,  let  the  sequel  and  the  voice  of  impartial 
history  tell. 

Whilst  he  could  not,  therefore,  Mr.  0.  said, 
persuade  himself  that  the  reasons  assigned  by 
the  President  for  postponing  the  subject  of  our 
Spanish  affairs  until  another  session,  were  en- 
titled to  all  the  weight  which  he  seemed  to 
think  belonged  to  them,  he  did  not,  neverthe- 
less, regret  that  the  particular  project  recom- 
mended by  the  Committee  of  Foreign  Relations 
was  thus  to  be  disposed  of;  for  it  was  war,  war, 
attempted  to  be  disguised.  And  if  we  went  to 
war,  he  thought  it  should  have  no  other  limit 
than  indemnity  for  the  past,  and  security  for  the 
future.  He  had  no  idea  of  the  wisdom  of  that 
measure  of  hostility  which  would  bind  us,  whilst 
the  other  party  is  left  free. 

Before  he  proceeded  to  consider  the  particu- 
lar propositions  which  the  resolutions  contained 
which  he  had  had  the  honor  of  submitting,  it 
was  material  to  determine  the  actual  posture  of 
our  relations  to  Spain.  He  considered  it  too 
clear  to  need  discussion,  that  the  treaty  was  at 
an  end ;  that  it  contained,  in  its  present  state, 
no  obligation  whatever  upon  us,  and  no  obliga- 
tion whatever  on  the  part  of  Spain.  It  was  as 
if  it  had  never  been.  We  are  remitted  back  to 
the  state  of  our  rights  and  our  demands  which 
existed  prior  to  the  conclusion  of  the  treaty, 
with  this  only  difference,  that,  instead  of  being 
merged  in,  or  weakened  by  the  treaty,  they 
have  acquired  all  the  additional  force  which 
the  intervening  time  and  the  faithlessness  of 
Spain  can  communicate  to  them.  Standing  on 
this  position,  he  should  not  deem  it  necessary 
VOL.  VL— 37 


to  interfere  with  the  treaty-making  power,  if  a 
fixed  and  persevering  purpose  had  not  been  in- 
dicated by  it,  to  obtain  the  revival  of  the  treaty. 
Now,  he  thought  it  a  bad  treaty.  The  interest 
of  the  country,  as  it  appeared  to  him,  forbade 
its  renewal.  Being  gone,  it  was  perfectly  in- 
comprehensible to  him  why  so  much  solicitude 
was  manifested  to  restore  it.  Yet  it  is  clung  to 
with  the  same  sort  of  frantic  affection  with 
which  the  bereaved  mother  hugs  her  dead  in- 
fant in  the  vain  hope  of  bringing  it  back  to  life. 

Has  the  House  of  Representatives  a  right  to 
express  its  opinion  upon  the  arrangement  made 
in  that  treaty  ?  The  President,  by  asking  Con- 
gress to  carry  it  into  effect,  has  given  us  juris- 
diction of  the  subject,  if  we  had  it  not  before. 
We  derive  from  that  circumstance  the  right  to 
consider — first,  if  there  be  a  treaty ;  secondly, 
if  we  ought  to  carry  it  into  effect ;  and,  thirdly, 
if  there  be  no  treaty,  whether  it  be  expedient  to 
assert  our  rights,  independent  of  the  treaty.  It 
will  not  be  contended  that  we  are  restricted  to 
that  specific  mode  of  redress  which  the  Presi- 
dent intimated  in  his  opening  Message. 

The  first  resolution  which  he  had  presented, 
asserted  that  the  constitution  vests  in  the  Con- 
gress of  the  United  States  the  power  to  dispose 
of  the  territory  belonging  to  them ;  and  that 
no  treaty,  purporting  to  alienate  any  portion 
thereof,  is  valid,  without  the  concurrence  of 
Congress. 

The  proposition  which  it  asserts  was,  he 
thought,  sufficiently  maintained  by  barely  read- 
ing the  clause  in  the  constitution  on  which  it 
rests :  "  The  Congress  shall  have  power  to  dis- 
pose of,  &c.,  the  territory,  or  other  property, 
belonging  to  the  United  States." 

It  was  far  from  his  wish  to  renew  at  large  a 
discussion  of  the  treaty-making  power.  The 
Constitution  of  the  United  States  had  not  de- 
fined the  precise  limits  of  that  power,  because, 
from  the  nature  of  it,  they  could  not  be  pre- 
scribed. It  appeared  to  him,  however,  that  no 
safe  American  statesman  would  assign  to  it  a 
boundless  scope.  He  presumed,  for  example, 
that  it  would  not  be  contended  that,  in  a  Gov- 
ernment which  was  itself  limited,  there  was  a 
functionary  without  limit.  The  first  great  bound 
to  the  power  in  question,  he  apprehended,  was 
that  no  treaty  could  constitutionally  transcend 
the  very  objects  and  purposes  of  the  Govern- 
ment itself.  He  thought,  also,  that,  wherever 
there  were  specific  grants  of  power  to  Con- 
gress, they  limited  or  controlled,  or,  he  would 
rather  say,  modified  the  exercise  of  the  general 
grant  of  the  treaty-making  power,  upon  the 
principle  which  was  familiar  to  every  one.  He 
did  not  insist  that  the  treaty-making  power 
could  not  act  upon  the  subjects  committed  to 
the  charge  of  Congress ;  he  merely  contended 
that  the  concurrence  of  Congress  in  its  action 
upon  those  subjects,  was  necessary.  Nor  would 
he  iiisi.st  that  the  concurrence  should  precede 
that  action.  It  would  be  always  most  desirable 
that  it  should  precede  it,  if  convenient,  to 
guard  against  the  commitment  of  Congress,  on 


578 


ABRIDGMENT  OF  THE 


H.  OP  R.] 


The  Spanish  Trtaty. 


[APRIL,  1820. 


the  one  hand,  by  the  Executive,  or,  on  the 
other,  what  might  seem  to  be  a  violation  of  the 
faith  of  the  country,  pledged  for  the  ratification 
of  the  treaty.  But  he  was  perfectly  aware 
that  it  would  be  very  often  highly  inconvenient 
to  deliberate,  in  a  body  so  numerous  as  Con- 
gress, on  the  nature  of  those  terms  on  which 
it  might  be  proper  to  treat  with  foreign  powers. 
In  the  view  of  the  subject  which  he  had  been 
taking,  there  was  a  much  higher  degree  of  se- 
curity to  the  interests  of  the  country.  For, 
with  all  his  respect  for  the  President  and  Sen- 
ate, it  could  not  disparage  the  wisdom  of  their 
councils  to  add  to  it  that  of  this  House  also. 
But  if  the  concurrence  of  this  House  be  not 
necessary  in  the  cases  asserted ;  if  there  be  no 
restriction  upon  the  power  he  was  considering, 
it  might  draw  to  itself  and  absorb  the  whole  of 
the  powers  of  Government.  To  contract  alli- 
ances, to  stipulate  for  raising  troops  to  be  em- 
ployed in  a  common  war  about  to  be  waged,  to 
grant  subsidies,  even  to  introduce  foreign  troops 
within  the  bosom  of  the  country,  were  not  un- 
frequent  instances  of  the  exercise  of  this  power ; 
and  if,  in  all  such  cases,  the  honor  and  faith  of 
the  nation  were  committed,  by  the  exclusive 
act  of  the  President  and  Senate,  the  melancholy 
duty  alone  might  be  left  to  Congress  of  record- 
ing the  rum  of  the  Republic. 

The  House  of  Representatives  has  uniformly 
maintained  its  right  to  deliberate  upon  those 
treaties  in  which  their  co-operation  was  asked 
by  the  Executive.  In  the  first  case  that  oc- 
curred in  the  progress  of  our  Government,  that 
of  the  treaty  commonly  called  Mr.  Jay's  Treaty, 
after  General  Washington  refused  to  commu- 
nicate his  instructions  to  that  Minister,  the 
House  asserted  its  right,  by  fifty  odd  votes  to 
thirty  odd.  In  the  last  case  that  occurred,  the 
Convention  of  1815,  with  Great  Britain,  al- 
though it  passed  off  upon  what  was  called  a 
compromise,  this  House  substantially  obtained 
ite  object ;  for,  if  that  Convention  operated  as 
a  repeal  of  the  laws  with  which  it  was  incom- 
patible, the  act  which  passed  was  altogether  un- 
necessary. 

Supposing,  however,  that  no  treaty  which 
undertakes  to  dispose  of  the  territory  of  the 
United  States  is  valid  without  the  concurrence 
of  Congress,  it  may  be  contended  that  such 
treaty  may  constitutionally  fix  the  limits  of  the 
territories  of  the  United  States,  where  they  are 
disputed,  without  the  co-operation  of  Congress. 
He  admitted  it,  when  the  fixation  of  the  limits 
simply  was  the  object,  as  in  the  case  of  the 
river  St.  Croix,  or  the  more  recent  stipulation 
in  the  Treaty  of  Ghent,  or  in  that  of  the  Treaty 
with  Spain  in  1795.  In  all  these  cases,  the 
treaty-making  power  merely  reduces  to  cer- 
tainty that  which  was  before  unascertained. 
It  announces  the  fact ;  it  proclaims  in  a  tangi- 
ble form  the  existence  of  the  boundary  ;  it  does 
not  make  a  new  boundary;  it  asserts  only 
where  the  new  boundary  was.  But  it  cannot 
under  color  of  fixing  a  boundary  previously  ex- 
isting, though  not  in  fact  marked,  undertake  to 


cede  away,  without  the  concurrence  of  Con- 
gress, whole  provinces.  If  the  subject  be  one 
of  a  mixed  character ;  if  it  consists  partly  of 
cession,  and  partly  of  the  fixation  of  a  prior 
limit,  he  contended  that  the  President  must 
come  here  for  the  consent  of  Congress.  But  in 
the  Florida  Treaty  it  was  not  pretended  that 
the  object  was  simply  a  declaration  of  where 
the  western  limit  of  Louisiana  was  ;  it  was,  on 
the  contrary,  the  case  of  an  avowed  cession  of 
territory  from  the  United  States  to  Spain.  The 
whole  of  the  correspondence  manifested  that 
the  respective  parties  to  the  negotiation  were 
not  engaged  so  much  in  an  inquiry  where  the 
limit  of  Louisiana  was,  as  that  they  were  ex- 
changing overtures  as  to  where  it  should  be. 
Hence  we  find  various  limits  proposed  and  dis- 
cussed. At  one  time  the  Mississippi  is  pro- 
posed; then  the  Missouri;  then  a  river  dis- 
charging itself  into  the  gulf  east  of  the  Sabine ; 
a  vast  desert  is  proposed  to  separate  the  terri- 
tories of  the  two  powers ;  and  finally  the  Sa- 
bine, which  neither  of  the  parties  had  ever  con- 
tended was  the  ancient  limit  of  Louisiana,  is 
adopted,  and  the  boundary  is  extended  from  its 
source  by  a  line .  perfectly  new  and  arbitrary ; 
and  the  treaty  itself  proclaims  its  purpose  to  be 
a  cession  from  the  United  States  to  Spain. 

The  second  resolution  comprehended  three 
propositions ;  the  first  of  which  was,  that  the 
equivalent  granted  by  Spam  to  the  United 
States  for  the  province  of  Texas  was  inadequate. 
To  determine  this  it  was  necessary  to  estimate 
the  value  of  what  we  gave  and  of  what  we  re- 
ceived. This  involved  an  inquiry  into  our 
claim  to  Texas.  It  was  not  his  purpose  to 
enter  at  large  into  this  subject.  He  presumed 
the  spectacle  would  not  be  presented  of  ques- 
tioning, in  this  branch  of  the  Government,  our 
title  to  Texas,  which  had  been  constantly  main- 
tained by  the  Executive,  for  more  than  fifteen 
years  past,  under  three  several  Administrations. 
He  was  at  the  same  time  ready  and  prepared  to 
make  out  our  title,  if  any  one  in  this  House 
were  fearless  enough  to  controvert  it.  He 
would  for  the  present  briefly  state  that  the  man 
who  is  most  familiar  with  the  transactions  of 
this  Government — who  so  largely  participated 
in  the  formation  of  the  constitution,  and  in  all 
that  has  been  done  under  it ;  who,  besides  the 
eminent  services  that  he  has  rendered  his  coun- 
try, principally  contributed  to  the  acquisition 
of  Louisiana ;  and  who  must  be  supposed,  from 
his  various  opportunities,  best  to  know  its 
limits — declared,  fifteen  years  ago,  that  our 
title  to  the  Rio  del  Norte  was  as  Avell  founded 
as  it  was  to  the  island  of  New  Orleans. 
.  [Here  Mr.  C.  read  an  extract  from  a  memoir 
'presented  in  1805,  by  Mr.  Monroe  and  Mr. 
Pinckney,  to  Mr.  Cevallos,  proving  that  the 
boundary  of  Louisiana  extended  eastward  to 
the  Perdido,  and  westward  to  the  Rio  del 
Norte;  in  which  they  say:  "The  facts  and 
principles  which  justify  this  conclusion  are  so 
satisfactory  to  their  Government  as  to  convince 
it  that  the  United  States  have  not  a  better 


DEBATES  OF  CONGRESS. 


579 


APRIL,  1820.] 


The  Spanish  Treaty. 


[EL  OF  R. 


right  to  the  island  of  New  Orleans,  under  the 
cession  referred  to,  than  they  have  to  the  whole 
district  of  territory  thus  described." 

The  title  to  the  Perdido  on  the  one  side,  and 
to  the  Rio  del  Norte  on  the  other,  rested  on  the 
same  principle — the  priority  of  discovery  and 
occupation  by  France.  Spain  had  first  dis- 
covered and  made  an  establishment  at  Pensa- 
cola — France  at  Dauphin  Island  in  the  Bay  of 
Mobile.  The  intermediate  space  was  unoccu- 
pied ;  and  the  principle  observed  among  Euro- 
pean nations  having  contiguous  settlements — 
being  that  the  unoccupied  space  between  them 
should  be  equally  divided — was  applied  to  it, 
and  the  Perdido  thus  became  the  common 
boundary.  So,  west  of  the  Mississippi,  La  Salle, 
acting  under  France,  in  1682  or  1683,  first  dis- 
covered that  river.  In  1685,  he  made  an  estab- 
lishment on  the  Bay  of  St.  Bernard,  west  of 
the  Colorado,  emptying  into  it.  The  nearest 
Spanish  settlement  was  Panuco,  and  the  Rio 
del  Norte,  about  the  midway  line,  became  the 
common  boundary. 

All  accounts  concurred  in  representing  Texas 
to  be  extremely  valuable.  Its  superficial  extent 
was  three  or  four  times  greater  than  that  of 
Florida.  The  climate  was  delicious ;  the  soil 
fertile  ;  the  margins  of  the  rivers  abounding  in 
live  oak;  and  the  country  admitting  of  easy 
settlement.  It  possessed,  moreover,  if  he  were 
not  misinformed,  one  of  the  finest  ports  on  the 
Gulf  of  Mexico.  The  productions  of  which  it 
was  capable  were  suited  to  our  wants.  The 
unfortunate  captive  of  St.  Helena  wished  for 
ships,  commerce,  and  colonies.  We  have  them 
all,  if  we  do  not  wantonly  throw  them  away. 
The  colonies  of  other  countries  are  separated 
from  them  by  vast  seas,  requiring  great  expense 
to  protect  them,  and  are  held  subject  to  a  con- 
stant risk  of  their  being  torn  from  their  grasp. 
Our  colonies,  on  the  contrary,  are  united  to 
and  form  a  part  of  our  continent ;  and  the  same 
Mississippi,  from  whose  rich  deposit  the  best  of 
them  (Louisiana)  has  been  formed,  will  transport 
on  her  bosom  the  brave  and  patriotic  men  from 
her  tributary  streams  to  defend  and  preserve 
the  next  most  valuable,  the  province  of  Texas. 

We  wanted  Florida,  or  rather  we  sTuttt  want 
it,  or,  to  speak  yet  more  correctly,  we  want  no- 
body else  to  have  it.  We  do  not  desire  it  for 
immediate  use.  It  fills  a  space  in  our  imag- 
ination, and  we  wish  it  to  complete  the  arron- 
dissement  of  our  territory.  It  must  certainly 
come  to  us.  The  ripened  fruit  will  not  more 
surely  fall.  Florida  is  enclosed  in  between 
Alabama  and  Georgia,  and  cannot  escape. 
Texas  may.  Whether  we  get  Florida  now  or 
some  five  or  ten  years  hence,  is  of  no  conse- 
quence, provided  no  other  power  gets  it ;  and 
if  any  other  power  should  attempt  to  take  it, 
an  existing  act  of  Congress  authorizes  the  Presi- 
dent to  prevent  it.  He  was  not  disposed  to  dis- 
parage Florida,  but  its  intrinsic  value  was  in- 
comparably less  than  that  of  Texas.  Almost 
its  sole  value  was  military.  The  possession  of 
it  would  undoubtedly  communicate  some  addi- 


tional security  to  Louisiana  and  to  the  American 
commerce  in  the  Gulf  of  Mexico.  But  it  was 
not  very  essential  to  have  it  for  protection  to 
Georgia  and  Alabama.  There  could  be  no  at- 
tack upon  either  of  them,  by  a  foreign  power, 
on  the  side  of  Florida.  It  now  covered  those 
States.  Annexed  to  the  United  States,  and  we 
should  have  to  extend  our  line  of  defence  so  as 
to  embrace  Florida.  Far  from  being,  therefore, 
a  source  of  immediate  profit,  it  would  be  the 
occasion  of  considerable  immediate  expense. 
The  acquisition  of  it  was  certainly  a  fair  object 
of  our  policy ;  and  ought  never  to  be  lost  sight 
of.  It  was  even  a  laudable  ambition  in  any 
Chief  Magistrate  to  endeavor  to  illustrate  the 
epoch  of  his  administration  by  such  an  acqui- 
sition. It  was  less  necessary,  however,  to  fill 
the  measure  of  the  honors  of  the  present  Chief 
Magistrate  than  that  of  any  other  man,  in  con- 
sequence of  the  large  share  which  he  had  in 
obtaining  all  Louisiana.  But,  whoever  may 
deserve  the  renown  which  may  attend  the  in- 
corporation of  Florida  into  our  Confederacy,  it 
is  our  business,  as  the  representatives  of  the 
people,  who  are  to  pay  the  price  of  it,  to  take 
care,  as  far  as  we  constitutionally  can,  that  too 
much  is  not  given.  He  would  not  give  Texas 
for  Florida  in  a  naked  exchange.  We  were 
bound  by  the  treaty  to  give  not  merely  Texas, 
but  five  millions  of  dollars  also,  and  the  excess 
beyond  that  sum  of  all  our  claims  upon  Spain, 
which  have  been  variously  estimated  at  from 
fifteen  to  twenty  millions  of  dollars. 

The  public  is  not  generally  apprised  of  an- 
other large  consideration  which  passed  from  us 
to  Spain,  if  an  interpretation  which  he  had 
heard  given  to  the  treaty  were  just,  and  it  was 
certainly  plausible.  Subsequent  to  the  transfer, 
but  before  the  delivery,  of  Louisiana  from  Spain 
to  France,  the  then  Governor  of  New  Orleans 
(he  believed  his  name  was  Gayoso)  made  a  num- 
ber of  concessions  upon  the  payment  of  an  in- 
considerable pecuniary  consideration,  amount- 
ing to  between  nine  hundred  thousand  and  a 
million  of  acres  of  land,  similar  to  those  re- 
cently made  at  Madrid  to  the  royal  favorites. 
This  land  is  situated  in  Feliciana,  and  between 
the  Mississippi  and  the  Amite,  in  the  present 
State  of  Louisiana.  It  was  granted  to  persons 
who  possessed  the  very  best  information  of  the 
country,  and  is  no  doubt,  therefore,  the  choice 
land.  The  United  States  have  never  recognized, 
but  have  constantly  denied  the  validity  of  these 
concessions.  It  is  contended  by  the  parties 
concerned  that  they  are  confirmed  by  the  late 
treaty.  By  the  second  article  his  Catholic 
Majesty  cedes  to  the  United  States,  in  full  prop- 
erty and  sovereignty,  all  the  territories  which 
belong  to  him,  situated  to  the  eastward  of  the 
Mississippi,  known  by  the  name  of  East  and 
West  Florida.  And  by  the  eighth  article  all 
the  grants  of  land  made  before  the  24th  of  Jan- 
uary, 1818,  by  his  Catholic  Majesty,  or  by  his 
lawful  authorities,  shall  be  ratified  and  con- 
firmed, &c.  Now,  the  grants  in  question,  hav- 
ing been  made  long  prior  to  that  day,  are  sup- 


580 


ABRIDGMENT  OF  THE 


H.  OF  R.] 


The  Spanish  Treaty, 


[APRIL,  1820. 


posed  to  be  confirmed.  He  understood,  from  a 
person  interested,  that  Don  Onis  had  assured 
him  it  was  his  intention  to  confirm  them. 
Whether  the  American  negotiator  had  the  same 
intention  or  not,  he  (Mr.  0.)  did  not  know.  It 
will  not  be  pretended  that  the  letter  of  Mr. 
Adams,  of  the  12th  of  March,  1818,  in  which 
he  declines  to  treat  any  further  with  respect  to 
any  part  of  the  territory  included  within  the 
limits  of  the  State  of  Louisiana,  can  control 
the  operation  of  the  subsequent  treaty.  That 
treaty  must  be  interpreted  by  what  is  in  it,  and 
not  by  what  is  out  of  it.  The  overtures  which 
passed  between  the  parties  respectively,  prior 
to  the  conclusion  of  the  treaty,  can  neither  re- 
strict nor  enlarge  its  meaning.  Moreover,  when 
Mr.  Madison  occupied,  in  1811,  the  country  be- 
tween the  Mississippi  and  the  Perdido,  he  de- 
clared that,  in  our  hands,  it  should  be,  as  it  has 
been,  subject  to  negotiation. 

It  results,  then,  that  we  have  given  for  Flor- 
ida, charged  and  incumbered  as  it  is — 

1st.  Unincumbered  Texas ; 

2d.  Five  millions  of  dollars  ; 

3d.  A  surrender  of  all  our  claims  upon  Spain, 
not  included  in  that  five  millions ;  and, 

4th.  If  the  interpretation  of  the  treaty  which 
he  had  stated  were  well  founded,  about  a  mil- 
lion of  acres  of  the  best  unseated  land  in  the 
State  of  Louisiana,  worth  perhaps  ten  millions 
of  dollars. 

The  first  proposition  contained  in  the  second 
resolution  was  thus,  Mr.  0.  thought,  fully  sus- 
tained. The  next  was,  that  it  was  inexpedient 
to  cede  Texas  to  any  foreign  power.  Mr.  C. 
said  he  was  opposed  to  the  transfer  of  any  part 
of  the  territories  of  the  United  States  to  any 
foreign  power.  They  constituted,  in  his  opin- 
ion, a  sacred  inheritance  of  posterity,  which  we 
ought  to  preserve  unimpaired.  He  wished  it 
was,  if  it  were  not  a  fundamental  and  inviolable 
law  of  the  land,  that  they  should  be  inalienable 
to  any  foreign  power.  It  was  quite  evident 
that  it  was  in  the  order  of  Providence ;  that  it 
was  an  inevitable  result  of  the  principle  of 
population,  that  the  whole  of  this  continent,  in- 
cluding Texas,  was  to  be  peopled  in  process  of 
time.  The  question  was,  by  whose  race  shall 
it  be  peopled  ?  In  our  hands  it  will  be  peopled 
by  freemen,  and  the  sons  of  freemen,  carrying 
with  them  our  language,  our  laws,  and  our 
liberties ;  establishing  on  the  prairies  of  Texas 
temples  dedicated  to  the  simple  and  devout 
modes  of  worship  of  God  incident  to  our  re- 
ligion, and  temples  dedicated  to  that  freedom 
which  we  adore  next  to  Him.  In  the  hands  of 
others,  it  may  become  the  habitation  of  despot- 
ism and  of  slaves,  subject  to  the  vile  dominion 
of  the  inquisition  and  of  superstition.  He  knew 
that  there  were  honest  and  enlightened  men 
who  feared  that  our  Confederacy  was  already 
too  large,  and  that  there  was  danger  of  disrup- 
tion arising  out  of  the  want  of  reciprocal  co- 
herence between  its  several  parts.  He  hoped 
and  believed  that  the  principle  of  representation, 
and  the  formation  of  States,  would  preserve  us 


a  united  people.  But  if  Texas,  after  being 
peopled  by  us,  and  grappling  with  us,  should,  at 
some  distant  day,  break  off,  she  will  carry  along 
with  her  a  noble  crew,  consisting  of  our  chil- 
dren's children.  The  difference  between  those 
who  might  be  disinclined  to  its  annexation  to 
our  Confederacy,  and  him,  was,  that  their  sys- 
tem began  where  his  might,  possibly,  in  some 
distant  future  day,  terminate ;  and  that  theirs 
began  with  a  foreign  race,  aliens  to  every  thing 
that  we  hold  dear,  and  his  ended  with  a  race 
partaking  of  all  our  qualities. 

The  last  proposition  which  the  second  reso- 
lution affirms,  is,  that  it  is  inexpedient  to  renew 
the  treaty.  If  Spain  had  promptly  ratified  it, 
bad  as  it  is,  he  would  have  acquiesced  in  it. 
After  the  protracted  negotiation  which  it  ter- 
minated ;  after  the  irritating  and  exasperating 
correspondence  which  preceded  it,  he  would 
have  taken  the  treaty  as  a  man  who  has  passed 
a  long  and  restless  night,  turning  and  tossing  in 
his  bed,  snatches  at  day  an  hour's  disturbed  re- 
pose. But  she  would  not  ratify  it ;  she  would 
not  consent  to  be  bound  by  it,  and  she  has 
liberated  us  from  it.  Is  it  wise  to  renew  the 
negotiation,  if  it  is  to  be  recommenced  by  an- 
nouncing to  her  at  once  our  ultimatum  ?  Shall 
we  not  give  her  the  vantage  ground  ?  In  early 
life  he  had  sometimes  indulged  in  a  species  of 
amusement,  which  years  and  experience  had 
determined  him  to  renounce,  which,  if  the  com- 
mittee would  allow  him  to  use  it,  furnished  him 
with  a  figure — Shall  we  enter  on  the  game, 
with  our  hand  exposed  to  the  adversary,  whilst 
he  shuffles  the  cards  to  acquire  more  strength  ? 
What  has  lost  us  his  ratification  of  the  treaty  ? 
Incontestably  our  importunity  to  procure  the 
ratification,  and  the  hopes  which  that  oppor- 
tunity inspired,  that  he  could  yet  obtain  more 
from  us.  Let  us  undeceive  him.  Let  us  pro- 
claim the  acknowledged  truth,  that  the  treaty 
is  prejudicial  to  the  interests  of  this  country. 
Are  we  not  told,  by  the  Secretary  of  State,  in 
the  bold  and  confident  assertion,  that  Don  Onis 
was  authorized  to  grant  us  much  more,  and 
that  Spain  dare  not  deny  his  instructions? 
That  the  line  of  demarcation  is  far  within  his 
limits  ?  If  she  would  have  then  granted  us 
more,  is  her  position  now  more  favorable  to  her 
in  the  negotiation  ?  In  our  relations  to  foreign 
powers,  it  may  be  sometimes  politic  to  sacrifice 
a  portion  of  our  rights  to  secure  the  residue. 
But  is  Spain  such  a  power  as  that  it  becomes 
us  to  sacrifice  those  rights  ?  Is  she  entitled  to 
it  by  her  justice,  by  her  observance  of  good 
faith,  or  by  her  possible  annoyance  of  us  in  the 
event  of  war  ?  She  will  seek,  as  she  has  sought, 
procrastination  in  the  negotiation,  taking  the 
treaty  as  the  basis.  She  will  dare  to  offend  us, 
as  she  has  insulted  us,  by  asking  the  disgrace- 
ful stipulation  that  we  shah1  not  recognize  the 
patriots.  Let  us  put  aside  the  treaty ;  tell  her 
to  grant  us  our  rights,  to  their  uttermost  extent 
And  if  she  still  palters,  let  us  assert  those  rights 
by  whatever  measures  it  is  for  the  interest  of 
our  country  to  adopt. 


DEBATES  OF  CONGRESS. 


581 


APRIL,  1820.] 


The  Spanish  Treaty. 


[H.  OF  R. 


If  the  treaty  were  abandoned ;  if  it  were  not 
on  the  contrary  signified,  too  distinctly,  that 
there  was  to  be  a  continued  and  unremitting 
endeavor  to  obtain  its  revival,  he  would  not 
think  it  advisable  for  this  House  to  interpose. 
But,  with  all  the  information  in  our  possession, 
and  holding  the  opinions  which  he  entertained, 
he  thought  it  the  bonnden  duty  of  the  House 
to  adopt  the  resolutions.  He  had  acquitted 
himself  of  what  he  deemed  a  solemn  duty,  in 
bringing  up  the  subject.  Others  would  dis- 
charge theirs  according  to  their  own  sense  of 
them. 

Mr.  LOWXDES  followed  Mr.  CLAY  in  the  de- 
bate. Before  entering  into  a  discussion  of  the 
merits  of  the  propositions  submitted  by  the 
Speaker,  he  said,  it  appeared  to  him  there  was 
a  previous  question  to  be  settled,  the  deter- 
mination of  which  might  preclude  a  decision 
of  the  main  question  on  its  merits.  That  ques- 
tion was,  whether  the  attempt,  on  the  part  of 
this  House,  to  take  the  conduct  of  negotiations 
with  foreign  powers  into  its  hands  would  not 
be  greatly  prejudicial  to  the  interests  of  the 
country?  It  was  worthy  of  inquiry,  also, 
whether  it  was  consistent  with  prudence,  or 
with  wisdom,  to  engage  in  the  discussion  of 
propositions,  the  adoption  of  which  would  have 
that  effect  ? 

Mr.  L.  said  he  was  far  from  considering  the 
two  resolutions  now  before  the  committee  as 
of  the  same  character.  He  was  ready  to  admit 
that  the  consideration  of  the  question,  how  far 
this  House  has  a  right  to  interpose  in  respect  to 
treaties — of  this  theoretically  abstract  question 
— was  not  liable  to  the  same  objection  as  the 
discussion  of  the  second  resolve ;  but  he  should 
consider  the  consumption  of  time  in  its  dis- 
cussion utterly  useless  and  wasteful  at  this  mo- 
ment. 

The  gentleman  from  Kentucky  had  made  a 
remark,  in  relation  to  the  late  communication 
of  the  President  to  Congress,  which,  Mr.  L. 
said,  appeared  to  him  to  have  arisen  entirely 
from  misapprehension  of  the  nature  of  that 
communication.  The  gentleman  considered  the 
Message  as  founded  on  the  wishes  of  those  for- 
eign powers  whose  views  on  the  subject  our 
Government  had  been  apprised  of.  The  best 
attention  which  he  had  been  able  to  bestow  on 
the  subject,  Mr.  L.  said,  had  led  to  conclusions 
totally  different  from  this.  The  papers  accom- 
panying the  Message  were  such  as  ought  to 
have  been  communicated  for  the  information  of 
Congress,  but  were  not  the  only  grounds  of  the 
Message.  Could  any  man  read  the  Message 
without  seeing  that  the  ground  of  delay  recom- 
mended by  the  President,  is  the  probability, 
of  which  evidence  is  furnished  in  part  by  com- 
munications from  the  Ministers  of  foreign  powers 
directly  and  indirectly  to  our  Government,  that 
the  object  of  the  United  States  may  be  accom- 
plished without  a  resort  to  such  measures  as 
has  been  recommended  by  a  committee  of  this 
House  ?  It  would  be  an  extravagance  of  inde- 
pendence to  say,  not  only  that  foreign  nations 


should  not  interpose  in  a  controversy  between 
us  and  a  foreign  power,  but  that  they  should 
not  even  be  allowed  to  furnish  us  with  facts — 
with  that  information  without  which  there 
was  no  wisdom  in  the  conduct  of  foreign  nego- 
tiations. Mr.  L.  quoted  the  Message  of  the 
President,  to  show  that  the  only  ground  on 
which  a  delay  of  coercive  measures  against 
Spain  was  recommended,  was,  that  there  was 
reason  to  believe  that  the  object  of  the  United 
States  might  be  attained  without  resorting  to 
them.  Was  it  at  all  extraordinary  that  informa- 
tion on  this  head  should  be  obtained  from  for- 
eign powers  ?  Was  it  at  all  extraordinary  that 
Spain  should  not  develop  her  views  to  us,  who 
are  the  adverse  party,  yet  should  disclose  them 
to  a  power  which  is  not  a  principal  in  the  con- 
troversy, but  her  ally  and  a  mutual  friend? 
The  Executive  does  not  reject  information  from 
any  quarter,  and,  least  of  all,  from  a  quarter 
where  it  is  most  to  be  relied  on.  With  regard 
to  foreign  interference,  he  should  repel,  with  as 
much  indignation  as  the  gentleman  from  Ken- 
tucky, any  attempt  to  intermeddle  in  our  internal 
affairs.  Yet,  every  man  who  would  reflect  on 
the  condition  in  which,  in  the  lapse  of  time,  the 
United  States  may  be  placed,  would  see,  that 
there  might  be  cases  in  which,  with  all  our  re- 
pugnance to  the  interposition  of  foreign  nations, 
we  may  be  induced,  as  to  collisions  with  foreign 
States,  to  consent  to  the  arbitration  of  other 
foreign  States,  not  interested  in  the  controversy. 
Thus,  such  a  provision  had  been  made  in  regard 
to  certain  cases  embraced  by  the  Treaty  of 
Ghent;  and,  at  this  very  moment,  one  of  the 
questions  arising  between  us  and  Great  Britain 
in  regard  to  that  treaty  had  been  referred  to 
the  arbitration  of  the  Emperor  of  Russia,  Ifj 
as  in  the  case  provided  for  by  the  Treaty  of 
Ghent,  the  mediation  of  a  foreign  power  may 
be  accepted  with  respect  to  questions  of  boun- 
daries, may  we  not  go  so  far  as  to  say  that  there 
may  be  cases  in  which  we  shall  pay  consider- 
able deference  to  the  opinions  of  a  disinterested 
foreign  power  where  territorial  acquisitions  are 
concerned  ? 

But,  Mr.  L.  said,  a  remark  of  the  gentleman 
from  Kentucky,  apart  from  the  main  question 
before  the  committee,  seemed  to  require  that 
he  should,  before  proceeding  further,  say  some- 
thing of  the  condition  in  which  the  Committee 
of  Foreign  Relations,  of  which  he  was  one,  was 
placed  by  the  Message  from  the  President. 
Whether  it  was  owing  to  insensibility  or  not, 
Mr.  L.  said  he  did  not  feel  that  awkwardness 
which  the  gentleman  from  Kentucky  seemed  to 
suppose  that  committee  must  feel.  When  the 
committee  recommended  the  immediate  occu- 
pation of  Florida,  and  when  they  withdrew 
that  recommendation,  they  acted  on  both  occa- 
sions from  the  same  motive.  With  one  infor- 
mation one  course  might  be  correct,  whilst  with 
other  information  a  different  course  would  be 
proper.  Though  not  satisfied  that  a  different 
course  should  be  pursued  from  that  recom- 
mended by  the  committee,  yet,  a  different 


582 


ABRIDGMENT  OF  THE 


H.  OF  R] 


The  Spanish  Treaty. 


[APRIL,  1820. 


course  being  recommended  by  circumstances 
subsequently  disclosed,  indicating  the  feeling 
of  the  nation  and  the  sentiment  of  this  House, 
would  a  discussion  of  the  subject  have  been 
deemed  by  any  gentleman  advantageous  to  the 
interests  of  the  country  ?  Ought  the  commit- 
tee to  have  urged  a  decision  on  their  proposition, 
when  no  possible  advantage  could  have  resulted 
from  it  ?  Must  it  not,  on  the  contrary,  have  led 
to  a  discussion  which  would  be  as  injurious  as 
he  would  show  that  the  present  discussion 
would  be,  should  he  not  succeed  in  a  motion 
which  he  should  make,  as  indiscreet  as  the  gen- 
tleman might  think  it,  to  prevent  the  further 
discussion  of  it? 

A  strong  objection,  even  to  a  discussion  of 
the  resolutions  of  the  Speaker,  was,  that,  in  re- 
lation to  both  of  them,  no  possible  benefit 
could  arise  from  the  discussion  of  them — nay, 
that  a  discussion,  in  such  a  manner  as  to  lead 
to  a  just  decision  of  them,  was  impracticable. 
He  asked  any  gentleman  to  say  whether  it  was 
not  apparent  that  the  questions  involved  in 
them  could  not  now  be  freely  discussed  ?  Under 
the  circumstances,  it  certainly  was ;  and,  said 
he,  a  discussion  into  which  we  enter  manacled, 
we  ought  not  to  enter  at  all. 

With  regard  to  the  treaty-making  power,  Mr. 
L.  said  he  was  willing  to  admit,  that,  in  rela- 
tion to  those  stipulations  which  apply  to  sub- 
jects such  as  are  among  the  enumerated  powers 
of  Congress,  the  sanction  of  the  Kepresentative 
body  to  them  was  necessary.  He  had,  how- 
ever, no  intention  to  enter  into  this  general  ar- 
gument. If  discussed,  said  he,  it  would  force 
us  into  an  extent  of  discussion  for  which  the 
limits  of  the  cession  would  be  too  narrow.  It 
would  include  not  only  all  the  discussions  of 
1795  and  1816,  but  would  open  new  grounds. 
The  Speaker  himself,  he  presumed,  would  not 
be  disposed  to  insist  that  this  House  has  a  pow- 
er, in  relation  to  a  treaty  stipulating  for  a  ces- 
sion of  territory,  which  it  has  not  in  relation 
to  a  stipulation  for  the  payment  of  money.  If 
there  be  a  power  peculiarly  ours,  said  Mr.  L.,  it 
is  the  power  over  the  purse  of  the  nation.  If 
it  be  contended  that  neither  can  territory  be 
ceded,  nor  money  paid,  without  the  consent  of 
this  House,  there  is  a  question  beyond  that 
again ;  will  you  maintain  that  a  claim,  on  our 
part,  for  money  or  for  territory,  however  well 
founded,  cannot  be  yielded  ?  Such  cases  were 
peculiarly  a  subject  for  treaty  stipulations. 
The  very  treaty  of  which  we  are  speaking  con- 
tains a  renunciation  of  claims.  In  case  of  a 
claim  on  your  part,  not  recognized  by  the  oppo- 
site party,  your  rights  may  be  renounced,  by 
treaty,  for  an  equivalent,  &c.  Mr.  L.  said  he 
had  no  disposition  to  enter  at  large  or  system- 
atically into  the  question  respecting  the  treaty- 
making  power ;  but  the  observation  which  he 
had  made  connected  itself  with  another. 

Gentlemen  conversant  with  the  history  of  the 
proceedings  of  Congress,  might  recollect  the 
ground  taken  by  the  gentleman  who  is  now  our 
distinguished  Minister  in  France ;  that,  in  addi- 


tion to  those  powers  purely  Executive,  which 
did  not  come  in  conflict  with  the  powers  of  the 
House  of  Representatives,  Mr.  Gallatin  admit- 
ted, in  the  great  debate  of  1795,  there  was  an- 
other and  a  resulting  power  which  did  belong 
to  the  treaty-making  authority.  That,  for  ex- 
ample, to  a  stipulation  that  any  act  should  not 
pass,  the  consent  of  the  House  of  Represent- 
atives was  not  necessary,  because  the  President 
and  Senate,  being  branches  of  Congress,  had  it 
in  their  power  to  enforce  and  fulfil  the  treaty, 
by  withholding  their  assent  from  any  such  act. 
Apply  that  argument  to  the  case  of  a  renun- 
ciation of  a  claim  for  money  or  for  territory. 
Not  being  in  the  possession  either  of  our  Gov- 
ernment or  of  a  foreign  power,  it  could  be  re- 
claimed or  renounced  only  by  negotiation  or  by 
war,  and  to  either  course  the  consent  of  the 
negotiating  power  was  necessary,  &c.  In  rela- 
tion to  questions  of  boundary,  it  was  admitted 
on  all  hands  that  the  treaty-making  authority 
was  competent  to  their  adjustment ;  its  com- 
petency must  be  equally  admitted  in  relation  to 
all  unadjusted  claims.  He  submitted  then  to 
the  committee,  whether  there  could  be  any 
case  of  an  adjustment  of  a  claim  to  boundary, 
which  did  not  include  a  cession  of  supposed 
right  to  territory  by  one  or  the  other  party. 
You  may  establish  points ;  you  may  say  there 
a  colony  was  planted — here  a  man  was  ship- 
wrecked ;  you  may  assert  that  these  points  in- 
clude the  territory  to  which  you  have  a  right ; 
but  the  lines  of  your  boundary  must,  after  all, 
be  adjusted  by  negotiation — by  reciprocal  agree- 
ment. Mr.  L.  said  he  should  be  sorry  if  it 
should  be  inferred,  from  what  he  had  said,  that 
he  was  of  opinion  that  the  ground  assumed  in 
the  resolution  was  decidedly  erroneous.  That 
it  asserted  a  power  much  greater  than  had 
heretofore  been  claimed  for  the  House  of  Rep- 
resentatives, he  was  confident ;  but  he  did  not 
mean  to  say  that  he  had  formed  a  decided  opin- 
ion different  from  that  of  the  gentleman  from 
Kentucky  on  this  point.  He  had  thought  of  it 
but  for  a  day  or  two.  It  was,  however,  a  ques- 
tion into  which  he  thought  the  House  ought 
not  wantonly  and  uselessly  to  enter,  espe- 
cially as  it  had  now  no  superfluous  time  on  its 
hands. 

[Here,  the  hour  being  late,  Mr.  LOWXDES 
complied  with  the  wish  of  a  gentleman  near 
him,  and  gave  way  for  an  adjournment.  The 
next  day  he  resumed  his  remarks.] 

Mr.  L.  did  not,  he  repeated,  intend  to  express 
any  opinion  affirmatively  or  negatively  on  the 
proposition  contained  in  the  first  of  the  above 
resolutions.  But,  he  said,  it  touched  a  subject 
so  complicated  and  difficult  as  to  make  it  neces- 
sary, if  acted  on  at  all,  that  it  should  occupy 
a  much  greater  portion  of  time  in  the  discus- 
sion than  could  be  spared  at  this  period  of  the 
session  for  the  discussion  of  an  abstract  propo- 
sition. There  must  be  many  gentlemen  on  this 
floor  who  recollected  the  length  and  arduous 
nature  of  the  discussion  of  1795  on  this  subject. 
There  were  none  who  could  not  see  that  the 


DEBATES  OF  CONGRESS. 


583 


APRIL,  1820.] 


The  Spanish  Treaty. 


[H.  or  R. 


resolution  of  the  Speaker  embraced  a  larger 
object  than  was  embraced  by  that  of  1795. 
The  conclusion  must  be,  that,  if 'decided  at  all 
by  this  House,  it  would  be  after  a  long  discus- 
sion. But,  suppose  the  resolution  went  no  fur- 
ther than  that  of  1795 — however  strong  might 
be  the  opinion  of  a  majority  in  favor  of  the 
resolution  of  1795 — it  could  not  be  expected 
but  there  would  be  some  debate  on  such  a 
proposition.  The  smaller  the  minority,  the 
stronger  the  reason  why  their  arguments  should 
be  heard,  and  laid  before  the  public.  The  resolu- 
tion of  1795  remains  on  the  journals,  and  there 
could  be  no  reason  assigned,  even  did  this  reso- 
lution go  no  further  than  that,  for  reaffirming 
it.  But  this  resolution  goes  much  further  than 
that  of  1795,  or  than  the  doctrines  advanced 
by  any  who  took  part  in  that  discussion.  It 
was  not  then,  as  far  as  Mr.  L.  knew,  contended 
by  any  one,  that  in  relation  to  territory  claimed 
by  us,  but  not  in  our  possession,  a  treaty  for  the 
adjustment  of  the  title  would  require  the  sanc- 
tion of  this  House.  Would  it  be  prudent,  said 
he,  by  anticipation,  when  we  know  not  of  any 
circumstances  which  make  the  decision  of  this 
question  necessary,  to  undertake  to  decide  it  ? 
Is  there  any  member  of  this  committee  who 
supposes  that  the  effect  of  a  decision  in  favor 
of  this  proposition  will  be  to  preclude  a  discus- 
sion and  decision  of  the  question  hereafter, 
should  the  treaty  be  eventually  ratified.  Mr. 
L.  presumed  not.  Indeed,  he  said,  were  this 
proposition  to  be  discussed  now  for  a  week,  it 
would  only  serve  to  prepare  the  ground  for  an- 
other discussion  hereafter. 

Whilst,  however,  he  had  no  other  objection 
to  the  discussion  of  the  first  resolution,  but 
what  arose  from  a  regard  to  the  economy  of 
time,  he  had  much  stronger  objections  to  the 
consideration  and  decision  of  the  second.  He 
did  not  understand  how  any  decision,  or  even 
free  discussion  of  that  question,  could  take 
place  without  endangering  the  important  inter- 
ests of  the  country.  This  he  was  sure  the 
Speaker  would  do  as  unwillingly  as  any  man. 
But,  said  he,  pending  the  ratification  of  the 
treaty  by  Spain,  are  we  to  enter  into  the  ques- 
tion of  our  title  to  the  territory  as  far  as  the 
Rio  del  Norte  ?  Would  it  be  prudent  to  do  so  ? 
Certainly  not.  Yet,  if  there  was  an  unreserved 
discussion,  that  must  be  the  preliminary  step. 
Do  you  attach  any  consequence  to  a  resolution 
of  this  kind  ?  Do  you  expect  it  to  have  an  in- 
fluence at  home,  and  to  be  respected  abroad ; 
and  do  you  not  begin  by  a  laborious  and  care- 
ful examination  of  your  right  to  the  territory  in 
question?  Will  you  come  to  a  formal  and 
solemn  annunciation  that  you  are  fully  entitled 
to  all  this  territory,  without  deliberately  and 
temperately  examining  the  grounds  on  which 
that  right  rests?  If  you  determine  that  you 
will  write  instructions  to  our  negotiators ;  that 
we  shall  on  this  floor  prescribe  what  the  con- 
ditions of  a  treaty  for  a  settlement  of  limits 
shall  be,  it  becomes  necessary  that  the  title  of 
the  respective  parties  shall  be  fully  investigated. 


Our  open  doors  show  that  this  is  not  the  place 
to  discuss  what  we  will  ask  in  a  negotiation 
with  a  foreign  power,  and  what  we  will  be  con- 
tent to  receive.  It  would  be,  to  use  the  Speak- 
er's figure,  to  display  our  open  hand  to  our 
adversary,  his  being  concealed,  as  ours  ought 
to  be. 

It  had  been  doubted,  Mr.  L.  said,  whether 
the  other  branch  of  the  Legislature  has  a  right 
to  join  in  instructions  given  to  our  diplomatic 
agents  with  regard  to  the  terms  of  a  treaty. 
From  convenience,  at  least,  this  power,  given 
to  the  Senate  almost  by  the  terms  of  the  con- 
stitution, had  not,  under  the  practical  construc- 
tion of  that  instrument,  been  latterly  exercised 
by  the  Senate,  but  the  Executive  had  been 
entirely  charged  with  that  duty  and  that  re- 
sponsibility. 

Mr.  L.  enlarged  npon  the  inconvenience  of  a 
public  discussion  here  of  what,  in  an  amicable 
negotiation,  we  mean  to  insist  on,  and  what  we 
mean  to  give  np.  He  had  no  objection  to  say- 
ing, for  himself,  what  he  wonld  do  on  that  head. 
But,  he  said,  if  a  discussion  was  to  take  place 
on  the  formal  proposition  contained  in  this  reso- 
lution, unless  the  discussion  was  to  be  utterly 
unmeaning,  it  would  be  necessary  to  examine 
as  well  the  validity  of  titles  as  the  relative  value 
of  territory,  &c.  It  was  unnecessary  for  him 
to  assign  reasons  why  an  inquiry  into  the  va- 
lidity of  title  would  be  injurious.  They  were 
sufficiently  obvious.  With  regard  to  the  value 
of  the  territory  in  question,  if  the  members 
were  fully  informed  on  the  subject,  it  would  yet 
be  needless  to  discuss  it.  But,  he  said,  he  be- 
lieved the  requisite  information  was  not  at 
hand.  For  his  part,  although  he  had  paid  con- 
siderable attention  to  the  subject,  and  gathered 
information  from  all  sources  accessible  to  him, 
he  had  never  heard,  respecting  the  value  of  the 
province  of  Texas,  any  estimate  of  its  seaport 
in  any  degree  corresponding  with  that  given  by 
the  honorable  gentleman  from  Kentucky. 

If  the  House  was  called  on  to  vote  on  this 
resolution,  it  was  above  all  desirable  that  they 
should  understand  it.  Mr.  L.  said  he  thought 
he  understood  it.  Its  meaning  clearly  was,  that 
it  was  inexpedient  to  cede  any  part  of  the  ter- 
ritory which  we  have  west  of  the  Sabine. 
Suppose  our  claim  to  that  territory  to  be  un- 
doubted, said  he,  are  we  prepared  t6  say,  how- 
ever worthless  it  may  be,  however  great  the 
equivalent  for  it,  that  we  will  give  up  no  part 
of  it  for  any  territory,  however  essential  or  im- 
portant to  ns?  Now,  for  myself,  I  am  not 
ready  to  say,  that  I  am  not  willing  to  give  up 
any  thing  west  of  the  Sabine  for  any  consider- 
ation whatever.  If  there  be  any  territory  of 
doubtful  value,  I  am  not  prepared  to  say  that 
there  is  in  the  rest  of  the  world  nothing  of  so 
much  value  that  I  might  not  be  induced  to  ex- 
change the  one  for  the  other. 

Mr.  L.  therefore  was  opposed  to  engaging  in 
this  discussion,  and  because  he  considered  the 
second  resolve  to  embrace  an  object  adverse  to 
the  interests  of  the  country,  as  well  as  contrary 


584 


ABRIDGMENT  OF  THE 


H.  OF  R] 


The  Spanish  Treaty. 


[APRIL,  1820. 


to  the  spirit  of  the  constitution.  That  this 
House,  according  to  the  view  of  the  Speaker, 
might  have  some  power  in  regard  to  treaties 
for  the  cession  or  acquisition  of  territory,  he 
did  not  now  mean  to  deny.  But,  whatever 
that  power  was,  he  thought  that  a  just  view  of 
the  principles  of  the  constitution  would  neces- 
sarily require  that  it  should  be  a  restraining, 
and  not  a  directing  power.  If,  in  progress  of 
time,  this  House  should  adopt  the  practice  of 
giving  instruction  to  our  Ministers,  or,  what  is 
the  same  thing,  of  determining  beforehand,  as 
now  proposed,  what  should  be  yielded  and 
what  retained,  the  effeet  would  be  to  di- 
vide the  responsibility  of  the  different  depart- 
ments of  the  Government,  and  destroy  alto- 
gether that  of  the  treaty-making  power.  That 
there  was  in  this  House  a  corrective  power,  to 
restrain  the  treaty-making  power  in  a  course 
not  believed  to  be  beneficial  to  the  interests  of 
the  country,  he  was  ready  to  admit ;  but, 
whilst  he  admitted  this,  it  was  a  power  which, 
he  said,  ought  to  be  exercised  with  great  dis- 
cretion. Otherwise,  instead  of  restraining  the 
Executive  power,  the  effect  would  be,  to  in- 
crease its  power  by  diminishing  its  responsi- 
bility. As  a  common  rule  of  action,  therefore, 
he  was  in  favor  of  leaving  the  powers  of  the 
Government  where  the  constitution  had  placed 
them. 

If  any  case  could  arise  in  which  the  Execu- 
tive would  pursue  a  policy  so  repugnant  to  the 
true  interests  of  the  country  as  to  justify  the 
interposition  of  this  House,  Mr.  L.  said,  it  would 
be  one  the  very  reverse  of  that  now  under  con- 
sideration. It  would  hardly  ever  happen  that 
an  Executive  would  be  averse  to  enlarging  the 
boundaries  of  the  nation,  or  be  accused  of  a  de- 
sire to  restrict  them  to  too  narrow  a  limit.  In 
the  Executive  branch  of  every  Government,  the 
disposition  is  naturally  favorable  to  the  exten- 
sion of  territory  and  the  enlargement  of  its  pow- 
er. He  thought  that  we  may  safely  intrust  to 
the  Executive  of  this  Government  the  charge  of 
supporting  the  rights  of  the  country,  and  ex- 
tending its  territorial  limits  as  far  as  justice  and 
sound  policy  will  allow. 

Mr.  L.  made  some  remarks  to  show  that  no 
advantage  could  result  from  the  adoption  of 
this  resolve.  If,  indeed,  it  was  proposed  to  em- 
ploy force  to  support  it,  there  might  be  some 
ground.  Otherwise,  he  contended,  to  pass  them 
would  not  only  be  useless,  but  injurious. 

But,  Mr.  L.  said,  he  would  refrain  from  en- 
tering into  the  general  questions  of  policy 
growing  out  of  this  resolution ;  but,  in  relation 
to  the  province  of  Texas,  he  would  say  that,  if 
Florida  were  not  necessary  to  us,  and  therefore 
a  desirable  acquisition,  in  exchange  for  any 
claim  we  may  be  supposed  to  have  to  Texas, 
he  should  not  think  it  important  to  occupy 
Texas  at  this  time.  If  we  have  a  just  claim 
to  that  province,  the  treaty  being  rejected, 
it  will  be  at  any  time  in  our  power  to  en- 
force it.  Lying  between  us  and  Mexico,  its 
destiny  must  always  essentially  depend  on,  as 


it  is  connected  with,  American  interests.  What- 
ever claim  we  have  to  Texas,  it  is  a  claim  which 
we  are  able  to  support  and  enforce.  This  is  an 
opinion,  said  Mr.  L.,  which  the  Speaker  ap- 
plies to  Florida,  and  I  to  Texas. 

Mr.  L.  asked  the  members  of  the  committee 
to  cast  their  eye  a  little  forward,  and  see  if  the 
connection  between  Mexico  and  Spain  should 
be  dissolved,  what  motive  could  Spain  have  for 
desiring  to  retain  the  possession  of  the  province 
of  Texas.  What  has  been  her  object  in  ceding 
Florida?  To  get  in  exchange  a  boundary, 
well-defined,  between  Mexico  and  the  United 
States.  To  secure  herself  against  (what  she 
believes,  and  what  Mr.  L.  feared  all  the  powers 
of  Europe  believed)  our  ambition,  she  was  will- 
ing to  cede  Florida.  But  suppose  the  connec- 
tion between  Spain  and  Mexico  to  be  dissolved ; 
suppose  all  hope,  on  her  part,  of  her  resuming 
the  control  of  that  country  was  destroyed; 
what  motive  could  she  have  for  ceding  Florida  ? 
Mr.  L.  said  he  had  not  adverted  to  this  contin- 
gency with  a  single  view  to  her  relinquish- 
rnent  of  Florida  to  us,  but  with  a  view  also  to 
the  preponderance  which  a  reduction  to  a  single 
island  of  the  colonial  possessions  of  Spain  would 
give  to  another  power ;  when  Spain  would  no 
longer  be  mistress  of  her  own  actions,  but  the 
agent  to  serve  the  interests  of  another  power. 
And,  if  we  relinquished  now  the  acquisition  of 
Florida  in  order  to  gain  Texas,  that  in  the  con- 
tingency just  adverted  to,  when  Florida  was 
overflowed  with  Royalists,  and  the  value  of 
Cuba  increased,  what  possible  motive  could 
Spain  have,  under  such  circumstances,  for  the 
cession  of  Florida  to  us  ?  We  must  obtain  it 
then  by  force,  or  not  at  all.  But  it  would  al- 
ways be  as  easy  a  matter  as  it  may  be  now  to 
obtain  Florida  by  force.  It  would  be  more 
easy,  he  said,  to  obtain  Canada  by  force,  than 
it  would  be  to  obtain  Florida  by  force,  if  the 
power  to  whom  it  belonged  was  determined  to 
hold  it.  It  would  be  an  error  fatal  to  the  best 
interests  of  the  country,  to  refuse  to  receive 
Florida  into  our  possession  whilst  we  can.  Mr. 
L.  did  not  say  that  it  was  so  important  an  ac- 
quisition that  it  ought  not  for  any  consideration 
to  be  postponed  for  a  day ;  but,  that  a  com- 
bination of  circumstances  make  that  practical 
now  which  may  not  be  a  year  or  two  hence,  he 
thought  was  very  clear. 

Mr.  L.  concluded  by  saying,  that  he  had  had 
no  intention  of  entering  into  the  general  dis- 
cussion of  these  resolves.  Ho  meant  only  to 
show  that  they  could  not  be  discussed  without 
giving  so  much  time  to  the  subject  as  could  not 
be  afforded  at  this  time ;  and  that  the  discus- 
sion would,  moreover,  be  prejudicial  to  the  pub- 
lic interests.  Under  these  circumstances,  he 
thought  it  his  duty  to  move  to  lay  the  resolu- 
tion on  the  table. 


TUESDAY,  April  4. 

The  Spanish  Treaty. 

The  House  then  again  resolved  itself  into  a 


DEBATES  OF  CONGRESS. 


585 


APRIL,  1820.] 


The  Spanish  Treaty. 


[H.  OF  R. 


Committee  of  the  "Whole  on  the  resolutions  sub- 
mitted by  Mr.  CLAY,  respecting  the  treaty- 
making  power,  and  particularly  respecting  the 
Treaty  with  Spain,  yet  unratified  by  Spain. 

Mr.  LOWNDES  concluded  his  remarks,  going 
to  show  why  the  resolutions  should  not  be 
acted  on.  His  remarks  are  given  entire  in  pre- 

When  Mr.  LOWNDES  finished,  he  moved  to 
lay  the  first  resolve  on  the  table.  After  some 
conversation,  in  which  Mr  CLAY  suggested  that 
the  best  course  would  be  for  the  committee  to 
report  the  resolves  to  the  House,  and  for  the 
gentleman  then  to  move  to  postpone  the  re- 
solves, or  lay  them  on  the  table,  on  which  mo- 
tion the  yeas  and  nays  could  be  recorded, 
Mr.  L.  consented  to  waive  his  motion  for  the 
present. 

Mr.  ABCHER,  of  Virginia,  said,  that  the  with- 
drawal of  the  motion  of  the  gentleman  from 
South  Carolina  (Mr.  LOWNDES)  having  removed 
the  obstacle  to  discussion  of  the  resolutions 
under  consideration,  he  would  proceed  to  sub- 
mit his  views  of  them  to  the  committee.  The 
attention  of  this  body,  Mr.  A.  observed,  was  a 
gpecies  of  joint  stock  concern,  of  which  all  its 
members  were  equally  participant  in  interest. 
He  now  appeared,  for  the  first  time,  to  assert  a 
claim  to  any  share,  and  he  did  not  doubt  that 
the  claim  would  meet  with  due  allowance  from 
the  courtesy  of  the  committee,  unless  indeed 
the  fund  on  which  it  was  addressed,  had  al- 
ready been  exhausted  by  the  drafts  which  had 
been  made  upon  it.  One  recommendation  this 
claim  would  have,  that  it  would  not  be  an  im- 
moderate one.  And  Mr.  A.  believed  that  the 
general  remark  in  reference  to  demands  upon 
the  public,  that  moderation  in  their  amount 
formed  no  unessential  condition  of  their  suc- 
cess, had,  in  no  instance,  stronger  application 
than  in  relation  to  demands  addressed  to  the 
patience  of  the  assembly. 

Mr.  A.  adverted  to  the  place  which  this  sub- 
ject of  relations  with  Spain  had  recently  occu- 
pied in  the  public  attention,  and  the  universal 
expectation  that  some  measure  expressive  of 
the  sense  of  Congress  would,  before  this  period 
of  the  session,  have  been  adopted.  The  meas- 
ure which,  after  long  delay,  the  gentleman 
from  South  Carolina  (Mr.  LOWNDES)  had  report- 
ed from  the  Committee  of  Foreign  Relations, 
had  been  recently  wrested  from  the  considera- 
tion of  this  House,  in  consequence  of  the  sug- 
gestion of  a  foreign  potentate,  who,  Mr.  A.  be- 
lieved, was  pretty  much  in  the  habit  of  exert- 
ing an  operative  influence  in  the  affairs  of  other 
States,  with  the  same  disclaimer,  it  was  proba- 
ble, in  every  instance,  of  an  intention  to  do  so, 
which  had  been  employed  in  relation  to  our- 
selves. If  the  motion  which  the  gentleman 
from  South  Carolina  had  intimated  an  inten- 
tion to  renew,  should  prevail,  a  fate  similar  to 
that  which  had  attended  his  own  proposition 
would  be  reserved  for  the  propositions  now 
under  consideration.  Mr.  A.  confessed  that  he 
felt  surprise  at  the  intimation  of  resort  to  such 


a  course,  both  on  account  of  the  importance  of 
the  subject  and  the  character  of  the  proceeding 
itself — the  subject  involving,  as  it  did,  the  policy 
of  the  alienation  of  perhaps  the  most  valuable 
portion,  in  proportion  to  its  extent,  of  the  terri- 
tory of  the  Union,  was  surely  well  entitled  to 
consideration  from  its  magnitude.  In  this  re- 

rt  it  was  to  be  regarded  as  second  only  to 
question  which  had  been  connected  with 
the  discussion  of  the  Missouri  bill,  to  which 
indeed  it  bore  a  strong  character  of  affinity. 
That  question  related  to  the  propriety  of  the 
transfer  of  the  common  territorial  property 
of  the  Union,  to  the  exclusive  benefit  of  the 
population  of  one  portion  of  it.  The  question 
now  presented  involved  a  consideration  of  the 
policy  (which  it  was  the  purpose  of  the  resolu- 
tions to  counteract)  of  the  transfer  of  the  most 
valuable  portion  of  this  common  property  to  a 
foreign  power.  If  a  question  involving  a  con- 
sideration of  great  momentous  character,  had 
no  claim  to  the  maturest  deliberation  of  the 
House,  Mr.  A.  was  unaware  of  any  which  could 
be  regarded  as  invested  with  such  a  claim. 
The  effect,  too,  of  the  success  of  the  motion  of 
the  gentleman  from  South  Carolina  ought  not 
to  escape  observation.  It  would  be  to  preclude 
all  effective  expression  of  the  public  sentiment 
in  relation  to  the  policy  of  the  ratification  of 
the  Spanish  treaty.  The  case  had  no  resem- 
blance to  that  of  an  ordinary  postponement  of  a 
subject,  the  consideration  of  which  might,  at  a 
succeeding  session  of  Congress,  be  resumed. 
Every  person  knew  that,  before  the  ensuing 
session  of  Congress,  the  treaty  would  be  rati- 
fied. The  Government  of  Spain  could  have  no 
other  design  in  sending  the  Minister  who  was 
known  to  have  been  despatched  here.  And 
the  determination  which  would  operate  with 
our  own  Government  to  accept  the  ratification 
(unless  this  determination  should  be  arrested 
by  the  expression  of  public  sentiment  in  some 
mode)  could  not  be  a  subject  of  question.  The 
prevalence  of  the  motion  to  lay  the  resolutions 
on  the  table  would  then  be  decisive  in  relation 
to  the  important  interest  conceived  to  be  in- 
volved in  their  adoption.  By  the  policy  of 
avoiding  conflict,  the  fruits  of  complete  victory 
would  be  achieved. 

In  contemplating  this  question,  the  attention 
could  not  fail,  Mr.  A.  said,  to  be  attracted  to 
the  extravagance  of  the  pretensions  of  this 
treaty-making  power.  In  point  of  extent,  the 
power  claimed  to  cover  all  the  objects  which 
fall  within  the  scope  of  international  stipula- 
tion, that  is  to  say,  all  the  objects  of  national 
interest,  which  were  not  of  essential  municipal 
character.  This  was  the  claim  in  point  of  ex- 
tent of  jurisdiction.  In  point  of  force  of  au- 
thority, the  power  claimed  the  exertion  not 
only  of  a  superseding,  but  a  mandatory  influ- 
ence, over  the  legislative  department,  the  di- 
rect Representatives  of  the  national  authority, 
in  relation  to  all  subjects  of  its  exercise,  whether 
comprehended  or  not,  within  the  delegation  of 
jurisdiction  to  that  department  of  the  Govern- 


586 


ABRIDGMENT  OF  THE 


H.  OF  R.] 


The  Spanish  Treaty. 


[APRIL,  1820. 


ment.  The  claim  was  not  only  to  exclude  Con- 
gress from  all  participation  of  control  over  sub- 
jects specifically  submitted  to  its  control  by  the 
constitution,  but  to  bind  it  to  an  undeliberating 
ministerial  execution  of  the  stipulations  of  the 
President  and  Senate,  in  relation  to  these  same 
subjects,  wherever  they  might  require  the  in- 
tervention of  legislative  details,  and  a  resort  to 
municipal  authority,  for  execution.  The  ex- 
ertion of  the  power  of  the  President  and  Senate 
was  said,  by  committing  the  public  faith  for  its 
stipulations,  to  bind  the  other  departments  of 
the  Government  to  an  obligation  of  co-opera- 
tion in  the  objects  of  those  stipulations.  Such 
was  the  claim  of  this  treaty-making  power  in 
point  of  authority.  The  first  remark,  Mr.  A. 
said,  which  arose  upon  this  statement  of  the 
character  of  the  power,  related  to  its  effect, 
where  the  co-operation  of  legislative  and  exec- 
utive authorities  were  admitted  to  be  required, 
to  confound  the  appropriate  functions  of  these 
authorities.  To  the  President  and  Senate  were 
assigned  the  exclusive  faculty  of  exercising  de- 
liberation ;  and  on  Congress  was  imposed  the 
unqualified  duty  of  conforming  to  and  effectuat- 
ing, without  any  exercise  of  discretion,  the  re- 
sults of  that  deliberation. 

Such  an  assignation  of  functions  would  pre- 
sent a  case  of  political  anomaly  which  was  not 
predicable  of  the  character  of  the  constitution. 
The  entire  exclusion  of  Congress  from  authority 
over  the  subjects  assigned  to  the  jurisdiction  of 
the  treaty-making  power,  would  involve  no 
political  inconsistency.  This  was  designed  in 
relation  to  all  but  a  particular  class  of  subjects. 
But,  if  the  operation  of  the  legislative  power 
were  admitted  at  all,  it  could  only  be  admitted 
in  its  proper  character  of  power  involving  essen- 
tially the  exercise  of  discretion.  The  recogni- 
tion, therefore,  of  the  necessity  for  the  co-ope- 
ration of  the  authority  of  Congress  in  the 
execution  of  treaty  stipulations,  was,  in  rela- 
tion to  all  the  subjects  to  which  it  extended,  a 
recognition  of  the  legislative,  as  a  part  of,  and 
a  check  upon,  the  treaty-making  power. 

Mr.  A.  had  been  adverting  to  a  statement  of 
the  pretensions  of  this  treaty-making  power,  as 
furnishing  evidence  sufficient,  to  his  mind,  to 
condemn  them.  If  other  evidence  were  want- 
ed, it  would  be  found  in  the  discrepancy  which 
the  power  in  the  extension  claimed  for  it,  pre- 
sented to  the  character  of  the  general  grant  of 
power  contained  in  the  constitution,  and  of  the 
more  important  particular  powers  which  made 
up  the  composition  of  that  grant.  It  was  to  be 
expected  of  every  political  system,  and  more 
especially  of  a  system  sprung  from  men  so  illus- 
trious for  wisdom  as  the  framers  of  our  federal 
form  of  polity,  that  it  would  be  found  present- 
ing a  general  consistency  of  structure  and  ele- 
ments. But  the  constitution  was  admitted  to 
convey  but  a  limited  grant  of  power.  All  its 
more  important  component  powers,  the  power 
over  the  purse,  over  the  sword,  the  power  of 
punishment,  were  limited  by  express  restrictive 
or  qualifying  provisions.  The  admission  of  the 


treaty-making  power,  therefore,  in  the  absolute, 
unrestricted  character  it  assumed  to  wear,  would 
be  a  violation  of  the  whole  consistency  of  the 
constitution. 

Mr.  A.  said  that  a  person  observing,  with  any 
degree  of  attention,  the  progress  of  our  Gov- 
ernment, could  not  fail  to  be  struck  with  the 
conflict  between  many  of  the  principles  adopted 
in  the  construction  of  the  constitution,  and  its 
true  character  and  intendment.  The  framers 
of  this  instrument  had  expended  the  resources 
of  an  incomparable  wisdom,  in  devising  limita- 
tions on  the  powers  which  it  conveyed,  and  in 
the  contrivance  of  adequate  safeguards  against 
the  exercise  of  other  powers.  In  the  illusion 
of  a  generous  confidence,  they  had  no  doubt 
conceived  that  these  safeguards  would  be  found 
sufficient.  But,  in  the  current  of  the  adminis- 
tration of  a  constitutional  government,  there 
was  generated  a  reptile  destructive  or  danger- 
ous to  the  dams  and  mounds  which  were  insti- 
tuted to  restrain  it.  The  name  of  this  reptile 
was  construction.  Such  was  its  fecundity,  that 
it  was  impossible  to  extinguish  the  race.  Sucli 
was  its  subtlety  and  activity  of  nature,  that  it 
was  difficult  to  counteract  its  operations.  This 
reptile  had  been  at  work  in  the  mounds  of  our 
constitution,  nor  was  it  a  little  to  be  feared  that 
the  breaches  had  already  been  effected  which 
were  destined,  in  future  time,  to  give  a  general 
admission  to  discretionary  power. 

The  power  of  the  President  and  Senate  to 
alienate  territory,  might,  perhaps,  be  inferred 
as  a  consequence  of  their  power  to  acquire  it 
Mr.  A.  objected  to  the  consequence  as  illogical, 
and  protested  against  the  mode  of  construing 
the  powers  of  the  Government  by  which  it  must 
be  derived.  An  incidental  power  would  have 
to  be  derived  from  an  incidental  power ;  and 
this  first  incident,  the  source  of  others,  was  it- 
self supposed  to  be  derived  in  a  mode  still  more 
unauthorized,  not  from  any  specific  power,  but 
as  a  result  of  the  general  collective  powers  and 
sovereign  character  of  the  Government.  In 
such  a  mode  of  derivation  of  power,  it  was  ob- 
vious that  the  efficacy  of  specification  in  the 
grant  of  it,  would  be  destroyed,  and  a  political 
constitution,  as  respected  any  purpose  of  limita- 
tion on  the  exercise  of  power,  be  converted  to 
a  name.  It  was  inevitable,  indeed,  that  every 
political  constitution  should  admit  the  exercise 
of  implied  and  incidental  powers,  as  a  result  of 
the  compendious  simplicity  of  an  instrument  of 
this  character.  But  the  danger  of  abuse  and 
injury  from  this  source  was  guarded,  if  not  ob- 
viated, by  a  mode  of  construction  (the  only  one 
which  did  not  outrage  a  constitution  of  enume- 
rated powers)  which  required  that  the  power 
made  the  source,  as  well  as  that  which  was 
made  the  subject  of  derivation,  should  be  speci- 
fic ;  and  that  the  relation  between  them  should 
be  essential  and  immediate.  Principles  the  re- 
verse of  these  appeared,  however,  to  be  obtain- 
ing an  ascendency.  The  operation  of  the  mis- 
chief was  to  be  seen,  indeed,  at  this  time,  only 
in  its  commencement.  But  the  end  of  this 


DEBATES  OF  CONGRESS. 


587 


APRIL,  1820.] 


The  Spanish  Treaty. 


OF  R 


thing,  Mr.  A.  said,  was  death.  The  malady 
might  now  present  only  an  eruptive  appearance 
on  the  surface,  but  it  would  be  found  to  be  pro- 
gressive to  the  heart  of  the  constitution ;  would 
communicate  eventually  to  the  system,  the  un- 
natural activity  of  despotism  ;  and  of  unnatural 
action,  if  not  arrested,  whether  in  bodies  politi- 
cal or-  physical,  there  was  but  one  result,  and 
that  result  was  dissolution. 

Mr.  A.  could  not  abstain  from  remarking 
(though  the  remark  had  no  immediate  relevancy 
to  the  question)  on  the  unlimited  character  of 
the  power  of  legislation,  which  was  assumed  in 
onr  Government,  in  relation  to  the  national  ter- 
ritories. Authority  was  arrogated  to  legislate 
on  this  subject  at  discretion,  and  an  instance  of 
the  fullest  indulgence  of  it  had  occurred  at  the 
present  .session  of  Congress,  (in  the  measure  for 
the  interdiction  of  slavery  in  a  portion  of  the 
Territories.)  Take  this  power  of  discretionary 
regulation,  in  connection  with  the  acknowl- 
edged power  to  refuse  admission  of  a  Territory 
into  the  Union,  and  what  was  the  result  ?  A 
power  was  arrogated  to  regulate  discretionally, 
and  a  power  conceded  to  retain  the  Territories 
at  pleasure  in  subjection  to  the  authority  in- 
vested with  this  power  of  discretionary  regula- 
tion. Let  the  extent  and  susceptibility  of  im- 
portance of  the  Territories  be  considered,  and 
what  was  the  spectacle  which,  under  the  prac- 
tical operation  of  the  doctrine  asserted,  our 
Government  might  come  to  present?  The 
spectacle  of  an  authority  strictly  limited  within 
its  appropriate  sphere  of  operation,  exerting  un- 
limited powers  in  a  coextensive  collateral  sphere 
of  operation.  It  would  be  a  condition  like  that 
of  the  Roman  Kepublic  in  an  advanced  stage  of 
its  progress,  in  which,  characterized  by  tJie 
forms  of  a  limited  Government  at  home,  it 
wielded  without  control  the  uncounted  re- 
sources and  power  of  the  provinces.  To  the 
issue  of  this  condition  of  things  in  that  Repub- 
lic it  was  not  necessary  to  advert,  nor  to  pursue 
the  train  of  reflection  which  it  was  calculated 
to  suggest. 

The  powers  appertaining  to  the  treaty- 
making  department,  and  those  granted  to  Con- 
gress over  particular  classes  of  subjects,  present- 
ing the  appearance  of  conflict,  the  obje*ct  of  a 
just  constitution  would  be  to  reconcile  them  by 
allowing  to  both,  if  possible,  a  due  operation. 
But  this  object  could  only  be  attained  by  the 
mode  which  had  been  suggested,  of  allowing 
them  a  concurrent  operation  over  the  subjects 
which  present  the  apparent  occasion  of  conflict. 
This  construction  was  in  consistency  with  all 
received  rules  in  relation  to  questions  of  this 
sort.  It  was  an  established  principle,  which 
had  been  adverted  to,  (by  the  Speaker,)  that  in 
cases  of  the  conflict  of  particular  with  general 
expressions,  the  general  must  give  way  to  the 
particular  expression.  And  why?  Because 
rules  of  construction  being  nothing  more  than 
contrivances  for  the  ascertainment  of  intention, 
what  was  equivocal  in  a  general,  became  ex- 
plicit in  a  particular  expression.  The  construc- 


tion stated  derived  corroboration  in  the  present 
instance  of  its  application,  from  a  consideration 
of  the  momentous  character  of  the  subjects  of 
power  which  it  operated  to  detach  from  the 
executive,  to  confide  to  the  concurrent  treaty- 
making  jurisdiction;  and  from  a  considera- 
tion of  the  affinity  which  it  tended  to  stamp  on 
the  treaty-making  power,  to  the  general  policy 
and  character  of  the  constitution,  and  to  the 
peculiar  character  of  the  more  important  speci- 
fic powers  which  it  comprised. 

There  was  one  consideration  upon  the  sub- 
ject of  this  controversy,  in  relation  to  the  ex- 
tent of  the  treaty-making  power,  which  ap- 
peared to  Mr.  A.  to  be  conclusive.  It  was 
this,  that  the  exclusive  control  claimed  for  the 
power,  was  not  pretended  to  extend  to  all  the 
subjects  submitted  to  Congress  by  the  constitu- 
tion. There  were  several  which  this  exclusive 
control  was  admitted  not  to  cover.  The  powers 
to  borrow  money ;  to  make  war ;  to  raise  armies ; 
to  admit  new  States,  were  examples.  But 
where  was  the  ground  of  distinction  between 
these  subjects  and  those  over  which  an  exclu- 
sive, superseding  control  was  claimed  ?  It  was 
not  to  be  found  in  the  constitution.  There 
these  several  classes  of  subjects  were  placed  on 
the  same  exact  footing.  The  powers  conveyed 
to  Congress  were  all  conveyed  in  the  same 
terms.  The  distinction  was  not  to  be  found  in 
any  peculiar  importance  of  the  abdicated  sub- 
jects. All  were  important.  Was  the  distinc- 
tion to  be  found  in  the  supposed  external  rela- 
tion of  the  class  of  arrogated  subjects,  rendering 
them  in  a  peculiar  degree  adapted  to  become 
the  objects  of  treaty  stipulation?  These  sub- 
jects were  not  distinguished  by  this  character 
in  any  greater  degree  than  several  of  the  abdi- 
cated subjects ;  of  which'  the  powers  of  making 
war  and  raising  armies  were  instances.  The 
danger,  too,  with  which  the  argument  derived 
from  this  principle  of  construction  was  fraught^ 
ought  not  to  escape  observation.  Let  the  prin- 
ciple be  admitted,  and  it  would  be  only  neces- 
sary to  give  to  exercises  of  power  the  form  of 
treaty  stipulation,  and  any  power  might  be  ex- 
ercised, and  any  object  attained,  by  the  Execu- 
tive department,  however  remote  from  the 
proper  sphere  of  its  control.  Finally,  if  the 
distinction  between  the  jurisdiction  arrogated, 
and  that  renounced,  by  the  treaty-making 
power,  were  made  to  rest  on  the  peculiar  char- 
acter of  the  treaty  stipulations,  as  being  sus- 
ceptible of  execution,  independently  of  legisla- 
tive aid,  or  as  requiring  that  aid  for  their 
execution,  the  answer  was  equally  obvious  with 
those  which  had  been  stated  to  other  supposed 
principles  of  distinction.  It  was  this,  that  there 
were  various  snpposable  cases  of  stipulation 
having  no  dependence  on  legislative  aid  for  ex- 
ecution, which  yet  the  consent  of  all  men  would 
reject  from  the  exclusive  control  of  the  treaty- 
making  power.  One  example,  suggested  by  re- 
cent occurrences,  should  be  adduced.  A  new 
State,  provided  its  government  were  organized, 
and  the  form  republican,  might  be  admitted 


588 


ABRIDGMENT  OF  THE 


H.  OF  R.] 


The  Spanish  Treaty. 


[APRIL,  1820. 


into  the  Union  without  any  necessary  interven- 
tion of  legislative  authority,  by  a  treaty  stipu- 
lating that  it  should  send  two  Senators  and  one 
Representative  to  Congress.  There  was  a  re- 
publican government  now  organized  among  the 
blacks  in  the  island  of  Hayti.  If  the  doctrines 
asserted  in  relation  to  the  extent  of  the  treaty- 
making  power  were  just,  what  was  there  to 
hinder  the  admission  of  this  Republic  into  the 
Union,  if  the  President  and  Senate  were  to  be 
of  opinion  to  admit  it  ?  Here  was  a  case  re- 
quiring no  intervention  of  legislative  aid.  Here 
was  a  case,  which,  from  its  character  of  exter- 
nal relation,  fell  within  the  class  of  the  appro- 
priate objects  of  treaty  stipulation.  It  was 
sufficient  for  the  argument,  that  the  case  was  a 
possible  one.  Mr.  A.  did  not  affect  to  insinuate 
that  the  realization  ever  could  be  thought  of. 
Considering,  however,  the  value  of  West  India 
possessions,  there  was  a  possible  composition  of 
the  Executive  department,  in  which  the  realiza- 
tion was  by  no  means  inconceivable.  Consti- 
tutional doctrines,  however,  could  not  be  sound, 
which  involved  the  possibility  of  such  a  conse- 
quence. 

There  were  several  propositions  asserted  by 
the  resolution — the  disproportion  of  the  equiva- 
lent rendered  by  Spain  for  our  concessions  in 
the  treaty ;  the  general  impolicy  of  the  transfer 
of  the  territory  ceded  on  our  part  to  any  for- 
eign power ;  and  the  inexpediency  as  a  conse- 
quence of  these,  of  the  ratification  of  the  treaty, 
now  that  the  option  of  our  Government  was 
restored,  to  ratify  or  reject  it.  Was,  then,  the 
equivalent  stipulated  to  be  rendered  by  them 
disproportionate,  and  was  it  impolitic  to  make 
a  transfer  to  any  foreign  power  of  the  territory 
we  had  stipulated  to  cede?  What  were  the 
relative  concessions  of  the  contracting  parties  ? 
On  the  side  of  the  United  States,  five  millions  of 
dollars  to  be  paid,  in  part  discharge  of  claims 
of  our  citizens  upon  Spain ;  the  abandonment 
of  the  residue  of  these  claims ;  of  which,  as  they 
stood  in  the  same  character,  the  allowance  of 
this  part  was,  in  effect,  a  recognition  to  the 
amount  of  $15,000,000,  as  had  been  stated  (by 
the  honorable  Speaker;)  the  privilege  to  the 
subjects  of  Spain,  carrying  on  commerce  with 
the  territory  we  were  to  acquire,  of  admission 
into  its  ports  on  the  same  terms  with  our  own 
citizens,  for  the  period  of  twelve  years  from  the 
ratification  of  the  treaty ;  and,  finally,  the  ter- 
ritory of  Texas,  which  we  stipulated  to  cede. 
Placing  out  of  view  the  other  parts  of  this  con- 
cession, what  was  the  character  and  value  of 
this  territory  of  Texas  ?  The  full  value  we  were 
not  possessed  of  sufficient  information,  it  was 
probable,  to  enable  us  to  appreciate.  Enough, 
however,  was  known  to  ascertain  its  superior- 
ity in  this  respect  to  the  province,  as  part  of 
the  consideration  of  which  it  was  proposed  to 
be  transferred.  In  superficial  extent,  Texas 
would  not  be  denied  to  be  several  times  larger 
than  Florida.  In  a  general  character  of  fer- 
tility, the  two  countries,  according  to  the  ac- 
counts which  Mr.  A.  had  received,  admitted  of 


no  comparison,  so  decided!} 
on  the  side  of  the  former  of  them.  Placed  in"  a 
near  vicinity  to  South  America,  the  province 
asserted  still  more  signally,  to  the  character  of 
its  productions,  its  affinity  to  the  peculiar  natu- 
ral advantages  which  distinguish,  in  a  manner 
so  remarkable,  that  most  favored  portion  of  the 
earth.  Productions  of  the  highest  value,  and 
supposed  to  be  the  most  widely  diversified,  as 
respected  the  soil  and  climate  they  required, 
found  here  a  point  of  neighborhood  and  union. 
Corn,  cotton,  sugar,  met  a  congenial  soil,  and 
circumstances  favorable  to  their  production. 
The  climate  was  of  extraordinary  salubrity — 
the  rivers  various  and  large.  And  what  was 
the  consideration  for  which  we  were  to  surren- 
der a  country  such  as  this  had  been  described ; 
of  immense  extent,  possessed  of  every  natural 
advantage,  destined  by  the  most  signal  evi- 
dences to  high  political  importance?  Was  it 
for  the  sands  of  Florida?  No,  not  for  the 
property,  but  for  little  more  than  the  sover- 
eignty of  these  sands.  For,  independently  of 
the  grants  to  Alagon,  and  Vargas,  and  Punon 
Rostro,  which  had  been  the  subjects  of  recent 
contestation,  the  largest  and  the  most  valuable 
portion  of  the  soil  of  Florida  was  known  to  have 
been  granted  out.  The  recent  contested  grants 
had  only  been  of  the  residuary  lands.  In  the 
bargain  which  had  been  made  we  were  to  give 
the  sovereignty  and  nearly  the  whole,  Mr.  A. 
presumed,  of  the  soil  of  Texas,  such  as  it  had 
been  described,  for  little  more,  comparatively 
speaking,  than  the  sovereignty  of  Florida.  Was 
the  bargain  one  which,  in  this  obvious  view 
of  its  character,  with  perfect  liberty  to  accept 
or  reject  it,  it  would  be  expedient  to  confirm  ? 
But,  great  importance  was  attributed  to  Florida 
in  a  military  and  political  point  of  view. 

Without  any  design  of  derogation  from  the 
importance  of  Florida  in  this  respect,  did  this 
consideration,  Mr.  A.  asked,  render  its  acquisi- 
tion at  this  time,  and  at  the  price  of  any  dis- 
proportionate equivalent,  an  object  of  reason- 
able solicitude  on  our  part  ?  He  apprehended 
that  it  did  not.  Whatever  might  be  the  advan- 
tages presented  by  this  country  for  purposes 
of  military  or  commercial  annoyance,  in  the 
hands  t>f  Spain,  it  could  not  be  rendered  sub- 
servient to  any  such  purposes  against  us.  Spain 
did  not  possess,  nor  had  the  faculty  of  acquiring 
means  and  resources,  military  or  naval,  which 
could  be  applied  to  such  objects.  Nor,  if 
she  possessed,  or  could  acquire  them,  could  it 
ever  be  her  policy  to  avail  herself  of  the  posi- 
tion of  Florida,  to  employ  them  against  this 
country. 

In  proof  of  this,  the  single  consideration  was 
sufficient,  that  the  inevitable  result  of  the  pur- 
suit of  such  a  policy  would  be  the  loss  of  the 
province  in  question,  without  the  possibility  of 
indemnification.  This  result,  it  would  be  ad- 
mitted, could  not  be  prevented  by  any  exertion 
or  contingency  of  events.  The  acquisition  of 
Florida  was,  therefore,  an  object  of  no  consid- 
erable importance  as  related  to  any  view  of 


DEBATES  OF  CONGRESS. 


APRIL,  1820.] 


The  Spanish  Treaty, 


[H.  OF  K. 


danger  of  its  being  used  for  purposes  of  annoy- 
ance by  Spain.  The  ground  of  apprehension 
was  as  slight  from  any  other  quarter.  The 
Indian  inhabitants  would  be  in  no  great  degree 
more  likely  to  give  us  disturbance,  if  the 
country  continued  in  the  hands  of  Spain,  than 
if  it  were  transferred  to  our  own.  Nor  was 
fear  indeed  to  be  indulged  of  disturbance  from 
this  source,  while  the  life  or  the  memory  of 
Jackson  among  his  Indian  adversaries  were 
preserved.  For  danger,  proceeding  from  any 
European  power  other  than  Spain,  we  had 
already  made  an  adequate  provision  by  a  law 
giving  authority  to  the  President  to  prevent 
the  occupation  of  Florida  by  a  foreign  power. 
Mr.  A.  said  that,  in  the  policy  of  this  law,  he 
entirely  concurred.  While  he  should  be  op- 
posed to  the  occupation  of  the  country  by  our- 
selves, at  least  under  present  circumstances, 
when  he  would  be  averse  to  any  measure  by 
which  the  hazard  of  war  might  be  incurred,  he 
should,  at  all  times  and  under  all  circumstan- 
ces, consider  the  prevention  of  the  occupation 
of  Florida  by  any  other  foreign  power  than 
Spain,  as  a  measure  of  indisputable  and  unim- 
peachable policy,  on  the  part  of  this  country. 
It  stood  justified  to  his  mind  by  considerations 
admitted  to  be  paramount  to  all  others — of  de- 
fence and  preservation.  No  power  could  have 
either  interest  or  motive  in  the  acquisition  of 
Florida,  unconnected  with  views  to  our  annoy- 
ance, and  a  policy  dictated  by  such  views,  it 
was  at  all  times  as  justifiable  as  it  was  neces- 
sary to  repel.  Whatever,  then,  might  be  the 
intrinsic  importance  of  Florida  in  a  political 
point  of  view,  its  acquisition  could  not  be  con- 
sidered as  demanded  of  us  at  this  time  at  the 
price  of  any  concession  disproportioned  to  its 
proper  value. 

But  was  this  character  of  importance,  in  a 
political  view,  confined  to  Florida  ?  Was  Texas 
of  no  consideration  in  this  view?  Let  the 
situation  of  this  province,  at  the  back  of  Louis- 
iana, and  the  direction  of  the  flow  of  its  prin- 
cipal rivers,  be  considered,  and  the  important 
an^d  delicate  relation  which  it  sustained  to  New 
Orleans,  itself  the  most  important  position  in 
our  country,  would  immediately  be  perceived. 
Upon  this  view  of  the  subject,  interesting  as  it 
was,  Mr.  A.  forbore,  from  obvious  considera- 
tions, to  enlarge.  He  would  dismiss  it,  merely 
accompanied  with  a  hint  at  the  capacity  of 
Texas  to  maintain  a  formidable  population. 
Considered  in  a  mere  political  aspect,  then,  the 
equivalent  which  we  were  to  obtain  for  our 
territorial  concession  in  the  treaty,  appeared 
to  be  little  entitled  to  the  preference  which  had 
been  allotted  to  it,  and  the  ratification  of  the 
treaty  altogether  unadvisable. 

Mr.  TRIMBLE,  of  Kentucky,  said,  that  he  had 
risen  to  support  both  of  the  resolutions  offered 
by  his  colleague,  the  honorable  SPEAKER.  He 
saw  in  the  documents  strong  indications  of  in- 
tention to  accept  the  treaty,  and,  dissatisfied 
as  he  was,  he  owed  it  as  a  duty  to  himself,  to 
the  nation  generally,  and  especially  to  that 


part  of  it  residing  on  the  Western  waters,  to 
enter  his  protest  at  large  against  the  ratifica- 
tion. The  treaty,  in  his  opinion,  was  one  of 
great  interest  to  the  nation ;  presenting  various 
topics  for  discussion,  most  of  which  had  been 
precluded  from  debate  by  the  cautious  pru- 
dence of  his  friend  from  South  Carolina,  (Mr. 
LOWNDES.)  He  knew  that  the  rules  of  the 
House  gave  him  a  wide  range,  but  he  found 
himself  unexpectedly  restricted  by  the  solici- 
tude of  the  Chairman  of  the  Committee  of 
Foreign  Eelations.  He  was  sure  that  solicitude 
was  deeply  felt,  because  it  was  strongly  ex- 
pressed, and  being  always  ready  to  defer  to  his 
talents  and  discretion,  he  would  cheerfully  con- 
form to  his  wishes.  He  had  no  right,  he  said, 
to  complain  of  the  course  proposed;  and  he 
would  do  his  friend  the  justice  to  say,  that,  if 
he  did  not  advance  with  the  boldness  of  Alex- 
ander, he  displayed  in  retreat,  all  the  skill  of 
a  Xenophon.  He  was  in  Parliament,  what 
Moreau  and  Montecuccoli  were  in  the  field ;  he 
carried  every  thing  with  him ;  had  left  no  spoil 
for  his  pursuers ;  no  point  exposed ;  no  barriers 
undefended.  The  honor  of  the  nation  could 
not  be  placed  in  better  hands,  or  safer  keeping ; 
and  no  one  could  defend  its  interests  with  su- 
perior ability. 

The  friends  of  the  treaty,  he  said,  had  sought 
occasion  to  proclaim  its  merits;  its  opposers, 
until  now,  had  not  been  heard.  It  was  tune 
the  people  should  be  heard ;  it  was  time  for 
their  Representatives  to  speak.  The  Western 
people  have  but  one  market  for  their  produce — 
one  emporium  for  their  commerce;  and  the 
treaty  leaves  that  one  unprotected;  leaves  it 
fearfully  exposed.  He  did  not  believe  that  the 
nation,  if  consulted,  would  ratify  this  treaty ; 
he  did  not  consider  it  a  thing  in  esse ;  a  con- 
tract in  abeyance;  it  was,  in  his  opinion,  a 
mere  nullity ;  and  each  party  remitted  back  to 
his  original  rights  and  claims. 

Our  relations  with  Spain,  he  said,  required 
the  display  of  some  energy,  and  for  that  reason 
he  had  .prepared  his  mind  to  vote  for  reprisals; 
not  because  the  treaty  was  obligatory,  but 
because  time  and  chance  might  change  the 
present  posture  of  affairs,  and  bring  more 
trouble  and  m<ft-e  danger.  To  avoid  that,  and 
finish  all  at  once,  he  would  have  acknowledged 
the  patriots,  and  have  occupied  Texas  and  the 
Floridas.  This  would  have  brought  the  Castil- 
ian  to  terms,  or  made  one  war,  and  not  a  triple 
contest  of  it.  Why  strike  for  half  the  quarrel  ? 
If  the  army  comes  in  as  finisher  of  treaties,  let 
us  have  all  the  land,  and  hold  it  as  we  did 
West  Florida,  subject  to  negotiation.  He  that 
takes  justice  in  his  own  hands,  should  take  the 
full  measure  of  its  claims. 

Mr.  T.  did  not  intend  to  censure  the  officer 
who  conducted  the  negotiations  on  our  part ; 
he  would  say  that  the  ratification  was  pressed 
upon  Spain  with  more  zeal  than  judgment. 
She  was  made  to  suspect  that  the  treaty  was 
highly  favorable  to  this  country,  because  it  was 
warmly  urged;  whereas,  in  fact,  the  ad  van- 


590 


ABRIDGMENT  OF  THE 


H.  OF  R] 


The,  Spanish  Treaty. 


[APRIL, 


tage  was  wholly  on  the  side  of  Spain.  It  was 
clear,  from  the  documents,  that  Mr.  Adams  was 
not  able  to  barter  laud  with  Don  Onis ;  he  had 
confided  too  much  in  Castilian  honor,  as  to  the 
dates  of  the  grants,  and  suffered  the  crafty 
Spaniard  to  deceive  him.  He  had  been  cir- 
cumvented. This  was  no  discompliment.  It 
•was  proof  of  fair-dealing  on  his  part;  and  it 
was  more  honorable  to  be  the  victim  than  the 
agent,  or  the  perpetrator  of  hypocrisy  and 
fraud.  He  said  he  had  nothing  to  say  against 
the  Executive  in  this  matter ;  and  hoped  that 
no  one  would  charge  him  with  want  of  con- 
fidence in.  that  Department.  He  would  not 
allow  the  supposition  to  be  made;  his  confi- 
dence in  the  President  was  unimpaired;  and 
this,  of  all  subjects,  was  the  one  upon  which  it 
was  least  likely  to  be  diminished.  He  said  he 
had  not  -forgotten,  it  was  impossible  he  should 
forget,  that  a  proposition  was  made  thirty 
years  ago,  in  a  secret  session  of  Congress,  to 
surrender  the  Western  country  to  Spain  for 
twenty-five  years,  and  that  its  defeat  was  ow- 
ing almost  entirely  to  the  resistance  made  by 
our  present  Chief  Magistrate.  The  question 
then  was — "  our  right  to  navigate  the  Missis- 
sippi;" the  question  now  is,  our  right  to  the 
country,  Louisiana  proper,  and  the  positions 
which  protect  and  defend  it.  Eschewing  war, 
and  loving  peace,  the  President  has  made  sac- 
rifices to  maintain  it;  liberality  is  found  in 
every  clause  of  the  treaty;  forbearance  in 
every  page  of  the  message.  Texas  was  thrown 
in  as  a  peace-offering  to  Spain ;  she  refused  it ; 
and  we  are  not  bound,  in  justice  or  in  honor, 
to  offer  it  again.  This  nation  will  never  con- 
sent that  it  shall  be  offered  or  conceded.  The 
treaty  has  been  sent  to  us  by  the  President ; 
the  whole  subject  is  before  us ;  we  are  in  Com- 
mittee of  the  Whole  on  the  state  of  the  Union, 
and  have  a  right  to  enter  our  protest  and  ob- 
jections ;  and  he  for  one  was  ready  to  perform 
his  duty.  He  could  see  no  danger  in  a  broad 
discussion ;  but  he  would  relieve  the  anxiety 
of  his  friend  (Mr.  LOWNDES)  at  once,  by  omit- 
ting all  the  topics  which  he  wished  to  have 
excluded. 

He  said  it  would  be  recollected  that  the  Lou- 
isiana Treaty  amalgamated  th*  inhabitants  of 
that  country  with  the  people  of  the  United 
States ;  that  it  gave  them  a  common  interest 
in  the  Union ;  an  equal  claim  to  its  protection ; 
a  guarantee  of  "  all  the  rights,  advantages,  and 
immunities,  of  citizens  of  the  States."  To  use 
an  Indian  metaphor,  the  treaty  of  cession  made 
us  all  one  man.  The  fact  was  well  known  that 
some  of  the  French  inhabitants  resided  at  that 
date,  and  still  continue  to  reside,  in  that  part 
of  Texas  then  ceded  to  us,  and  now  ceded  to 
Spain.  Some  of  our  own  people  had  removed 
there  since  the  treaty  of  April  30,  1803;  had 
purchased  lands  of  Frenchmen,  holding  grants 
under  the  French  Government,  and  stood  upon 
the  soil  as  allodial  freemen  of  the  Union,  claim- 
ing its  protection,  and  rendering  it  due  homage 
and  all  fealty.  Now,  sir,  said  he,  I  assert 


roundly,  I  contend  boldly,  that  there  is  no 
power  in  the  constitution  under  which  you  can 
expatriate  a  citizen  of  the  Union.  I  know  that 
a  treaty  is  the  supreme  law  of  the  land ;  I  ad- 
mit that  the  treaty  power  is  competent  to 
settle  questions  of  boundary  and  limits ;  but  I 
deny  the  existence  of  any  power  by  which  yon 
can  alienate  a  citizen — denationalize  a  freeman. 
What,  sir!  sell  land  to  a  citizen;  take  his 
money ;  and  then  sell  him,  and  land,  and  lib- 
erty, and  all !  It  is  too  monstrous  to  be  en- 
dured :  it  challenges  resistance  the  moment  it 
is  seen.  Citizenship  is  not  an  article  of  mer- 
chandise ;  it  is  not  negotiable.  Political  rights 
in  our  Government  are  not  subjects  of  barter 
and  exchange;  they  could  not  be  sold  under 
hammer  at  political  auction.  Citizenship  is  in- 
defeasible ;  inalienable :  it  is  a  patrimony  de- 
scending to  us  from  our  ancestors,  under  entail, 
and  we  must  leave  it  to  posterity  unbroken. 
Show  me  your  power,  said  he,  to  cede  citizens 
with  sovereignty,  like  serfs  and  vassals  of  the 
soil.  Show  the  power,  or  expunge  the  stipula- 
tion from  the  treaty.  Strike  it  out ;  obliterate 
it ;  and  leave  the  statute  book  untainted  by  the 
precedents.  There  are  some  hundreds  of  our 
citizens,  by  birth  and  adoption,  expatriated  by 
this  treaty.  The  fact  was  surely  unknown  to 
the  Secretary  at  that  date.  What  reply  could 
you  make  to  a  petition  and  remonstrance  from 
these  people?  How  would  a  committee  report 
upon  the  case?  A  skilful  diplomatist  might 
boggle  at  the  question.  The  stipulation  would 
never  be  sanctioned  by  the  nation ;  it  required 
a  statesman  of  courage  to  affirm  the  power; 
and  to  such  he  would  leave  the  honor  of  de- 
fending it.  He  would  never  envy  the  laurels 
they  might  gather. 

Mr.  T.  had  objections  to  another  article,  an 
excrescence  in  the  treaty,  which  called  loudly 
for  the  knife  and  caustic.  It  grew  out  of  the 
subject  of  claims  and  spoliations.  The  demands 
of  our  citizens  are  stated  by  some  at  ten  mil- 
lions of  dollars ;  by  others  at  twenty.  Ten  is 
below  the  minimum  in  aggregate.  The  eleventh 
article  of  the  treaty  exonerates  Spain  from 
these  demands ;  gives  a  full  renunciation  ;  can- 
cels the  whole  debt,  and  undertakes  to  make 
satisfaction  to  our  citizens  to  an  amount  not 
exceeding  five  millions  of  dollars.  Where,  said 
he,  does  the  treaty-making  power  find  authority 
to  expunge  the  claims  of  our  citizens — extin- 
guish their  right  to  demand  the  full  amount 
from  Spain,  and  only  pay  them  half  the  money  ? 
Barter  their  whole  claims  for  soil  and  sover- 
eignty ;  for  sand  and  sea- weed — a  barren  scep- 
tre— and  pay  them  but  one  moiety !  This  is  a 
new  mode  of  levying  taxes,  of  raising  contri- 
butions; a  letter  of  marque  and  reprisal  on 
ourselves ;  a  flat  violation  of  the  fifth  article  of 
the  amendments  to  the  constitution,  which  de- 
clares, that  "  private  property  shall  not  be  ta- 
ken for  public  purposes,  without  just  compen- 
sation." 

His  great  objection  to  the  treaty,  one  which, 
in  his  opinion,  was  decisive,  had  not  yet  been 


DEBATES  OF  CONGRESS. 


591 


APRIL,  1820.] 


The  Spanish  Treaty. 


[H.  OF  R. 


pressed  or  amplified.  The  argument  had  chiefly 
rested  upon  the  treaty-making  power,  and  the 
power  of  this  House ;  and  upon  title  and  equiv- 
alents. His  friend  from  Virginia  (Mr.  ABCHEB) 
had  debated  the  question  of  power,  with  an 
ability  which  did  him  honor.  There,  Mr.  T. 
would  let  it  rest.  The  view  which  he  would 
take  of  the  subject  made  it  of  little  importance 
whether  the  first  resolution  should  be  affirmed 
or  not.  He  would  vote  for  the  second,  with 
the  utmost  freedom. 

Title  and  equivalents  apart,  ought  this  nation 
to  accept  the  limits  settled  by  the  treaty,  and 
surrender  Texas  ? 

The  boundary,  in  his  opinion,  was  the  main 
question.  Most  of  the  other  stipulations  were 
retroactive ;  had  reference  only  to  the  interests 
of  a  few.  But  this  is  entirely  prospective  in  its 
operation.  It  concerns  every  citizen  of  the  Ke- 
public,  and  especially  those  of  the  West,  whose 
barriers  were  about  to  be  surrendered;  the 
shield  of  whose  commerce  was  about  to  be 
broken,  and  the  emporium  of  their  trade  ex- 
posed to  surreption  and  to  plunder.  It  was  of 
no  consequence,  he  said,  whether  we  had  title 
or  no  title  to  the  province  in  dispute.  Not  that 
he  intended  to  yield  oar  claim  of  title — far  from 
it.  He  saw  no  room  for  doubt ;  the  argument 
upon  title  was  conclusive  in  our  favor.  That 
gave  us  the  "  vantage  ground ;"  but  he  would 
waive  it  entirely,  because  he  intended  to  sustain 
himself  upon  other  facts  and  principles,  and 
would  endeavor  to  show  that  the  surrender  of 
Texas  would  be  in  every  respect  improvident 
and  dangerous. 

This,  he  said,  was  a  Treaty  of  Limits.  The  Fa- 
ther of  the  Universe,  in  his  peculier  providence, 
had  given  natural  boundaries  to  every  conti- 
nent and  kingdom — permanent,  physical,  imper- 
ishable barriers  to  every  nation,  to  shield  it  from 
invasion.  Man,  in  his  mad  career  of  glory,  his 
thirst  for  dominion,  had  rejected  as  useless  the 
great  and  permanent  boundaries  of  nature,  and 
sought  out  ideal,  perishable  limits  of  his  own 
creation.  Look  at  the  great  profile  of  every 
continent,  and  you  find  them  partitioned  by 
the  hand  of  Providence  into  portions  and  allot- 
ments convenient  for  the  purposes  of  social 
happiness ;  and  those  allotments  are  everywhere 
protected  by  barriers  and  defences.  Spain  her- 
self is  an  instance.  She  is  bounded  by  two 
seas  and  one  mountain — the  Atlantic  and  Medi- 
terranean, and  the  Pyrenees.  Hundreds  of 
wars  have  arisen  upon  questions  of  ideal  boun- 
dary, and  millions  of  human  beings  have  been 
slaughtered  to  beat  back  ambitious  nations  into 
their  natural  limits.  Compacts  and  paper 
boundaries  are  men  of  straw  in  the  hands  of  domi- 
nation. It  is  physical  barriers  alone  that  check 
encroachment,  and  give  repose  to  feeble  nations. 
In  Europe,  questions  of  boundary  are  settled  by 
the  law  of  accident,  of  conquest,  of  necessity, 
of  weakness — by  the  law  called  "  the  balance  of 
power."  Density  of  population,  conflicting  in- 
terest, and  long-established  usages,  preclude 
all  hope  of  voluntary  change.  Ours,  on  the 


contrary,  is  a  new  world,  sparsely  settled, 
(partly  peopled, )  inhabited  by  nations  in  a  state 
of  pupilage.  We  alone  have  risen  from  minority 
to  manhood.  "We  have  fought  one  war  for  in- 
dependence ;  another  for  "  free  trade  and  sailors' 
rights ;"  and  another  must  be  fought  for  barriers 
and  boundaries,  if  you  ratify  this  treaty.  We 
are  acting  on  a  new  theatre,  under  new  aus- 
pices, and  new  principles. 

What  ought  to  be  the  confines  of  our  Union  ? 
That  was  the  great  question  confided  to  our 
Minister.  No  public  functionary  ever  held  a 
higher  trust,  or  filled  an  office  more  responsible 
— the  sacred  trust  of  giving  limits  to  the  only 
free  nation  in  existence.  Called  as  he  was  to 
that  high  trust ;  holding  as  he  did  in  his  hands 
the  destiny  of  millions ;  animated,  as  he  surely 
was,  by  all  the  motives  that  could  stimulate  his 
love  of  country,  he  should  have  spurned  the 
higgling  policy  of  Kings,  the  truck  and  traffic 
of  European  despots,  and  their  ambidextrous 
Ministers,  and,  mounting  upwards  to  first  prin- 
ciples, demanded  at  once  our  natural  limits,  the 
barriers  of  our  country,  and  yielded  with  equal 
promptitude  all  claims  beyond  them.  Nations 
are  individuals  in  relation  to  each  other ;  and, 
as  self-defence  is  the  first  law  of  man,  so  is  na- 
tional defence  the  first  law  of  society.  The 
boundaries  of  States  and  Kingdoms  should  be 
settled  with  reference  to  their  military  defence 
and  maritime  protection.  Every  nation  should 
possess  the  military  positions  which  defend  its 
frontier,  and  the  keys  which  protect  the  em- 
poriums of  its  commerce.  These  barriers  are 
hostages  for  the  peace  of  nations ;  and  no  people 
can  neglect  them  with  impunity,  or  surrender 
them  with  safety.  It  is  by  acquiring  these,  in 
tunes  of  peace,  that  preparation  is  best  made 
for  war.  These,  said  Mr.  T.,  are  maxims  estab- 
lished by  experience  and  sanctioned  by  all  his- 
tory. Are  they  found  in  this  treaty  ?  Do  they 
sanction  its  stipulations,  or  had  they  been  for- 
gotten in  the  lapse  of  diplomacy  ?  he  was  mis- 
taken if  they  were  not.  He  would  conjure 
gentlemen  not  to  mislead  themselves  with 
doubts  about  the  title.  We  were  purchasing 
territory,  and  fixing  limits.  Title  was  nothing. 
Boundary  and  barriers  were  every  thing. 
There  lies  the  pith  and  marrow  of  the  subject. 

1st.  Where  are  the  natural  limits  and  barriers 
of  the  Kepublic? 

2d.  Was  it  in  our  power  to  obtain  a  cession 
for  those  limits  ? 

3d.  Were  they  necessary  or  desirable  for 
military  purposes — for  protection  and  defence  ? 

4th.  Were  they  wanted  as  safeguards  to  our 
commerce  and  commercial  depots  ? 

6th.  If  we  transfer  our  claim,  be  it  bad  or 
good,  shadow  or  substance,  may  not  some  hos- 
tile power,  some  jealous  adversary,  occupy 
the  province,  and  use  it  to  assail  New  Orleans, 
and  destroy  our  Western  commerce,  or  load  it 
with  exactions? 

These  were  inquiries  of  first  magnitude,  and 
claim  our  cool  deliberation.  The  Rio  del  Norte, 
the  Puerco,  and  the  Apacb.ee  Mountains,  and 


592 


ABRIDGMENT  OF  THE 


H.  OF  R.] 


The  Spanish  Treaty. 


[APRIL,  1820. 


Sierra  Obscura,  (dark  mountains,)  are  our  na- 
tional limits,  on  that  side  of  the  confederacy. 
Examine,  if  you  please,  a  map  of  our  country ; 
compare  it  with  that  of  other  nations.  Like 
France,  we  are  bounded  by  two  seas  and  two 
mountains — the  Atlantic  and  the  lakes  on  those 
sides,  and  by  the  mountains  West  and  South. 
The  Kio  del  Norte  is  to  us  what  the  Rhine  is  to 
France,  and  Texas  is  our  low  country — our 
Netherlands.  Spain  authorized  her  Minister  to 
cede  all  as  far  as  the  Eio  del  Norte ;  wherefore 
shall  we  surrender  all  beyond  the  Sabine  ?  The 
Minister  had  full  powers,  and  his  secret  instruc- 
tions permitted  him  to  cede  much  farther  than 
he  did — rumor  says,  a  large  portion  of  New 
Spain;  meaning  "Louisiana,  as  it  should  be," 
to  the  Eio  del  Norte.  Why  did  we  yield? 
Why  not  adhere  to  every  acre?  The  Spaniard 
had  fears,  and  our  interests  were  set  off  against 
his  fears — our  barriers  and  defences,  to  save  his 
head.  The  commercial  interests  of  eight  States, 
two  Territories,  parts  of  two  States,  and  all 
the  transmontane  regions  surrendered,  now 
and  forever,  to  save  a  Spaniard  from  potential 
danger. 

New  Orleans,  he  said,  was  the  only  entrepot 
for  the  commerce  of  the  Mississippi  and  its 
waters.  No  city,  of  ancient  or  modern  times, 
possessed  the  same  advantages ;  certainly  none 
of  ours  had  equal  prospects  for  the  future.  It 
was  destined  to  become  the  great  emporium  of 
the  new  world.  It  was  the  heel  of  Achilles — our 
vulnerable  point.  Florida,  Texas,  and  Cuba, 
are  the  great  military  and  naval  positions  which 
defend  the  city  and  its  commerce  or  threaten  it 
with  invasion.  It  is  particularly  exposed  to 
combined  operations — to  simultaneous  attacks 
by  land  and  water.  Let  it  be  taken,  and  the 
tree  is  belted ;  the  country  above  it  will  deaden 
and  decay.  We  have  no  other  market.  Our 
produce  will  perish  in  our  hands.  Expose  New 
Orleans,  and  you  expose  our  interests  in  the 
same  proportion.  A  place  of  such  importance 
should  be  guarded  by  positions  which  bid  defi- 
ance to  assault.  The  three  positions  he  had 
named  belong  properly  to  our  continent.  Cuba, 
said  he,  we  shall  never  get ;  and  the  treaty  offers 
to  surrender  Texas,  leaving  us  Florida,  the 
weakest  of  the  three,  to  defend  the  city.  He 
would  say  the  weakest,  because  he  should  haz- 
ard nothing  in  affirming  that  Orleans  is  most 
vulnerable  on  its  right  flank — on  the  side  of 
Texas ;  and  always  would  be  so,  until  that  prov- 
ince is  settled  by  our  people.  From  Florida 
and  Cuba  the  line  of  attack  upon  New  Orleans 
is  by  water  ;  the  land  route  from  East  Florida 
being  impracticable  for  any  army  of  invasion. 
The  enemy  would  have  to  debark  itself  in  the 
face  of  defensive  armies,  an  operation  never  de- 
sirable, and  almost  always  dangerous.  But  the 
base  of  a  campaign  against  Orleans,  laid  in  Texas, 
and  aided  by  the  fine  horses  of  that  country, 
and  the  facilities  of  descent  by  the  Eed  Eiver 
and  Mississippi,  would  insure  success ;  and  even 
if  defeated,  the  men  and  means  of  that  defeat 
would  cost  this  country  more  than  twice  the 


sum  which  would  at  this  day  purchase  the 
whole  province.  This  line  of  attack  unites  all 
the  advantages  of  land  and  water  movements. 
A  fleet  could  actively  operate  upon  the  Gulf, 
and  furnish  the  invading  army  with  supplies, 
by  the  rivers  and  bayous  of  the  country.  All 
this  was  so  clear  to  him,  so  palpable,  that  he  mar- 
velled greatly  at  those  who  could  not  see  it. 
He  would  ask,  if  New  Orleans  had  nothing  to 
fear  from  a  transfer  of  Texas  to  England? 
Nothing  from  a  coalition  between  England  and 
New  Spain  ?  Nothing  from  the  ambition  of  a 
Creolian  Emperor  of  Mexico,  possessing  the  very 
sinews  of  war,  the  mines  and  precious  metals, 
and  stimulated  by  the  love  of  domination  ? 

England,  he  said,  had  fought  us  two  wars, 
and  committed  the  same  errors  in  each.  It  was 
not  for  him  to  expose  her  blunders;  experience 
would  not  be  lost  upon  her ;  she  could  feel  for 
a  soft  place  as  well  as  other  nations.  It  is  said 
she  urges  Spain  to  ratify  the  treaty ;  and  it  is 
also  said  that  she  holds  a  secret  treaty  of  cession 
for  the  island  of  Cuba ;  that  has  been  denied. 
Perhaps  it  is  only  a  cession  of  Texas,  in  part 
remuneration  for  subsidies  furnished  during  the 
war  in  the  Peninsula  against  Napoleon  and 
King  Joseph.  Next  to  Cuba  it  is  the  most 
important  acquisition  she  could  make  upon  our 
borders;  especially  if  she  intends  to  fight  us 
another  war.  She  would  then  hold  the  barriers  of 
our  country  on  each  flank  on  the  North  and  South ; 
and  while  we  besiege  Quebec  she  would  plunder 
Orleans.  If  she  demands  the  province,  can 
Ferdinand  refuse  ?  Where  was  he,  and  what 
his  condition,  in  February  last?  At  Madrid, 
surrounded  by  discord  and  confusion  ;  his  coffers 
empty ;  his  subjects  mutinous ;  and  his  army  in 
rebellion.  Where  is  he  now?  Perhaps  wing- 
ing his  aerial  flight  after  his  cousin  the  Duke  of 
Berri ;  perhaps  an  exile  from  his  native  land, 
living  npon  the  bounty  of  the  allies ;  perhaps  a 
fugitive,  houseless  and  friendless  in  his  own 
dominions;  perhaps  a  tenant  in  his  own  dun- 
geons, the  companion  of  State  criminals,  the 
victims  of  his  mad  policy. 

Mr.  T.  rejoiced  that  he  was  a  son  of  the  new 
world ;  a  citizen  of  a  free  government ;  a  com- 
panion of  freemen.  Had  his  lot  been  cast  else- 
where, Ireland  of  choice  should  have  been  his 
birthplace,  the  land  of  hospitality  and  heroes, 
of  patriots  and  martyrs ;  and,  next  to  Ireland, 
France.  The  French,  said  he,  are  a  brave  and 
generous  people ;  heroic,  magnanimous,  and 
lofty ;  their  renown  in  arms  will  be  remembered, 
when  the  dynasties  of  the  Bourbons  and  Napo- 
leons are  forgotten.  They  deserved  to  enjoy  a 
bright  day  of  liberty,  of  which  they  saw  only 
the  twilight.  The  holy  alliance  may  persuade 
Louis  XVIII.  to  abolish  the  law  of  elections, 
the  freedom  of  the  press,  and  the  trial  by  jury, 
and  to  revive  the  lettres  de  cachtt ;  but  the  king 
should  beware.  The  spirit  of  freedom  in  France 
is  unbroken — it  only  sleeps — the  ultras  will  ruin 
him.  Even  now  his  power  totters  to  its  base. 
But,  as  to  his  cousin  Ferdinand,  he  dare  not 
send  him  subsidies.  He  dare  not  march  an 


DEBATES  OF  CONGRESS. 


593 


APRIL,  1820.] 


The  Spanish  Treaty. 


[H.  OF  R 


army  into  Spain.  Frenchmen  may  fight  to  bnild 
up  a  constitution,  they  will  not  fight  to  put  one 
down.  What  can  Ferdinand  do?  Where  can 
he  turn  for  succor  ?  What  are  his  means  to 
purchase  it?  His  colonies  are  torn  away  by 
revolution,  never  to  reunite.  He  has  nothing 
left  but  Cuba,  and  Porto  Rico,  and  Texas.  New 
Spain  is  nothing,  because  Apodaca  will  be  Em- 
peror of  Mexico,  whenever  time  and  chance 
will  favor  him.  Cuba  is  the  brightest  gem  upon 
the  Crown ;  that  comes  to  the  hammer  last. 
What  has  he  left  but  Texas,  which  is  available 
to  purchase  subsidies  ?  Like  other  bankrupts, 
he  must  surrender  his  effects,  and  England  must 
take  Texas  for  a  shilling  in  the  pound.  The 
purchase  would  give  her  commercial  advantages 
and  military  strength.  AVould  she  value  it  for 
military  purposes  ?  He  could  state  a  fact  which 
would  serve  him  as  an  argument.  No  one,  he 
said,  had  forgotten  the  affair  of  the  Chesapeake : 
on  that  occasion  the  war-whoop  resounded 
through  all  parts  of  the  Union  ;  England  heard 
it,  and  began  to  prepare  for  probable  events. 

He  said,  he  had  no  intention  to  deceive  him- 
self or  to  mislead  others.  He  had  no  complaint 
to  make  against  the  Cabinet  for  having  assented 
to  the  treaty.  He  was  sure  the  President  in- 
tended to  do  every  thing  he  could  in  favor  of 
that  section  of  the  Union,  consistent  with  his 
general  duties  to  the  nation,  and  that  it  would 
give  him  peculiar  pleasure  to  put  the  finishing 
touch  to  the  great  Mississippi  question,  in  the 
management  of  which  he  had  been  so  conspicu- 
ous from  its  origin  to  this  day,  and  for  which 
distinguished  services  he  deserved  all  the  ap- 
plause which  the  nation  had  awarded  him.  Mr. 
T.  knew  well  enough  that  members  residing  at 
different  parts  of  the  Union  might  have  differ- 
ent views  of  the  subject.  It  was  his  settled 
opinion  that  Texas  was  worth  more  than  Flori- 
da, and  he  would  express  his  sentiments  with 
the  frankness  of  a  freeman.  It  was  worth  more 
for  agricultural  purposes  ;  for  military  defence  ; 
for  maritime  protection  ;  for  a  hostage  of  peace 
between  us  and  Mexico.  As  a  colony  of  Eng- 
land, we  should  find  it  a  whip  of  scorpions. 
With  it  we  surrender  the  control  of  the  Coman- 
ches,  the  Lepans,  the  Tetans,  and  various  tribes 
of  Indians  who  inhabit  its  plains  and  mountains  ; 
the  most  powerful  and  warlike  Indians  on  the 
continent — numbering  from  ten  to  twenty-five 
thousand  warriors,  of  great  muscular  strength 
and  vigorous  constitutions — mounted  upon  the 
finest  horses  in  our  country — the  Andalu>ian 
blood  crossed  with  Arabian.  These  wild  men 
are  the  unconquered  descendants  of  Montezuma, 
inhabiting  the  Switzerland  of  New  Spain ;  a 
determined,  vigilant,  and  crafty  race— fruitful 
in  stratagem,  skilful  inarms  and  horsemanship, 
and  fierce  in  battle.  They  are  the  Cossacks  of 
America;  the  Spartans  of  modern  time-.  I.<  t 
no  man  despise  the  children  of  the  Sun  ! 

What  if  England  should   get   the   province, 

subsidize  the  natives,  and  establish  a  line  of 

posts  along  our  Southern  border  ?     Is  experience 

lost  upon   us?     Have  we  forgotten  the  rude 

VOL.  VI.— 38 


lessons  of  last  war?  Here  we  are,  contesting 
the  point  of  honor  about  the  Missouri  expedi- 
tion ;  listening  to  wise  counsellors,  who  teach 
us  the  value  of  Northwestern  posts ;  of  holding 
checks  upon  the  Indians  in  that  quarter,  and 
counterchecks  upon  the  influence  of  British 
traders,  and  at  the  same  time  advise  us  to  sur- 
render Texas ;  a  country  of  rich  soil  and  mild 
climate,  about  one  hundred  leagues  wide,  and 
extending  more  than  seven  hundred  miles  along 
our  Southern  frontier ;  exposing  us,  thought- 
lessly and  carelessly,  to  the  vexations  and  dan- 
gers of  Indian  warfare  on  that  border,  but  care- 
fully and  promptly  creating  counterguards  else- 
where. Here  we  protect  you  against  the  ruth- 
less savage ;  there  we  expose  you  to  his  tender 
mercies.  The  contrast  struck  him  with  amaze- 
ment. France  had  a  cordon  of  posts  around  us 
while  we  were  colonies;  she  had  forts  from 
Quebec  up  the  Lakes,  and  down  the  Ohio  and 
Mississippi  to  New  Orleans.  The  effect  was 
not  forgotten.  In  the  war  of  '56,  she  brought 
the  Indians  upon  our  frontier  from  Lake  George 
to  the  swamps  of  Florida.  The  blood  of  our 
people  was  shed  in  copious  streams  ;  thousands 
of  lives  were  sacrificed,  and  millions  of  money 
spent  in  repelling  the  barbarous  invaders.  Eng- 
land pursued  the  same  policy  during  the  Revo- 
lution, and  again  the  savages  laid  waste  our 
frontier  from  the  Mohawk  to  the  Oconee  and 
St.  Mary's,  in  Georgia. 

We  had  barely  recovered  from  this  blow,- 
when  the  Mississippi  question  struck  us  with 
consternation  and  dismay.  He  alluded,  he  said, 
to  the  famous  proposition  to  surrender  the  trans- 
montane  country  to  Spain.  We  shall  find  it 
upon  the  secret  journal ;  the  gentleman  from 
South  Carolina  (Mr.  PIXOKNEY)  had  told  us  so 
from  his  place  in  this  House,  and  he  was  a 
member  of  that  Congress.  We  of  the  West 
were  to  have  been  pruned  off  from  the  Tree  of 
Liberty ;  our  soil  rented  to  a  foreign  despot ; 
leased  for  a  term  of  years ;  ourselves  threatened 
with  the  insolence  of  Spanish  power,  and  the 
horrors  of  Spanish  tyranny.  Who  would  have 
been  our  Viceroy  or  Captain  General  ?  One  of 
our  own  countrymen?  No,  sir,  a  foreigner, 
some  royal  parasite ;  a  myrmidon  of  power ;  a 
bloody  and  merciless  Morillo,  with  the  inquisition 
at  hia  heels,  to  crush  the  spirit  of  independence 
or  drive  us  from  the  country ;  our  hardy,  fear- 
less woodsmen,  after  surmounting  the  perils  of 
migration,  and  subduing  the  Spartans  of  the 
forest,  must  have  bowed,  silent  and  sullen,  to 
the  yoke  of  Spain,  or  paid  the  forfeit  of  iv-i st- 
ance in  lingering  torments  to  glut  the  ven- 
geance of  unholy  altars  ;  and  our  heroic,  enter- 
prising females,  after  breasting  the  tomahawk, 
and  sivilpinir-knit'e  of  savage  war,  would  have 
been  spared,  only  to  witness  the  horror-breast- 
ing scenes  exhibited  not  long  since  in  Valencia; 
the  blood  of  maiden  innocence  gushing  from  its 
naked  limbs,  andtlripping  from  the  torture  and 
the  rack.  That  thunderbolt  went  by ;  and  now 
another  comes.  Our  barriers  are  surrendered 
— bartered  away.  The  equivalent  is  nothing; 


594 


ABRIDGMENT  OF  THE 


H.  OK  R.] 


The  Spanish  Treaty. 


[APRIL,  1820. 


barric-rs  have  no  equivalents ;  they  are  above 
its  standard;  they  are  the  gift  of  God  to  na- 
tions ;  the  shield  and  buckler  of  defence  ;  the 
guards  and  counterchecks  against  invasion. 
The  great  Engineer  of  the  Universe  has  fixed 
the  natural  limits  of  our  country,  and  man  can- 
not change  them  ;  that  at  least  is  above  the 
treaty-making  power.  To  that  boundary  we 
shall  go ;  "  peaceably  if  we  can,  forcibly  if  we 
must;  "  beyond  it,  all  to  us  is  worthless;  we 
would  not  have  it  as  a  gift ;  not  if  Spain  would 
give  a  dowry  with  it:  that  would  lay  the  foun- 
dation of  perpetual  collisions ;  the  other  would 
exclude  them  so  far  as  human  wisdom  can  avert 
the  danger.  Boundaries  fix  the  destiny  of  na- 
tions for  peace  or  war.  The  primary  law  of  all 
communities  is  self-defence,  protection  from  as- 
sault, shelter  from  invasion,  safeguards  for  com- 
merce, and  commercial  depots.  They  who  sur- 
render barriers,  betray  themselves;  it  is  high 
treason  against  posterity ;  the  evil  ends  not  with 
time  present ;  it  operates  in  perpetuity.  Why 
sell  the  birthright  of  our  country  ?  Our  ances- 
tors left  us  a  goodly  heritage ;  let  us  preserve  it 
unimpaired ;  we  are  responsible  for  the  estate, 
and  its  abutments  and  defences ;  not  to  those 
who  have  passed  away,  and  sleep  with  their 
fathers;  no,  sir,  to  ourselves;  to  this  nation, 
the  only  free  one  on  the  globe  ;  to  a  long  line 
of  succeeding  generations ;  to  the  cause  of  free- 
dom and  humanity  itself.  "Will  you  hazard  a 
failure  of  this  great  political  experiment,  "in 
the  full  tide  of  its  success  ? "  "Will  you  jeopard- 
ize the  integrity  of  the  nation  by  surrendering 
its  safeguards,  and  thereby  inviting  foreign 
powers  to  seize  our  emporiums,  and  smite  us 
with  disunion  ? 

Mr.  ANDERSON,  of  Kentucky,  said  that  he  re- 
gretted very  much  to  see  the  course  in  which  the 
gentlemen  who  had  preceded  him  had  thought 
proper  to  indulge  themselves.  A  course  which 
went  in  every  way  to  depreciate  Florida,  and  to 
give  to  Texas  such  exaggerated  advantages  as 
he  believed  no  country  ever  possessed.  He  had 
inever  heard  until  lately  that  the  acquisition  of 
^Florida  was  not  eminently  desirable  to  this 
country ;  not  only  on  account  of  its  positive 
advantages,  but  for  the  purpose  of  excluding 
from  all  ownership  any  foreign  power,  whose 
neighborhood  would  always  be  unfriendly,  and 
particularly  for  preventing  its  occupation  by  a 
power  which  had  a  strong  naval  force.  The 
complete  natural  boundary  which  its  possession 
would  give  us,  its  fine  ports,  the  command  of 
the  Gulf,  (an  advantage  always  in  the  recollec- 
tion of  those  whose  productions  passed  to  mar- 
ket through  the  channel  of  the  Mississippi,)  had 
formed  the  reasons  which  induced  the  American 
people  to  desire  it.  Without  having  any  parti- 
cular information  on  the  subject,  which  was  not 
common  to  every  gentleman,  Mr.  A.  said  that 
he  had  yielded  to  those  reasons  which  seemed 
so  obvious,  and  had  partaken  of  the  general 
anxiety.  Public  sentiment  had  decided  on  the 
importance  of  the  acquisition,  and  the  Execu- 
tive department  of  the  government  has  been 


stimulated  by  a  knowledge  of  the  universal 
wish  that  Florida  should  belong  to  us.  It  may 
be  safely  affirmed  that  for  many  years  the 
people  have  never  looked  to  a  settlement  of  our 
differences  with  Spain,  without  combining  with 
that  adjustment  the  acquisition  of  Florida.  So 
strongly  had  it  seized  on  the  public  mind,  that 
the  original  cause  of  our  negotiation  with  Spain 
had  become  only  an  incident  in  public  senti- 
ment. This  general  anxiety  was  connected,  too, 
with  a  belief  that  its  purchase  was  essential  to 
the  complete  suppression  of  the  Indian  hostili- 
ties, which  had  so  long  vexed  our  Southern 
citizens. 

During  the  long  and  tedious  negotiations 
which  preceded  the  treaty  of  February,  1819, 
this  general  belief  had  been  cherished  and  aug- 
mented. Nothing  was  said  or  published  to  di- 
vert the  public  attention,  nor  to  show  the  peo- 
ple or  the  Government  that  they  attached  to 
the  country  an  improper  value.  But  it  is  now 
becoming  the  fashionable  opinion  that  if  the 
treaty  is  ratified,  we  shall  have  acquired  nothing 
valuable  ;  that  Florida  is  a  sand-bank  ;  that  it 
is,  at  any  rate,  what  we  can  do  very  well  with- 
out at  present.  All  the  value  which  we  have 
heretofore  attached  to  that  country  is  now 
transferred  to  Texas ;  the  climate  of  Texas,  its 
soil,  its  relation  to  the  Gulf,  its  fine  port,  its 
high  maritime  importance,  have  been  spoken 
of  in  language  of  the  highest  praise.  Mr.  A. 
said  that  much  of  this  may  be  true ;  the  map 
showed  to  him  the  climate,  and  he  had  heard 
that  there  was  much  fine  land.  But  the  nature 
and  accuracy  of  the  information  of  the  gentle- 
men, he  presumed,  depended  upon  authority 
very  much  like  his  own  ;  he  had  seen  very  few 
people  who  had  ever  been  there.  And  as  it 
regarded  the  naval  importance  of  the  country 
and  the  fine  port  spoken  of,  he  would  observe 
that  he  considered  the  statements  of  the  gen- 
tleman wholly  wrong.  The  general  opinion, 
founded  on  the  uncontradicted  statements  of 
our  naval  officers  and  others,  was,  that  there  is 
no  port  on  the  whole  coast ;  and  he  could  say 
that  he  had  never  heard  of  it,  until  it  was  men- 
tioned yesterday  by  his  friend,  the  SPEAKER. 
It  had  been  frequently  mentioned  as  a  peculiar- 
ity and  a  commercial  misfortune  attending  the 
coast  of  the  Gulf,  for  &  very  great  distance  to 
the  southward  of  the  mouth  of  the  Mississippi, 
that  there  was  not  even  a  tolerable  harbor. 

Mr.  A.  said  he  thought  it  peculiarly  unfortu- 
nate that  gentlemen  should,  under  existing  cir- 
cumstances, when  the  acquisition  had  been 
made  so  far  as  the  authorities  of  our  Govern- 
ment extended,  depreciate  that  which  we  had 
gotten,  and  for  the  payment  of  which  our  con- 
stituents might  soon  be  called  on  to  contribute, 
and  should  endeavor  to  enhance  the  value  of 
that  country  which  the  same  authorities  had 
determined  did  not  belong  to  us.  He  thought 
such  a  course  might  have  a  very  unhappy  ef- 
fect on  the  public  mind;  and  he  deprecated 
very  much  every  thing  which  would  now  tend 
to  produce  dissatisfaction  towards  a  treaty 


DEBATES  OF  CONGRESS. 


595 


APRIL,  1820.] 


The  Spanish  Treaty. 


[H.  OF  R. 


•which  we  had  ourselves  promoted  and  rati- 
fied. 

On  the  subject  of  our  power  to  interfere,  in 
the  way  proposed,  Mr.  A.  said  he  had  no  diffi- 
culty. He  believed  that  it  was  competent  to 
the  House  of  Representatives,  on  any  occasion 
in  which  they  might  constitutionally  interfere, 
to  bring  to  punishment  the  betrayers  of  the 
public  trust,  or  which  they  might  be  ultimately 
called  on  to  aid  by  an  appropriation  of  money, 
to  anticipate  the  case,  and  to  avert  the  evil, 
which  they  foresaw  was  about  to  fall  on  the 
country.  He  believed  that  this  House,  on 
every  great  occasion,  might  so  far  imbody  and 
give  expression  to  public  sentiment,  as  to  de- 
clare by  resolution  its  opinion,  for  the  purpose 
of  averting  a  great  national  calamity  which  the 
treaty-making  power  or  any  other  department 
was  about  to  bring  on  the  country.  A  right 
ultimately  to  prosecute  the  offenders  seemed 
itself  to  give  a  power  to  avert  the  offence,  by 
forewarning  the  agents.  But,  while  he  had  no 
doubt  of  the  right  of  the  House  to  act  in  this 
case,  in  which,  if  the  treaty  were  made,  they 
would  be  called  on  to  make  the  appropriations 
to  fulfil  it,  he  strenuously  contended  that  no 
case  had  been  made  out  to  justify  our  inter- 
ference. The  utmost  ingenuity  of  gentlemen 
had  been  exerted  to  ascertain  whether  the 
treaty  were  a  good  or  a  bad  one.  Where  dif- 
ferences of  opinion  might  exist  as  to  its  policy, 
it  was  essential  that  the  treaty-making  power 
should  be  uncontrolled  ;  that  the  department 
which  had  the  power  to  act  should  act  on  its 
own  responsibility ;  that  the  exercise  of  this 
power  should  in  no  way  be  controlled,  nor  its 
responsibility  shared  by  us.  With  these  senti- 
ments, he  could  have  wished  that  the  resolu- 
tions had  not  been  introduced.  If  they  had 
tended  towards  another  purpose,  to  which  an 
allusion  had  been  made  in  the  course  of  the  de- 
bate, they  should  have  had  his  cordial  support. 
He  would  most  cordially  co  -operate  in  any  pub- 
lic measures  which  should  go  to  establish  be- 
tween this  country  and  the  independent  Gov- 
ernments of  South  America  those  relations 
which  he  believed  the  feelings  of  our  citizens 
and  the  just  claims  of  those  Governments  re- 
quired— relations  which  he  believed  would  soon 
exist  with  the  approbation  of  every  one. 

There  is  another  consideration  which  should 
make  this  House  cautious  in  adopting  the  reso- 
lutions before  us — cautious  in  abandoning  the 
high  ground  we  have  obtained  by  our  forbear- 
ance and  magnanimity.  The  course  of  this 
protracted  negotiation  has  gained  to  us  much 
honor  in  the  eyes  of  the  world.  Although  we 
have  failed  as  yet  in  getting  a  recompense  for 
the  wrongs  done  to  us.  we  have  acquired  a 
character  which  was  worth  much  more.  We 
have  shown  to  the  world  that  we  sought  jus- 
tice, not  aggrandizement;  we  have  shown  that 
we  could  abstain  from  war,  oven  when  our  ad- 
versary had  given  to  us  the  amplest  justifica- 
tion. We  have  defeated  the  malicious  predic- 
tions of  the  politicians  of  Europe,  who  del-hired 


that  we  only  sought  an  apology  for  seizing  on 
Florida.  The  present  state  of  the  negotiation 
has  just  brought  those  Courts  to  the  acknowl- 
edgment (a  proud  one  for  us)  that  we  sought 
only  peace  and  a  fair  settlement. 

But,  if  we  pass  these  resolutions,  we  sud- 
denly relinquish  this  high  ground,  and  assume 
the  station  of  our  adversary.  For  fourteen 
years  we  have  been  urgent,  Spain  reluctant ; 
we  have  pressed,  Spain  has  receded ;  but  now, 
when  there  is  an  indication  of  peace,  we  sud- 
denly change  sides — Spain  presses,  and  we  re- 
cede. We  thereby  defeat  all  our  declarations 
of  anxiety  for  peace ;  we  charge  as  unequal  the 
terms  which  for  several  months  have  been  re- 
garded as  the  terms  of  peace,  and  which  have 
been  sanctioned  by  all  the  authorities  of  the 
Government.  This  course  would  present  the 
American  Government  in  a  point  of  view 
wholly  different  from  the  one  in  which  her 
conduct  throughout  the  negotiation  had  placed 
her.  It  would  manifest  a  variableness  of  pub- 
lic counsel — an  instability  of  decision — in  no 
way  calculated  to  maintain  our  character  among 
foreign  nations,  or  among  our  own  citizens. 
Such  a  political  fickleness  would  create  at  home 
and  abroad  a  distrust  of  the  permanence  of  all 
our  public  measures.  It  must  be  borne  in  mind, 
too,  that  this  House  has  approved  the  treaty  in 
the  most  solemn  manner  in  which  it  can  act — 
by  the  passage  of  a  law.  A  bill  was  intro- 
duced and  passed  for  the  purpose  of  executing 
the  treaty,  in  all  those  parts  which  were  sus- 
ceptible of  immediate  execution,  and  for  estab- 
lishing a  provisional  government  in  Florida. 
It  has  been  said  that  this  bill  passed  without 
discussion.  This  was  true,  only  because  there 
was  no  objection  or  dissent.  The  forms  of  our 
Government  do  not  admit  any  further  ratifica- 
tion than  this  treaty  has  received.  It  received 
the  approbation  of  that  department  to  which 
such  duties  are,  in  the  first  instance,  assigned. 
The  House  of  Representatives  then  originated 
and  the  Congress  passed  a  law  for  carrying  it 
into  effect.  He  did  not  contend,  for  a  moment, 
that  the  treaty  was  now  binding  on  us — the 
King  of  Spain  having  failed  to  ratify  it  within 
the  time  prescribed.  But,  Mr.  A.  said,  he 
could  not  consent  so  soon  to  contradict  the 
formal  declarations  which  we  have  made  to  the 
world,  and  now  declare  to  our  own  citizens  that 
we  have  ratified  a  treaty  which  was  not  only 
unequal,  but  unconstitutional.  He  would  leave 
to  the  President  and  Senate  the  further  nego- 
tiation of  the  subject ;  and,  whether  any  recent 
circumstances  had  occurred,  which  would  in- 
duce them  to  reject  those  terms  of  settlement 
to  which  they  had  lately  assented,  he  would 
submit  to  them,  and  let  rest  on  their  responsi- 
bility the  duty  of  making  such  an  adjustment 
as  our  rights  demanded. 

Mr.  A.  saw  nothing  in  the  whole  course  of 
this  transaction  which  called  on  us  for  our  in- 
terference. He  did  not  think  that  the  circum- 
stance of  the  President  and  Senate  having  made 
one  treaty,  which  we  did  approve,  gave  any 


596 


ABRIDGMENT  OF  THE 


H.  OF  R.] 


The  Spanish  Treaty. 


[APRIL,  1820. 


evidence  that  they  would  now  make  one  which 
we  did  not. 

He  would  now  proceed  to  consider  the  reso- 
lution presented  by  the  SPEAKER,  in  reference 
to  its  application,  without  attending  closely  to 
the  phraseology.  In  its  operation,  it  contained 
a  denial  of  the  right  of  the  treaty-making  power 
to  declare  the  Sabine  Kiver  as  the  western 
limit  of  Louisiana.  Although,  in  form,  the 
first  member  of  the  resolution  purported  to  be 
a  declaration  that  the  President  and  Senate 
could  not  cede  any  of  the  territory  of  the 
United  States,  still  its  meaning  is  so  far  ex- 
plained by  the  second  resolution  and  the  speech 
of  the  SPEAKER,  that  it  was  fair  to  consider  it 
in  its  operation,  and  not  in  its  abstract  form. 
This  view  of  the  subject  would  save  him  from 
a  most  laborious  discussion,  which  an  examina- 
tion of  the  question  of  ceding  territory  belong- 
ing to  the  United  States  would  involve.  Wheth- 
er the  power  to  acquire  territory  does  include 
a  power  to  cede?  Whether  territory  be  as 
much  under  the  regulation  of  treaties  as  other 
property?  Whether  there  be  any  limitation  of 
the  treaty-making  power,  in  relation  to  terri- 
tory, produced  by  any  special  exception  in  the 
constitution  ;  and,  indeed,  what  are  the  limita- 
tions to  this  power?  are,  singly,  questions  of 
great  magnitude  ;  some  of  which  will  probably 
produce  much  unpleasant  contention  before 
they  are  finally  settled.  He  was,  however, 
happy  to  think  that  the  present  case  required 
no  such  discussion.  It  was  sufficient  for  him 
to  show  that  the  treaty,  as  concluded,  was 
within  the  powers  of  the  department  which 
made  it,  without  indulging  in  any  speculations 
on  the  construction  of  the  constitution  on  other 
controverted  points.  His  single  aim,  then,  was 
to  show  that  the  President  and  Senate  might 
safely  declare,  in  a  treaty  of  limits,  that  the 
disputed  province  of  Texas  was  not  included 
within  the  possessions  of  the  United  States, 
without  at  all  assuming  the  power  to  cede  any 
of  the  public  territory. 

TO  present  the  proposition,  with  distinctness, 
to  the  committee,  it  may  be  stated  that  there 
are  three  situations,  in  one  of  which  the  prov- 
ince of  Texas  must  be  placed : 

1st.  It  may  belong  to  Spain  certainly ; 

2d.  Or  to  us; 

3d.  Or  it  may  be  disputed  territory. 

In  the  first-mentioned  state  of  the  case,  there 
could  be  no  difficulty ;  there  could  be  none  in 
recognizing  that  which  previously  existed. 
That  supposition,  then,  will  be  no  farther  pur- 
sued. The  second  case,  then,  produces  the  dif- 
ficulty, and  is  the  only  one  on  which  the  reso- 
lutions can  be  maintained.  There  is  no  pre- 
tence for  sustaining  the  resolutions  until  it  is 
first  shown  that  Texas  belongs  to  us ;  but  no 
attempt  has  been  made  to  prove  it.  The  very 
ground  on  which  the  demand  of  gentlemen  for 
our  votes  must  be  supported  has  not  been 
touched.  The  debate  has  assumed,  as  a  fact, 
that  which  the  Spaniards  have  never  conceded, 
and  which,  in  fourteen  years  of  negotiation,  we, 


have  never  been  able  to  determine.  It  has  as- 
sumed, as  a  fact,  that  which  we  may  all  be- 
lieve, but  which  inasmuch  as  there  is  no  stand- 
ard between  nations  to  measure  the  respective 
rights  of  each,  must  be  uncertain,  so  long  as 
both  parties  assert  their  claims.  Probably  no 
American  has  ever  read  the  long  discussions  on 
this  subject,  which  have  been  conducted  by  the 
secretaries  of  the  two  countries,  without  an 
ardent  wish  to  find  proofs  to  sustain  the  claims 
of  his  country  to  the  farthest  boundaries  con- 
tended for;  and  very  few  of  us  have  ever  read 
without  finding  that  for  which  we  all  looked. 
But  these  reasons  are  of  no  avail,  so  long  as 
there  is  no  common  tribunal  to  enforce  them. 
Mr.  A.  said,  then,  that  he  should  not  go  into 
the  ultimate  question  of  the  right,  which  he 
considered  utterly  useless  to  him  who  held  the 
negative  of  the  proposition  before  the  House, 
but  should  attempt  to  show  that  the  country 
referred  to  was  in  the  third  class ;  or  was  dis- 
puted territory.  And  there  is  certainly  noth- 
ing which  falls  more  aptly  within  the  power  to 
form  treaties  than  the  settlement  of  the  limits 
of  disputed  or  undefined  territory. 

The  history  of  the  transaction  shows,  that  the 
ownership  of  this  province  has  never  ceased  to 
be  a  question.  That  there  never  has  been  a 
moment  of  time,  since  the  original  purchase  of 
Louisiana,  at  which  our  claims  were  admitted 
by  the  other  contracting  party.  There  are 
three  facts,  which  alone  must  assign  this  coun- 
try to  that  class  in  which  he  had  placed  it. 

Spain  has  never  agreed  that  it  belonged  to 
us. 

We  have  never  had  possession. 

The  President  of  the  United  States  approved 
the  arrangements  made  by  the  American  offi- 
cers with  the  Spanish  commandant,  in  1806,  by 
which  the  Spaniard  was  to  retire  with  his  forces 
beyond  the  Sabine ;  and  neither  party  was  to 
molest  the  other  on  their  respective  banks. 
This  arrangement  was  made  by  the  military 
officer  for  a  temporary  purposa,  but  was  ac- 
quiesced in  by  Mr.  Jefferson,  as  appears  by  his 
Message  at  the  succeeding  session,  has  never, 
been  violated,  and  has,  to  every  purpose,  been 
heretofore  the  western  limit  of  our  purchase. 
It  would  be  difficult  to  devise  any  circumstances 
which  would  more  certainly  affix  on  this  coun- 
try the  character  of  a  "disputed  territory;" 
there  is  no  trait  of  such  a  character  absent. 
After  volumes  have  been  written  by  the  agents 
of  the  Governments,  to  maintain  their  respective 
rights,  it  would  now  indeed  be  extraordinary  to 
declare  that  its  ownership  was  not  a  subject  of 
negotiation ;  for,  if  the  final  settlement  is  not 
within  the  power  of  the  department  which  has 
acted  on  it,  the  previous  negotiation  has  been 
idle. 

We  hold  the  deed  of  cession,  which  we  de- 
clare, grants  the  country  to  us;  while  Spain 
holds  the  country  and  denies  that  the  deed  em- 
braces it.  When  it  is  remembered,  that  be- 
tween nations  there  is  no  common  arbiter  by 
which  the  rights  of  each  can  be  ascertained, 


DEBATES  OF  CONGRESS. 


597 


APRIL,  1820.] 


Mausoleum  to  General  Washington. 


[H.  OF  R. 


our  claims  will,  in  the  eyes  of  the  world,  be 
considered  equal,  unless,  indeed,  the  possession 
of  our  adversary  should  create  in  his  behalf  a 
presumption  against  us.  Our  own  convictions 
that  the  country  is  within  Louisiana  can  have 
no  effect ;  as  there  is  no  test  by  which  it  can 
be  demonstrated.  An  American  statesman  may 
rise  and  declare,  that  "  Texas  belongs  to  us  ;  I 
know  it;  I  can  prove  it;"  but  it  is  a  vain 
declaration ; — of  what  avail  can  it  be,  when  the 
Spaniard,  standing  on  the  land,  says  "  it  is  mine ; 
I  hold  it,  and  there  is  no  judge  between  us  ? " 
It  is  a  matter  not  susceptible  of  demonstration ; 
and  there  is  no  tribunal  to  which  either  is 
bound  to  submit.  The  result  certainly  is,  that 
the  western  limit  of  Louisiana  has  ever  been  so 
uncertain,  that  its  adjustment  is  clearly  within 
the  power  which  has  acted  on  it.  It  seems  to 
have  been  admitted,  that,  where  the  extent  of 
a  purchase  of  territory  was  undefined,  the  Presi- 
dent and  Senate  could,  by  treaty,  define  its 
boundaries.  Nothing  can  be  more  plain,  than 
that  the  same  power  which  can  acquire  terri- 
tory, can  define  the  extent  of  the  acquisition  ; 
or,  in  other  words,  declare  how  much  it  did 
purchase. 

There  is  nothing  which  can,  under  the  dis- 
tribution of  powers  in  our  constitution,  be  more 
certainly  assigned  to  the  President  and  Senate, 
than  the  settlement  of  disputed  boundaries. 
Probably  there  is  no  single  subject  on  which 
so  many  treaties  have  been  made.  None  which 
is  more  peculiarly  the  attribute  of  the  depart- 
ment to  which  belongs  the  peace-making  power. 
From  the  very  great  extent  of  our  territory,  and 
the  undefined  state  of  its  limits,  on  several 
sides,  this  power  must  be  frequently  called  into 
exercise.  Its  frequent  operation  on  the  settle- 
ment of  differences  of  this  kind,  must  have  been 
contemplated  by  the  convention  ;  and  it  could 
never  have  been  intended,  that,  in  a  general 
grant  of  the  power,  it  should  be  construed  not 
to  apply  to  cases  which  had  been  invariably,  in 
all  countries,  the  subjects  of  its  operation.  In 
the  short  course  of  our  history,  treaties  have 
been  made,  in  which  boundaries  theretofore 
uncertain,  have  been  fixed;  and  territory  be- 
fore uncertain  as  to  its  ownership,  has  been  de- 
clared to  belong  to  us,  or,  to  the  other  contract- 
ing party,  as  it  should  fall  on  the  one  or  the 
other  side  of  the  designated  line. 

The  language  of  the  treaty  has  been  referred 
to,  for  the  purpose  of  showing  that  a  cession  of 
territory  was  in  the  contemplation  of  the  nego- 
tiators. Mr.  A  said  that  he  considered  the  treaty 
as  he  should  consider  any  other  written  instru- 
ment, by  its  legal  operation.  He  thought  that 
the  word  "cede"  was  improperly  used;  but  it 
was  an  impropriety  only  in  phrase.  The  inten- 
tion of  the  clause  was,  clearly,  a  designation  of 
boundary  only.  If  the  result  was  within  the 
constitutional  powers  of  the  President  and 
Senate,  it  would  be  unnecessary  cavilling  to 
censure  the  language  in  which  the  exercise  of 
that  power  was  expressed. 

But  do  gentlemen  see  with  clearness  the  con- 


sequence to  which  a  doctrine  would  lead,  which 
should  deny  to  the  President  and  Senate  the 
power  of  determining  by  treaty,  that  Texas  or 
any  other  controverted  territory,  to  which  we 
had  a  claim,  but  never  had  possession,  did  not 
belong  to  us  ?  What  tribunal  would  they  pro- 
pose, to  settle  the  controversy  ?  If  they  reject 
the  one  which  we  propose,  there  is  no  other 
test  but  the  sword.  The  result  would  be,  that, 
in  every  case  of  disputed  lines,  unless  our  neigh- 
bor would  unconditionally  relinquish  to  the  full 
extent  of  our  claims,  our  pretensions  must  be 
asserted  by  war ;  and  that  war  could  not  be 
abandoned,  however  disastrous  it  might  be,  un- 
til we  had  completely  succeeded.  No  treaty 
could  be  sooner  made,  because  it  would  cede  a 
part  of  our  territory.  And  in  the  case  of  Texas, 
how  long  should  we  fight  for  it?  Until  the 
House  of  Representatives  shall  be  of  opinion 
that  it  does  not  belong  to  us?  The  very  mo- 
ment in  which  you  take  from  the  Senate  the 
power  of  determining  the  right  to  the  property, 
you  are  on  the  ocean  without  a  pilot.  The 
opinion  of  each  individual  in  the  community  is 
entitled  to  equal  weight  in  this  consideration. 
To  the  man  who  thinks  that  the  country  is 
ours,  a  treaty  involving  a  relinqnishment  of  it 
will  be  unconstitutional,  while  to  him  who  is 
of  a  different  opinion,  it  will  be  valid  and  with- 
out objection.  The  mischiefs  of  that  construc- 
tion, which  must  be  to  substitute  the  sword  for 
the  Senate,  could  not  be  obviated  by  the  arbi- 
tration of  any  foreign  or  disinterested  power. 
This  would  be  entirely  inadmissible,  as  the 
President  and  Senate  could  not  refer  to  others 
a  decision  on  a  point,  which  they  themselves 
had  no  authority  to  decide. 

Mr.  A.  said  he  wished  it  understood,  that  he 
applied  his  arguments  only  to  a  country  situated 
like  Texas ;  a  country  which  was  really  in  dis- 
pute, one  to  which  we  had  a  claim,  but  which 
we  had  never  possessed. 

THURSDAY,  April  6. 
Mausoleum  to  General  Washington. 
Mr.  ERVIX,  of  South  Carolina,  submitted  the 
following  resolutions : 

Resolved,  by  the  Senate  and  ffoute  of  Repretcnt- 
atives  of  the  United  States  of  America  in  Congress 
assembled,  That  the  President  of  said  States  be  re- 
quested to  take  measures  to  obtain  from  the  honor- 
able Bushrod  Washington  the  body  of  the  late  General 
George  Washington  ;  and,  if  obtained,  that  he  cause 
to  be  erected  over  it,  in  the  Capitol  square,  east  of 
the  Capitol,  a  suitable  mausoleum,  with  inscriptions 
emblematical  of  the  principal  events  of  his  military 
and  political  life. 

Resolved,  That  the  President  of  the  United  States 

be  authorized  to  give  the  sum  of dollars  for 

the  best  plan  of  a  mausoleum  ;  which  plan  of  a  mauso- 
leum, and  the  inscriptions  thereon,  shall  be  approved 
by  the  President  of  the  United  States,  the  President 
of  the  Senate,  the  Speaker  of  the  House  of  Represent- 
atives, the  Chief  Justice,  the  Secretaries  of  the  differ- 
ent Departments,  and  the  Attorney-General,  or  a  ma- 
jority of  them. 


598 


ABRIDGMENT  OF  THE 


H.  OF  R.] 


Mausoleum  to  General  Washington. 


[APKIL,  1820. 


Be  it  further  resolved,  That  the  President  do  cause 
to  be  procured  an  equestrian  statue  of  bronze  of  Gen- 
eral George  Washington,  to  be  executed  by  some 
eminent  artist,  which  shall  be  placed  on  the  top  of 
the  said  mausoleum,  in  the  centre  building  of  the 
Capitol,  or  in  any  other  place  within  the  public  square, 
which,  by  a  majority  of  the  persons  in  the  preceding 
resolution  referred  to,  shall  be  deemed  most  suitable. 

And  be  it  further  enacted,  That  a  committee  be 
appointed  to  bring  in  a  bill  to  make  the  necessary  ap- 
propriations of  money  to  carry  into  execution  the  ob- 
jects contemplated  in  the  preceding  resolutions. 

Mr.  ERVIN  addressed  the  Chair  as  follows : 

Mr.  Speaker,  I  consider  it  among  the  fortu- 
nate incidents  of  my  life  that  I  have  the  honor 
of  a  seat  in  the  great  council  of  my  country, 
and  enjoy  an  opportunity  to  vote  for  a  statue 
and  monument  to  General  George  Washington, 
late  President  of  the  United  States ;  not,  sir,  in 
the  hope  to  confer  honor,  or  to  perpetuate  the 
fame  of  this  great  man,  but  to  join  in  manifest- 
ing to  the  world  and  the  latest  posterity,  our 
admiration  and  gratitude  for  his  eminent  virtues 
and  most  distinguished  services. 

It  is  not  my  intention ;  nay,  it  is  unnecessary 
to  repeat  any  considerable  portion  of  his  history 
to  this  enlightened  assembly — it  lives  in  our 
memories,  it  dwells  upon  our  tongues :  or  his 
virtues,  for  they  are  embalmed  in  the  bosom  of 
our  affections.  To  their  narration  I  can  impart 
no  new  ornament ;  for,  in  their  praise,  eloquence 
has  poured  forth  all  her  eulogiums,  and  even 
panegyric  itself  has  been  exhausted. 

Nor  is  it,  sir,  for  the  purpose  of  mere  idle 
declamation  that  I  hope  to  claim  the  attention 
of  this  honorable  body  to  the  resolutions  which 
I  have  done  myself  the  honor  to  present.  Con- 
siderations more  momentous  have  influenced 
me.  The  storm  has  not  yet  wholly  subsided 
•which  lately  threatened,  not  only  the  peace  and 
tranquillity,  but  the  union  of  these  States.  To 
the  motives  of  common  security  and  common 
interest  which  have  so  happily  and  gloriously 
united  us,  I  wish,  if  possible,  to  add  those  of 
sentiment  and  kindred  sympathy ;  and  I  know 
of  nothing  more  calculated  to  beget  the  one  or 
awaken  the  other,  than  to  entomb  the  father  of 
our  country  in  a  mausoleum,  with  inscriptions 
emblematical  of  the  great  events  of  his  political 
and  military  life,  erected  at  the  national  ex- 
pense. 

Cold,  indeed,  will  be  that  heart  which  could 
ever  approach  it,  without  experiencing  mingled 
emotions  of  veneration  and  respect.  The  wise, 
good,  and  oppressed  from  every  clime,  will  come 
and  survey,  with  wonder  and  delight,  the  grati- 
tude of  the  American  people  to  him  "  who  was 
first  in  war,  first  in  peace,  and  first  in  the  hearts 
of  his  countrymen." 

At  its  pedestal  the  ambitious  will  learn  the 
vast  difference  between  promoting  the  glory 
and  happiness  of  millions  of  freemen,  and  that 
of  mere  personal  aggrandizement.  "Whilst 
statues,  monuments,  and  the  applause  of  unborn 
millions,  will  be  the  soul- ennobling  reward  of 
virtuous  ambition  in  the  one  case,  they  will  be- 


hold the  other  sitting  upon  the  ruins  of  Car- 
thage, more  emblematical  of  fallen  greatness 
than  the  very  ruins  which  surrounded  it.  They 
will  follow  it  in  its  flight  from  the  bloody  plains 
of  Pharsalia,  and  behold  it  naked,  lifeless,  friend- 
less, and  inurned  on  Egypt's  sultry  shore ;  they 
will  see  it  for  a  few  splendid  years  awing  the 
world — then  behold  it  stript  of  imperial  power 
and  splendor,  cut  off  from  all  the  endearing 
sympathies  of  our  nature,  our  consolation  in 
misfortune,  and  exiled  to  a  rock  in  the  great 
Pacific  ocean. 

Here,  sir,  when  we  who  are  now  guiding  the 
destinies  of  our  country  will  be  silent  in  the 
dust,  our  children  from  the  North  and  the  South, 
from  the  East  and  the  West,  will  meet  in  mourn- 
ful silence ;  the  great  events  of  the  Eevolution 
will  pass  in  solemn  review  before  them ;  the 
disasters  of  defeat,  and  the  triumphs  of  victory. 
They  will  behold  the  man  whose  cause  I  now 
advocate,  guiding  the  storm  and  directing  the 
energies  of  an  injured  people,  determined  to  be 
free.  They  will  remember  the  joint  exertions, 
the  kindred  blood  which  flowed  to  purchase  our 
freedom,  and  will  kneel  around  it,  and  with  full 
hearts  swear  to  transmit  the  rich  inheritance 
unimpaired  to  their  latest  posterity. 

All  the  enlightened  nations  of  antiquity  con- 
sidered it  a  duty  not  only  to  commemorate  the 
virtuous  deeds,  but  to  perpetuate  to  their  pos- 
terity the  very  form  and  appearance  of  their 
illustrious  dead.  To  this  end  all  their  literature 
and  arts  were  equally  subservient.  On  the  one 
hand,  whilst  history  recorded,  and  eloquence 
rendered  immortal,  their  virtues  and  warlike 
achievements ;  on  the  other  hand,  the  marble, 
decorated  with  the  ornaments  of  drapery,  seem- 
ed to  breathe  under  the  chisel  of  the  artist,  and 
an  artificial  form  on  canvas  was  almost  pencilled 
into  life — dividing  empire  with  the  grave,  and 
handing  down  to  posterity  the  venerable  image 
of  the  benefactors  of  their  country.  Hence  the 
incentive  to  great  actions ;  hence  that  undaunted 
courage  which  made  them  superior  to  the  dan- 
gers of  the  field ;  and  hence  that  noble  emula- 
tion which  stimulated  them  to  aspire  after 
generous  fnme  and  everlasting  renown,  when 
they  knew,  and  acted  under  the  influence  of 
that  knowledge,  that  they  would  survive  the 
decay  of  nature,  and  be  seen  and  venerated  in 
other  times. 

Do  we  fear  the  amount  of  the  expenditure  ? 
Quadruple  the  sura  expended  whilst  debating 
the  Missouri  question,  will  cover  the  amount 
necessary.  But,  admitting  it  should  be  more, 
will  my  country  promise,  and  promise,  and 
never  perform  ?  On  the  17th  of  August,  1783, 
in  the  moment  of  triumph,  when  the  services  of 
WASHINGTON  called  forth  universal  expressions 
of  grateful  feeling,  the  Continental  Congress 
unanimously  voted  him  an  equestrian  bronze 
statue;  but,  notwithstanding  his  virtues  and 
great  achievements,  he  had  the  mortification  to 
outlive  the  gratitude  of  his  country,  for  it  has 
never  been  procured. 

In  1799,  after  having  done  all  the  good  in  his 


DEBATES  OF  CONGKESS. 


APRIL,  1820.] 


Mausoleum  to  General  Washington. 


[H.  OF  R. 


power,  and  he  was  summoned  to  join  the  gen- 
eral congress  of  virtue  above,  remember  the 
pledge  that  was  given  to  this  mighty  people, 
who  were  then  in  tears.  Your  chair,  sir,  was 
shrouded  in  black ;  the  then  Congress,  in  a  body, 
waited  on  the  President  of  the  United  States, 
in  condolence  for  the  national  loss.  They  re- 
quested of  his  illustrious,  disconsolate  consort, 
the  body  of  the  Father  of  our  Country,  which 
was  assented  to  ;  and  in  May  of  the  subsequent 
year  a  bill  was  introduced  into  this  House  to 
erect  over  it  a  mausoleum.  And  what,  let  me 
ask,  has  been  done  ?  Other  revolutionary  claims 
have  been  adjusted;  but  this  great  national 
debt  of  gratitude  yet  remains  to  be  paid.  The 
eyes  of  the  world  are  upon  us.  The  affection  of 
the  American  people  demands  it ;  and  will  you 
not  gratify  them  ?  Will  you  justify  the  imputa- 
tion of  the  charge  of  ingratitude,  which  history 
informs  us  is  the  vice  of  Republics  ?  Will  you, 
in  moments  of  joy  or  sorrow,  when  the  soul  is 
animated  or  melted  with  the  noble,  generous 
feelings  of  the  heart,  decree  statues  and  monu- 
ments', and,  when  those  feelings  have  subsided, 
suffer  yourselves  to  be  governed  by  motives  of 
a  character  less  meritorious? 

If  you  should  be  thus  unfortunately  influenced, 
authorize  a  national  subscription,  proclaim  to 
the  patriotism  of  the  American  people,  that 
money  is  wanting  to  procure  a  statue  and  erect 
a  monument  to  WASHINGTON  :  Riches  would 
pour  forth  her  treasures,  and  the  poor  Revolu- 
tionary soldier,  whose  heart  has  been  often 
cheered  with  his  voice,  whilst  fighting  the  bat- 
tles of  his  country,  will  perform  his  last  pilgrim- 
age, and  give  all  he  has  to  give,  his  tears. 

But,  sir,  I  know  I  may  be  told,  that  appre- 
hensions are  entertained  for  fear  of  the  danger 
of  the  precedent :  that  others  less  meritorious 
may  wish  the  like  distinction.  My  regret  is, 
sir,  that  the  annals  of  mankind  have  not  as  yet, 
and  I  much  fear  will  never  produce  such  an- 
other subject  of  commemoration.  But  if,  in 
the  course  of  human  events,  our  country  should 
be  invaded,  and  liberty  driven  to  her  last  in- 
treuchrnents,  some  mighty  genius  should  arise, 
whose  victorious  arm  should  beat  back  the 
invading  foe — sweep  them  off  with  the  besom 
of  destruction,  and  redeem  the  sinking  destinies 
of  my  country,  I  would  commemorate  his  ex- 
ploits by  every  expression  of  national  gratitude, 
and  'erect  to  his  memory  a  monument  more 
durable  than  the  pyramids  of  the  Nile.  All 
these  glorious  exploits,  and  more,  have  been 
performed  by  this  illustrious  man ;  and  if  ever 
man  deserved  the  distinguished  evidence  of  a 
nation's  love,  it  is  WASHINGTON.  So  eminent 
have  been  his  services,  that  he  has  been,  and 
will  be  throughout  every  age,  the  theme  of 
universal  panegyric. 

The  liberties  of  other  countries  have  been  ac- 
quired by  the  united  exertions  of  numbers ;  but 
whilst  I  justly  admire  and  duly  appreciate  the 
talents,  the  firmness,  and  integrity  of  other  illus- 
trious patriots  of  the  Revolution,  I  appeal  to 
history  to  say,  whether  the  liberty  of  this  coun- 


try was  not  acquired  as  much  by  his  skill  and 
prudence,  as  by  the  force  of  numbers.  At  the 
commencement  and  during  the  Revolutionary 
war,  remember  the  difficulties  he  had  to  en- 
counter; at  the  head  of  militiamen,  undisci- 
plined, and  without  any  motives  for  union  but 
those  of  common  danger,  he  dared  to  oppose  a 
power  whose  veterans  had  recently  conquered 
in  every  clime,  and  whose  flag  waved  in  proud 
triumph  round  the  world.  Hannibal  like,  he 
soon  converted  the  licentiousness  of  freemen 
into  the  orderly  discipline  of  the  soldier,  and 
by  superior  military  skill,  drove  his  arrogant 
confident  foe  from  his  encampment  in  Boston. 
On  the  15th  of  November,  1776,  two  thousand 
seven  hundred  of  his  soldiers  were  captured  at 
Fort  Washington.  The  1st  of  December  of  the 
same  year,  their  term  of  service  having  expired, 
twelve  thousand  more  claimed  their  discharge, 
and  left  him  with  less  than  three  thousand 
effective  men ;  with  this  remnant,  in  the  dead 
of  winter,  and  in  the  face  of  a  vastly  superior 
force,  he  kept  the  field,  and  convinced  his  foe 
that  although  his  physical  numbers  were  di- 
minished, his  moral  force  was  the  same,  and 
that  he  might  destroy,  but  could  never  conquer 
freemen. 

At  this  awful  moment,  the  stoutest  hearts 
were  appalled ;  not  only  the  poor  and  humble, 
but  the  rich  and  influential,  gave  up  all  as  lost, 


ful  enemy.  Yes,  sir,  he  was  forsaken,  and  when 
counselled  to  make  his  own  peace,  he  indig- 
nantly repelled  the  advice,  and  declared  that  he 
would  carry  the  war  into  the  upper  part  of  his 
native  State,  and  if  driven  from  thence,  he 
would  raise  the  standard  of  liberty  beyond  the 
mountains.  Oh !  my  country,  he  was  our 
father — he  was  our  friend.  In  the  most  gloomy 
moments  of  our  Revolution,  when  all  our  pros- 
pects were  darkened — when  hope  herself  was 
sinking  in  despair,  his  great  mind  never  faltered. 
No  matter  what  disaster  befell  you,  no  matter 
what  misfortune  awaited  you,  he  was  faithful : 
he  rose  superior  to  the  one,  and  prepared  with 
manly  fortitude  to  encounter  the  other;  and 
after  enduring  trials  the  most  afflicting,  and 
encountering  dangers  the  most  appalling,  he 
succeeded  in  establishing  the  h'berties  of  his 
country,  by  triumphing  over  the  hero  who  was 
nursed  in  arms  on  the  plains  where  Wolfe, 
Montcalm,  and  Montgomery  fell. 

At  the  close  of  the  American  Revolution,  he 
exhibited  to  the  world  a  spectacle  to  which 
history  furnishes  no  parallel.  His  country  was 
exhausted ;  without  union,  without  money,  and 

ithout  credit;   flushed  with  victory,  and  a 


too,  might  have  taken  advantage  of  the 
times,  triumphed  over  the  rights  of  the  people, 
and  ascended  to  empire.  But,  ambition  stop 
thv  mad  career,  and  copy  the  glorious  example. 
Instead  of  fomenting,  he  appeased  and  suppress- 
ed the  discontent  of  an  enraged  soldiery  ;  and 
after  having  KM!  thorn  from  victory  to  victory, 
and  dispelled  the  horrors  of  a  bloody  and  pro- 


600 


ABRIDGMENT  OF  THE 


H.  OF  R.] 


Mausoleum  to  General  Washington. 


[APRIL,  1820. 


tracted  war,  and  there  was  nothing  else  to  con- 
quer but  himself  or  the  liberties  of  his  country, 
he  stripped  victory  of  her  chains,  embraced  for 
the  last  time  his  officers,  the  companions  of  his 
glory,  and  with  tears  in  his  eyes  bid  his  soldiers 
an  everlasting  farewell ;  then  repaired  to  the 
Hall  of  Congress,  and  resigned  back  to  the  rep- 
resentatives of  the  people  that  power  which  he 
had  used  only  to  redeem  them  and  their  country- 
men from  misery,  from  slavery,  and  from  death. 

What  American,  within  the  hearing  of  my 
voice,  whose  heart  does  not  melt  with  gratitude 
at  the  name  of  WASHINGTON  !  What  language 
so  barbarous  as  does  not  speak  his  name !  What 
nation  so  distant  as  does  not  resound  with 
his  praise !  Eminent  without  magnificence  ; 
superior  without  vanity ;  and  elevated  without 
pride,  he  was  the  admiration  of  an  astonished 
world.  Faithful  to  his  friends,  generous  to  his 
companions,  and  a  philanthropist  to  the  very 
being  of  man,  he  lived  loved  by  the  good, 
caressed  by  the  great,  and  feared  and  respected 
by  his  very  enemies.  Firm  and  inflexible  in 
the  pursuit  of  justice  and  truth,  he  scorned 
equally  simulation  and  detraction. 

Greece  may  tell  of  her  legislators ;  Rome  may 
tell  of  her  heroes,  but  what  age  or  country  can 
boast  a  WASHINGTON— a  man  so  renowned  both 
in  peace  and  war  ?  Leonidas  was  patriotic ; 
Aristides  just ;  Hannibal  was  patient;  Fabins 
prudent;  Scipio  was  continent;  Caesar  merciful; 
Marcellus  courageous,  and  Cato  of  inflexible 
integrity:  yet,  these  virtues  which  separately 
distinguished  those  mighty  men  of  antiquity, 
were  all  united  in  the  character  of  this  singular 
great  man,  and  raised  him  above  the  level  of 
mankind;  he  was  so  pre-eminent  that  envy 
never  dared  to  raise  its  malignant  glance  to  the 
elevation  of  his  virtues.  Other  heroes  are  re- 
nowned for  subjugating— he  for  liberating  his 
country.  Kings  and  Princes  derive  honor  from 
crowns  and  from  sceptres — he,  less  from  the 
splendor  of  station  than  the  dignity  of  his  own 
mind.  Cffisar  and  Pompey,  on  the  plains  of 
Pharsalia,  competed  for  the  mastery  of  the 
world — he,  amidst  contemporaries  capable  of 
saving  and  ennobling  empires,  ran  his  splendid 
career  without  a  rival  or  competitor.  To  crown 
all  his  other  great  qualities,  and,  if  possible,  to 
consecrate  human  greatness,  he  was  a  Christian 
— not  only  the  favorite  of  the  earth,  but  we 
humbly  hope  of  Heaven. 

Whilst  the  conduct  of  other  great  men  in 
public  life  tend  to  ennoble  the  hero  and  render 
illustrious  the  statesman,  in  private  it  is  cursed 
with  every  vice  which  degrade  the  man.  In 
public  life,  WASHINGTON'S  conduct  was  unri- 
valled ;  and,  in  private,  there  was  not  one  cir- 
cumstance of  his  whole  life  which  virtue  would 
blush  to  own.  As,  in  the  meridian  of  life, 
religion  gave  dignity  to  every  action,  so  in  the 
evening  of  his  days,  when  the  troubles  and 
perils  of  life  were  past,  it  beamed  resplendent, 
like  the  rainbow  on  the  skirts  of  the  storm  that 
is  gone,  the  blessed  harbinger  of  eternal  sun- 
shine in  the  realms  of  everlasting  day. 


But,  Mr.  Speaker,  to  estimate  still  more  cor- 
rectly the  character  of  this  great  man,  let  us 
pause  for  a  moment,  and  take  a  cursory  view 
of  the  present  unhappy  situation  of  other  coun- 
tries and  people,  compared  with  our  own.  Look 
through  the  extensive  continents  of  Africa  and 
Asia,  and  there  is  not  the  least  vestige  of  learn- 
ing* or  liberty  to  be  found,  however  indus- 
trious the  research.  Egypt,  the  cradle  of  let- 
ters, is  now  the  abode  of  ignorance  and  fanati- 
cism. The  descendants  of  Ham  are  sold  into 
every  clime,  and  those  that  remain  wither  under 
the  despotism  of  chieftains,  who  consign  them 
to  destruction  with  as  little  remorse  as  the  rude 
storms  of  the  desert  which  ravage  their  native 
clime. 

Assyria,  once  the  proud  mistress  of  Asia,  has 
long  since  been  blotted  from  the  face  of  em- 
pire. Bablyon,  with  her  wall  which  proudly 
defied  the  Persian,  has  mingled  with  the  dust, 
and  the  lonely  traveller  weeps  over  the  ruins  of 
Palmyra  with  scarcely  a  page  to  tell  its  name. 

Where  are  now  the  sons  of  Abraham,  once 
the  favorites  of  Heaven  ?  They  are  banished 
from  the  land  of  promise,  and,  as  was  prophe- 
sied, are  "  sifted  among  the  nations  of  the 
earth." 

Look  into  humbled  Europe,  and  lo  I  there  is 
not  one  azure  spot  to  cheer  the  gloom  of  the 
political  horizon.  The  Ottoman  slave  treads, 
insensible,  the  glorious  field  of  Marathon,  and 
despotism  sways  her  iron  sceptre  at  the  very 
Strait  of  Thermopylae.  Persecuted  liberty  has 
fled  from  England,  the  country  of  Hampden  and 
Sydney,  and,  although  the  workshop  of  the 
world,  she  is  cursed  with  a  debt  which  no  in- 
dustry can  redeem.  Poland,  martyred  Poland, 
with  sixteen  millions  of  people,  forms  one  of 
the  outposts  to  the  empire  of  the  descendant  of 
Magog !  Italy,  the  home  of  the  Csesars,  and  the 
grave  of  the  heroes  of  antiquity,  cringes  under 
the  domination  of  timid  Austria.  Whilst  France, 
generous,  gallant  France,  plundered  and  ex- 
hausted, weeps  over  the  recollection  of  the 
splendor  of  days  that  are  past. 

Then  turn  your  attention  to  this  happy  conn- 
try,  ;'  the  land  of  Washington  and  sky  of  Frank- 
lin ;"  the  home  of  the  homeless ;  the  last  refuge 
of  oppressed  humanity.  Here  agriculture  flour- 
ishes; our  commerce  whitens  the  ocean,  and 
every  wind  that  blows  wafts  into  our  ports  the 
riches  of  every  clime.  Here  we  find  an  empire 
of  laws  which  guards  our  rights,  both  civil  and 
religious,  and  which  knows  no  distinction  but 
such  as  merit  confers  and  virtue  approves. 
Where  the  poor  man,  in  the  tattered  garb  of 
plebeian  humility,  sits  enthroned  upon  the  altar 
of  justice,  and  there  is  no  titled,  fictitious  great- 
ness to  injure  or  oppress  him. 

Contrast  this  happy  situation  with  that  of 


*  Mr.  E.  is  aware  of  the  College  of  Fort  William,  and  the 
Bibliotheca  Biblica  in  Bengal,  the  Santa  Casa  or  Holy  Office 
at  Goa,  aud  the  schools  established  at  Sierra  Leone,  by  the 
British  on  the  western  coast  of  Africa;  but  the  benefit 
which  has  resulted  from  those  establishments  is  not  yet 
perceptible. 


DEBATES  OF  CONGRESS. 


601 


APRIL,  1820.] 


Revision  of  the  Tariff. 


[H.  OF  R. 


Enrope,  Asia,  and  Africa ;  contrast  it  with  your 
own  situation  under  colonial  servitude ;  read 
your  Declaration  of  Independence,  and  realize, 
if  you  can,  the  black  catalogue  of  injury  and 
oppression  under  which  you  then  groaned  ;  your 
petitions  rejected — your  complaints  derided  and 
suppressed — not  by  a  redress  of  grievances,-  but 
by  menaces;  a  whole  people  outlawed,  and 
given  up  to  military  despotism  ;  then  ask  your- 
selves who  headed  your  armies,  who  fought 
your  battles,  who  most  contributed  to  raise  you 
from  that  state  of  misery  and  dependence,  and 
gave  you  rank  among  the  nations  of  the  earth. 
And  6  my  country,  I  blush  to  think  this  our 
greatest  earthly  friend,  almost  within  sight  of 
the  very  walls  in  which  we  deliberate,  reposes 
under  the  humble  clod  of  the  hill,  without  one 
national  stone  to  tell  posterity  where  he  lies.  I 
call  upon  the  venerable  patriots  of  the  Revolu- 
tion, some  of  whom  I  yet  see  mingling  in  the 
deliberations  of  my  country ;  I  call  upon  the 
friends  of  Warren  and  of  Greene,  of  Mercer, 
Sumter,  Marion,  and  Montgomery ;  nay,  I  call 
upon  the  Representatives  of  the  whole  Ameri- 
can people  to  redeem  my  country  from  such 
deep  ingratitude ;  and  if  any  remnant  of  affec- 
tion for  WASHINGTON  still  lingers  about  the 
heart,  I  know  I  will  not  call  in  vain.  When 
did  your  country  ever  call,  and  he  did  not  obey  ? 
When  did  it  ever  want  his  aid,  and  he  did  not 
readily  yield  it  his  assistance  ?  What  is  your 
whole  history  ?  It  is  but  little  more  than  the 
record  of  his  obedience,  his  virtues,  and  his  ser- 
vices ;  and,  painful  to  think,  this  same  history, 
whilst  it  will  record  the  unfeeling  ingratitude 
of  his  country,  will  inform  posterity  that,  for 
that  very  country,  he  staked  his  life,  determined 
to  redeem  it  from  slavery  or  perish  in  the  at- 
tempt. And  can  you — will  you  refuse  to  bury 
him  ?  Oh  no !  Let  us  rise  up  at  once,  and  with 
united  acclaim  decree  him  a  statue.  Let  us 
outstrip  the  march  of  ages,  and  erect  a  monu- 
ment, not  merely  equal  to  our  present  condi- 
tion, but  commensurate  with  the  splendid  des- 
tiny which  awaits  us.  He  is  the  Father  of  our 
Country;  let  us  demand  his  body,  and  erect 
over  it  a  mausoleum  at  which  Time  in  his  pas- 
sage to  eternity  will  point  and  tell  to  every  age 
the  glorious  gratitude  of  the  American  people. 
And  when  the  national  sympathy  shall  be  for- 
got, and  the  memory  of  man  faded  away ;  when 
tradition  itself  shall  have  had  an  end,  and  his- 
tory be  regarded  as  the  splendid  fiction  of  fancy 
or  tale  of  romance,  this  monument  shall  stand 
throughout  every  age,  the  imperishable  evi- 
dence of  his  virtues  and  a  nation's  love. 

When  Mr.  E.  had  concluded,  the  question  was 
taken  that  the  House  do  now  proceed  to  con- 
sider the  said  resolves,  and  it  was  decided  in  the 
negativA 

WEDNESDAY,  April  19. 

Public  Lands — Reduced  Price  and  Cash  Sales. 
The  House  then  took  up  the  bill  making  fur- 
ther provision  for  the  sale  of  the  public  lands. 


In  the  further  debate  which  took  place  on 
this  bill,  the  mam  object  of  the  bill  (to  reduce 
the  price  of  the  public  lands  from  the  present 
price  to  one  dollar  and  twenty-five  cents  per 
acre,  and  to  abolish  credits  thereon)  was  sup- 
ported and  opposed  by  the  following  gentle- 
men: Affirmative — Messrs.  ANDEBSON,  BAB- 
BOUB,  HARDIN,  SLOAN,  and  STORES.  Negative 
— Messrs.  CLAY,  BBOWN,  BUTLEB  of  Louisiana, 
COOK,  HENDRICKS,  JONES  of  Tennessee,  and  MO- 
LEAN  of  Kentucky. 

Some  other  gentlemen  incidentally  engaged 
in  the  discussion  on  amendments,  &c.,  and  the 
bill  was  finally  passed  by  a  vote  of  133  to  23, 
as  follows : 

YEAS.— Messrs.  Abbot,  Adams,  Alexander,  Allen 
of  Massachusetts,  Anderson,  Archer  of  Maryland, 
Baker,  Baldwin,  Barbour,  Bateman,  Bayly,  Beecher, 
Boden,  Brush,  Buffum,  Campbell,  Case,  Clagett, 
Clark,  Cobb,  Crafts,  Crawford,  Culbreth,  Cushman, 
Cuthbert,  Darlington,  Davidson,  Dennison,  Dewitt, 
Dickinson,  Dowse,  Earle,  Eddy,  Edwards  of  Connec- 
ticut, Edwards  of  Pennsylvania,  Edwards  of  North 
Carolina,  Fay,  Fisher,  Floyd,  Folger,  Foot,  Forrest, 
Fuller,  Fnllerton,  Garnett,  Gross  of  New  York,  Gross 
of  Pennsylvania,  Hall  of  New  York,  Hall  of  Dela- 
ware, Hall  of  North  Carolina,  Hardin,  Hazard, 
Hemphill,  Herrick,  Hibshman,  Heister,  Hill,  Holmes, 
Hooks,  Hostetter,  Kendall,  Kinsey,  Little,  Linn, 
Livermore,  Lyman,  McCoy,  McLane  of  Delaware, 
Mallary,  Marchand,  Mason,  Meech,  Meigs,  Mercer, 
R.  Moore,  S.  Moore,  MonelL,  Morton,  Mosely,  Mur- 
ray, Neale,  Nelson  of  Massachusetts,  Newton,  Over- 
street,  Parker  of  Massachusetts,  Parker  of  Virginia, 
Patterson,  Phelps,  Philson,  Pinckney,  Pindall,  Pit- 
cher, Plumer,  Rankin,  Reed,  Rhea,  Rich,  Richards, 
Richmond,  Robertson,  Rogers,  Ross,  Russ,  Sampson, 
Sawyer,  Sergeant,  Settle,  Shaw,  Silsbee,  Simians, 
Sloan,  Slocumb,  Smith  of  New  Jersey,  Smith  of 
Maryland,  B.  Smith  of  Virginia,  Smith  of  North 
Carolina,  Southard,  Storrs,  Strong  of  New  York, 
Swearingen,  Tarr,  Taylor,  Tomlinson,  Tompkins, 
Tracy,  Tucker  of  South  Carolina,  Tyler,  Van  Rens- 
selaer,  Wallace,  Wendover,  Williams  of  Virginia, 
Williams  of  North  Carolina,  and  Wood. 

NAYS.— Messrs.  Allen  of  Tennessee,  Ball,  Bloom- 
field,  Brown,  Bryan,  Burwell,  Butler  of  Louisiana, 
Cannon,  Cook,  Crowell,  Culpeper,  Ford,  Hackley, 
Hendricks,  Johnson,  Jones  of  Tennessee,  McCreary, 
McLean  of  Kentucky,  Metcalf,  Stevens,  Trimble, 
Tucker  of  Virginia,  and  Walker.- 


FBIDAY,  April  21. 
Revision  of  the  Tariff. 

The  House  then  resolved  itself  into  a  Com- 
mittee of  the  Whole,  on  the  bills  reported  by 
the  Committee  of  Manufactures,  and  the  Com- 
mittee determined  to  take  up,  first  in  order,  the 
bill  "  to  regulate  the  duties  on  imports  and  ton- 
nage, and  for  other  purposes."  This  bill  pro- 
poses changes  in  relation  to  the  duties  on  goods 
imported,  in  the  proportions  which  are  denoted 
in  the  following  table,  copied  from  that  com- 
piled and  printed  for  the  use  of  the  House  of 
Representatives : 

A  comparative  view  of  the  existing  Tariff  of  Duties 
on  goods  imported  from  foreign  countries  as  estab- 


602 


ABRIDGMENT  OF  THE 


H.  OF  R.] 


Revision  of  the  Tariff. 


[APRIL,  1820. 


lished  by  the  act  of  27th  April,  1816,  entitled  "An 

STATEMENT—  Continued. 

act  to   regulate  the  duties  on  imports  and  ton- 

nage," as  amended  by  the  act  of  the  20th  of  April, 
1818   entitled  "  An  act  to    increase  the  duties  on 

ABTICLE8. 

Old  tariff 

Now  tariff. 

Rate  of 
addition'! 

United  States,"  and  that  proposed  by  the  bill  now 
depending  in  the  House  of  Representatives  of  the 
United  States,   "  to  regulate  the  duties  on  imports 

Chocolate,                    Ib. 
Cocoa,                         do. 
Coal,  heaped,         bushel 

02 
02 
05 

04 
03 
05 

1-2 

and  for  other  purposes." 

Copperas,                  cwt. 

01 

2  00 

Double. 

Copper      rods,     spikes, 
bolts,   and    nails,   and 

Kate  of 

ARTICLES. 

Old  tariff. 

\ew  tariff 

addition'! 

composition,  do.       Ib. 

04 

04 

duty. 

Corks,                          do. 

15  per  ct. 

15 

Coffee,                         do. 

05 

06 

1-5  do. 

First  class  of  articles,  per 

Cotton,                        do. 

03 

06 

Double. 

cent. 

|0  07  1-2 

$0  12  1-2 

2-3 

Currents,                      do. 

03 

04 

1-3  do. 

Second, 

15 

20 

1-3 

Figs,                            do. 

03 

04 

1-3  do. 

Third, 
Fourth  and  fifth  classes, 

20 

25 

1-4 

Fish,  for'n  caught,    qntl. 
Mackerel,                   bbl. 

$1  00 

1  50 

1  00 
1  50 

viz: 

Salmon,                         do. 

2  00 

2  00 

Woollen  manufactures, 
Cotton    do.,   and    cotton 
twist,  not  from  India, 

25 

25 

II) 

Say  1-3 

All  other  pickled  fish,  do. 
Window  glass,  8  by  10, 
100  sq.  ft. 

1  00 
2  50 

1  00 

1    ec  A<\ 

Ditto,  do.  from  India, 

25 

40j 

Ditto,  10  by  12,        do. 

2  75 

325f 

L-5  GO. 

Linen  manufactures, 

15 

25 

over  10  by  12,       do. 

3  25 

3  75  1 

Clothing,  ready  made  , 
Bonnets,  hats  and  caps 

I      QA 

40 

Plain  uncut  flint  glass,  Ib. 
Glue,                             do. 

20  per  ct. 
05 

10 
10 

Double. 

of  wool,   fur,   leather, 

Gunpowder,                do. 

08 

10 

1-4  do. 

straw,  chip,  or  silk, 

Hemp,                        cwt. 

1  50 

2  50 

2-3  do. 

Silk  manufactures  from 

Iron  and  steel  wire,  not 

India, 

15 

30 

over  No.  18,              Ib. 

05 

05 

Printed  books, 

15 

35 

over  No.  18,          do. 

09 

09 

Painted  or    stained  pa- 

Iron in   bars  and  bolts, 

per,  and  paper  hang- 

manufactured    except 

ings, 

SO 

35 

by  rolling,              cwt. 

75 

1  25 

2-3  p.  ct 

Clocks  and  time-pieces, 

Iron  in  sheets,  rods,  and 

Umbrellas,    sticks,     and 

hoops,                        do. 

$254 

$300 

1-5  do. 

apparatus  for  umbrel- 

Iron in  bars  and   bolts, 

las. 

manufactured  by  roll- 

Bonnets   and   caps,  not 
otherwise  taxed. 

ing,                            do. 
Anchors,                      do. 

1  50 
2  00 

2  00 
2  00 

1-3  do. 

Fans,  feathers,    flowers, 

Iron  in  pigs,                 do. 

50 

75 

1-2  do. 

millinery,      perfumes, 

Iron  castings,               do. 

75 

1  50 

Double. 

washes, 
Painted  floor  cloths,  oil 
cloths,  mats,  salad  oil, 

80 

35 

Say  1-6  a 

Spades  and  shovels,  each 
Slate  and  tiles  for  build- 
ing, not  over  12  inches 

20  per  ct. 

25 

capers,    mustard,    ol- 

square, per             1000 

2  00 

ives,  preserves,  wafers, 

12  to  14  in.  sq.          do. 

3  00 

sweetmeats, 

14  to  16    do.             do. 

4  00 

Manufactures   of    wood, 

16  to  18    do.            do. 

5  00 

coarse  lace,  carriages, 

18  to  20    do.             do. 

6  00 

and  furniture  for  do. 

Paper,  folio,  pot,  quarto 

Leather,    and    manufac- 

post, crown,  Ac.,      Ib. 

30  per  ct. 

20 

tures  of  leather,  brush- 

royal imp.,  Ac.,        do. 

15 

es,  canes, 

printing,    and    copper 

Gilt  and  plated  ware, 
Cut  glass, 

20 
SO 

$0  35. 
35 

Included 

plate,                    do. 
other  coarse,            do. 

121-2 
10 

China,    earthen,      stone 

in  two 

Screws  of  wire,        gross 

8  to  20 

ware,  and  crockery, 

20 

35 

preced'g 

Ginger,  rough,              Ib. 

15=8-10 

1,  say  2 

Manufactures  of  marble 

classes. 

ground,                     do. 

04 

and  alabaster, 

15 

35 

r  served,                do. 

10 

Ale,  beer,  and  porter,  in 
bottles,                  galls. 
Do.  not  in  bottles,       do. 
Alum,                        cwt. 

15 
10 
2  00 

20 
15 
3  00 

1-3 
1-2 
1-2 

.  sewing,  and  silk  &. 
worsted  twist,            Ib. 
Indigo,                          do. 
Lead  in  pigs  A  bars,   do. 

16  per  ct. 
01 

1  50 
15 
01 

Almonds,                       Ib. 

03 

04 

1-3 

sheets,                      do. 

01 

021 

Bl'k  glass  bottles,    gross 
Boots,                        pair 

1  44 
1  50 

2  00 
2  00 

1-4 
1-3 

shot  of  lead,             do. 
red  and  white,  dry  or 

02 

03 

1-2  p.  ct 

Bristles,                        Ib. 

03 

03 

Free. 

in  oil,                    do. 

03 

04  J 

Playing  cards,          pack 
Tarred  cables  and  cord- 

30 

35 

1-6 

Mace,                            do. 
Molasses,                    gal. 

$1  00 
05 

1  25 
10 

1-4  do. 

Double. 

age,                            Ib. 

03 

04 

1-3 

Nails,  of  iron,               Ib 

04 

05      • 

1-4  p.  ct. 

Untarred  ditto,  twine  and 

Nutmegs,                      do. 

60 

75 

1-4  do. 

thread,                       Ib 

04 

05 

1-4 

Pepper,                        do. 

M 

10 

1-2  do. 

Candles,  tallow,            do 

03 

05 

2-3 

Pimento,                       do 

08 

03 

1-3  do. 

wax  and  sperm,       do 
China  Cassia,               do 

06 
06 

08 
10 

1-3 

2-3 

Plums  and  prunes,      do 
Raisins,  in  jars  or  box- 

03 

04 

1-3  do. 

Cinnamon,                    do 

25 

331-3 

es,                              Ib 

03 

C4 

1-3  do. 

Cloves,                          do 

25 

35 

2-5 

all  other  kinds,         do 

02 

03 

1-2  do. 

Cheese,                        do 

09 

09 

Salt,        bushel  of  56  Ib  s 

20 

25 

1-i  do. 

DEBATES  OF  CONGRESS. 


603 


APRIL,  1820.] 


Striiim  of  the  Tariff. 


[H.  OF  R. 


STATEMENT—  Continued. 

ARTICLES. 

Old  tariff. 

New  tariff. 

Rate  of 
addition'! 

duty. 

Ochre,  dry,                   Ib. 

.    01 

01 

in  oil,                        do. 

01  1-2 

01  1-2 

Steel,        .                  cwt. 

$1  00 

1  50 

1-2 

Cigars,                       1000 
Spirits,  from  grain,  first 

2  50 

5  00 

Double. 

proof,  42  cts.  ;  2d,  45  ; 

3d,  46;   4th,   52;    5th, 

60  ;  over  5th,  75. 

same. 

same. 

From  other  materials, 

1st,   38;    2d,   38;    3d, 

42  ;   4th,  48  ;   5th,  57  ; 

over  5th,  70. 

same. 

same. 

Shoes  &  slip's,  silk,     pr. 
leather,                      do. 

30 
25 

50 
50 

1-3 
Double. 

for  children,             do. 

15 

25 

2-3 

Spikes  of  iron,             Ib. 

03 

04 

1-3 

Soap,                             Ib. 

03 

04 

1-3 

Sugar,  brown,              do. 
white,  clayed,  &  pow- 
dered,                   do. 

03 

$0  04 

04  "I 
$005 

•\  _A 

lump,                        do. 
loaf,    and    sugar   can- 

10 

12* 

J.-4 

dv,                        do. 

12 

15 

Snuff,"                           do. 

12 

45 

Tallow,                         do. 

01 

01 

Tea,     from     China,     in 

American  vessels,  bo- 

hea,                        Ib. 

12 

25 

Double. 

Souchong  and  all  other 
black  teas,         34  Ib. 

25 

25 

Hyson  Skin,             do. 
Imperial,  Gunpowder, 
and  Gomee,      68  Ib. 
Hyson,  and  Young  Hy- 
son,                  56  Ib. 

27 
50 
40 

25 
50 
40 

Other  green,         38  Ib. 
Tobacco,    manufactured, 

28 

28 

other  than   snuff  and 

cigars,                         Ib. 

10 

10 

Whiting,       and      Paris 

white,                        Ib. 

01 

01 

Wines,    Burgundy,   Ma- 

deira,   Tokay,    Cham- 

paign,     ana       Rhen- 
ish,                        galls. 

1  00 

Sherry    and    St.    Lu- 

car,                    galls. 

60 

Lisbon,    Oporto,    and 

others,  of  Portugal, 

and  Sicily,         galls. 

50 

Teneriffe,    Fayal,  and 

other    West     India 

isles,                  galls. 

40 

all  other  kinds,     galls. 

15 

do.  in  bottles  or  cases, 

30  per  ct. 

Russia  duck,                ps. 

*-2  00 

2  00 

Ravens   do.                   do. 

1  25 

1  25 

Holland  do.                  do. 

2  50 

2  50 

Spermaceti  oil,  of  foreign 
fisheries,                galls. 

25 

25 

Whale  oil,                    do. 
Olive  oil,  in  casks,       do. 

15 
25 

15 
25 

Linseed  oil,                   do. 

15  per  ct, 

25 

say  16cts. 

AD  VALOREM. 

Blue  vitriol,                  Ib. 

06 

Oil  of  vitriol,               do. 

05 

Nitric  acid,                   do. 

06 

Muriatic  acid,               do. 

04 

Sugar  of  lead,               do. 

06 

The  bill  having  been  read  through  — 
Mr.   BALDWIN,    of   Pennsylvania,    said:  —  In 

presenting  this  bill  to  the  consideration  of  the 
House,  it  is  proper  that  the  views  of  the  Com- 
mittee of  Manufactures  should  be  fully  ex- 
plained. The  task  assigned  to  them  has  been 
one  of  no  ordinary  interest;  the  subjects  on 
which  it  has  been  their  duty  to  act  may  have 
an  important  bearing  on  the  whole  internal 
policy  of  this  Government ;  and  the  measures 
recommended  are  such  as,  in  their  opinion,  will 
essentially  benefit  the  nation.  In  maturing 
them,  the  committee  have  not  (as  the  gentle- 
man from  Massachusetts,  Mr.  FULLER,  seemed 
to  think)  considered  themselves  a  private  com- 
mittee, acting  on  the  private  petitions  of  indi- 
viduals, ^who  sought  support  and  encouragement 
from  Government  at  the  expense  of  the  nation. 
They  have  not  examined  the  petitions  or  state- 
ments of  manufacturers,  with  a  view  of  ascer- 
taining whether  their  establishments  are  pro- 
ductive or  losing.  Their  interest  has  not  been 
a  leading  motive  in  our  minds ;  it  was  of  little 
importance ;  and  if  this  bill,  either  in  its  gen- 
eral principles  or  its  details,  cannot  be  supported 
on  national  principles,  we  are  willing  that  it 
should  fall,  and  that  its  fate  shall  be  ours.  We 
have  thought  that  this  nation  can  never  be 
flourishing  or  independent,  unless  it  can  supply 
from  its  own  resources  its  food,  its  clothing,  and 
the  means  of  defence ;  that,  to  be  dependent  on 
foreign  nations  for  the  articles  essential  for 
these  purposes,  is  inconsistent  with  true  policy  ; 
and  that  the  system  which  has  entailed  on  us 
this  dependence  must  be  radically  changed.  In 
a  matter  which  involved  so  many  interests,  we 
found  many  embarrassments — among  not  the 
least  of  them,  those  which  arose  from  the  duties 
assigned  to  the  different  committees  of  this 
House.  The  Committee  of  Manufactures  was  a 
new  one ;  its  powers  and  duties  were  undefined 
by  any  rule ;  the  various  subjects  referred  to 
them  related  as  well  to  the  revenue  and  com- 
merce of  the  country  as  its  manufactures.  It 
was  our  wish  that  each  committee  should  act 
on  its  appropriate  subjects,  not  to  encroach  on 
the  jurisdiction  of  either.  It  was  our  first  in- 
tention to  have  reported  a  bill  which  should 
have  related  only  to  the  manufactures  of  the 
country.  But  the  House  will  recollect  that,  at 
a  very  early  period  of  the  session,  a  resolution 
was  passed,  calling  on  the  Secretary  of  the 
Treasury  to  report  the  effect  on  the  revenue  of 
a  prohibition  of  woollens,  cottons,  and  iron; 
that  his  reply  was,  that  an  increase  of  duty  on 
those  articles  would  impair  the  revenue,  and 
tend  to  introduce  smuggling.  This  was  a  sub- 
ject on  which  he  knew  the  House  was  sensitive 
— a  deficit  in  the  receipts  of  this  year  of  five 
millions,  had  been  officially  announced  by  the 
Treasury.  The  Committee  of  Ways  and  Means 
had  reported  no  bill,  had  recommended  no 
means  of  filling  the  Treasury,  and,  to  our  re- 
peaU-d  calls,  had  answered  that  none  would  be 
adopted  by  them.  You  now  find  that  the  re- 
sult of  all  their  deliberations  has  ended  in  the 
bill  on  your  table,  authorizing  a  loan  of  four 
millions — two  directly,  and  two  from  the  Sink- 


604 


ABRIDGMENT  OF  THE 


H.  OF  R.] 


Revision  of  the  Tariff. 


[APRIL,  1820. 


ing  Fund — to  meet  the  ordinary  expenses  of  the 
year.  I  did  not  approve  of  the  resolution  which 
had  thus  called  on  the  Secretary  of  the  Treasury 
to  take  a  part  in  this  great  national  controversy, 
and  thought  it  not  right  in  gentlemen  to  call  in 
the  influence  of  that  department  against  a  large 
portion  of  the  nation,  struggling  against  what 
they  conceived  to  be  the  indifference  of  our 
own  and  the  efforts  of  foreign  Governments. 
To  have  framed  a  bill  confined  to  the  sole  ob- 
ject of  promoting  the  manufactures  of  the  na- 
tion, by  imposing  a  high  duty  on  those  of  others, 
the  effect  of  which  would  have  been  still  further 
to  diminish  a  revenue  already  incompetent  to 
our  ordinary  expenses,  would  have  thrown  us 
in  the  way  of  the  very  difficulty  which  gentle- 
men had  so  early  foreseen,  so  carefully  provided 
against.  Tlie  cry  of  revenue,  the  Treasury,  and 
smuggling,  would  have  effectually  defeated  all 
our  projects.  There  was  no  other  committee 
disposed  to  act  in  concert  with  us.  Left  thus 
alone — the  Treasury  report  against  an  increase 
of  duties ;  the  Treasury  itself  empty ;  the  Com- 
mittee of  Ways  and  Means  unwilling  to  assist 
in  filling  it,  and  yet  called  upon  by  the  petitions 
of  thousands  of  individuals  to  do  something  to 
protect  the  industry  of  the  nation — the  commit- 
tee had  no  alternative  but  to  abandon,  subject 
to  certain  destruction,  the  great  interest  confided 
to  their  care,  or  to  go  the  extent  of  their  juris- 
diction, and  report  a  system  which,  while  it 
would  not  injure  the  commerce,  should  aid  the 
revenue,  and  save  the  manufactures  of  our 
country.  In  recommending  a  general  revision 
of  the  existing  tariff,  we  are  sensible  of  being 
exposed  to  the  imputation  of  encroaching  on 
the  province  of  other  committees ;  but,  as  they 
have  declined  or  refused  to  act,  I  hope  no  ob- 
jections on  this  score  will  come  from  them. 
From  the  House  I  anticipate  none — confident  in 
the  hope  that  they  will  inquire,  not  so  much 
from  what  committee  this  bill  emanated,  as 
whether  its  provisions  will  promote  the  general 
welfare.  And  if,  in  the  opinion  of  the  House, 
this  measure  is  called  for  by  the  distresses  of 
the  country ;  if  it  will  tend  to  their  relief,  and 
to  restore  the  nation  to  its  former  prosperity ; 
if  it  is  essential  that  such  encouragement  should 
ever  be  given  to  national  industry  as  will  enable 
us  to  supply  the  articles  of  our  own  consump- 
tion, you  have  the  authority  of  the  Secretary  of 
the  Treasury  for  saying  that  this  is  the  proper 
time.  In  his  annual  report  on  the  finances,  he 
tells  you  this  in  the  most  explicit  language ;  he 
tells  you,  too,  that  your  present  revenue  is  in- 
sufficient— you  must  increase  it,  or  diminish 
your  expenditure. 

This  is  a  time  of  profound  peace,  when  our 
expenses  are  those  only  of  an  ordinary  Peace 
Establishment;  no  national  calamity  has  be- 
fallen us ;  yet  a  loan  is  necessary  for  the  pres- 
ent year,  and  a  larger  one  will  be  required  for 
the  next.  When  a  system  of  revenue  has  thus 
completely  failed,  and  from  the  operation  of 
plain  and  natural  causes ;  when  we  cannot  flat- 
ter ourselves  that,  in  the  present  state  of  the 


world,  it  can  become  better,  but  are  certain 
that  it  must  become  worse,  it  is  time  to  look  to 
our  situation  and  retrace  our  error.  It  is  an 
unpleasant  duty  in  any  committee  to  be  obliged 
to  examine  existing  systems,  and  recommend  a 
change,  but  it  will  be  at  once  perceived  that 
the  nation  which  relies  for  the  means  of  paying 
its  expenses  solely  on  imposts,  must  encourage 
the  importation,  and  not  the  manufacture,  of  its 
article  of  consumption.  Whilst  this  is  its  poli- 
cy, its  internal  industry  must  be  confined  to  ar- 
ticles of  export,  to  pay  for  foreign  fabrics  which 
are  imported.  With  importations,  revenue 
must  diminish ;  and  this  has  been  the  reason 
why  all  attempts  to  promote  our  own  manufac- 
tures have  hitherto  failed.  Now  the  system 
must  be  changed ;  yon  must  either  make  per- 
petual loans,  or  open  new  sources  of  revenue, 
by  giving  a  new  turn  to  the  labor  of  the  nation. 
At  all  events,  I  beg  gentlemen  to  consider  that, 
to  me,  the  danger  to  the  Treasury  is  no  answer 
to  this  bill ;  if  it  is  empty,  it  is  not  my  fault. 
Two  short  years  since  I  Avas  in  a  proud  minority 
of  five  that  opposed  the  repeal  of  those  taxes 
which,  if  continued,  would  have  given  you  an 
abundant  revenue.  If,  in  their  abolition,  the 
encouragement  of  manufactures  has  been  re- 
tarded, let  no  inconsistency  be  charged  upon 
me ;  if  the  system  has  failed,  it  is  not  because  it 
has  not  had  its  full  and  fair  operation,  but  be- 
cause it  is  inconsistent  with  the  present  situa- 
tion of  this  country  and  Europe.  You  may  re- 
sort to  temporary  expedients ;  but  the  people 
of  this  country  will  not  consent  to  a  continual 
accumulation  of  debt,  in  order  to  protract  a 
system  which  can  alone  heal  the  general  dis- 
tress. What  must  be  done  should  be  done 
soon.  The  able  and  intelligent  officer  at  the 
head  of  your  finances  tells  yon  this  is  the  time ; 
and  I  tell  you,  that  you  may  as  well  avoid  the 
approaches  of  old  age,  or  the  stroke  of  death, 
as  a  change  in  your  financial  system.  You 
must  not  wait  till  the  voice  of  the  people  calls 
for  it  in  language  which  you  cannot  resist,  and 
when  the  revulsion  will  be  so  sudden  as  to 
shake  to  its  foundation  the  system  to  which 
gentlemen  now  cling  so  eagerly.  If  this  mis- 
erable system  of  impost,  as  the  exclusive  source 
of  revenue,  is  necessary  for  the  support  of  com- 
merce ;  if  the  internal  industry  of  the  country 
is  to  be  checked  and  protracted  till  public  opin- 
ion demands  the  change,  let  gentlemen  beware 
lest  all  parts  of  the  system  go  together. 

Those  who  now  complain  that  the  Committee 
of  Manufactures  propose  too  much,  will,  when 
that  day  arrives,  (and  come  it  must,)  regret  the 
rejection  of  this  bill,  which  proposes  a  change 
— gradual,  but  necessary  for  the  prosperity  of 
the  country.  In  proposing  it,  the  committee 
are  aware  that,  from  one  side  of  the  House,  we 
shall  be  assailed  with  the  cry  of,  you  will  ruin 
commerce  ;  from  the  other,  agriculture;  and 
from  all,  smuggling  and  revenue.  x  In  telling  us 
that  commerce  supports  the  Government  and 
furnishes  its  revenues,  gentlemen  must  not  de- 
ceive themselves  in  thinking  that  the  people  of 


DEBATES  OF  CONGRESS. 


605 


APRIL,  1820.] 


Revition  of  the  Tariff. 


[H.  OF  R. 


this  country  do  not  know  that  the  consumer  of 
foreign  goods,  and  not  the  foreigner  or  import- 
er, pays  the  impost.  The  consumption  of  for- 
eign produce,  and  not  its  importation,  is  the 
source  of  the  revenue  ;  a  kind  of  taxation  the 
more  oppressive  on  the  people,  because,  by  em- 
ploying the  merchant  or  collector,  the  consumer 
pays,  not  only  the  amount  of  duties,  but  the  ac- 
cumulated profits  of  all  the  merchants  through 
whose  hands  the  article  passes  from  the  custom- 
house to  the  consumer.  If  the  committee  are 
censured  for  speaking  thus  plainly  of  a  system 
on  which  this  Government  has  hitherto  rested 
for  its  support,  the  House  must  recollect  that, 
at  its  organization,  impost  was  only  one,  not 
the  exclusive  source  of  revenue.  As  soon  as 
the  debts  of  the  Revolution  were  assumed  by  the 
New  Congress,  a  system  of  excise  and  internal 
taxation  was  resorted  to,  as  a  paramount  means 
of  pay  ing  the  interest  of  the  National  Debt.  Dur- 
ing the  administration  of  General  WASHINGTOX 
and  his  immediate  successor,  an  excise  on  spirits, 
snuff,  and  snuff  mills,  duties  on  refined  sugar, 
licenses  to  retailers,  carriages,  auctions,  and  a 
stamp  act  and  land  tax,  were  imposed.  Let  it 
not  be  forgotten  that,  in  the  preamble  to  the 
act  for  laying  an  impost,  the  encouragement  of 
domestic  manufactures  was  one  of  the  avowed' 
objects  of  the  law.  This  was  the  revenue  sys- 
tem of  the  founders  of  our  Government.  We 
do  not  attack,  but  rest  upon  it ;  it  is  the  only 
one  on  which  this  nation  can  rely  for  perma- 
nent protection  in  a  time  of  European  peace ; 
we  must  recur  to  it,  unless  another  great  con- 
vulsion should  again  derange  all  the  institutions 
of  the  civilized  world.  The  policy  of  this  Gov- 
ernment was  changed,  not  because  it  was  found 
unwise,  but  because  the  continuance  of  the  war 
in  Europe  rendered  it  unnecessary.  Then  other 
nations  wanted  our  provisions ;  their  price  was 
such  that  the  labor  of  this  country  was  diverted 
from  its  natural  course.  Instead  of  making,  we 
imported  the  articles  of  common  consumption. 
The  impost  was  found  sufficient  for  all  our 
wants.  But,  in  the  change  of  events,  Europe 
can  now  feed  herself,  and  can  compete  with  us 
in  other  markets  for  our  provisions.  Those  na- 
tions from  whom  we  import  the  most,  now  re- 
fuse to  receive  our  produce  at  any  price.  Thus 
there  has  been  a  radical  change  in  those  rela- 
tions with  other  nations  which  gave  the  turn  to 
our  national  industry.  A  wise  Legislature  will 
and  must  shape  its  internal  policy  to  meet  the 
changes  which  make  a  revision  necessary.  The 
present  is  not  a  forced,  but  the  natural  and  set- 
tled state  of  this  country.  The  events  of  the 
last  thirty  years  have  been  unparalleled  in  his- 
tory ;  we  must  not  expect  their  recurrence,  at 
least  in  our  time.  It  requires  no  reasoning  to 
prove  that  measures  calculated  on  a  general  war 
in  Europe  will  not  suit  a  general  state  of  peace; 
they  must  and  will  be  controlled  by  circum- 
stances. We  must  look  to  facts,  and  profit  by 
experience.  Effects  will  flow  from  causes ;  they 
cannot  be  averted  or  avoided  ;  we  must  meet 
them  sooner  or  later.  It  is  best  not  to  attempt 


to  conceal  from  ourselves  or  the  nation  the  ne- 
cessity of  coming  back  to  the  original  system 
on  which  this  Government  first  commenced  its 
operations.  In  proposing  the  measures  which 
the  committee  have  reported,  we  have  thought 
it  best  to  avow  the  intention  to  be  such  a  change 
in  our  internal  policy  as  will  gradually  lead  the 
people  of  this  country  to  be  independent  of  any 
other  for  the  essential  articles  of  subsistence  and 
the  means  of  defence.  We  well  know  it  is  a 
thankless,  ungracious  task.  The  manufacturers 
complain  that  too  little,  the  merchants  that 
every  thing,  and  I  well  know  that  here  it  is 
thought  that  too  much  has  been  done.  These 
measures  have  caused  much  excitement.  This 
is  not  the  time  to  expect  that  justice  will  be 
done  to  our  motives.  But  the  committee  have 
this,  and  it  is  no  small  satisfaction  that,  though 
they  have  not  pleased  others,  they  have  pleased 
themselves.  Their  system  has  been  matured 
with  much  pains,  and  with  the  most  anxious 
desire  to  relieve  alike  all  the  suffering  interests 
of  the  country.  How  far  this  bill  is  so  calcu- 
lated the  House  will  judge,  from  an  examination 
and  comparison  with  the  existing  tariff,  which 
I  will  now  explain,  begging  that  gentlemen  will 
not  forget  one  thing — that  the  present  tariff 
was  a  revenue  bill,  reported  by  the  Committee 
of  Ways  and  Means,  more  to  aid  the  Treasury 
than  to  protect  the  industry  of  the  country. 
The  report  of  Mr.  Dallas  was  strongly  in  favor 
of  domestic  manufactures ;  yet,  in  that  of  the 
Committee  of  Ways  and  Means,  it  is  remarkable 
that  the  word  manufactures  is  not  mentioned. 
I  presume  that  the  gentleman  from  South  Caro- 
lina, who  was  then  the  chairman  of  that  com- 
mittee, had  then  the  same  opinion  on  the  sub- 
ject that  he  now  entertains.  When  gentlemen 
complain  of  the  extravagant  protection  that  this 
bill  affords  to  national  industry,  they  are,  per- 
haps, not  aware  that,  in  general,  it  exceeds  but 
in  a  small  degree  that  recommended  in  1816 
from  the  Treasury,  almost  exclusively  for  reve- 
nue. They  must  not  think  it  strange  if  a  Com- 
mittee of  Manufactures,  combining  this  with 
other  great  national  objects,  should  have  felt  it 
their  duty  to  propose  some  changes  necessary 
to  meet  the  calls  of  the  country. 

The  bill  proposes — 

A  duty  of  12£  per  cent,  ad  valorem  on  the 
articles  enumerated  in  the  first  class,  and  20 
per  cent,  on  ah1  not  enumerated,  which  embrace 
many  manufactures,  but  which  it  was  thought 
best  not  to  particularize.  In  the  present  tariff, 
these  were  at  7£  and  15  per  cent.  The  com- 
mittee could  discern  no  good  reason  for  leaving 
them  at  this  low  rate  of  duty,  and  were  abun- 
dantly convinced  that,  for  the  double  purpose 
of  revenue  and  manufactures,  the  proposed  rates 
were  proper.  It  would  be  going  too  much  in 
detail  to  tra^  the  various  rates  of  ad  valorem 
duties  from  "789  to  1804.  In  that  year  they 
were  permanently  fixed  at  12^,  15,  and  20; 
with  the  addition  of  the  Mediterranean  Fund, 
they  were  15,  17^,  and  22^,  and  continued  so 
during  the  most  prosperous  period  of  our  com- 


606 


ABRIDGMENT  OF  THE 


H.  OF  R.] 


Revision  of  the  Tariff. 


[APRIL,  1820. 


merce  and  revenue,  till,  in  1812,  when  the  per- 
manent duties  were  doubled,  making  27?,  82  £, 
and  42£.  They  continued  so  until  1815,  after 
the  peace,  when  the  Mediterranean  Fund  ceased, 
and  the  duties  remained  till  July,  1816,  at  the 
rates  of  25,  30,  and  40  per  cent,  ad  valorem. 
Had  they  remained  so,  you  would  not  have  been 
assailed  by  general  cries  of  distress  from  all 
parts  of  the  nation ;  we  should  have  enjoyed, 
not  a  nominal,  but  a  real  independence ;  our  re- 
sources would  not  have  been  sent  abroad  to 
protect  and  reward  the  industry  of  others  to 
the  ruin  of  our  own  merchants,  manufacturers, 
and  farmers.  But  it  was  thought  proper  to  re- 
duce the  duties ;  and  the  fear  of  smuggling,  it 
seems,  is  assigned  as  the  reason.  I  am  not 
enough  acquainted  with  the  mysteries  of  com- 
merce to  know  what  is  the  smuggling  point. 

Gentlemen  may  talk  about  it  as  they  please ; 
there  is  no  evidence  that  our  duties  have  ever 
been  so  high  that  there  has  been  smuggling  to 
any  great  extent.  From  1804  to  1812  the  low- 
est rate  of  duties  was  12£  per  cent. ;  we  heard 
no  complaints  then  ;  during  the  year  1815  and 
the  first  six  months  of  1816,  the  lowest  duty 
was  25  per  cent.  The  importation  of  ad  valo- 
rem articles  in  1815  amounted  to  eighty-six 
millions  of  dollars,  and  gentlemen  are  called  on 
for  the  proof  of  smuggling.  They  must  give 
reasons  better  than  the  mere  suggestion  of  this 
danger,  against  this  small  increase  of  duties, 
which  is,  in  effect,  only  coming  back  to  the  old 
rates  before  the  war.  We  are  not  to  be  de- 
terred by  threats  of  this  kind;  and,  judging 
from  experience,  have  no  fears  that  an  increase 
of  duties,  even  to  the  war  rates,  would  produce 
this  effect ;  but  if  there  was  danger,  it  is  no  ar- 
gument to  us  to  be  told  that  this  Government  is 
unable  to  enforce  measures  which  are  adopted 
as  necessary  to  the  general  welfare.  We  are 
not  so  weak ;  our  laws  are  not  so  insufficient ; 
the  rates  proposed  have  been  collected,  and 
they  can  and  will  be  collected  if  enacted.  When 
the  danger  becomes  realized  it  will  be  time  to 
apply  the  remedy.  While  it  is  merely  fanciful, 
and,  as  I  believe,  held  out  to  defeat  the  salutary 
provisions  of  this  bill,  I  shall  not  deem  it  wor- 
thy of  further  notice.  The  next  rate  of  duty  is 
25  per  cent. ;  in  the  present  tariff  these  articles 
are  rated  at  20,  but  in  the  bill  reported  by  the 
Committee  of  Ways  and  Means  they  were  re- 
commended at  22.  I  hope  it  will  not  be  thought 
extravagant  that  we  propose  an  addition  of 
three  per  cent.  Articles  of  copper  are  at  pres- 
ent at  25  per  cent.  One  expression  is  changed, 
which  will  be  found  to  apply  to  most  of  the  ad 
valorem  articles  in  this  bill ;  in  the  old  tariff  it 
is  "  material  of  chief  value  ;"  this  creates  great 
difficulty  at  the  custom-house,  where  an  article 
is  composed  of  materials  paying  a  different  rate 
of  duty ;  it  is  generally  entertained  as  made  of 
that  which  pays  lowest,  thus  defrauding  the 
revenue  and  injuring  the  manufacturer.  To 
avoid  this,  the  committee  have  adopted  the  ex- 
pression "component  material,"  so  that  any 
article  composed  of  mixed  materials  pays  the 


duty  of  the  highest.  The  House  will  observe 
that  there  is  in  this  clause  a  drawback  of  the 
duties  on  sheet  copper,  used  in  building  or  re- 
pairing ships ;  in  the  present  tariff  "  copper  and 
brass  in  pigs,  bars,  or  plates,  suited  to  the 
sheathing  of  ships,"  is  duty  free.  Under  this 
clause  all  sheet  brass'  and  copper  imported,  for 
whatever  purpose,  is  embraced,  to  the  great 
injury  of  one  class  of  manufactures,  and  the 
diminution  of  the  revenue.  While  the  com- 
mittee are  fully  disposed  to  protect  that  most 
noble  manufacture,  a  ship,  they  are  unwilling 
that  any  other  advantage  should  be  taken  of  a 
provision  intended  solely  for  this  purpose.  It  is 
believed  that  this  object  is  fully  answered  by 
the  proposed  drawback.  It  has  been  submitted 
to  intelligent  and  experienced  merchants,  and 
no  objections  have  occurred.  While  on  this 
subject  I  must  notice  some  publications  in  which 
the  committee  are  charged  with  hostility  to 
commerce  and  shipbuilding,  in  raising  the  duty 
on  sheathing  copper  and  sail  duck.  The  best 
answer  to  the  charge  is,  that  it  is  not  true ;  in 
fact,  this  bill  proposes  no  change  on  either ;  the 
duck  is  an  important  article  of  manufacture,  for 
which  we  ought  not  to  be  dependent  on  any 
other  nation,  and  which  ought  to  be  encour- 
aged ;  yet  the  committee  were  unwilling  to  in- 
terfere with  it.  We  expect  much  abuse  and 
have  received  no  little;  but  let  me  give  one 
word  of  advice  to  those  inclined  to  bestow  it  so 
liberally ;  read  before  you  write. 

The  next  clause  proposes  a  duty  of  thirty- 
three  per  cent,  on  woollens.  In  Mr.  Dallas's 
tariff  it  was  proposed  at  twenty-eight.  On  cot- 
tons, of  thirty-three ;  the  same  as  proposed  by 
him.  Both  are  now  at  twenty-five.  These 
being  among  the  most  important  items  in  the 
bill,  the  House  must  indulge  me  in  going  fully 
into  the  reasons  which  have  induced  the  com- 
mittee to  propose  the  additional  duty.  It  would 
seem  almost  unnecessary  to  convince  this  House 
that  the  interest  of  the  nation  required  that  it 
should  clothe  itself;  that  it  ought  to  feed  itself 
will  not  be  denied  ;  yet  food  is  not  more  neces- 
sary than  raiment,  and  I  cannot  see  how  any 
people  can  be  independent  who  must  look 
abroad  for  that.  At  all  events,  the  committee 
have  thought  that,  in  bottoming  this  bill  on 
this  national  principle,  that  we  ought  to  feed, 
clothe,  and  be  able  to  defend  ourselves,  we 
placed  it  on  ground  that  could  not  easily  be 
shaken.  Our  motives  rise  higher  than  the  in- 
terest of  manufacturers;  whether  they  make 
money  or  lose  money  now ;  whether  it  tends  to 
enrich  one  or  another,  or  all  classes  of  society, 
has  scarcely  entered  into  our  consideration. 
The  nation  must  command  its  own  consump- 
tion, its  own  means  of  defence.  The  last  war 
found  us  destitute.  I  beg  the  House  to  remem- 
ber what  the  gentleman  from  Kentucky  told  us 
the  other  day ;  that  our  gallant  soldiers  were 
destitute  of  clothing,  until  the  Government 
connived  at  smuggling,  to  procure  cloth  from 
the  nation  with  whom  we  were  contending. 
National  feeling,  if  not  interest,  should  forbid 


DEBATES  OF  CONGRESS. 


607 


APRIL,  1820.] 


Revision  of  the  Tariff. 


[H.  OF  R. 


the  recurrence  of  such  a  scene ;  it  shall  not  be 
charged  on  the  Committee  of  Manufactures.  If 
it  was  right  in  1816  to  impose  a  duty  of  twenty- 
five  per  cent,  on  woollens  and  cottons,  princi- 
pally with  a  view  to  revenue,  there  will  be 
found  a  strong  reason  for  its  increase  in  the  du- 
ties now  imposed  by  the  British  Government, 
of  six  pence  sterling  on  every  pound  of  wool, 
and  six  per  cent,  ad  valorem  on  cotton  wool, 
imported  after  the  6th  January,  1820.  Wool 
has  been  an  article  of  export  from  this  country 
to  England.  The  new  duty  excludes  it;  the 
ports  are  now  shut  against  your  provisions; 
they  will  not  permit  its  importation  till  the 
price  of  wheat  is  ten  shillings  sterling  a  bushel. 
Let  those  who  complain  so  much  that  the  agri- 
cultural interest  will  suffer  by  this  bill,  reflect 
on  these  facts.  Let  the  farmer  decide  whether 
it  is  most  for  his  interest  to  purchase  his  cloth- 
ing from  the  foreign  manufacturer,  who  will 
purchase  neither  his  wool  nor  his  provisions ; 
or  the  domestic  one,  who  will  give  him  a  mar- 
ket for  both,  in  his  anxiety  to  guard  against  the 
profits  which  may  accrue  to  his  neighbors  and 
countrymen,  by  the  success  of  their  manufac- 
tures. Let  him  be  sure  that  he  falls  into  better 
hands  by  trusting  himself  to  the  liberality  of 
foreigners.  It  is  feared  that  there  will  be  a 
monopoly  and  a  desire  of  speculation,  if  our 
own  countrymen  can  supply  our  demands ;  yet 
there  seems  to  be  no  fear  that  our  course  of 
policy  should  give  that  monopoly  to  the  British 
manufacturers.  Hundreds,  thousands  of  our 
citizens,  are  out  of  employment ;  they  would 
add  infinitely  to  the  national  wealth,  to  our  in- 
dependence, and  save  its  resources  at  home,  if 
their  labor  was  employed  in  converting  our  raw 
materials  into  fabrics  for  our  own  use.  But  it 
is  contended  that  our  true  policy  is  to  employ 
the  labor  of  other  nations,  pay  them  the  profits 
of  their  manufactures,  for  the  purpose  of  direct- 
ing the  industry  of  ours  to  productions  which 
can  find  no  market  abroad,  and  have  no  value 
at  home.  These  new  duties  imposed  in  Eng- 
land on  wool  and  cotton  ought  to  awaken  us  to 
our  situation  ;  no  part  of  the  country  ought  to 
be  more  alive  to  their  effects  than  that  from 
which  the  opposition  to  this  measure  is  the 
greatest.  England  does  not  wish  to  encourage 
the  cotton  of  America.  She  gives  you  unequiv- 
ocal indications  of  her  policy.  She  will  take  it 
till  her  colonies  can  furnish  her  supplies. 
Though  her  best  customer,  though  she  now  de- 
pend on  us  for  the  raw  material  to  support  her 
manufactures,  she  takes  wool  from  the  conti- 
nent, cotton  from  us ;  but  imposes  heavy  im- 
port duties,  which  are  paid  by  us  who  consume 
the  manufactured  articles.  We  thus  furnish 
her  Government  with  revenue,  her  laborers 
with  employment,  while  ours  are  idle. 

I  am  afraid  we  are  not  aware  of  the  bold  and 
dangerous  experiment  we  are  trying.  We  are 
now  to  decide  on  the  course  of  internal  policy 
which  shall  best  develop  the  resources,  pro- 
mote the  industry,  and  secure  the  independence 
of  the  country.  Is  there  not  some  danger  of 


our  erring,  by  adopting  the  system  which  best 
accords  with  the  views  of  the  British  Govern- 
ment ?  If  it  were  submitted  to  them  to  choose 
a  set  of  measures  for  us  which  would  best  pro- 
mote their  interest,  we  well  know  it  would  be 
such  as  would  secure  to  their  merchants,  manu- 
facturers, and  mechanics,  the  supply  of  all  our 
articles  of  consumption  and  defence ;  to  give  to 
them  the  employment  of  the  labor  and  the 
profits  of  converting  the  raw  materials  into 
fabrics  for  use.  It  is  the  source  of  their  na- 
tional greatness ;  the  great  object  to  which  all 
their  efforts  are  directed ;  their  policy  is  most 
unyielding  and  unbending.  It  has  existed  for 
ages,  and  been  completed  by  a  steady  and  uni- 
form series  of  legislation ;  they  have  not  left 
things  to  "regulate  themselves;"  this  has  not 
been,  it  will  not  be  their  maxim,  but  they  wish 
to  see  it  adopted  by  those  who  are  to  be  the 
dupes  of  their  policy.  What  is  sound  political 
economy  there,  is,  it  seems,  here  the  raving  of 
madness,  the  result  of  empiricism ;  yet  it  would 
excite  some  sensation  in  this  House  if  the  Min- 
isters of  England  should  formally  present  us 
with  a  plan  for  our  adoption;  we  should,  at 
least,  inquire  whether  it  was  the  result  of  their 
friendship  to  us,  and  whether  it  would  not  be 
as  safe  to  trust  to  the  opinion  and  advice  of  our 
own  statesmen.  To  import  only  our  raw  mate- 
rials and  provisions,  to  be  our  exclusive  mer- 
chants and  carriers,  was  their  colonial  policy 
before  the  Revolution.  The  great  men  whose 
wisdom  carried  us  through  that  struggle,  did  not 
then  think  that  the  system  of  internal  policy 
which  was  best  calculated  to  secure  our  inde- 
pendence and  to  coerce  England  to  secure  our 
rights,  was  to  afford  employment  to  her  citi- 
zens, encouragement  to  her  artificers,  to  the 
impoverishment  of  our  own. 

The  immortal  Congress  of  1774  entered  into 
an  agreement  not  to  export  any  produce  to 
England,  to  import  no  goods  from  that  country, 
to  consume  none  made  there  ;  and  denounced, 
as  enemies  to  American  liberty,  any  person  who 
would  violate  this  agreement.  It  has  never 
been  charged  on  Bonaparte  that  he  was  deficient 
in  foresight,  or  did  not  understand  the  mode  of 
attacking  his  enemy.  His  continental  system 
was  not  aimed  at  the  influence  or  political  power 
of  England,  but  against  her  manufactures.  That 
he  knew  to  be  the  source  of  her  power,  and 
there  he  attacked  her.  To  save  them,  England 
fought  and  subsidized  all  Europe.  There  has 
been  a  strange  revolution  in  the  moral  world, 
if  the  connection  between  causes  and  effects  -is 
now  dissolved;  if  the  measures  which,  in  1774, 
were  necessary  to  secure,  would  now  be  de- 
structive of  the  great  interests  of  this  nation. 
We  have  been  taught  to  look  with  veneration 
to  that  Congress ;  it  is,  indeed,  a  change,  when  • 
we  forget  their  maxims;  and,  in  contending 
with  the  same  nation  for  the  same  rights,  reject 
and  spurn  their  principles  as  wild  and  ruinous, 
anxious  to  adopt  those  recommended  by  the 
Ministry  and  political  economists  of  England. 
This  is,  at  all  event?,  a  dangerous  experiment ; 


608 


ABRIDGMENT  OF  THE 


H.  OF  R] 


Revision  of  the  Tariff. 


[AFKIL,  1820. 


before  we  trust  too  much  on  it,  we  ought  to  be 
sure  that  the  solid  interests  of  the  country,  and 
not  its  destruction,  is  their  governing  principle. 
It  will  be  said  that  more  liberal  ideas  are  now 
adopted  by  other  nations ;  that  the  principles 
of  political  economy  are  now  better  understood. 
France  has  been  mentioned;  but  when  her 
tariff  is  examined,  it  will  be  found  to  be  more 
rigid — to  contain  more  prohibitions  than  that 
of  England.  As  to  us,  it  contains  some  pro- 
visions which,  I  think,  cannot  fail  to  alarm  the 
agriculturists,  the  cotton  planters  of  this  coun- 
try. It  is  worthy  the  attention  of  this  House 
to  look  at  their  import  duties  on  cotton  wool : 

From  India,  30  f.  per  100  kil.,  equal  to  $3  per  cwt. 
Other  countries  out  of  Europe,  40  f.  per  100  kiL, 

equal  to  $4  per  cwt. 

Entrepots,  50  f.  per  100  kil.,  equal  to  $5  per  cwt. 
Turkey,  15  f.  per  100  kil.,  equal  to  $1  50  per  cwt. 
French  colonies,  10  f.  per  100  kil.,  equal  to  $1  per 

cwt. 

This  short  item  contains  much  information 
and  instruction.  Their  whole  tariff  breathes 
against  your  agriculture  and  commerce  a  spirit 
of  hostility  as  unequivocal  as  any  regulation  of 
England ;  as  to  cotton,  more  so ;  it  is  a  duty  of 
$4  per  100  pounds;  equal  to  20  per  cent,  ad 
valorem  on  the  raw  material,  while  England 
imposes  only  6  ;  that  it  is  aimed  at  this  country 
is  evident  from  its  being  $2  50  per  100  pounds, 
more  than  on  cotton  from  Turkey,  and  one  dol- 
lar more  than  from  India.  If  it  is  a  reason  why 
the  cotton  of  Turkey  should  be  preferred  on  ac- 
count of  the  profits  of  her  trade,  it  cannot  ex- 
tend to  India,  to  which  they  export  little ;  but 
ought  to  bear  lightly  on  us,  as  we  are  one  of 
the  best  customers  of  France  for  her  wines, 
brandy,  silks,  cotton,  and  small  wares.  She 
requires  our  cotton  now,  but  this  duty  is  an 
earnest  of  what  you  may  expect  from  her  when 
she  can  procure  a  supply  from  her  colonies  or 
other  countries.  She  receives  your  tobacco, 
but  takes  care  to  exclude  us  from  all  chance  of 
a  competition  in  the  market,  by  compelling  a 
sale  to  the  Government,  who  buy  at  their  own 
price.  Kice,  from  India,  pays  one  dollar  per 
100 :  from  America,  two  dollars.  Thus,  we  find 
the  two  nations  with  whom  our  intercourse  is 
the  greatest,  pursue  the  same  policy  as  to  our 
great  agricultural  products,  the  only  ones  they 
receive  from  us;  they  are  enriched  by  the 
manufacture  of  it — we  purchase  immense  quan- 
tities of  their  cottons,  and  woollens,  and  silks ; 
these  favors  produce  no  relaxation  on  their 
part.  Our  agriculture  and  manufactures  are 
now  prostrate,  and  commerce  goes  next.  With 
England  it  is  safe,  not  because  it  can  regulate 
itself,  but  because  it  is  regulated  by  a  conven- 
tion, to  the  observance  of  which  the  national 
faith  is  pledged.  With  France  we  have  none. 
Your  ships  are  now  said  to  be  virtually  exclud- 
ed from  their  ports.  This  part  of  your  com- 
merce is  now  to  be  protected  by  regulations — 
by  a  bill  no.w  on  your  table,  laying  a  duty  of 
eighteen  dollars  per  ton  on  French  shipping. 


This  code,  remember,  is  not  the  offspring  of  the 
age  of  benighted  ignorance,  prejudice,  or  ex- 
ploded theories,  or'  of  the  man  against  whom 
all  Europe  combined ;  but  in  1817,  by  the  Gov- 
ernment which  has  been  restored  by  a  common 
struggle,  existing  in  all  the  effulgence  of  the 
light  which  has  been  shed  on  the  subject  by 
their  own  and  English  writers  on  political  econ- 
omy, who  are  not  regarded  by  the  Governments 
where  they  live ;  whose  books  are  for  exporta- 
tion, not  for  home  consumption,  and  now  for 
sale  in  your  lobby,  to  enlighten  you  on  the 
merits  of  this  bill.  It  is  a  matter  of  much  re- 
gret to  me  to  find  their  opinions  quoted  with 
respect  here,  when  they  are  disregarded  where 
they  are  known.  There  is  no  country  but  this 
that  studiously  leaves  her  great  concerns  to 
regulate  themselves.  They  are  all  guarded  and 
preserved  by  regulations  of  the  most  rigorous 
kind.  Yet  it  seems  to  be  expected  that,  when 
our  establishments  are  obliged  to  contend  with 
those  of  other  countries,  the  latter,  aided  by  all 
the  force  and  influence  of  public  opinion  and 
legislation,  ours  can  succeed  against  this  unequal 
competition,  the  neglect  of  Government  and 
public  prejudice.  If  the  nations  with  whom  we 
vie  would  adopt  the  same  maxims,  then  the  in- 
dustry of  the  country  would  protect  itself.  All 
that  is  asked  is  to  meet  regulation  by  regula- 
tion, and  thus  make  the  competition  fair  and 
equal.  Apply  to  their  products  the  same  rule 
that  they  apply  to  ours ;  if  they  tax  our  raw 
materials,  tax  their  manufactures  to  the  encour- 
agement of  ours ;  if  they  exclude  our  provisions, 
exclude  their  products ;  let  our  legislation  keep 
pace  with  theirs ;  then  our  industry  will  be 
protected,  foreign  nations  will  be  compelled  to 
observe,  practically,  the  rule  which  they  dis- 
card from  their  code,  but  press  into  ours — "let 
things  regulate  themselves."  I  shall  be  satisfied 
with  any  course  if  it  is  uniform.  No  regulation, 
or  regulation  against  regulation.  If  these  views, 
or  any  of  them,  are  correct,  it  will  not  be 
thought  unreasonable  that  the  committee  have 
recommended  an  additional  duty  on  cotton  and 
woollens  of  eight  per  cent. ;  it  is  not  so  much 
a  protecting  as  a  countervailing  duty,  to  coun- 
teract the  new  duties  imposed  in  France  and 
England  on  our  cotton  and  wool.  Had  these 
duties  existed,  or  been  known  at  the  time  of 
forming  our  present  tariff,  it  is  but  reasonable 
to  believe  that  the  duty  would  have  been  high- 
er. The  proposed  addition  is  certainly  moder- 
ate, and  consistent  with  every  principle  of  na- 
tional interest.  The  minimum  has  not  been 
changed.  It  is  proper  here  to  remark  that,  by 
estimating  all  cotton  goods  to  have  cost  twenty- 
five  cents  a  yard,  and  assessing  the  duty  on  that 
sum,  the  coarser  cottons  of  India  have  been  ex- 
cluded ;  and  I  beg  the  House  not  to  lose  sight 
of  one  fact,  which  is  admitted  by  all  to  be  true, 
that  coarse  domestic  cottons  are  now  made 
cheaper  than  they  were  ever  imported.  The 
remark  is  equally  true  of  nails,  and  every  other 
article  of  which  this  country  commands  the 
consumption.  The  domestic  competition  will 


DEBATES  OF  CONGRESS. 


APRIL,  1820.] 


Revision  of  the  Tariff". 


[H.  OF  R. 


bave  this  effect  on  every  article.  This  fact 
ought  to  quiet  the  fears  of  gentlemen  who  affect 
to  think  that  the  encouragement  of  domestic 
industry  tends  to  take  from  the  many  a  bounty 
for  the  benefit  of  the  few.  Such  bas  been  the 
case  in  all  other  countries — those  which  ex- 
clude the  importation  of  foreign  fabrics,  always 
undersell  those  who  leave  things  to  regulate 
themselves.  The  experience  of  nations,  for 
ages,  cannot  deceive  us ;  it  is,  at  all  events,  not 
safe  to  adopt  theories,  and  reject  the  lights  of 
history  and  experience.  Let  us  follow  the 
course  which  has  led  other  nations  to  greatness ; 
it  will  be  time  to  prefer  theory  to  fact,  to  adopt 
the  dreams  of  speculative  writers,  when  we 
shall  have  discovered  that  the  principles  which 
make  others  rich  will  impoverish  us ;  that  the 
path  which  conducts  others  to  wealth  and  power 
will  lead  us  to  poverty  and  colonial  depend- 
ence. In  a  word,  that  if  we  sell  more  than  we 
buy,  if  our  income  exceeds  our  expenditure,  we 
are  ruined.  That,  if  the  farmer  buys  his  goods 
from  those  who  buy  bis  produce,  and  gives  it  a 
value  at  home  which  it  has  not  abroad,  ho  pays 
a  bounty  to  the  manufacturer. 

It  will  be  observed  that  this  bill  recommends 
an  additional  duty  on  cottons  from  beyond  the 
Cape  of  Good  Hope,  of  seven  per  cent.,  and  of 
ten  on  silks.  It  was  done  for  these  reasons : 
that  the  countries  whence  these  articles  are  im- 
ported consume  none  of  our  raw  rnateri-als, 
afford  no  market  for  our  produce,  employ  none 
of  the  labor,  and  exhaust  the  specie  of  the 
country.  It  is  but  fair  that  a  preference  should 
be  given  to  the  fabrics  of  those  nations  who  re- 
ceive from  us  something  in  return.  There  was 
an  additional  reason  why  the  committee  thought 
it  best  to  make  this  discrimination.  It  is  a 
matter  of  serious  complaint  that  the  duties  im- 
posed by  the  French  Government  on  American 
tonnage  have  nearly  destroyed  our  commerce 
with  France.  It  is  now  said  to  be  cheaper  to 
send  a  cargo  there  in  a  French  ship  and  pay 
freight,  than  in  one  of  ours  and  pay  none;  the 
difference  of  the  duties  and  charges  is  estimated 
at  about  three  thousand  five  hundred  dollars  a 
voyage.  This  is  another  consequence  of  the 
peace  in  Europe;  every  nation  is  now 'desirous 
of  reclaiming  its  own  commerce,  of  carrying  its 
own  productions,  and  bringing  back  the  articles 
it  wants.  We  have  had  the  carrying  trade  of 
the  world ;  the  protection  of  our  flag  was  want- 
ed ;  now  every  flag  protects  itself;  the  com- 
merce of  other  nations  will  be  increased  at  the 
expense  of  ours.  Regulations  which  are  to 
produce  this  effect  cannot  be  called  hostile  or 
unfriendly ;  they  result  from  the  desire  which 
all  Governments  ought  to  feel  of  protecting 
their  own  interest;  it  is  equally  vain  for  us  to 
expect  our  commerce  to  be  what  it  has  been,  as 
that  the  nations  of  Europe  will  give  ours  a  pre- 
ference to  their  own;  (these  are  maxims  re- 
served for  our  adoption.)  How  to  shape  our 
course  of  legislation  on  this  subject  is  a  matter 
of  extreme  difficulty.  Committees  of  the  House 
have  different  plans;  a  system  of  commercial 
VOL.  VI.-39 


warfare  is  recommended,  in  the  hope  that 
France  will  relax  in  hers.  We  have  thought  it 
safest  to  make  an  appeal,  not  to  her  fears,  but 
to  her  interest ;  to  give  her  a  peace  offering  by 
preferring  hers  to  the  fabrics  of  India,  rather 
than  to  provoke  by  excluding  her  ships  from 
our  ports.  As  it  affects  merely  the  manufac- 
tures pf  the  country,  the  latter  would  be  the 
course  to  be  pursued;  for  if,  in  the  prosecution 
of  this  war  of  legislation,  she  should  exclude  our 
cotton,  the  raisers  of  it  will  join  us  in  creating 
a  market  at  home.  In  thus  recommending  the 
measure  which  is  opposed  to  the  interest  of 
those  for  whose  exclusive  benefit  the  committee 
are  said  to  be  acting,  we  hope  to  avoid  the  im- 
putation of  hostility  to  commerce.  The  navi- 
gation acts  on  your  table  are  bold  measures, 
designed  to  compel  the  two  most  powerful  na- 
tions of  Europe  to  give  up  their  favorite  systems 
of  commercial  and  colonial  policy,  not  the  ex- 
pedients of  yesterday  or  the  moment,  but  set- 
tled, matured,  and  acted  on  for  more  than  a 
century ;  which  have  entered  into  all  their  fa- 
vorite plans  of  commercial  and  naval  greatness. 
In  such  a  contest  there  is  much  risked :  if  these 
measures  produce  the  desired  effect,  I  shall  not 
be  among  the  last  to  rejoice ;  but  if  they  fail,  if, 
instead  of  saving  they  destroy  your  commerce ; 
if,  instead  of  producing  a  relaxation,  they  only 
add  rigor  to  the  regulations  they  are  intended 
to  counteract,  it  shall  not  be  charged  on  the 
Committee  of  Manufactures  that  it  was  a  part 
of  their  system.  Had  these  navigation  acts 
emanated  from  us,  I  well  know  the  clamor 
which  would  have  been  excited ;  as  they  have 
come  from  the  Commercial  Committee,  they 
will  be  hailed  by  the  mercantile  interests  as  the 
means  of  restoring  commerce,  and  I  hope  they 
may  prove  so ;  but,  having  a  different  opinion, 
fearful  that  this  measure  would  recoil  upon  us, 
destroying  what  it  was  intended  to  save,  we 
have  inserted  this  feature  in  the  bill.  A  duty 
of  25  per  cent,  is  proposed  on  linen  and  a  mini- 
mus of  25  cents.  The  rate  proposed  by  the 
Committee  of  Ways  and  Means  in  1816,  was 
20 ;  it  was  fixed  at  15.  This  is  one  of  the  most 
important  items  of  domestic  consumption ;  flax, 
the  raw  material,  raised  in  all  parts  of  the  coun- 
try, is  not  an  article  of  export  to  any  extent ; 
linen  is  one  of  the  most  favored  manufactures 
of  England ;  it  pays  no  excise  for  home  con- 
sumption, and  the  Government  pays  a  custom- 
house bounty  of  25  per  cent,  (on  coarse  fabrics)- 
when  exported.  Woollens  and  plain  cottons 
receive  none ;  the  duty  on  them,  therefore,  op- 
erates for  the  double  purpose  of  revenue  and  a 
preference  of  ours  over  the  imported  article. 
But,  as  to  linen,  the  present  duty  only  operates 
as  a  tax  on  our  own  consumption,  being  10  per 
cent,  less  than  the  British  export  bounty  ;  af- 
fording, contrary  to  all  principles  of  a  wise  pol- 
icy, a  decided  preference  for  a  foreign  manu- 
facture. It  is  impossible  to  imagine  any  sound 
reason  for  leaving  this  most  important  article  so 
wholly  unprotected.  In  the  present  tariff,  it 
the  committee  have  erred,  it  is  in  not  proposing 


610 


ABRIDGMENT  OF  THE 


H.  OF  R] 


Revision  of  the  Tariff. 


[APRIL,  1820. 


a  still  higher  rate  of  duty ;  on  coarse  linen  it 
only  equals  the  bounty,  and  then,  so  far  as  re- 
spects the  competition  with  our  fabrics,  makes 
it  duty  free ;  on  the  finer,  it  has  some  small  op- 
eration as  a  protecting  duty.  This  increase  of 
duty  on  linen  has  caused  much  complaint.  The 
House  will  now  judge  with  what  reason  this 
bill  is  called  an  extravagant  one.  Th«  other 
objections,  when  examined,  will  be  found  to 
have  no  more  foundation  than  this. 

The  next  clause  proposes  a  duty  of  30  per 
cent,  on  silk  from  India,  20  from  other  places : 
it  now  pays  15.  No  good  reason  could  be  dis- 
covered for  so  low  a  rate ;  it  is  an  article  used 
mostly  by  the  rich ;  there  is  less  danger  of  smug- 
gling than  on  most  others ;  it  is  imported  only 
in  large  and  valuable  ships,  and,  if  from  India, 
is  allowed  to  be  landed  only  in  specified  ports. 
A  very  intelligent  merchant  from  Boston  recom- 
mended a  duty  of  33  per  cent,  on  all  kinds  from 
every  country  alike :  there  will  probably  be  no 
objection  to  the  proposed  increase.  Raw  silk 
is  made  duty  free  in  this,  though  in  the  present 
tariff  it  paid  the  same  duty  as  the  manufactured. 
Printed  books  are  at  35 — the  same  as  proposed 
by  Mr.  Dallas  in  1816 ;  they  pay  15  at  present. 
Paper  and  leather — the  raw  materials  are  now 
at  30;  the  manufactured  article  should  be 
higher,  as  it  gives  employment  to  much  of  the 
labor  and  a  market  for  many  of  the  products  of 
the  country.  If  imported  for  colleges,  &c.,  they 
are  duty  free ;  if  for  common  sale,  they  are  a 
most  important  article  of  consumption,  and,  like 
others,  should  be  made  at  home ;  if  for  mere 
amusement  or  works  of  taste,  they  are  fair  sub- 
jects of  revenue ;  none  can  better  afford  to  pay 
taxes  than  men  of  leisure  and  wealth.  If  any 
gentleman  thinks  a  discrimination  ought  to  be 
made  so  as  to  impose  a  lower  rate  of  duty  on 
works  of  science  and  literature,  there  will  be  no 
objection.  The  other  items  in  this  clause  are 
generally  at  35  per  cent.— the  same  as  recom- 
mended by  Mr.  Dallas — and  in  the  present  tariff 
are  rated  at  30.  The  House  will  thus  perceive 
that  on  articles  paying  an  ad  valorem  duty,  the 
proposed  increase  is  generally  from  5  to  10  per 
cent.  If  the  only  protection  offered  by  this  bill 
to  the  national  industry  consisted  in  the  mere 
rate  of  duties,  they  will  be  found  not  to  come 
np  to  what  are  generally  called  protecting,  but 
would  be  justified  for  the  mere  purpose  of 
revenue*  The  committee  were  sensible  that  if 
all  the  protection  necessary  was  in  the  imposi- 
tion of  high  duties,  the  cry  of  extravagance 
and  smuggling  might  defeat  their  measures. 
They  have  thought  the  object  could  be  better 
accomplished  by  adding  such  provisions  to  the 
bill  as  would  effectually  secure  the  collection  of 
the  duties  imposed,  and  so  to  apportion  them  as 
to  produce  not  only  revenue  by  the  consump- 
tion, but  be  in  some  measure  a  discrimination 
between  the  foreign  and  domestic  manufacture. 
In  this  view  we  hope  that  all  will  concur. 

The  mode  of  ascertaining  the  value  of  goods 
on  which  a  duty  is  to  be  assessed,  has  been  at-  ! 
tended  with  much  difficulty — an  almost  constant ! 


war  between  the  merchants  and  the  officers  of 
the  customs,  and  has  been  often  changed.  The 
original  mode  of  ascertaining  the  value  "at 
the  time  and  place  of  importation,"  prescribed 
by  the  act  of  1790,  was  the  fairest  and  most 
equitable ;  as  an  ad  valorem  duty,  it  was  in  fact 
what  it  purported  to  be — so  much  per  cent,  on 
the  value.  But  as  a  different  standard  of  valu- 
ation has  long  since  been  adopted,  it  was  thought 
best  not  so  much  to  alter  as  to  modify  it.  The 
mode  proposed  in  this  bill  has  been  pursued ; 
but  the  committee  are  not  tenacious  on  this 
point.  There  is,  however,  one  feature  in  this 
clause  which  is  deemed  of  infinite  importance 
to  the  manufacturing  interests,  and  which  the 
House  must  indulge  me  with  explaining.  It  is 
the  addition  to  the  valuation  of  all  drawbacks, 
bounties,  premiums,  and  allowances,  which  are 
paid -by  foreign  Governments  on  exportation, 
and  assessing  the  ad  valorem  duty  on  the  ag- 
gregate value  thus  ascertained.  It  is  somewhat 
singular  that  our  system  of  imports,  which  is 
avowedly  for  the  double  purpose  of  revenue 
and  the  protection  of  our  own  manufactures, 
should  have  overlooked  this  provision,  which  is 
indispensable  for  the  latter.  The  House  will  at 
once  perceive  that,  if  the  foreign  export  bounty 
equals  our  impost  duty  on  the  same  article,  the 
duty  is  only  a  tax  on  the  consumption  of  our 
own  citizens ;  the  foreign  article  comes  into  the 
market  on  the  same  terms  as  the  domestic; 
this  is  fully  exemplified  in  the  article  of  linen. 
The  British  Government  pay  the  exporter  25 
percent,  bounty;  ours,  charging  the  importer 
25  per  cent,  import  duty,  it  thence  becomes 
duty  free.  At  the  present  duty  of  15  per  cent, 
the  importer  has  a  clear  profit  of  10  per  cent, 
after  paying  our  duty.  This  is  certainly  left- 
handed  protection  to  manufactures.  Hence  it 
is,  that,  without  inquiry  into  the  cause,  we  are 
told  you  are  unreasonable ;  no  duties  will  satisfy 
you.  The  great  reason  why  many  of  the  pres- 
ent ones  are  incompetent  is,  that  they  are 
checked  and  rendered  unavailing  by  this  artful 
and  masterly  system  of  bounties  and  drawbacks. 
It  is  the  true  secret  by  which  to  account  for  the 
immense  wealth  and  power  of  a  nation  whose 
population  but  little  exceeds  our  own.  She  is 
too  wise  to  trust  to  imposts  as  the  sole  source 
of  revenue — commands  her  own  consumption, 
draws  the  chief  support  of  her  Government  by 
an  excise  on  her  manufactures ;  they  afford  ma- 
terials and  open  new  sources  of  commerce ;  her 
system  of  bounties  enables  her  to  undersell 
other  nations  in  their  own  port?,  while  her 
political  economists  mislead  us  by  their  specu- 
lative and  ruinous  theories.  The  article  of 
linen  fully  illustrates  her  policy.  Though  her 
taxes  and  expenses  are  enormously  oppressive 
on  the  people,  yet  the  makers  of  linen  pay  none, 
no  excise  on  their  materials  or  manufacture ;  to 
encourage  this  fabric,  which  unites  the  three 
great  interests  of  agriculture,  commerce,  and 
manufactures,  she  wisely  apportions  the  burdens 
of  her  Government  so  as  to  leave  this  unembar- 
rassed. This  accounts  for  the  cheapness  of  the 


DEBATES  OF  CONGRESS. 


611 


APRIL,  1820.] 


Revision  of  the  Tanff. 


[H.  OF  R. 


article  at  home,  and  added  to  the  enormous 
bounty  on  the  export,  gives  the  true  reason  for 
underselling  us.  Let  the  British  aholish  this 
system,  let  an  article  pay  the  same  price  for 
home  consumption  as  for  exportation,  it  will 
then  be  seen  there  is  not  much  difference  be- 
tween manufacturing  here  and  there.  One 
article  pays  an  enormous  excise,  another  none  ; 
let  them  be  equalized,  and  neither  have  an  ex- 
port bounty,  in  the  aggregate  it  will  be  found 
that  we  could  meet  them  in  market,  if  not 
without  any,  with  a  small  rate  of  protecting 
duty.  Let  cottons,  woollens,  and  linens,  pay 
the  same  excise  as  glass,  beer,  and  spirits,  and 
cost  to  the  consumer  in  this  country  as  much 
as  they  do  in  England,  you  would  be  called  on 
for  little  further  protection  to  our  industry.  The 
manufacture  of  these  articles  pays  no  part  of  the 
expenses  of  their  Government,  is  burdened  with 
no  taxes,  because  they  are  the  sources  of  their 
greatness,  the  machinery  by  which  they  draw 
to  themselves  the  resources  of  all  nations  who 
purchase  them ;  retaining  us,  their  commercial, 
naval,  and  political  rivals,  in  a  state  of  colonial 
vassalage.  It  would  be  right  and  fair  to  aim  at 
once  at  this  system,  by  adding  to  the  ad  valorem 
a  specific  duty  equal  to  the  bounty  paid,  and 
drawback  of  excise  allowed  on  the  exportation. 
Then  our  duties  might  be  called  protecting  ones, 
and  be  said  to  afford  sufficient  protection  to  our 
manufactures  ;  then  the  competition  would  be, 
on  national  and  individual  grounds,  a  fair  one ; 
but  the  committee,  aware  that  this  is  the  first 
attempt  to  introduce  such  a  principle  into  our 
code,  that  it  would  not  be  prudent  to  attempt 
too  much  at  once,  only  propose  to  consider  the 
bounty  and  drawback  as  a  part  of  the  original 
cost  on  which  the  duty  is  to  be  assessed.  To 
exemplify  this — on  linen  a  duty  of  25  per  cent, 
would  only  counteract  the  bounty ;  we  recom- 
mend the  addition  of  only  one-fourth  of  that 
amount.  It  is  not  to  introduce  a  war  of  legisla- 
lation,  but  in  some  measure  to  countervail  the 
association  of  their  system;  increased  duties 
will  be  imperative  when  they  are  evaded  by  in- 
creased bounties. 

I  hope  these  principles  will  meet  the  appro- 
bation of  the  House ;  if  they  do  not,  all  our  laws 
will  be  vain;  we  had  better  say  at  once  to 
those  who  want  protection,  "  let  things  regulate 
themselves."  If  it  is  proper  to  act  at  all,  we 
must  act  efficiently ;  the  interests  of  our  country 
arc  assailed  by  an  enemy  deep  in  his  designs, 
persevering  in  their  execution,  governed  by  a 
spirit  ever  awake  and  watchful,  deterred  by  no 
opposition,  subdued  by  no  difficulties — the  wis- 
dom and  the  resources  of  a  mighty  empire 
directed  to  one  great  object,  the  supply  of 
foreign  nations  with  the  articles  of  consumption. 
Great  as  she  is,  we  can  meet  her  in  open  war, 
can  beat  her  on  the  land,  the  water,  and  in  the 
Cabinet,  but  succumb  in  legislation ;  become 
the  dupes  of  her  policy,  quietly  indifferent  to 
the  exhaustion  of  our  resources,  which  flow  to 
her  in  one  constant  increasing  current.  Our 
dependence  on  her  almost  daily  increasing,  she 


exulting  in  the  successful  operations  of  her 
policy,  relieved  from  the  expense  of  governing 
us.  enjoying  all  the  benefits  we  could  afford  her 
as  colonies. 

"When  other  interests  are  endangered  by 
foreign  powers  or  regulation,  you  are  not  back- 
ward in  resisting  them  at  the  risk  of  a  war ;  if 
a  ship  pr  cargo  is  seized,  a  seaman,  native  or 
naturalized,  impressed,  or  discriminating  duties 
imposed  on  tonnage,  you  do  not  leave  things  to 
"  regulate  themselves ;"  every  thing  is  protected, 
every  thing  defended,  but  manufactures — these 
alone  are  unworthy  of  national  protection.  De- 
crees and  orders  in  council  that  embarrass  com- 
merce are  not  suffered  to  operate  unmolested, 
but  a  system  of  bounties  and  drawbacks,  de- 
structive not  only  of  interests  equally  important, 
but  in  their  consequences  involving  all  in  one 
common  destruction,  are  practically  opposed 
only  by  the  favorite  maxim,  leave  us  alone,  let 
them  regulate  themselves.  I  hope  we  shall  ex- 
tend it  to  all,  or  be  consistent  and  apply  it  to 
none.  We  are  independent  in  name,  have  the. 
powers  of  self-government,  but  tamely  content 
ourselves  with  being  dependent  on  our  rival  for 
articles  of  necessity  and  the  means  of  defence. 
We  cannot  clothe  or  arm  our  soldiers,  build  or 
equip  a  navy,  Avithout  procuring  from  England 
the  means.  National  pride  and  honor  ought  to 
revolt  at  the  degrading  reflection.  I  hope  to 
see  the  day  when,  in  full  command  of  our  con- 
sumption and  means  of  defence,  our  resources 
retained  at  home,  our  great  interests  safe  from 
foreign  competition,  we  shall  be  in  fact,  as  well 
as  in  name,  free  and  independent  States.  This 
consummation  will  not  be  brought  about  by 
folding  our  arms,  and  leaving  the  industry  of 
our  country  to  regulate  itself.  It  was  not  thus 
that,  in  the  first  Punic  war,  you  emerged  from 
colonial  dependence ;  that,  in  the  second,  you 
successfully  defended  your  dearest  national 
rights.  Before  we  can  be  what  our  resources 
enable  us  to  attain,  you  must  wage  the  third 
Punic  war,  not  of  arms,  but  of  legislation ;  as- 
sail our  rival  where  she  is  vulnerable,  in  the 
source  of  our  greatest  danger ;  her  systems  of 
bounties,  drawbacks,  and  premiums,  and  in  her 
manufactures,  xwhere  the  Congress  of  1774  as- 
sailed her ;  go  at  least  as  far  as  self-defence  will 
authorize — protect  our  own. 

The  bill  proposes  an  additional  duty  on  hemp 
of  twenty  dollars  per  ton;  it  was  deemed  neces- 
sary that,  for  an  article  of  the  first  necessity, 
without  which  we  could  neither  build  nor  equip 
a  ship,  we  should  not  be  dependent,  as  we  now 
are,  for  the  supply  on  foreign  nations.  In  case 
of  a  war,  all  our  naval  preparations  might  be 
suspended  until  it  could  be  produced  here.  It 
is  so  essential  for  national  defence,  that  wo 
must  command  enough  for  our  own  consump- 
tion. Viewed  as  an  agricultural  production, 
which  was  formerly  raised  in  great  quantities 
in  the  Western  States,  but  which  has  been  de- 
stroyed by  foreign  competition,  or  as  a  manu- 
facture, it  equally  deserves  protection ;  at  a 
time  when  our  provisions,  excluded  from  foreign 


612 


ABRIDGMENT  OF  THE 


H.  OF  R.] 


Revision  of  the  Tariff". 


[APRIL,  1820. 


markets,  do  not  command  a  price  which  pays 
the  expense  of  cultivation.  When  the  agricul- 
ture of  the  country  is  as  depressed  as  its  manufac- 
tures, it  needs  at  least  so  much  protection  as  to 
enable  it  to  compete  with  foreign  productions. 
These  reasons,  it  is  hoped,  will  exempt  the  duty 
on  this  item,  from  the  charge  of  hostility  to 
agriculture.  This  article  now  pays  a  duty  of 
thirty  dollars  a  ton,  the  wholesale  price  of  which 
is  two  hundred  and  forty  dollars,  equal  to  twelve 
and  a  half  per  cent,  ad  valorem ;  the  proposed 
increase  will  be  twenty-one  per  cent.  If  con- 
sidered as  a  manufactured  article,  essential  for 
consumption  and  defence,  it  is  hoped  that  the 
propriety  of  the  increased  duty  will  be  apparent, 
as  it  can  be  raised  to  an  amount  far  beyond  the 
demand ;  the  domestic  competition  will  make 
the  increased  price  on  the  imported  article  but 
temporary.  The  same  apply  to.  the  additional 
duty  on  cotton,  and  the  further  one,  which 
must  meet  with  general  assent,  that,  if  the  man- 
ufacturers of  cotton  supply  the  country  with 
their  fabrics,  they  ought  to  use  our  own  raw 
material,  and  not  import  it  from  India.  The 
cotton  planters  must  not  indulge  in  fancied  se- 
curity. In  1817,  the  foreign  cotton  imported 
and  consumed  in  the  United  States  was  1,700,000 
pounds ;  in  1818, 4,000,000 ;  in  1819,  it  amounted 
to  6,700,000 ;  when  they  find  it  thus  increasing, 
and  France  and  England  imposing  high  duties 
on  its  importation,  they  ought  to  be  awakened 
to  the  necessity  of  at  least  securing  the  domes- 
tic market,  not  trusting  entirely  to  the  foreign. 
The  day  may  not  be  very  distant,  when  they  will 
find  from  experience,  that  their  favorite  maxim 
"  of  let  us  alone,"  will  apply  as  little  to  agricul- 
ture as  it  now  does  practically  to  commerce. 

I  now  come  to  two  items  on  which  the  House 
will  not  only  expect,  but  require  me  to  say  some- 
thing—glass and  iron ;  one  infinitely  interesting 
to  the  district,  the  other  to  the  State  I  represent. 
It  is  best  not  to  mince  matters,  but  to  speak 
plainly.  This  has  been  called  a  Pittsburg,  a  cut- 
glass  bill,  local,  partial  in  its  operations ;  and  I 
have  been  charged  with  framing  it  from  interest- 
ed motives.  Gentlemen  had  better  be  cautious 
how  they  use  the  word  Pittsburg  as  a  name  of 
reproach  ;  it  may  be  like  the  term  whig — one 
of  pride,  and  not  of  disgrace.  I  tell  the  House 
frankly,  that  I  have  not  lost  sight  of  the  inter- 
est of  Pittsburg,  and  would  never  perjure  myself 
if  I  had ;  but  the  charges  shall  be  met  plainly, 
and  if  you  are  not  convinced  that  the  interests 
of  that  place  are  identified  with  the  nation ;  that 
cut-class  can  be  defended  on  national  grounds, 
then  I  agree  that  Pittsburg,  its  Representative, 
its  favorite  manufacture,  and  the  tariff,  may  go 
together.  I  will  rest  the  whole  bill  on  this  item, 
and  freely  admit  that  the  increase  of  duty  on 
glass,  plain,  not  cut,  is  among  the  greatest  pro- 
posed. In  selecting  articles  worthy  of  national 
protection,  none  are  more  eminently  deserving 
of  it  than  those,  the  raw  materials  of  which  are 
of  no  value  for  exportation;  the  conversion 
of  which  into  articles  for  use,  produces  some- 
thing out  of  nothing— turns  into  manufactures 


of  the  greatest  value  and  beauty  the  worthless 
produce  of  the  earth — furnishes  a  market  for 
the  productions  of  the  farmer — gives  employ- 
ment not  only  to  laboring  men,  but  boys  who 
would  otherwise  contract  habits  of  idleness  and 
vice.  The  foreign  material  bears  to  the  manufac- 
tured article  the  proportion  of  twenty-five  cents 
to  one  hundred  dollars ;  the  rest  is  the  product 
of  our  own  soil :  small  quantities  of  ashes,  and 
lead,  the  principal  material — sand,  which  is  fit 
for  no  other  purpose,  not  even  to  make  mortar 
— stone  coal,  the  machinery.  In  the  days  of 
our  prosperity  we  have  made  to  the  amount  of 
a  quarter  of  a  million  of  dollars  worth  in  a  year. 
It  was  so  much  money  extracted  from  the 
bowels  of  the  earth  by  the  labor  of  hundreds, 
adding  to  the  wealth  and  comfort  of  all  within 
the  sphere  of  its  action.  Now  we  make,  I  may 
say,  none.  "Will  gentlemen  tell  me  who  has 
profited  by  the  change — the  farmer,  the  laborer, 
our  country,  or  the  foreign  manufacturer  ?  Plain 
glass  now  pays  an  impost  duty  of  twenty  per 
centum ;  it  is  proposed  to  raise  it,  and  make  it 
specific,  ten  cents  a  pound.  In  England  the 
impost  duty  amounts  to  a  prohibition ;  made 
there,  it  pays  for  home  consumption  an  excise 
of  £4  18s.  sterling  on  the  100  weight— on  ex- 
portation there  is  a  drawback  of  the  excise,  and 
a  custom  bounty  of  one  pound  five  shillings 
sterling,  making  in  all  six  pounds  three  shillings, 
equal  to  twenty-eight  cents  a  pound  between 
the  price  to  the  consumer  in  England  and  here. 
The  custom-house  bounty  alone  amounts  to 
near  six  cents  a  pound ;  and  from  this  docu- 
ment, taken  from  the  custom-house  in  Boston, 
it  appears  that,  in  an  invoice  amounting  to  one 
hundred  and  twenty-nine  pounds  in  value,  the 
British  bounty  amounts  to  one  hundred  and 
twenty  dollars,  our  import  duty  of  twenty  per 
cent,  to  one  hundred  and  fourteen,  leaving  a 
clear  profit  of  six  dollars.  With  the  addition 
of  the  excise  drawback  on  an  invoice  of  five 
hundred  and  fifty  pounds  sterling,  the  importer, 
after  paying  all  export  duties,  freight,  insur- 
ance, commission,  and  all  charges,  makes  a  clear 
profit  of  fifty-one  pounds.  Has  not  this  article 
peculiar  claims  on  us  for  protection?  The 
present  duty  is  a  mere  tax  on  the  consumer ;  it 
operates  as  no  discrimination  between  ours  and 
the  industry  of  other  foreign  nations,  but  leaves 
it  to  struggle  against  the  effects  of  a  positive 
premium  on  importation.  The  proposed  in- 
crease will  not,  as  a  protecting  duty,  amount  to 
more  than  twenty  per  cent,  ad  valorem ;  on  cut 
glass  it  is  only  proposed  to  add  five  per  cent. ; 
the  duty  is  now  thirty.  I  am  aware  of  objec- 
tions to  the  duty  on  plain  glass,  and  am  sorry 
to  find  them  come  from  manufacturers,  glass 
cutters,  not  makers,  but  importers  of  plain  glass, 
who  are  not  satisfied  with  thirty  per  cent,  on 
cut  glass,  and  represent  plain  as  a  raw  material, 
which  ought  to  be  duty  free.  In  Pittsburg  it  is 
both  made  and  cut,  and  the  House  will  judge 
who  is  most  actuated  by  national  principles, 
which  plan  adds  most  to  the  sum  of  national 
wealth,  industry,  and  resources.  Gentlemen  are 


DEBATES  OF  CONGRESS. 


613 


APRIL,  1820.] 


Revision  of  the  Tariff. 


[H.  OF  R. 


mistaken  in  supposing  mine  an  iron  making — 
it  is  an  iron  buying,  iron  consuming  district. 
The  time  has  been  when  six  thousand  tons  were 
purchased  annually,  not  one  of  which  was  made 
in  the  district ;  but  to  the  State  of  Pennsylvania 
it  is  of  the  utmost  importance  ;  it  is  her  staple 
manufacture ;  to  the  nation  the  all  essential  ar- 
ticle for  private  consumption  and  public  de- 
fence. It  ought  to  be  less  interesting  to  us, 
whether  it  requires  protection,  whether  the 
establishments  for  its  manufacture  are  declining 
or  prosperous,  we  can  and  must  supply  our- 
selves. Every  part  of  the  Union  abounds  with 
the  raw  material ;  it  is  perfectly  worthless  for 
all  other  purposes — not  fit  for  roads.  The 
working  of  it  not  only  employs  much  of  the 
labor,  but  furnishes  a  market  for  much  of  the 
produce  of  our  soil.  These  good  effects  are  not 
confined  to  a  small  space.  An  instance  of  this 
occurs  in  the  fact  that  the  iron  works  in  the  in- 
terior of  our  State  are  supplied  with  bacon  from 
Kentucky.  The  remark  is  true  of  this,  as  of  all 
other  manufactures,  that  the  farmer  is  among 
those  who  derive  the  most  profit  from  their 
success.  It  is  a  matter  of  most  perfect  astonish- 
ment that  so  important  an  article  should  have 
been  not  only  so  perfectly  and  wantonly  aban- 
doned by  the  present  tariff,  but  pointedly  select- 
ed for  reprobation  by  a  strange  policy,  which, 
whilst  it  raised  the  duties  on  most  other  ar- 
ticles, reduced  that  on  iron  nearly  one  hundred 
per  cent.  From  1804  until  1815,  it  was  at  sev- 
enteen and  a  half  per  cent.,  and  until  1816,  at 
fifteen — a  duty  which  might  have  been  saved 
these  interesting  establishments,  thus  appa- 
rently destroyed  by  design.  Pigs  and  castings, 
in  1816,  paid  fifteen  per  cent,  ad  valorem  ;  bar 
iron  nine  dollars  per  ton,  equal  to,  say  nine  per 
cent,  ad  valorem ;  in  1818,  the  duties  were  in- 
creased to  fifty  cents  a  hundred  on  pigs,  sev- 
enty-five on  castings  and  bar  iron.  In  this 
House  it  was  raised  to  twenty  dollars  a  ton  by 
a  majority  of  forty-seven,  but  reduced  in  the 
Senate  to  fifteen.  Had  the  duty  been  a  propor- 
tionate one  in  1816,  a  rate  lower  than  the  one 
now  proposed  would  have  been  sufficient  to 
have  insured  a  domestic  supply ;  but  the  re- 
ports of  the  Treasury  present  us  with  facts 
which  call  for  immediate  and  efficient  inter- 
ference. In  1818,  the  importation  of  bar  iron 
exceeded  sixteen  thousand  tons ;  in  1819,  it 
amounted  to  near  twenty  thousand.  The  de- 
crease of  ad  valorem  importations  in  this  year 
has  exceeded  $19,000,000,  while  the  increase 
of  bar  iron  has  been  near  four  thousand  tons. 
Comparing  it  with  cotton,  there  are  many  more 
national  reasons  for  its  protection :  the  mate- 
rials of  one  can  be  exported,  but  the  other  can- 
not ;  we  send  out  of  the  country  near  $2,000,- 
000  annually,  for  an  article  we  could  make  at 
home,  and  out  of  materials  perfectly  worthless 
in  themselves.  The  rate  of  duty  is  not  unrea- 
sonable in  itself,  or  disproportionate  to  other 
items  in  this  bill  or  the  old  tariff.  On  the  first 
of  this  month  the  wholesale  price  of  it  was,  ac- 
cording to  the  New  York  and  Philadelphia 


prices  current,  from  one  hundred  to  one  hun- 
dred and  ten  dollars  a  ton.  Calculating  on  the 
price  at  the  place  of  importation,  the  fairest 
mode  of  fixing  an  ad  valorem  duty,  it  would  be 
only  twenty-five  per  cent.,  the  same  as  on  cot- 
tons and  woollens  now,  and  eight  per  cent  less 
tli an  is  proposed — five  less  than  on  leather  and 
paper,  in  the  present,  and  ten  less  than  is  pro- 
posed in  this  bill  on  the  former.  Consider- 
ing it  as  an  article  abandoned  in  the  former 
tariff — that  what  will  restore  the  declining  will 
not  reanimate  the  dead — that,  in  the  embarrass- 
ment and  distress  of  the  last  year,  the  importa- 
tions have  rapidly  increased,  while  others  di- 
minish, I  confidently  hope  that,  in  affording  to 
this  a  protection  equal  to  other  articles,  no  ob- 
jection will  or  can  be  made  by  those  who  pro- 
fess to  be  friendly  to  the  system. 

Iron  is  certainly  an  article  of  necessity,  but 
not  more  so  than  clothing.  It  is  called  a  raw 
material ;  we  would  as  soon  apply  this  term  to 
a  ball  of  cotton  yarn  or  a  piece  of  broadcloth. 
This  word  raw  material  is  strangely  misunder- 
stood. The  glass-cutter  calls  plain  glass;  the 
iron-founder  pigs ;  the  rope-maker  hemp  and 
flax;  the  copper-smith  and  brazier  brass  and 
copper  in  sheets  and  still  bottoms,  raw  mate- 
rials ;  while  the  makers  of  these  articles  call  them 
manufactures,  and  petition  for  protection.  I 
believe  the  safer  rule  is  to  consider  that  which 
is  taken  from  the  earth  as  the  raw  material, 
and  every  change  in  its  form  or  value,  by  labor, 
as  a  manufacture,  equally  entitled  to  encourage- 
ment. It  is  certainly  true  policy  to  afford  it  to 
every  thing  which  can  be  made  at  home,  espe- 
cially when  the  material  can  never  become  an 
article  of  export ;  the  extent  of  the  protection 
to  be  regulated  by  the  amount  of  importation — 
the  deficiency  of  revenue  supplied  by  an  excise 
on  the  manufacture  protected.  The  increased 
duty  on  molasses  has  excited  much  opposition 
and  some  feeling  of  those  who  seem  to  consider 
it  partial  and  oppressive.  I  must  ask  a  candid 
review  of  the  principle  on  which  this  bill  has 
been  framed,  the  situation  in  which  the  com- 
mittee has  been  placed,  and,  with  an  assurance 
that  no  feelings  of  mine  can  be  gratified  by  bear- 
ing hard  on  my  native  country,  beg  them  to 
look  at  this  item  on  national  grounds.  Pressed 
with  petitions  from  every  class  of  manufac- 
tures, praying  for  high  duties  on  foreign  articles 
which  interfered  with  theirs;  sensible  that 
something  ought  to  be  done,  yet  beset  with 
difficulties  on  all  sides,  unaided  and  alone,  we 
were  thrown  on  a  forlorn  hope.  A  partial, 
local  system  would  have  insured  its  own  defeat ; 
a  general  one  might  impair  the  revenue.  To 
avoid  that,  to  shape  our  course  to  meet  the  in- 
terests of  a  nation  so  widely  extended  as  this, 
one  might  almost  say  twenty-two  different  na- 
tions, divided  at  least  into  great  sections,  some 
engaged  almost  exclusively  in  agriculture,  some 
in  commercial  and  manufacturing  pursuits,  and 
some  in  all,  was  ^attended  with  uncommon 
trouble.  We  are  not  disappointed  in  finding 
other  motives  attributed  to  us,  but  disclaimed. 


614 


ABRIDGMENT  OF  THE 


H.  OF  R.] 


Revision  of  the  Tariff. 


1820. 


which  are  not  founded  on  the  general  principles 
avowed  by  us.  In  proposing  increased  duties 
on  the  various  articles  in  this  bill,  there  seemed 
few,  if  any,  on  which  so  many  reasons  could  be 
brought  to  bear.  The  article  i.«  bulky,  cannot 
be  smuggled,  and  aids  the  revenue.  The  trans- 
portation of  it  from  the  South  employs  as  much 
shipping  as  from  the  West  Indies.  It  cannot  in- 
jure commerce;  still  less  so,  if  you  adopt  the 
navigation  act  which  stops  the  intercourse  with 
the  British  islands.  View  it  us  a  produce  of 
the  soil  or  a  manufacture,  it  is  as  much  entitled 
to  protection  as  any  other.  This  bill  tends  to 
essentially  aid  the  manufactures  of  the  Northern 
and  Middle  States ;  it  is  but  fair  that  they  should 
exchange  them  for  the  protections  of  the  South  ; 
buy  from  their  customers,  their  friends  and 
countrymen.  As  an  article  of  domestic  con- 
sumption, it  is  not  of  much  importance ;  to  a 
family  which  consumes  twenty  gallons  in  a 
year,  the  increased  duty  is  one  dollar.  The 
wages  of  the  child  employed  in  a  factory  put  in 
operation  by  this  bill,  which  would  otherwise 
be  idle,  would  pay  it  in  two  days.  If  distilled, 
and  the  spirits  exported,  there  is  a  drawback 
of  the  duty ;  if  for  home  consumption,  the  fair- 
ness of  the  duty  is  at  once  apparent. 

The  present  duty  on  a  gallon  of  the  lowest 
proof  rum  is  42  cents ;  if  distilled  from  molasses, 
it  now  pays  7£ ;  at  the  proposed  rate,  15 ;  there 
can  be  no  rational  reason  for  this  great  differ- 
ence, when  an  article  of  consumption  is  made 
from  a  foreign  material  which  can  be  produced 

the  spirit  distilled  is  duty  free.  With  these 
strong  reasons,  the  committee  could  not  over- 
look this  article ;  my  mind  is  not  better  satis- 
fied with  any  one  in  the  bill.  We  could  not, 
with  any  justice  to  ourselves,  recommend  to 
the  House  a  system  which  should  not  embrace, 
as  far  as  practicable,  the  interest  of  all  alike ;  it 
is  in  vain  to  expect  the  concurrence  of  such  a 
body  as  this  to  any  measure  of  partial  opera- 
tion. Take  any  one  item  in  this  bill,  some  part 
of  the  country  will  object  to  it,  and  if  confined 
to  one  alone,  there  would  be  a  majority  against 
every  one. 

Gentlemen  must  look  to  the  whole,  and  not 
confine  their  inquiries  to  what  bears  hard  on" 
sectional  interest ;  extend  them  to  the  benefits 
derived ;  viewed  in  this  light,  the  balance  will 
not  be  found  against  the  part  of  the  country 
from  which  the  opposition  to  this  duty  princi- 
pally comes.  An  increased  duty  of  five  cents 
a  bushel  is  proposed  on  salt ;  most  of  the  rea- 
sons which  apply  to  others  will  to  this  article, 
but  there  are  some  which  do  so  exclusively ;  if 
it  is  at  all  sound  policy  to  command  the  con- 
sumption of  our  articles  of  necessity,  it  is  em- 
phatically so  of  this,  which  can  be  made  any- 
where, and  for  which,  in  a  cessation  of  com- 
mercial intercourse,  a  most  enormous  price  is 
imposed.  It  is  a  manufacture,  the  raw  material 
of  which  is  the  ocean,  the  'principal  machinery 
the  fire:  nature  does  the  greatest  part  of  the 
labor.  It  is  an  important  item  of  revenue. 


The  present  price  in  the  interior  is  from  one 
dollar  to  one  dollar  and  fifty  cents  per  bushel ; 
on  the  sea-coast,  say  70  cents ;  it  is  said  that 
such  a  duty  should  be  laid  as  may  tend  in  some 
measure  to  equalize  the  cost  to  the  consumer.* 
The  duty  on  spirits  is  not  altered ;  it  is  an  im- 
portant source  of  revenue,  and  cannot  be 
spared ;  the  present  rate  is  high ;  the  commit- 
tee wished  to  have  increased  it  to  prohibition ; 
but  it  was  not  in  their  province  to  submit  an 
excuse  to  supply  the  deficit  of  revenue.  We 
well  know  that  to  take,  in  one  item,  2,500,000 
dollars  from  an  already  exhausted  treasury, 
would  destroy  the  whole  bill;  yet  I  feel  au- 
thorized to  say  that  none  would  more  cheer- 
fully concur  in  the  prohibition  of  foreign  spirits, 
and  an  excise  on  domestic,  than  the  Committee 
of  Manufactures.  It  may  be  proper  here  to  ob- 
serve, that  that  committee  did  not  act  on  the 
items  in  the  bill  printed  in  italics,  except  brown 
sugar  and  molasses;  this  list  was  furnished  to 
us,  with  a  view  to  revenue,  by  a  gentleman 
whose  situation  brought  that  subject  under  his 
consideration ;  for  any  other  purpose  we  have 
no  anxiety  to  retain  them. 

The  fourth  section  allows  a  drawback  of  the 
duty  on  tin  and  copper  when  made  up  and  ex- 
ported ;  this  is  a  new  feature  in  our  system,  but 
deemed  necessary  for  the  double  purpose  of  aid- 
ing the  manufactures  and  commerce  of  the 
country.  It  would  have  been  extended  to 
other  articles,  but  it  was  thought  better  not  to 
make  the  bill  too  complicated,  or  to  go  too 
much  into  detail.  The  foundation  once  laid,  it 
can  be  built  on  hereafter.  The  manufacture  of 
these  articles  for  the  West  India  market,  would 
bo  a  source  of  employment  to  our  labor,  and 
profit  to  the  employer,  if  enabled  to  compete 
with  the  same  articles  made  and  imported  by 
others.  With  a  duty  of  twenty  per  cent,  our 
workmen  would  be  excluded;  with  this  draw- 
back, they  come  in  on  equal  terms.  These  ar- 
ticles present  the  commencement  of  a  system 
which  we  must  some  day  adopt,  and  which  will 
make  the  foundation  of  our  prosperity  un- 
shaken. It  consists  in  imposing  such  an  im- 
port duty  as  will  secure  us  our  home  consump- 
tion; an  excise  on  consumption,  (for  revenue;) 
on  the  exportation,  a  drawback  of  excise  ;  thus 
making  the  manufacture  of  one  article  exem- 
plify the  policy  and  all  the  great  objects  of 
Government.  The  remainder  of  the  bill,  ex- 
cept the  9th  and  10th  sections,  is  copied  from 
the  present  law ;  those  sections  have  been  in- 
serted with  the  sole  view  of  guarding  against 
frauds  which  exist  to  a  very  great  extent,  and 
which,  if  not  checked,  will  completely  counter- 
act principles  of  vital  importance  to  the  system 
have  recommended.  Fears  have  been  en- 
tertained that  the  10th  section  will  be  in- 
jurious to  the  fair  commerce  of  the  country. 
It  is  not  so  intended,  and  can  be  so  modified  as 
to  secure  the  objects  of  the  committee,  without 


*  The  bounties  on  the  fisheries  were  increased  by  an 
amendment  to  the  bill.  25  per  cent.,  on  account  of  the  in- 
creased duty  on  salt 


DEBATES  OF  CONGRESS. 


615 


APRIL,  1820.] 


Revision  of  the  Tariff. 


[H.  OF  R. 


injuring  an  interest  equally  worthy  of  national 
protection  as  the  one  I  am  advocating.  If  it 
cannot,  I  will  consent  to  strike  it  out,  for  I  am 
no  enemy  to  commerce.*  This  is  not  the  time 
to  make  professions ;  they  will  not  be  believed 
till  the  excitement  occasioned  by  this  and  the 
other  bills  reported  by  the  committee  shall  have 
sub>ided.;  when  they  are  calmly  examined, 
there  will  be  found  no  evidence  of  a  disposition 
to  protect  one  at  the  expense  of  the  other  great 
interests  of  the  nation :  all  are  alike  depressed, 
presenting  equal  claims  on  a  Government  de- 
signed for  the  common  benefit;  struggling 
against  foreign  competition  and  regulations; 
all  parts  of  the  country  require  your  protection. 
The  committee,  adopting  the  opinion  of  the 
Treasury,  that  this  was  the  proper  time  to  effect 
a  change  in  our  internal  relations,  have  not,  in 
recommending  this  measure,  overlooked  these 
interests.  It  makes  ample  provision  for  reve- 
nue; if  the  imports  continue  the  same  as  in 
1818,  the  increased  duties  add  $5,800,000.  It 
must  be  matter  of  conjecture,  how  far  the  di- 
minished importation  will  equal  or  exceed  the 
increased  duties ;  if  the  system  of  imports  is 
alone  to  be  relied  on,  if  you  will  resort  to  no 
other,  it  is  your  duty  to  make  the  most  of  it ; 
not  to  attempt  to  support  it  by  loans  and  tak- 
ing the  Sinking  Fund,  as  proposed  by  the  Com- 
mittee of  Ways  and  Means.  If  you  will  cling 
to  it,  I  hope  you  will  not  reject  this  bill  because 
it  aids  manufactures  as  well  as  revenue ;  that 
those  who  are  so  sensitive  on  the  state  of  the 
Treasury,  and  object  to  this,  will  propose  a  bet- 
ter mode  of  apportioning  the  burdens  on  the 
consumer.  Pass  this  bill,  reduce  the  credits  of 
the  custom-house,  impose  a  duty  on  auction 
sales — you  want  no  loan ;  the  cry  of  revenue 
will  be  hushed  by  a  union  of  those  who  wish 
to  fill  the  Treasury  and  protect  our  own  indus- 
try. But  we  understand  each  other  very  well : 
revenue  is  one  of  the  alarm  bells  to  defeat  this 
bill ;  those  who  raise  it,  well  know,  that  for  the 
present  it  makes  ample  provision,  but  that  for 
the  future  a  new  system  must  be  adopted ;  one 
which  must  combine  the  protection  of  the  great 
interest  which  they  oppose.  As  it  is  inevitable, 
it  is  better  to  come  to  it  gradually;  if  post- 
poned till  the  voice  of  the  country  makes  an  im- 
perative call,  do  not  blame  us  if  the  revulsion  is 
sudden,  and  the  shock  violent. 

In  five  short  years  your  impost  has  diminish- 
ed from  thirty-six  millions  to  sixteen,  more  than 
three  millions  of  which  is  now  in  suit.  Your 
expenditures  are  twenty-six  millions  in  a  state 
of  peace.  It  requires  no  spirit  of  prophecy  to 
tell  that  the  income  will  not  meet  the  expenses ; 
you  must  resort  to  new  means;  to  internal 
taxes,  to  excise.  In  using  these  words  I  will 
not  be  misunderstood:  by  internal  taxes  I 
mean  not  direct  ones  on  land,  but  on  auctions, 
pleasure  carriages,  watches,  expensive  furniture, 
&c. ;  in  other  words,  those  taxes  on  the  rich 
and  money-making  classes  of  society,  which 


*  This  section  was  stricken  out  on  the  motion  of  Mr.  B. 


were  repealed  two  years  ago,  when  a  temporary 
overflowing  of  the  Treasury  induced  you  to 
abandon  the  original  financial  system  of  reve- 
nue, and  trust  alone  to  imposts.  By  excise  I 
mean  a  tax  on  the  domestic  manufacture  which 
is  protected  from  foreign  competition.  Excise 
has  been  an  odious  term,  but  it  will  soon  be  un- 
derstood and  divested  of  its  terrors.  To  the 
consumer  it  makes  no  difference  whether  he 
pays  to  the  merchant  two  dollars  impost  on  a 
pair  of  boots,  or  the  same  amount  of  excise  to  a 
shoemaker ;  to  a  farmer,  whether  he  pays  five 
dollars  impost  on  his  coat,  or  five  dollars  excise 
to  the  manufacturer.  There  is,  indeed,  one 
difference,  and  that  contains  the  sum  and  snb- 
stance  of  political  economy— he  can  pay  the 
manufacturer  in  wool  and  provisions.  The 
merchant  he  must  pay  in  money ;  he  must  re- 
mit it  to  England ;  she  excludes  our  produce 
and  raw  materials.  This  illustrates  the  differ- 
ence between  impost  and  excise ;  the  first  turns 
the  whole  attention  of  the  Government  to  en- 
courage the  importation  of  foreign  productions, 
as  the  means  of  imposing  a  tax  on  the  con- 
sumer. If  the  country  commands  its  own  con- 
sumption, importation  and  imposts  cease ;  now 
every  thing  becomes  subservient  to  revenue  and 
to  commerce,  as  the  means  of  transporting  the 
instruments  of  taxation.  Such  a  system  neces- 
sarily checks,  if  not  destroys,  our  internal  in- 
dustry. Domestic  manufactures  paying  no  tax, 
the  encouragement  of  foreign,  is  the  inevitable 
consequence. 

Whether  this  system  is  beneficial  to  the  na- 
tion, is  no  longer  a  matter  of  opinion,  but  of 
history.  The  late  war  totally  destroyed  the 
imposts ;  you  were  left  without  revenue : 
foreign  importation  ceasing,  the  manufactures 
of  the  country  sprung  up  and  flourished.  Amid 
all  the  pressure  and  privations  of  the  war,  the 
people  grew  rich  and  were  able  to  pay  taxes  to 
the  amount  of  $12,000,000  in  one  year.  How 
much  could  they  afford  to  pay  now?  The 
peace  found  the  national  resources  untouched, 
the  nation  strong,  and  the  people  contented: 
while  the  war  duties  continued,  there  were  no 
complaints ;  revenue  was  abundant :  commerce 
flourished ;  manufactures  prospered ;  farmers 
rolled  in  wealth;  not  a  murmur  was  heard 
against  taxes ;  even  when  you  repealed  them, 
there  was  but  one  solitary  petition  on  your 
table  praying  for  the  measure.  It  was  most 
strange,  after  this  experience  of  the  salutary 
effects  of  the  then  state  of  things,  that  there 
should  have  been  a  recurrence  to  the  old  sys- 
tem, which  must  be  again  abandoned  on  every 
fluctuation  of  our  commerce  and  foreign  rela- 
tions, which  can  never  be  permanent,  but  is  in 
its  nature  temporary ;  resulting  from  the  chap- 
ter of  accidents,  relied  on  by  no  nation  but 
ours,  and  by  us  found  insufficient  by  experience. 
Even  at  this  moment,  when  our  opponents  are 
so  alarmed  about  it,  we  have  made  up  our 
minds  to  vote  for  a  loan  after  this  bill  should 
have  been  defeated,  for  fear  it  will  impair  this 
noble  and  beautiful  system  of  impost.  You 


616 


ABRIDGMENT  OF  THE 


H.  OF  R.] 


Revision  of  the  Tariff. 


[APRIL,  1820. 


will,  before  you  adjourn,  contradict  your  de- 
claration, that  the  system  is  good,  and  the 
revenue  sound,  by  a  "  be  it  enacted,"  and  the 
legislative  declarations  of  the  three  branches  of 
Government  pronounce  that  it  is  found  want- 
ing. This  is  no  time  for  concealment;  the 
House  will  not  understand  me  as  attempting  to 
disguise  my  views  on  this  subject.  If  national 
industry  is  ever  to  be  protected ;  if  we  are  ever 
to  command  our  own  consumption ;  the  system 
of  revenue  must  be  changed ;  part  impost,  part 
excise.  "While  you  rely  exclusively  on  the  first, 
it  is  in  vain  to  expect  that  sound  measures  of 
national  policy  can  ever  be  adopted.  A  tem- 
porary check  on  foreign  importation  may,  for  a 
time,  give  a  favorable  turn  to  the  labor  of  the 
nation ;  but,  in  their  recurrence,  our  establish- 
ments must  fall.  Do  nothing,  or  do  something 
permanent  and  efficient,  so  that  there  may  be 
some  assurance  that  the  national  industry  Avill 
not  be  exposed  to  abandonment  by  every  vary- 
ing motion  of  foreign  policy.  Restore  a  con- 
fidence now  destroyed :  bottom  your  revenue 
on  the  manufactures  of  the  country ;  then  both 
are  placed  on  a  foundation  which  combines  the 
support  of  the  Government  with  the  best  inter- 
ests of  the  nation. 

We  are  told  that  this  bill  will  destroy  com- 
merce ;  this  is  not  au  unexpected  alarm  ;  it  was 
raised  when  the  last  tariff  was  passed;  it  is 
equally  loud  when  any  measure  is  proposed 
which  adds  a  cent  or  a  dollar  to  a  duty  on  im- 
portation. Joined  with  smuggling  we  shall  al- 
ways hear  the  cry  repeated,  when  any  measure 
is  proposed  not  tending  to  the  exclusive  benefit 
of  that  interest.  I  had  indulged  a  hope,  that, 
at  this  time,  when  the  commerce  of  the  country 
was  as  prostrate  as  our  manufactures,  when 
both  are  pressing  us  for  protection  from  the 
same  dangers,  that  its  friends  would  have  made 
common  cause,  and  joined  in  a  common  strug- 
gle for  self-preservation.  The  hope  was  not  a 
sanguine  one ;  commerce  has  been  too  long  a 
pet,  the  spoiled  child  of  Government,  to  think 
there  are  any  other  interests  worth  protecting. 
The  mere  creature  of  legislation,  raised  to  im- 
portance by  our  laws  and  the  expenditure  of  a 
great  portion  of  our  revenue  for  its  support, 
commerce  has  presented  herself  as  the  Atlas 
which  supports  the  Government,  the  country, 
and  all  its  great  interests ;  now,  it  seems,  she 
cannot  support  herself.  Yet.  while  approaching 
you  in  a  suppliant  posture,  praying  for  a  bank- 
rupt law,  to  save  her  merchants,  navigation 
acts,  her  shipping,  she  still  retains  the  spirit, 
still  thinks  that  all  legislation  must  be  for  her 
benefit;  boldly  claiming  the  rights  of  primo- 
geniture ;  loudly  protesting  that  any  thing  done 
for  the  other  children  of  the  nation  is  her  de- 
struction. While  this  is  commerce,  "I  am 
against  it ;  "  but  if  she  claims  equal  protection, 
or  even  a  double  portion  in  her  favor,  I  will  go 
as  far  as  airy  man  in  this  House  to  support  the 
fair  trade  of  the  country. 


MONDAY,  April  24. 
JRevmon  of  the  Tariff. 

The  House  then  again  resolved  itself  into  a 
Committee  of  the  Whole,  on  the  bill  to  regulate 
the  duties  on  imports. 

A  motion  to  strike  out  the  first  section  of  the 
bill  (to  reject  it)  being  under  consideration — 

Mr.  TYLER  said,  that  he  sincerely  mingled  his 
regrets  with  those  which  had  been  repeatedly 
expressed  by  others,  that  this  all-important  sub- 
ject should  be  urged  to  a  decision  at  this  late 
period.  The  languor  attendant  on  a  long  session 
rarely  fails  to  produce  a  restlessness  and  impa- 
tience adverse  to  a  full  and  free  investigation. 
If  we  arrive,  said  he,  to  a  precipitate  conclusion, 
one  adverse  to  the  best  interests  of  this  nation, 
he  meant  not  that  any  share  of  the  responsi- 
bility should  devolve  on  him.  He  considered 
that  he  had  a  high  duty  to  discharge,  and  trusted 
the  House  would  bear  with  him  while  he  dis- 
charged it. 

Some  gentlemen  have  been  pleased  to  con- 
sider the  bill  on  the  table  a  mere  experiment. 
We  should  be  cautious,  Mr.  Chairman,  how  we 
adopt  experiments  of  a  vague  and  uncertain 
character ;  but  more  especially  ought  we  to  be 
so,  when  the  two  great  brandies  of  national  in- 
dustry, commerce  and  agriculture,  are  materially 
interested  in  that  experiment.  Shall  we  make 
a  hasty  experiment  on  our  best  interests?  Shall 
we  precipitately  adopt  a  system  from  which  the 
most  serious  and  destructive  results  may  arise  ? 
I  repeat,  that  great  deliberation  and  reflection 
are  required  of  us.  And,  sir,  what  is  the  char- 
acter of  the  experiment  which  is  about  to  be 
made  ?  One  which  is  to  give  a  new  direction 
to  the  capital  and  labor  of  the  country.  The 
clamor  which  has  been  raised  in  support  of 
what  is  called  national  industry,  has  this  for  its 
object  and  nothing  else.  This  is  the  inevitable 
consequence  of  the  bill  on  your  table  should 
you  adopt  it.  Are  the  present  manufacturers 
in  the  United  States  really  entitled  to  your  aid  ? 
Where  is  the  proof  of  it?  We  have  asked  for 
the  proof,  and  the  chairman  of  the  committee 
frankly  acknowledged  that  he  did  not  possess  it. 
All  classes  labor,  at  this  time,  under  serious  em- 
barrassments. The  gentleman  from  Pennsylva- 
nia (Mr.  BALDWIN)  has  ascribed  these  embar- 
rassments to  the  badness  of  our  present  system. 
Not  so,  said  Mr.  T.,  the  causes  are  plain  and 
obvious.  The  present  extraordinary  condition 
of  the  world,  almost  all  Christendom  being  now 
at  peace,  is  one  of  the  great  causes.  The  demand 
for  the  productions  of  our  soil  is  diminished  by 
the  circumstance  of  the  inhabitants  of  Europe 
being  now  permitted  to  pursue  the  walks  of  in- 
dustry, uninterrupted  by  the  turmoil  of  war. 
They  are  no  longer  dependent  on  us  for  those 
large  supplies  which  they  lately  required.  There 
is  another  cause  equally  operative,  and  it  is  to 
be  found  in  that  hot-bed  banking  system,  which, 
like  the  present  bill,  when  introduced,  was  made 
to  promise  us  such  potent  blessings.  I  repeat, 
that  all  classes  are  greatly  oppressed.  For  one, 


DEBATES  OF  CONGRESS. 


617 


APRIL,  1820.] 


Revision  of  the  Tariff. 


[H.  OF  R. 


I  wanted  such  information  as  would  have  en- 
abled me  fairly  to  contrast  the  condition  of  the 
manufacturing  with  the  other  interests  of  the 
country.  I  wanted  to  be  informed  whether 
that  interest  only  suffered  in  the  same  ratio  with 
the  others,  and  whether  its  sufferings  were  pro- 
duced by  similar  causes.  In  the  absence  of  this 
information,  I  am  left  to  conclude  that  it  is  now 
deemed  expedient  to  hold  out  rewards  for  the 
purpose  of  giving  a  new  direction  to  the  capital 
and  labor  of  the  nation. 

If  gentlemen  imagine  that  by  this  bill  they  are 
securing  the  permanent  interests  of  the  manu- 
facturers ;  if  they  believe  that  this  is  all  which 
will  be  required  at  the  hands  of  the  Legislature, 
they  are  most  grossly  deceived.  This  is  but  the 
incipient  measure  of  a  system.  I  venture  to 
predict  that,  after  the  lapse  of  a  very  few  years, 
we  shall  be  assailed  by  as  urgent  petitions  as 
those  which  have  poured  in  on  us  at  the  present 
session. 

What  will  be  the  effect  of  this  measure  ?  It 
proposes  a  rate  of  duties  sufficiently  high  to 
enable  our  artists  to  undersell  the  foreign  artists 
in  the  markets  of  this  country.  For  a  short 
time  it  will  have  that  effect,  but  it  cannot  long 
continue.  It  adds  to  the  profits  of  those  who 
at  this  time  have  their  capitals  invested  in  manu- 
factories ;  and  while  other  classes  will  labor 
under  severe  pecuniary  embarrassments,  they 
will  enjoy  comparative  prosperity.  What  will 
be  the  consequence  ?  Why,  sir,  there  is  no  prin- 
ciple in  political  economy  more  universally  true, 
than  that  capital  will  flow  into  those  employ- 
ments from  which  it  can  derive  the  greatest 
profits.  This  bill,  then,  will  have  the  effect  of 
causing  new  investitures  of  capital.  Thus  a 
spirit  of  competition  will  have  been  generated, 
and  in  the  course  of  a  few  years,  the  profits  of 
these  capitalists  will  have  settled  down  to  their 
present  level.  The  supply  will  always,  after  a 
short  time,  suit  itself  to  the  demand,  and,  from 
being  at  first  deficient,  will  often  exceed  it. 
Again  :  The  advocates  of  this  system  have  at- 
tempted too  much.  They  have  clasped  in  their 
embrace  too  many  favorites  to  yield  a  perma- 
nent benefit  to  any  one.  There  will  exist  an 
inequality  of  profits  in  the  various  branches  of 
manufacturing  industry ;  and  this  circumstance 
will  aid  greatly  in  producing  the  result  which  I 
have  deduced.  To  simplify  my  argument,  let 
me  present  to  you  a  supposititious  case.  Take 
the  case  of  the  tailor  and  shoemaker.  If  the 
tailor  makes  a  greater  profit  in  his  trade,  then 
you  will  have  more  tailors  than  shoemakers ; 
more  labor  will  be  employed  by  the  one  than 
the  other.  The  shoemaker,  in  order  to  retain 
his  laborers  in  his  employment,  will  be  forced 
to  give  higher  wages ;  and  the  tailor,  in  order 
to  counteract  this  effect,  will  find  himself  com- 
pelled to  increase  the  wages  of  his  laborers. 
And  thus,  the  competition  between  them  will 
urge  them  on  to  the  imposition  of  high  prices 
on  their  different  fabrics.  While  the  want's  of 
labor  are  continually  advancing,  they  will  find 
their  profits  constantly  diminishing,  and  their 


resort  to  high  prices  for  their  products  will  re- 
semble the  desperate  effort  of  the  gambler, 
whose  hopes  are  all  staked  on  the  last  throw  of 
the  dice.  The  consequence  is  inevitable.  This 
bill  secures  them  not.  The  foreign  competitor 
again  enters  your  market,  and  again  will  our 
ears  be  deafened  with  cries  for  relief. 

But,  Mr.  Chairman,  we  are  promised  a  home 
market  for  our  products.  Are  gentlemen  serious 
when  they  urge  such  arguments  ?  Would  you 
add  by  this  bill  to  the  number  of  consumers  in 
the  United  States  ?  I  speak  of  the  agricultural 
interest,  as  it  now  exists,  before  sufficient  time 
shall  have  elapsed  to  enable  the  farmer  to  desert 
his  field,  and  give  a  new  direction  to  his  labor. 
I  ask,  then,  if  your  manufactures  shall  prosper ; 
if  you  succeed,  as  you  unquestionably  will,  in 
building  up  large  manufacturing  establishments, 
will  you  add  to  the  number  of  consumers  ?  Who 
will  be  found  in  them  ?  Men  who  must  be  fed 
whether  they  are  there  or  elsewhere — laborers. 
Will  this  be  to  furnish  a  new  market  ?  Take 
the  case  of  large  mercantile  cities ;  they  would 
furnish  a  parallel.  By  concentrating  the  popu- 
lation, you  concentrate  the  number  of  pur- 
chasers, but  you  do  not  thereby  increase  their 
number.  Whether  your  fifty  merchants  be  in  a 
city,  or  dispersed  over  the  country,  they  do  not 
lose  their  character  of  purchasers.  They  must, 
in  either  event,  be  fed.  So  too  with  the  labor- 
ers employed  in  a  manufactory.  But  look  to 
the  list  of  agricultural  exports,  and  tell  me  how 
long  it  will  take  you  to  furnish  a  home  market 
for  them  ?  They  amounted  last  year,  if  I  do  not 
mistake,  to  something  like  $50,000,000,  and  this 
was  made  up  of  the  portion  of  product  which 
remained  after  satisfying  the  home  demand. 
The  proposition,  sir,  is  futile;  nay,  a  perfect 
mockery.  Nor  are  we  to  be  deceived  by  the 
apparent  regard  which  the  Committee  of  Manu- 
factures has  evinced  in  our  behalf.  The  chair- 
man (Mr.  BALDWIN)  has  been  pleased  to  report 
a  duty  on  cotton  and  tobacco,  imported  into  this 
country.  Did  he  really  imagine  that  the  mem- 
bers from  Georgia  and  South  Carolina  were  to 
be  entrapped  by  the  first,  or  the  members  from 
Virginia  by  the  last  ?  I  feel  assured  that  my 
honorable  friend  did  not  intend  to  practise  a 
deception  upon  us.  He  would  spurn  with  in- 
dignation, any  such  resort.  But  I  ask  him  se- 
riously to  say  whether  he  thinks  that  the  South 
requires  this  tax  on  cotton,  or  Virginia  this  tax 
on  tobacco  ?  Look  at  the  list  of  annual  exports 
of  cotton,  and  tell  me  if  the  cotton  planter  here 
has  any  thing  to  fear  from  foreign  competition  ? 
And  is  it  not  well  known  that  the  Virginia  to- 
bacco planter  fears  no  competition  on  earth  ? 
No  other  tobacco  comes  into  competition  with 
it  France  admits  none  other  than  that  raised 
in  Virginia;  and  the  anxiety  of  foreign  pur- 
chasers to  obtain  our  tobacco,  is  the  best  evi- 
dence of  its  decided  superiority  over  the  similar 
production  of  any  other  country.  As  well  might 
the  gentleman,  if  he  had  been  legislating  for 
Newcastle,  to  use  a  familiar  illustration,  have 
laid  a  high  duty  on  coal  thereinto  imported. 


618 


ABRIDGMENT  OF  THE 


H.  OF  R.] 


Revision  of  the  Tariff, 


1820. 


I  think,  then,  Mr.  Chairman,  that  I  have  ren- 
dered in  some  measure  the  effects  which  will 
flow  from  this  bill  manifest.  It  will  diminish 
the  value  of  our  land ;  it  will  shut  us  out  from 
the  foreign  market ;  it  cannot  substitute  a  home 
market,  as  is  erroneously  contended ;  and,  finally, 
it  subjects  us  to  a  heavy  burden  of  taxation.  Is 
it  necessary  that  I  should  go  on  to  show  its 
effects  on  commerce?  Agriculture  and  com- 
merce are  twin  sisters.  You  cannot  inflict  a 
wound  on  the  one  without  injuring  the  other. 
Our  foreign  trade,  I  have  already  attempted  to 
show,  would  be  greatly  and  most  seriously  cur- 
tailed. And,  sir,  when  the  gentleman  excepts 
from  duty  copper  used  for  sheathing  of  ships,  he 
takes  care  to  limit  this  application  of  that  article 
by  striking  a  destructive  blow  at  the  vessel  it- 
self. That  noble  spirit  of  enterprise  which  has 
heretofore  been  our  chief  boast,  will  be  in  a 
great  measure  destroyed,  and  your  navigation 
will  be  confined  to  your  own  bays  and  creeks. 
Tell  me  not,  then,  of  the  embarrassments  which 
now  prevail  in  this  land.  Go  on  with  this  Chi- 
nese system;  carry  this  strange  fallacy  into 
effect,  and  we  shall  present  a  contrast  as  strik- 
ing, between  our  present  and  our  then  situation, 
as  that  which  is  exhibited  in  the  case  of  a  child 
who  has  lost  his  plaything,  and  of  the  man 
whose  house  is  wrapt  in  flames,  and  the  fruits 
of  a  long  life  of  industry  in  a  moment  destroyed. 

Mr.  STORKS  delivered  a  speech  of  about  an 
hour's  length,  in  reply. 

Mr.  GEOSS  said,  that  the  proposition  of  the 
honorable  gentleman  from  Virginia  (Mr.  TY- 
LER) must  have  originated  in  a  conviction,  on 
his  part,  of  the  impolicy  of  the  bill,  considered 
in  relation  to  the  principles  upon  which  it  has 
been  framed,  and  not  in  a  mere  dissatisfaction 
with  its  details.  In  the  latter  case,  candor  and 
patriotism  would  have  concurred  in  pointing 
the  honorable  gentleman  to  a  course  very  dif- 
ferent from  the  one  he  had  adopted.  He  would 
have  proposed  amendments  rather  than  have 
submitted  a  motion  to  destroy  the  bill.  What 
reasons  does  he  offer  to  induce  us  to  support 
his  motion  ?  I  confess,  said  Mr.  G.,  that  I 
should  think  him  in  favor  of  the  bill,  did  I  take 
his  remarks  instead  of  his  motion,  as  the  test 
of  his  sentiments.  He  acknowledges  that  the 
general  pacification  of  Europe,  and  the  conse- 

ductions,  is  the  cause  of  the  present  distress. 
The  honorable  gentleman,  sir,  is  perfectly  right. 
"We  may  talk  about  banks  and  extravagance  as 
much  as  we  please ;  but  they  are  not  the  cause 
of  our  misfortunes.  They  are  rather  the  evi- 
dences of  oty  former  prosperity.  When  every 
thing  which  our  soil  produced  commanded  a 
high  price  in  the  European  markets,  and  when 
we  were  the  carriers  for  all  nations,  we  could 
afford  to  be  extravagant.  Industry,  sir,  simple 
industry,  was  sufficient  to  secure  to  every  indi- 
vidual the  necessaries  and  conveniences  of  life. 
The  mechanic  found  abundant  employment ; 
the  planter  and  farmer  enjoyed  a  ready  market 
for  their  produce  •,  and  the  merchant  became 


wealthy.  The  case  is  altered  now,  sir.  The 
mechanic  is  without  business,  the  farmer  finds 
no  market,  and  the  capitalist,  instead  of  grow- 
ing rich  by  the  interest  of  his  money,  is  forced 
to  live  upon  the  principal,  unless  he  choose  to 
fatten  on  the  misfortunes  of  his  neighbors. 
Can  all  this,  sir,  he  the  effect  of  luxury  ?  Ex- 
travagance makes  money  change  its  owners, 
but  does  not  banish  it  from  a  country,  if  that 
country  be  otherwise  in  a  flourishing  condition. 
We  must  abandon,  it  is  true,  our  habits  of  show 
and  parade,  in  order  to  accommodate  ourselves 
to  our  present  reduced  condition  ;  but  if  there 
be  no  market  for  the  produce  of  our  soil,  and 
no  demand  for  our  labor,  our  efforts  will  barely 
enable  us  to  subsist.  To  arrest  the  progress  of 
this  evil,  and  to  prevent  the  enormous  exporta- 
tion of  specie,  it  seems  to  me  that  we  should 
furnish  ourselves  with  those  articles  for  which 
we  have  heretofore  sent  our  money  across  the 
Atlantic. 

But  let  us  inquire,  said  Mr.  G.,  what  remedy 
the  honorable  gentleman  proposes  for  the  evils 
which  oppress  us.  Why,  sir,  he  seems  to  have 
discovered  a  "  speck  of  war  "  in  the  European 
horizon,  a  little  cloud,  no  bigger  at  present  than 
a  man's  hand,  but  which  he  devoutly  hopes  and 
believes  will  increase  and  overshadow  the  whole 
eastern  continent.  Has  it  indeed,  sir,  come  to 
this  ?  Are  we  to  confine  ourselves  exclusively 
to  the  cultivation  of  the  soil,  even  when  its 
produce  will  not  procure  us  the  refuse  trash  of 
Europe?  Are  we  to  wait  in  our  present  situa- 
tion until  a  war  hi  Europe  shall  work  our  de- 
deliverance?  The  hope  of  such  an  event  is 
impious.  But  suppose  it  should  actually  hap- 
pen, where  is  our  security  for  its  continuance  ? 
Must  our  prosperity  forever  depend  on  the 
misfortunes  of  Europe  ?  Shall  we  be  con- 
demned to  mourn  whenever  peace  shall  bless 
her  shores  ?  Where  is  the  Representative  who 
is  prepared  to  leave  his  country  in  such  a  state 
of  vassalage  and  dependence  ?  We  have,  sir, 
at  a  vast  expense  of  blood  and  treasure,  estab- 
lished and  maintained  our  political  independ- 
ence; but  if  the  present  state  of  things  be 
without  remedy,  or,  if  we  have  not  spirit 
enough  to  adopt  a  plan  of  reform  in  our  inter- 
nal policy,  we  may  as  well  renew  our  allegiance 
to  the  British  Crown,  and  save  the  trouble  and 
expense  of  governing  ourselves. 

The  honorable  gentleman,  said  Mr.  G.,  seems 
to  concur  with  the  celebrated  Dr.  Smith,  that 
we  ought  not  to  accommodate  our  pursuits  to 
our  circumstances.  What  else  can  he  mean  by 
warning  us  not  to  change  the  direction  of  the 
national  capital  ?  The  learned  doctor  informs 
his  readers  that  "  the  tailor  does  not  attempt 
to  make  his  own  shoes,  but  buys  them  of  the 
shoemaker.  The  shoemaker  does  not  attempt 
to  make  his  own  clothes,  but  employs  the  tai- 
lor. The  farmer,"  he  continues,  "  attempts  to 
make  neither  the  one  nor  the  other,  but  em- 
ploys those  different  artificers."  And  what  is 
the  reason  which  the  doctor  gives  for  all  this  ? 
It  is,  according  to  him,  because  "  all  these  find 


DEBATES  OF  CONGRESS. 


G19 


APRIL,  1820.] 


Revision  of  the  Tariff. 


[H.  OF  R. 


it  for  their  interest  to  employ  their  whole  in- 
dustry in  a  way  in  which  they  have  some  ad- 
vantage over  their  neighbors,  and  to  purchase 
with  a  part  of  its  produce,  or,  what  is  the  same 
thing,  with  the  price  of  a  part  of  it,  whatever 
else  they  may  have  occasion  for."  "Will  any 
one  deny  the  correctness  of  these  remarks? 
Yet,  sir,  if  they  be  designed  as  an  argument 
against  the  present  bill,  there  are  not  more 
sophistical  and  Jesuitical' sentences  in  the  Eng- 
lish language.  They  are  founded  on  the  as- 
sumed fact  that  the  tailor,  the  shoemaker,  and 
the  farmer,  depend  mutually  on  each  other  for 
the  particular  articles  which  their  industry 
produces.  But  let  us  suppose,  for  a  moment, 
that  the  farmer  has  no  longer  any  "  advantage 
over  his  neighbor,"  the  tailor,  by  the  cultiva- 
tion of  the  soil.  Let  us  take  it  for  granted  that 
he  cannot  dispose  of  his  provisions ;  that  the 
shoemaker  is  supplied  from  another  quarter, 
and  that  the  tailor  supplies  himself.  Let  us 
imagine,  moreover,  a  very  probable  case,  that, 
for  the  want  of  a  market,  he  cannot  purchase, 
with  the  price  of  a  part  of  his  produce,  the 
shoes  and  coats  of  his  neighbors ;  what  shall 
he  do  under  these  circumstances?  Shall  he 
remain  unclothed  and  unshod  for  fear  of  inter- 
fering with  Dr.  Smith's  system  of  economy  ? 
Shall  he  prefer  the  cultivation  of  the  soil,  naked 
as  he  is,  which  can  yield  him  no  profit,  to  those 
mechanical  arts  which  will,  at  least,  secure  him 
from  the  inclemency  of  the  weather,  and  pre- 
serve him  from  debt? 

The  honorable  gentleman,  said  Mr.  G.,  in- 
forms us  that  manufacturers  are  no  more  de- 
pressed than  other  classes  of  the  community. 
True,  sir ;  but  shall  we,  for  this  reason,  abandon 
the  country  to  its  fate  ?  Yes,  says  the  honora- 
ble gentleman,  let  every  thing  regulate  itself, 
and  manufactures  will  gradually  be  introduced 
from  necessity.  I  am  satisfied,  said  Mr.  G., 
that  they  will  be  established,  whether  we  pass 
this  bill  or  not ;  for,  by  permitting  things  to 
take  their  natural  course,  whilst  every  other 
nation  is  intermeddling  with  commercial  mat- 
ters, we  are  reduced  to  the  necessity  of  sus- 
pending almost  entirely  our  foreign  importa- 
tions. We  are  compelled  to  provide  a  home 
market  for  our  provisions  and  raw  materials. 
For  my  part,  sir,  I  am  willing  to  aid  the  effects 
of  our  foolish  policy,  while  they  tend  to  work 
their  own  remedy.  The  good  sense  of  the 
community  is  awake.  A  spirit  of  inquiry  has 
gone  forth,  and  the  progress  of  public  opinion  in 
favor  of  a  change  of  policy  is  not  to  be  arrested  ; 
but,  if  the  Government  does  nothing,  years  of 
suffering  and  embarrassment  may  pass  away 
before  the  evil  will  be  completely  cured.  Let 
us  not  permit  the  distresses  of  our  fellow-citi- 
zens to  be  the  sole  cause  of  reformation ;  the 
skilful  physician  follows  the  indications  of  na- 
ture, and  assists  all  its  operations  in  throwing 
oflf  the  disease.  Let  us  follow  the  example, 
and  afford  a  seasonable  encouragement  to  the 
manufacturing  interest,  which  is  now  struggling 
between  hope  and  despair. 


But  the  honorable  gentleman,  said  Mr.  G., 
foresees  an  excise  duty,  if  we  pass  this  bill. 
After  proving  that  such  will  be  the  result,  I 
cannot  see  that  he  will  have  gamed  much 
ground.  What  has  his  own  system  produced? 
A  deficit  of  five  millions,  and  a  yearly  decrease 
of  revenue.  As  to  the  revenue,  the  two  sys- 
tems are  the  same ;  but  hi  regard  to  the  inter- 
nal prosperity  of  the  country,  the  advantage  is 
decidedly  in  favor  of  the  new  plan  of  economy. 
The  old  policy  has  ruined  the  revenue  by  im- 
poverishing the  people;  the  present  bill  pro- 
poses to  exclude  a  portion  of  foreign  commodi- 
ties, in  order  to  encourage  the  industry  of  our 
own  citizens.  Let  us  look  back  to  the  late  war, 
and  to  the  measures  of  Government  at  its  close. 
At  the  commencement  of  the  contest  we  expe- 
rienced the  evils  of  a  want  of  manufacturing 
establishments  in  the  most  sensible  manner ;  the 
capitalist  began  to  turn  his  attention  to  the 
subject;  but,  before  a  supply  could  be  fur- 
nished, the  Government  was  compelled  to  sub- 
mit to  the  disgrace  of  conniving  at  a  violation 
of  its  own  laws,  and  of  countenancing  smug- 
gling, for  the  sake  of  clothing  the  army.  The 
youth  of  our  establishments,  their  small  num- 
ber, and  the  consequent  want  of  competition, 
caused  the  high  prices  for  which  our  manufac- 
turers have  been  so  often  reproached.  A  few 
years  would  have  remedied  the  evil.  The  les- 
son taught  us  at  that  time  ought  not  so  soon  to 
have  been  forgotten.  We  ought  to  have  learned 
that  it  was  essential  to  our  independence  to  be 
able,  at  all  times,  to  furnish  ourselves  with 
many  of  the  articles  which  we  now  import  from 
abroad. 

But,  on  the  receipt  of  the  news  of  peace,  the 
country  seemed  mad  with  joy.  Without  re- 
flecting on  the  altered  situation  of  Europe,  and 
not  considering  that  our  produce  could  no 
longer  be  disposed  of  in  that  quarter,  Congress 
formed  a  tariff  on  the  honorable  gentleman's 
plan.  They  enacted  a  treasury  tariff,  a  revenue 
tariff,  without  the  least  regard  to  the  situation 
of  the  country.  Need  I  mention  the  result  ? 
The  low  duties  which  were  imposed  brought 
upon  the  nation  a  perfect  deluge  of  foreign  ar- 
ticles. Our  infant  manufacturing  establish- 
ments were  prostrated ;  but  the  individual  dis- 
tress of  their  proprietors  was  unnoticed  amidst 
the  general  joy  at  seeing  the  National  Treasury 
filled  to  overflowing.  What  is  the  result? 
This  system  has  operated  like  an  exhilarating 
poison,  which,  at  first,  increased  the  animal 
powers,  but  finally  sinks  them  to  the  grave. 
This  system  has  been  pursued  to  the  present 
time.  Will  any  one,  at  this  day,  call  it  a  reve- 
nue system  ?  It  deserves  a  different  title.  We 
have  purchased  foreign  commodities  until  the 
country  is  reduced  to  the  utmost  distress.  We 
can  purchase  them  no  longer.  The  revenue 
has  declined,  and  will  continue  to  decline. 
Even  now  we  have  a  bill  upon  our  tables  to 

Cvide  for  a  part  of  the  Treasury  deficit  by  a 
a,  and,  for  the  balance,  the  Lord  knows 
how ;  and  vet  the  honorable  gentleman  warns 


620 


ABRIDGMENT  OF  THE 


H.  OF  K.] 


Revision  of  the  Tariff. 


1820. 


us  against  a  change  of  policy,  for  fear  of  affect- 
ing the  revenue;  that  miserable  remnant,  I 
suppose  he  means,  which  our  blessed  revenue 
system  has  not  destroyed.  Can  that  policy  be 
wise  which  renders  war  a  blessing  ?  I  appeal 
to  the  recollection  of  every  member  of  this 
House,  if  the  last  war,  with  all  its  taxes,  pressed 
so  heavily  on  the  country  as  the  present  peace  ? 

I  am  well  satisfied,  said  Mr.  G.,  that  there  is 
a  decided  majority  in  the  House  who  approve 
of  the  principles  upon  which  this  bill  has  been 
framed.  They  all  acknowledge  that  our  policy 
must  be  changed.  It  is  evident,  however,  that 
certain  items  of  its  detail  are  unsatisfactory  to 
some  of  its  friends.  For  myself,  sir,  I  can  as- 
sure the  House  that  no  private  consideration 
shall  induce  me  to  vote  against  the  passage  of 
the  bill.  It  has  a  national  object  in  view,  and 
individual  considerations  should  be  laid  aside. 
We  have  heard  much  wrangling  from  a  quarter 
whence  it  should  have  been  least  expected. 
The  very  people  who  are  most  interested  in  the 
passage  of  this  bill,  and  whose  demands  for  the 
encouragement  of  their  peculiar  industry  have 
almost  uniformly  been  complied  with,  are 
clamorous  about  a  miserable  tax  of  five  cents 
the  gallon  on  molasses.  My  immediate  consti- 
tuents, sir,  are  deeply  interested  in  the  proposed 
increase  of  duty  on  bar  iron ;  but  I  am  proud 
to  believe  that,  should  it  be  stricken  out,  I 
should  forfeit  their  confidence  by  voting  against 
the  bill.  I  trust,  sir,  that  the  motion  of  the 
honorable  gentleman  from  Virginia  will  be  re- 
jected. 

The  question  was  then  taken  on  striking  out 
the  first  section  of  the  bill,  and  decided  in  the 
negative,  73  votes  to  48. 

The  Committee  of  the  Whole  then  took  up 
the  other  bill  referred  to  it,  by  the  title  of  "  A 
bill  regulating  the  payment  of  duties  on  mer- 
chandise imported,  and  for  other  purposes." 

[This  bill  provides  that,  from  and  after  a  cer- 
tain date,  the  duties  laid  on  all  goods,  wares, 
and  merchandise,  imported  into  the  United 
States,  except  dyeing  drugs,  and  materials  for 
composing  dyes,  gum  arable,  gum  Senegal,  and 
all  other  articles  used  solely  for  medicinal  pur- 
poses, cassia,  cinnamon,  cloves,  chocolate,  co- 
coa, coffee,  indigo,  mace,  molasses,  nutmegs, 
pepper,  pimento,  salt,  ochre,  sugar,  tea,  shall 
be  paid  before  a  permit  shall  be  granted  for 
landing  the  same,  unless  entered  for  exportation 
or  deposited  in  public  store-houses.  On  the 
excepted  articles,  duties  not  exceeding  one  hun- 
dred dollars  in  amount  to  be  paid  in  cash ;  and, 
if  exceeding  that  sum,  shall  be  allowed  a  cred- 
it, on  one-half  for  three  months,  and  on  the 
other  half  tor  six  months — except  tea,  the  du- 
ties on  which  are  to  be  payable,  in  equal  pay- 
ments, at  three,  six,  and  nine  months.] 

Mr.  BALDWIN  rose  and  addressed  the  Chair 
as  follows : 

In  commencing  its  operations,  our  Govern- 
ment justly  deemed  it  of  great  importance  to 
give  every  facility  to  the  commerce  of  our 
country.  There  was  then  peace  in  Europe. 


Commerce  was  principally  in  the  hands  of  two 


•ipal 

nl  w 


nations,  whose  capital  was  so  abundant  that,  in 
Holland,  it  was  said  not  to  be  a  bad  business 
for  a  merchant,  by  his  labors  and  the  employ- 
ment of  his  money,  to  realize  6  per  cent.  In 
England,  an  unequivocal  evidence  of  the  extent 
of  unemployed  capital  was,  that  their  3  per 
cent,  stocks  were  in  the  market  at  93  per  cent. 
It  was  no  part  of  the  policy  of  these  nations 
to  give  aid  to  commerce  by  affording  credits  at 
the  custom-houses,  on  the  importation  of  goods 
— it  was  not  necessary.  In  this  country  the 
case  was  different.  The  period  which  imme- 
diately succeeded  the  Ee volution,  was  one  of 
unexampled  embarrassment,  from  which  we 
were  just  recovering  when  the  Government  was 
organized.  There  was  but  little  capital  in  the 


country. 


Its  commerce  was  mostly  carried  on 
""'•  them 


by  foreigners,  whose  superior  capital  gavi 
great  advantages  in  their  competition  with  our 
citizens — it  thus  became  necessary  to  divert 
trade  from  its  accustomed  channels,  by  every 
possible  facility.  Imposts  were  the  principal 
source  of  revenue — merchants  the  agents  to 
collect  from  the  people.  Credits  for  the  duties 
were  allowed  them,  not  only  to  give  time  to 
collect  from  consumers,  but  as  a  means  of  in- 
creasing their  capital,  by  retaining,  and  having 
the  use  of  the  money,  until  their  bonds  became 
due.  In  1789,  the  credit  allowed  on  goods 
from  the  West  Indies,  was  four  months ;  on 
Madeira  wines,  twelve  months;  on  all  other 
goods,  six  months.  In  1790,  a  credit  was  given 
on  teas  from  China,  of  twelve  months.  In  1795, 
the  credit  on  goods  from  the  West  Indies  was  al- 
tered to  three  and  six  months ;  from  Europe  to 
eight,  ten,  and  twelve  months.  In  1799,  a  general 
system  was  adopted ;  from  the  West  Indies,  half 
in  three,  half  in  six  months ;  salt,  nine  months ; 
wines,  twelve  months  ;  from  Europe,  one-third 
each  in  eight,  ten,  and  twelve  months ;  other 
than  from  Europe,  half  in  six  and  one-fourth, 
each  in  nine  and  twelve  months;  teas,  as  other 
goods,  or  at  the  option  of  the  importer,  to  be 
deposited,  and  bonds  given  at  two  years,  and  to 
be  sold  for  the  duties,  if  the  bonds  were  not 
duly  paid.  In  1805,  all  importations  from  the 
eastern  coast  of  America,  north  of  the  equator, 
were  allowed  the  same  credits  as  those  from 
the  West  Indies.  In  1818,  the  credit  on  such 
importations  was  extended  to  six  and  nine 
months;  on  those  from  other  countries  than 
Europe  and  the  West  Indies,  (salt,  wines,  and 
teas  excepted,)  to  eight,  ten,  and  eighteen 
months,  one-third  being  payable  at  each  of 
these  periods.  No  alteration  has  since  been 
made,  so  that  the  credits  now  are : 

On  the  duties  on  importations  from  the  West 
Indies  and  north  of  the  equator,  (excepting  Eu- 
rope,) half  in  six  and  half  in  nine  months. 

From  Europe,  one-third  in  eight,  one-third 
in  ten,  and  one-third  in  twelve  months. 

From  the  East  Indies,  one-third  in  eight, 
one-third  in  ten,  and  one-third  in  eighteen 
months. 

Of  wine?,  twelve  months. 


DEBATES  OF  CONGRESS. 


APRIL,  1820.] 


Revision  of  the  Tariff. 


[H.  OF  R. 


Of  salt,  nine  months. 

Of  teas,  one-third  in  eight,  one-third  in  ten, 
and  one-third  in  twelve  months  ;  or,  if  deposit- 
ed, twenty -four  months. 

While  our  commerce  was  struggling  to  com- 
pete with  that  of  other  nations,  there  were 
good  reasons  for  allowing  liberal  credits  on  the 
duties ;  but,  when  the  French  revolution  threw 
the  commerce  of  the  world  into  our  hands ; 
•when  the  capital  of  foreigners  was  employed 
by  our  merchants,  the  use  of  it  being  amply 
compensated  by  the  protection  of  our  flag, 
there  would  seem  to  have  been  no  very  power- 
ful reasons  for  taxing  the  consumers  to  create 
or  enlarge  the  capital  of  merchants ;  for  such 
is  the  immediate  effect  of  custom-house  credits. 
It  is  understood  to  be  the  custom  of  merchants 
to  calculate  their  profits  on  the  aggregate  cost 
of  goods,  including  charges  and  duties.  The 
amount  of  duties  is,  in  effect,  a  loan  from  the 
Government  to  the  merchant,  without  interest, 
•which  becomes  a  part  of  his  capital,  and  is  as 
productive  as  the  money  he  has  actually  remit- 
ted in  payment  for  his  goods.  It  would  seem 
then  to  be  as  reasonable  that  he  should  furnish 
this,  as  that  he  should  furnish  the  other  portion 
of  his  capital.  When  the  credit  on  the  duties 
exceeds  that  allowed  on  sales  to  retailers,  it  af- 
fords to  the  importer  the  further  advantage  of 
the  active  use  of  the  money  which  has  been 
drawn  from  those  who  really  pay  the  duties. 

It  would  have  seemed  more  consistent  with 
general  principles,  if,  in  the  infancy  and  during 
the  hard  struggle  of  our  commerce,  liberal 
credits  had  been  given,  and  they  had  been 
gradually  diminished,  as  there  was  less  occasion 
for  them.  The  reverse,  however,  has  been  our 
policy.  Though,  during  the  period  of  short 
credits,  our  commerce  was  constantly  and  rap- 
idly increasing,  and  not  content  with  a  fair  di- 
vision with  other  nations,  was  attaining  a  mo- 
nopoly, yet  the  credits  were  extended  in  pro- 
portion as  the  real  necessity  for  them  dimin- 
ished. Even  so  late  as  1818,  when  our  East 
India  merchants  had  acquired  vast  wealth, 
abundant  capital,  and  were  without  foreign 
competition,  their  credits  were  in  part  extended 
to  eighteen  months — a  longer  period,  I  will 
venture  to  say,  than  they  give  their  customers. 
The  consequence  of  this  system  is,  that,  by 
selling  at  auction  for  cash,  or  on  short  credit, 
for  notes  which  can  be  discounted  at  bank,  the 
amount  of  duties  thus  loaned  may  be  invested 
in  a  new  voyage.  Generally  one,  and  often 
two  adventures,  may  be  completed  before  the 
duties  on  the  first  are  due. 

We  have  lately  heard  much  of  the  favorite 
commercial  maxim :  "  Let  us  alone,  let  trade 
regulate  itself."  The  practical  application  of 
this  maxim  is  developed  by  this  custom-house 
system.  Our  legislation  upon  this  subject  has 
been  uniformly  progressive.  Regulation  has 
indeed  followed  regulation;  but  it  has  been 
to  give  additional  facilities  to  commerce.  The 
credits  at  the  custom-house  have  been  often  al- 
tered ;  but  in  every  case  they  have  increased. 


Our  statute  book  does  not  contain  a  solitary  in- 
stance of  a  credit  diminished.  This  system 
having  been  coeval  with  our  Government,  fol- 
lowed up  by  a  uniform  series  of  acts  for  thirty 
years,  is  now  viewed  as  the  natural  and  estab- 
lished order  of  things;  as  a  matter  of  right, 
not  of  favor.  Extending  the  credit  means, 
"  let  us  alone ; "  to  reduce  it  to  the  old  terms 
is  to  destroy  the  commerce  of  the  country.  It 
is  worth  while  to  look  at  the  practical  illustra- 
tion of  this  rule  in  the  act  of  1818,  the  last  law 
on  the  subject,  passed  on  the  last  day  of  the 
session.  The  East  India  credits  were  extended 
to  eighteen  months,  in  the  last  line  of  the  last 
clause  in  the  last  section  of  a  bill  for  the  deposit 
of  wines  and  spirits,  and  for  other  purposes.  It 
might  be  well  to  inquire  into  the  evidence  on 
which  this  measure  was  reported.  It  is  at  least 
to  be  hoped  that,  from  whatever  other  quarter 
it  may  come,  the  doctrine  of  "  letting  things 
regulate  themselves"  will  not  again  be  heard 
from  those  who  owe  so  much  to  regulation. 

In  speaking  thus  plainly  of  these  credits,  I 
must  not  be  understood  as  objecting  so  ranch  to 
their  expediency  at  the  time  of  their  adoption, 
as  to  their  being  continued  and  enlarged  after 
the  reasons  for  which  they  were  granted  have 
ceased,  and  when  their  effects  have  become  in- 
jurious to  all  parts  of  the  country.  They  were 
granted  for  the  benefit  of  American  commerce, 
and  as  facilities  to  American  merchants ;  but 
they  now  operate  to  the  destruction  of  the  one 
and  the  impoverishment  of  the  other.  From  a 
careful  examination  of  the  weekly  abstracts  of 
merchandise  entered  at  the  custom-house  in 
New  York  in  the  year  1819,  it  appears  that 
there  were  entered  32,958  packages  of  dry 
goods,  of  which  24,659  were  on  foreign,  and 
8,299  only  on  American  account.  Thus,  in  the 
proud  emporium  of  our  commerce,  where  cap- 
ital is  abundant,  and  in  vain  seeking  profitable 
employment,  three-fourths  of  the  importations 
appear  to  be  on  foreign  account,  the  sales  of 
which,  for  the  most  ^>art,  are  by  auction.  This 
is  no  forced,  but  the  plain  and  evident  effect  of 
obvious  causes.  The  nations  of  Europe,  to 
whom  England  allied  herself,  and  whom  she 
subsidized  to  destroy  the  continental  system, 
having  accomplished  the  object  of  putting  down 
its  author,  retained  or  readopted  the  system  it- 
self. That  nation,  who  foaght  the  common 
battles  of  herself  and  other  nations,  and  who 
paid  them  for  fighting  for  themselves,  now  finds 
her  manufactures  mostly  excluded  from  the 
Continent;  her  merchants  and  manufacturers 
seeking  rather  for  some  market  than  for  a  good 
one.  Few  nations  will  buy  from  them  at  all ; 
none  but  this  will  furnish  them  with  a  capital 
without  interest  on  a  long  credit.  Other  na- 
tions regulate  this  matter ;  they  require  prompt 
payment  of  duties,  or  deposit  of  goods.  We 
leave  things  to  regulate  themselves,  and  allow 
foreigners  to  avail  themselves  of  three-fourths 
of  the  benefits  of  our  credits.  Depr, 
home  for  the  want  of  a  market  as  well  as  of 
capital  they  eagerly  look  to  us  as  affording 


622 


ABRIDGMENT  OF  THE 


H.  OF  R.] 


Revision  of  the  Tariff. 


[APRIL,  1820. 


both.  During  the  wars  in  Europe  they  could 
not  improve  these  facilities ;  but  now  they  hold 
but  inducements  and  offer  temptations  which 
will  lead  to  a  great  increase,  and  a  final  mo- 
nopoly of  our  trade  in  such  hands.  An  ordi- 
nary trading  voyage  to  England  may  be  com- 
pleted, the  goods  sold  by  means  of  auctions, 
notes  discounted,  and  the  proceeds  ready  to  be 
remitted  back  in  four  months.  By  the  Liver- 
pool packets  much  less  time  will  suffice.  But, 
allowing  three  operations  in  a  year,  I  find  that 
our  custom-house  credits  on  cottons  and  wool- 
lens will  double  the  capital  employed  in  the 
first  year,  and  increase  135  per  centum  at  the 
end  of  the  second  year.  In  this  mode  a  loan, 
perpetual  and  increasing  in  a  steady  ratio,  is 
made  by  our  Government  to  the  foreign  mer- 
chant; who,  while  he  thus  obtains  it  without 
interest,  is  enabled  to  continue  his  operations ; 
and,  to  avoid  the  notary,  he  looks  more  to  his 
credit  than  to  his  profits,  and  will  continue  his 
business  though  it  may  be  a  losing  one.  What 
to  the  American  merchant  would  be  a  losing  is 
to  him  a  gainful  trade.  The  American  im- 
porter becomes  a  mere  caterer  to  the  foreign 
manufacturer.  The  orders  sent  out  by  him  in- 
dicate the  quantity,  kind,  and  quality  of  goods 
required  at  our  different  ports.  The  manufac- 
turer, thus  advised  of  the  demand,  sends  simi- 
lar articles  to  the  same  market.  If,  after  de- 
ducting charges,  he  can  receive  in  New  York 
the  price  at  his  manufactory,  he  has  the  usual 
profit  and  an  increase  to  his  capital  by  the  cus- 
tom-house credits.  The  American  merchant 
pays  the  manufacturer  his  price  in  England, 
and  must  sell  here  at  an  advance,  or  decline 
business.  It  is  therefore  not  a  matter  of  sur- 
prise that  so  large  a  proportion  of  importations 
should  be  on  foreign  account,  but  rather  that 
there  should  be  any  other. 

This  at  once  accounts  for  the  cries  of  distress 
which  assail  us  from  the  commercial  cities,  im- 
ploring us  to  abolish  credits  on  imports,  and  im- 
pose heavy  duties  on  aucflon  sales.  The  ope- 
ration of  these  two  causes  on  all  the  great  in- 
terests of  the  country,  shows  their  intimate 
connection,  their  mutual  dependence.  I  hope 
all  will  unite  in  affording  a  remedy.  It  will  be 
truly  unexpected  if  gentlemen  shall  be  found 
willing  to  have  the  revenue,  commerce,  and  ag- 
riculture, abandoned  to  their  fate,  because  the 
only  measure  which  can  save  them  will  like- 
wise benefit  manufactures.  The  occasion  is 
now  fairly  presented  to  the  House.  This  bill 
has  been  called  for  from  the  seaports.  It  has 
been  reported,  published  in  the  counting-rooms 
of  merchants  for  three  months,  and  not  a  soli- 
tary petition  against  it  from  individuals  has 
been  presented.  Called  for  by  all,  and  I  may 
almost  say  opposed  by  no  part  of  the  country, 
necessary  to  correct  existing,  not  fancied,  evils ; 
evils  which  are  felt,  and  threaten  to  be  greater 
in  future,  I  cannot  but  feel  some  confidence  that 
even  the  opponents  of  the  tariff  will  be  in  favor 
of  this  bill.  For  the  revenue  it  is  almost  indis- 
pensable, as  well  for  security  as  for  convenience. 


On  the  first  of  January  of  the  present  year  the 
amount  of  revenue  bonds  actually  in  suit  ex- 
ceeded three  millions  of  dollars.  On  the  first 
of  this  month  (April)  it  was  considerably  in- 
creased—say to  $3,120,000.  On  the  first  of 
January,  1819,  it  was  only  $1.740,000. 

Mr.  SILSBEE  of  Massachusetts,  addressed  the 
committee  as  follows — 

Mr.  Chairman :  Being  an  inhabitant  of  a 
commercial  district  of  the  United  States,  I  feel 
compelled,  by  a  sense  of  duty  to  my  constitu- 
ents, to  make  a  few  remarks  upon  the  bill  now 
under  consideration. 

It  seems  to  be  generally  admitted,  sir,  that 
every  interest  of  the  country  is  depressed  at 
this  time ;  and  what  does  this  bill  propose — 
measures  for  the  relief  and  benefit  of  all  ?  No, 
sir ;  its  object  seems  to  be,  to  impose  new  re- 
strictions aud  additional  burdens  upon  that  in- 
terest which,  at  this  moment,  is  more  depressed 
than  any  other.  I  mean  the  commercial  and 
navigating  interest.  In  the  course  of  the  past 
year  a  loss  has  been  sustained  by  the  merchants 
of  this  country,  of  at  least  twenty-five  per  cent. 
of  the  whole  capital  employed  in  foreign  trade, 
and  the  prospects  of  the  present  year  are  not 
more  flattering  than  those  of  the  past.  There 
will  not  be  so  much  capital  employed  this  year 
as  there  was  last,  because  there  is  not  so  much 
to  employ ;  but  in  that  which  is  employed  the 
loss  (judging  from  present  appearances)  will 
be  as  great,  or  greater,  than  it  was  the  last 
year.  If  gentlemen  have  attended  to  the  me- 
morials which  have  been  read  in  this  House, 
from  the  manufacturing  interest,  they  will  have 
learnt  from  them  something  of  the  present  state 
of  our  navigation  and  commerce.  We  have 
been  informed  by  these  memorials  that  our 
ships  are  rotting  at  the  Avharves ;  that  they  are 
not  worth  half  their  cost ;  that  a  large  portion 
of  the  merchants  are  already  bankrupts;  and 
that  others  are  almost  daily  added  to  the  list. 
If  this  be  true,  (and  no  one  who  has  recently 
visited  our  seaports  will  be  inclined  to  doubt 
it,) — if  this  be  true,  I  say,  is  it  wise,  or  is  it  just, . 
further  to  depress  the  interest  at  this  time? 

The  bill  under  consideration  proposes  the 
abolition  of  the  present  system  of  credits  on 
revenue  bonds,  and  the  adoption  of  an  entire 
new  system.  The  present  system  has  been  in 
operation,  with  some  alterations,  from  the  com- 
mencement of  the  present  Government.  By 
the  act  of  the  4th  of  August,  1790,  the  credits 
for  duties  on  imports  were  fixed  as  follows :  On 
goods  from  the  West  Indies,  at  four  months; 
on  teas  from  China,  at  twelve  months ;  on 
Madeira  wine,  at  twelve  months  ;  on  all  other 
goods,  at  six  months.  At  this  time  sales  of 
goods  were  generally  made  for  cash,  or  at 
very  short  credits;  but,  as  the  business  of  the 
country  increased,  longer  credits  to  purchasers 
became  usual ;  and  it  cannot  be  doubted  that 
it  was  the  encouragement  of  this  increase  of 
trade  which  induced  the  Government  to  extend 
these  credits,  as  they  have  done  at  different 
periods  since  1790. 


DEBATES  OF  CONGRESS. 


623 


APRIL,  1820.] 


Revision  of  the  Tariff. 


[H.  OF  E. 


By  the  act  of  May,  1792,  the  credit  for  duties 
on  salt  was  fixed  at  nine  months;  on  other 
West  India  goods,  at  four  months ;  on  all  other 
goods,  (except  wines  and  teas,)  half  in  six,  a 

Siarter  in  nine,  and  a  quarter  in  twelve  months, 
y  the  act  of  January  29th,  1795,  the  credit  on 
importations  from  the  West  Indies  was  extend- 
ed to  three  and  six  months ;  and  on  importations 
from  Europe,  the  credit  was  fixed  at  eight,  ten, 
and  twelve  months;  one-third  cash.  By  the 
act  of  the  3d  of  March,  1799,  the  credits  were 
fixed  as  follows  :  on  West  India  products,  (ex- 
cept salt,)  half  in  three,  and  half  in  six  months ; 
on  salt,  in  nine  months  ;  on  wines,  in  twelve 
months;  on  teas  from  China  or  Europe,  the 
same  as  other  goods  from  those  countries,  un- 
less deposited  in  Government  stores,  in  which 
case  the  credit  not  to  exceed  two  years;  on 
articles  from  Europe,  one-third  in  eight,  one- 
third  in  ten,  and  one-third  in  twelve  months ; 
on  all  goods  from  any  other  place  than  Europe 
and  the  West  Indies,  (other  than  salt,  teas,  and 
wines,)  half  in  six,  a  quarter  in  nine,  and  a 
quarter  in  twelve  months.  These  credits  have 
not  been  changed  since  March,  1799,  except 
that,  by  the  act  of  April  20,  1818,  the  credit  on 
West  India  products  was  extended  from  three 
and  six,  to  five  and  nine  months  ;  and  on  arti- 
cles from  the  East  Indies,  South  America,  &c., 
from  half  in  six,  quarter  in  nine,  and  a  quarter 
in  twelve  months,  to  one-third  in  eight,  one- 
third  in  ten,  and  one-third  in  eighteen  months. 

These  credits  are  given  on  bonds,  with  one  or 
more  sureties,  to  the  satisfaction  of  the  collec- 
tor, in  double  the  amount  of  duties ;  or,  in  lieu 
of  the  sureties,  the  collector  may  accept  a  de- 
posit of  so  much  of  the  goods  as  shall,  in  his 
opinion,  be  a  sufficient  security  for  the  amount 
of  the  duties,  (not  the  whole  goods,  as  is  re- 
quired by  the  bill  now  under  consideration,) 
which  deposit  is  to  be  held  till  the  bonds  be- 
come due,  at  which  time,  if  the  bonds  are  not 
previously  paid,  the  goods  are  to  be  sold,  and 
the  surplus,  after  paying  the  bonds  and  charges, 
to  be  paid  over  to  the  importer  of  the  goods. 
This  is  the  substance  of  our  present  system  of 
credits,  which  to  this  time  has  been  found  as 
satisfactory  and  sufficient  as  it  is  simple. 

The  system  proposed  by  the  bill  under  con- 
sideration, if  I  understand  it,  is  this :  On  the 
arrival  of  goods  liable  to  the  payment  of  duty, 
the  importer  may  elect  whether  to  enter  them 
for  exportation  or  for  consumption ;  if  he 
enters  them  for  exportation,  he  is  to  give  bond, 
with  sufficient  sureties,  to  the  whole  amount 
of  the  goods,  that  they  shall  be  exported,  and 
not  relanded  in  the  United  States.  It  is,  how- 
ever, provided  that  tl»e  importer  may,  subse- 
quently, re-enter  his  goods  for  consumption ; 
but  this  indulgence  is  extended  only  to  three 
months  from  the  date  of  importation,  and  on 
condition  that  the  duties  are  all  paid  before  the 
expiration  of  that  time.  If  the  goods  are,  at 
the  time  of  importation,  entered  for  consump- 
tion, and  are  such  as  named,  as  excepted,  in 
the  first  section  of  the  bill,  they  are  to  be  en- 


titled to  a  credit  on  one-half  the  amount  for 
three  months,  and  on  the  other  half  for  six 
months,  except  teas,  on  which  the  credit  is  to 
be  three,  six,  and  nine  months ;  one-third  cash. 
On  all  other  goods,  of  every  description,  the 
duty  is  to  be  paid  in  cash  ;  or,  in  default  of 
such  payment,  the  goods  (not  merely  enough 
to  secure  the  payment  of  the  duty,  as  under  the 
present  system,  but  the  whole  goods)  are  to  be 
deposited  in  stores  selected  by  the  collector,  and 
retained  in  his  custody  for  six  months,  when, 
if  the  duty  is  not  previously  paid,  so  much  of 
the  goods  are  to  be  sold  as  will  pay  the  duty 
and  charges.  Now,  sir,  if  the  Government  had 
large  and  convenient  warehouses  established  in 
all  our  seaports,  as  is  the  case  in  most  parts  of 
Europe,  to  which  access  could  readily  be  had 
during  the  usual  hours  of  business,  this  might 
not  be  considered  so  great  an  inconvenience; 
but  this  is  not  the  case — and,  should  importers 
generally  store  their  goods  instead  of  paying 
the  duties,  almost  every  store  in  our  commer- 
cial towns  would  be  converted  into  a  govern- 
ment store,  and  unless  the  Government  should 
forthwith  appoint  a  host  of  storekeepers,  it  will 
be  found  extremely  difficult,  if  not  impracti- 
cable, to  get  along  with  this  part  of  this  new 
system.  It  will  at  least  be  found  so  inconve- 
nient and  perplexing  that  few,  if  any,  who  can 
pay  the  duties  on  importation,  will  submit  to 
it.  I  must,  therefore,  consider  the  duties  on 
all  the  non- excepted  articles  as  liable  to  cash 
payment. 

The  revenue  from  the  customs,  in  1818,  (the 
last  year  for  which  returns  have  been  made,) 
was  $21,828,461 ;  of  which  $5,410,320  accrued 
on  articles  which  are  to  be  entitled  to  a  credit, 
according  to  the  provisions  of  this  bill ;  and 
$16,631,852  were  derived  from  articles  which 
are  to  be  liable  to  cash  payment  of  duties.  So 
that  less  than  one-fourth  part  of  the  amount  of 
duties  are  to  have  the  benefit  of  a  credit  of  three 
and  six  months,  and  more  than  three-quarters 
of  the  duties  are  to  be  paid  in  cash. 

Sir,  the  merchants  of  the  United  States  are 
at  this  time,  and  at  all  times,  under  bonds  to 
the  Government  for  the  payment  of  about 
twenty  millions  of  dollars  within  a  year. 
Should  this  bill  pass,  and  not  lessen  the  amount 
of  duties  that  would  otherwise  accrue,  it  will 
require  from  the  merchants  a  further  payment 
of  ten  or  fifteen  millions  more,  making  thirty 
to  thirty-five  millions  within  a  year  from  the 
time  this  bill  takes  effect. 

Now,  can  the  commercial  interest  bear  an 
additional  assessment  of-  fifty  to  seventy-five 
per  cent.,  at  a  time  when  they  find  it  all  but 
impossible  to  comply  with  their  present  engage- 
ments ?  And  if  such  requisition  could  be  com- 
plied with,  would  any  interest  of  the  country, 
either  public  or  private,  be  benefited  by  with- 
drawing from  circulation  such  an  additional 
sum,  when  a  considerable  portion  of  it,  at  least, 
would  lie  dormant  in  the  Treasury,  or  in  the 
bank,  for  the  greater  part  of  a  year  ?  It  would, 
to  be  sure,  give  us  an  overflowing  Treasury  for 


624 


ABRIDGMENT  OF  THE 


H.  OF  R.] 


Revision  of  the  Tariff. 


[APRIL,  1820. 


the  first  year,  but  a  very  impoverished  one  for 
several  succeeding  years. 

I  have  heard  it  said,  on  this  floor,  that  credits 
for  duties  are  not  allowed  by  any  of  the  com- 
mercial nations  of  Europe.  This,  if  apparently, 
is  not  really,  the  case.  Entrepots,  or  public 
warehouses,  are  established,  I  believe,  by  every 
commercial  nation  in  Europe ;  certainly  by 
most  of  them,  and  most  goods  may  remain  in 
entrepot  until  they  are  sold  for  consumption, 
before  the  payment  of  duties  is  required ;  even 
goods  prohibited  for  consumption  may  remain 
in  depot  until  some  foreign  market  offers  a  de- 
mand for  them. 

The  English,  French,  and  Dutch,  may  be 
considered  the  principal  commercial  nations  of 
Europe. 

In  England,  I  believe,  all  goods  may  remain 
some  months,  and  most  of  them  may  remain 
from  two  to  five  years,  in  the  public  ware- 
houses, without  bond,  except  such  as  are  liable 
to  excise,  which  must  be  bonded  when  put  into 
the  warehouses,  and  on  prohibited  goods,  bonds 
must  be  given  to  export  them ;  the  payment  of 
duties  may  be  delayed  until  the  goods  are  taken 
out  of  the  warehouses  for  consumption.  In 
France,  goods  may  remain  in  entrepot  twelve 
months,  with  the  privilege  of  further  time,  by 
special  permission ;  on  taking  them  out  for  con- 
sumption, the  duties  must  be  paid,  either  in 
cash  or  by  bond  with  sureties  at  four  months ; 
but  goods  are  generally  sold,  in  France,  in  en- 
trepot, and  the  duty  paid  by  the  purchaser,  as 
he  takes  them  out  for  consumption. 

In  Holland,  goods  may  remain  twelve  months 
in  entrepot,  on  bond,  after  which  prohibited 
goods  must  be  exported,  but  other  goods  must 
remain  longer  by  permission  of  the  board  of 
licenses. 

In  Spain,  the  payment  of  duties  is  required 
when  goods  are  taken  from  the  custom-house, 
but  I  don't  know  how  long  they  are  permitted 
to  remain  there. 

In  the  ports  of  Italy,  all  goods  are  sold  in 
entrepot ;  the  duties  are  paid  by  the  purchaser 
when  taken  out  for  consumption. 

In  Denmark,  the  duties  are  not  paid  until  the 
goods  are  sold  to  the  consumer. 

It  will  therefore  be  seen,  that,  although  the 
European  systems  differ  from  ours,  yet,  that 
those  systems  afford,  really,  even  longer  credits 
than  are  allowed  by  our  Government ;  with 
this  difference,  however,  that  there,  in  most 
cases,  the  goods  themselves  afford  the  security 
for  the  payment  of  the  duties,  and  if  the  goods, 
by  any  casualty,  are  lost  to  the  owner,  the 
duty  is  lost  to  the  Government.  "With  us,  in- 
stead of  holding  the  goods,  bonds  with  sureties 
are  taken,  and,  although  goods  are  lost  by  any 
casualty  whatever,  (which  not  unfrequently 
happens,)  yet  the  duties  are  paid  to  the  Govern- 
ment. And  I  am  confident  that,  to  this  time, 
the  Government  have  been  great  gainers  by 
the  adoption  of  our  own  system  in  preference 
to  any  of  the  European  ones.  Under  our  pres- 
ent system  the  merchants  know  when  their 


payments  to  Government  become  due,  and  pre- 
pare to  make  them ;  but,  under  the  system  con- 
templated by  this  bill,  they  cannot  be  so  prepar- 
ed ;  their  ships  may  arrive  two  or  three  months 
earlier  than  expected,  at  a  moment  when  they 
have  just  used  so  much  of  their  means  and  so 
much  of  their  credit,  upon  some  new  adven- 
ture, as  to  be  unable  to  raise  twenty,  thirty,  or 
one  hundred  thousand  dollars  at  short  notice; 
but  if  their  ships  should  not  arrive  so  soon,  by 
two  or  three  months,  as  may  be  expected,  the 
funds  which  they  may  have  provided  for  the 
payment  of  duties  will,  in  such  case,  remain  un- 
productive. A  large  portion  of  our  imports  are 
made  in  the  spring  months  of  March  and  April, 
consequently  the  cash  payments  required  at 
this  time  will  be  so  large  as  to  cause  a  pressure 
in  the  money  market,  at  that  time,  and,  as  the 
banks  will  be  apprised  of  this,  they  will  rather 
lessen  than  increase  their  accommodations,  at 
a  time  when  they  will  be  most  wanted.  There 
is  already  much  complaint  of  the  scarcity  of 
money ;  the  passage  of  this  bill  will  not  lessen 
this  complaint. 

This  bill  discourages  importations  generally ; 
this  policy  is  the  reverse  of  every  thing  seen  in 
Europe.  It  is  the  policy  of  other  nations  to 
encourage,  the  importation  of  almost  every 
article,  even  if  prohibited  for  consumption; 
this  is  done,  not  solely  with  a  view  to  benefit 
the  revenue,  and  to  keep  down  prices,  but  also 
for  the  further  purpose  of  sustaining  the  carry- 
ing trade ;  and  we  ought  to  do  the  same,  at 
least  as  far  as  respects  articles  with  which  we 
cannot  supply  ourselves. 

It  has  also  been  said  on  this  floor  that  the 
credits  now  given  operate  as  a  loan  to  the  mer- 
chants. It  will  not  be  denied  but  this  may  be 
the  case  in  some  instances,  but  equally  true 
that  in  many,  and  I  believe  I  may  say  in  most 
cases,  the  duty  is  paid  to  the  Government  before 
it  is  received  from  the  consumer ;  and  I  think  it 
may  be  said,  without  fear  of  contradiction,  that, 
on  an  average,  the  duties  are  paid  before  they 
are  realized  from  the  sales  of  goods.  So  far  as 
my  own  experience  has  enabled  me  to  judge, 
this  has  certainly  been  the  case.  I  have  some 
goods  now  on  hand,  the  duties  on  which  have 
been  paid  more  than  three  years.  If  merchants 
are  compelled  to  pay  the  duties  before  they 
can  realize  them  from  the  proceeds  of  the  goods, 
it  must  be  seen  that  the  effect  will  be  to  lessen 
their  business,  and,  consequently,  to  lessen  the 
revenue. 

It  has  also  been  said,  that  great  losses  must 
have  been  sustained  by  the  Government,  in 
consequence  of  these  credits  on  revenue  bonds. 
Have  you  ever  heard  any  such  complaints,  even 
from  the  Treasury  Department  or  elsewhere? 
No,  sir,  we  have  not  heard  any  such  complaint, 
because  no  such  losses  have  happened.  The 
revenue  which  has  accrued  from  the  customs, 
from  the  4th  of  March,  1799,  (the  commence- 
ment of  the  present  revenue  system,)  to  the  end 
of  the  year  1819,  is  $351,329,799,  upon  which 
there  has  been  a  loss  of  $1,037,355,  and  a  fur- 


DEBATES  OF  CONGRESS. 


625 


APRIL,  1820.] 


Revision  of  the  Tariff. 


[H.  OF  R. 


ther  sum  of  $540,969  which  may  be  lost,  in 
whole  or  in  part ;  but,  supposing  the  whole  to 
be  lost,  the  amount  of  losses  will  be  $1,578,824 
— a  little  short  of  45-100ths  of  one  per  cent. 
In  the  district  in  which  I  live,  although  the 
trade  from  that  district  is  such  as  is  entitled  to 
the  longest  credits  given  by  our  laws,  the  losses 
have,  I  believe,  been  less  than  l-100th  part  of 
a  per  cent. ;  and  in  the  district  of  Boston,  in 
which  immense  sums  have  been  bonded,  the 
losses  have  not,  I  think,  exceeded  1-1  Oth  of  a 
per  cent.  The  official  report  from  the  Treas- 
ury Department  shows  that  the  whole  losses 
throughout  the  United  States  have  been  less 
than  half  a  per  cent.  Now,  I  ask,  if  another 
instance  can  probably  be  found  in  the  world  of 
a  Government,  or  even  an  individual,  having 
sustained  so  small  a  loss  upon  its,  or  upon  his 
credits,  or  upon  any  class  of  credits,  for  a  space 
of  thirty  years,  in  the  course  of  which,  it  should 
also  be  noticed,  that  a  foreign  war,  embargoes, 
and  other  restrictive  measure  have  taken  place, 
which  have  essentially  affected  the  interest  of 
those  people  who  have  had  these  payments  to 
make  ?  There  is,  I  think,  no  hazard,  in  say- 
ing, that  in  no  country  on.  earth  has  the  reve- 
nue from  customs  been  so  promptly  paid  as  in 
this. 

If  the  object  of  this  biU  is  to  aid  the  manu- 
facturing interest,  I  must  say  that,  in  my  hum- 
ble opinion,  that  aid  ought  to  be  sought  in 
some  other  way  than  by  coercing  people  to  aban- 
don commerce  (by  making  it  more  profitable 
to  them)  for  the  purpose  of  inducing  them  to 
devote  a  portion  of  their  capital  to  manufac- 
turing purposes ;  and  really  it  is  only  in  this 
way  that  I  can  perceive  any  benefit  will  be  af- 
forded to  the  manufacturing  interest  by  this 
bill.  It  will  not  have  much  if  any  effect  upon 
the  importation  of  European  manufactures,  be- 
cause, if  the  greater  part  of  those  importations 
are  made  by  the  agents  of  foreign  establish- 
ments, as  we  have  been  repeatedly  assured  is 
the  case,  those  agents,  on  the  arrival  of  their 
goods,  have  only  to  sell  a  bill  of  exchange  on 
their  principal  in  Europe  for  as  much  money 
as  is  needed  to  pay  their  duties ;  and  these  bills 
of  exchange  are  always  a  cash  article  in  the 
market.  This  description  of  importations  will 
therefore  be  less  affected  by  the  provisions  of 
this  bill  than  any  other. 

If  I  know  myself,  I  am  a  friend  to  manufac- 
turing establishments,  and  am  disposed  to  afford 
to  that  interest  every  aid  and  encouragement 
that  can  be  given,  consistently  with  due  re- 
gard to  the  other  great  interests  of  the  country. 
The  other  day,  I  gave  my  vote  freely  and  satis- 
factorily in  favor  of  clothing  the  army  with  our 
own  manufactures,  without  restriction  as  to 
price ;  but,  at  a  time  of  general  depression,  I 
cannot  consent  to  build  up  any  one  interest  of 
the  country  upon  the  ruins  of  another. 

If  higher  duties  are  necessary  for  the  protec- 
tion of  our  domestic  manufactures,  I  have  no 
objection  to  a  reasonable  increase  of  such  du- 
ties, but  I  have  always  considered  the  imposi- 
VOL.  VI.— 40 


tion  of  duties  upon  a  minimum  price,  to  be  an 
incorrect  way  of  assessing  them ;  it  is  a  mode 
which  has  not,  I  believe,  ever  been  adopted  by 
any  other  nation.  I  was  therefore  induced  the 
other  day  to  move  that  the  proviso,  in  the  con- 
templated tariff,  relative  to  coarse  cotton  goods, 
be  stricken  out ;  not,  however,  with  a  view  of 
lessening  the  duty  on  such  goods,  but  for  the 
purpose,  as  I  then  stated,  of  changing  the  man- 
ner of  assessing  that  duty  from  a  nominal  to  an 
actual  percentage ;  and  whether  this  had  been 
fixed  at  50  or  150  per  cent.,  I  should  not  have 
objected  to  it. 

Sir,  we  are  now  called  upon  to  decide  whether 
we  will,  at  this  moment  of  general  depression 
and  distress,  abandon  a  system  which  has  been 
in  successful  operation  for  more  than  thirty 
years ;  a  system  which  has  been  productive  of 
immense  wealth  to  the  nation,  and  been  uni- 
versally acquiesced  in  until  this  time,  and  adopt 
a  new  one  of  untried  operation  and  effect ;  one 
which  imposes  such  conditions  as  are  not  im- 
posed by  any  other  commercial  nation,  and 
such  as  ought  not  to  be  imposed  by  this,  unless 
we  are  disposed  to  aid  the  nations  of  Europe  to 
build  up  their  commerce  and  navigation  upon 
the  downfall  of  our  own. 

The  passage  of  this  bill  will  make  the  foreign 
trade  of  the  country  a  monopoly  in  the  hands 
of  the  capitalists  and  foreign  agents,  will  injure 
if  not  ruin  all  the  young  and  enterprising  mer- 
chants of  moderate  property,  will  enhance  the 
price  of  foreign  articles  to  the  consumer,  not 
only  by  lessening  the  importations,  but  by 
placing  them  in  the  hands  of  capitalists  who 
can  and  who  will  hold  them  for  high  prices, 
will  have  a  tendency  to  lessen  the  price  of  our 
own  products  by  lessening  the  number  of  pur- 
chasers for  exportation,  will  lessen  the  revenue 
at  least  for  several  years  to  come ;  arid  what  is 
worse  than  this,  it  would  be  productive  of 
smuggling  and  other  fraudulent  practices,  the 
temptations  to  which  ought  to  be  more  cau- 
tiously avoided  in  this  country  than  in  any 
other,  because  our  extensive  sea-coast  and  in- 
numerable rivers,  bays,  and  creeks,  afford 
greater  facilities  for  these  practices  than  are 
found  in  any  other  country. 

Engaged  as  I  am  in  commercial  pursuits,  it 
may,  and  probably  will,  be  supposed  that  I  am 
induced  by  motives  of  self-interest  to  oppose 
the  passage  of  this  bill ;  for  the  purpose,  there- 
fore, of  preventing  the  effect  of  such  a  suppo- 
sition, I  assure  the  committee  that,  as  an  indi- 
vidual, I  feel  rather  indifferent  than  hostile  to 
the  provisions  of  the  bill.  My  own  private  in- 
terest would,  I  think,  be  rather  benefited  than 
injured  by  the  passage  of  it;  but  knowing  as  I 
tli ink  I  do  that  it  will  be  productive  of  much 
public  as  well  as  private  i^jnry,  and  that  the 
present  state  of  commerce  will  not  bear  it,  I 
feel  it  to  be  my  duty  to  oppose  it. 

Mr.  LOWNDES  also  assigned  the  reasons  why 
he  also  was  opposed  to  the  bill,  and  particularly 
to  the  provisions  which  contemplate  restrictions 
on  the  East  India  trade. 


626 


ABRIDGMENT  OF  THE 


H.  OF  R.] 


Revision  of  the  Tariff. 


[APRIL,  1820. 


Mr.  CLAY  spoke  in  reply  to  Mr.  SILSBEK  and 
Mr.  LOWNDES,  and  urged  the  adoption  of  the 
provisions  of  this  bill. 

Mr.  LOWNDES  again  spoke ;  and  Mr.  CLAY 
rejoined. 

Mr.  BALDWIN"  was  speaking  earnestly  in  sup- 
port of  the  bill ;  when  an  alarm  of  fire,  in  the 
city,  induced  the  committee  to  rise,  (at  four 
o'clock,)  and  the  House  adjourned. 

TUESDAY,  April  25. 
Revision  of  the  Tariff. 

The  House  then  again  resolved  itself  into  a 
Committee  of  the  Whole,  on  the  bills  concern- 
ing the  duties  on  imports  and  the  mode  of  their 
collection. 

The  bill  now  under  consideration,  is  the  bill 
regulating  the  payment  of  duties  on  merchan- 
dise imported,  and  for  other  purposes. 

The  question  immediately  before  the  House 
being  on  Mr.  SILSBBE'S  motion  to  strike  out  the 
first  section  of  the  bill, 

Mr.  BALDWIN  resumed  and  concluded  the 
speech  which  he  yesterday  began,  in  support  of 
the  principles  of  the  bill. 

Mr.  JOHNSON,  of  Virginia,  followed  in  decided 
opposition  to  the  bill. 

Mr.  WHITMAN,  of  Massachusetts,  spoke  at 
large  against  the  bill. 

WEDNESDAY,  April  26. 
Revision  of  the  Tariff. 
The  House  then  again  resumed  the  consid- 
eration of  the  bill  regulating  the  mode  of  col- 
lecting the  duties  on  imports,  &c.    Mr.  SILS- 
BEE'S  motion  to  strike  out  the  first  section  of 


Mr.  ALEXANDER  said,  he  hoped  he  should 
claim  the  indulgence  of  the  committee  for  a 
short  time,  while  he  expressed  the  reasons  that 
would  influence  his  mind  in  the  decision  of  the 
subject  then  before  it.  He  was  aware  of  the 
disadvantages  under  which  he  labored,  and 
trusted  that  he  might  be  pardoned  in  assuming 
to  himself  any  part  of  the  discussion  on  so  im- 
portant a  question.  His  apology,  however, 
in  throwing  himself  upon  the  patience  of  the 
committee  would  be  found  in  the  very  brief 
remarks  that  he  should  submit  to  its  consid- 
eration. 

I  cannot  permit  myself,  said  Mr.  A.,  to  re- 
main satisfied  that  the  present  is  merely  "  a 
bill  to  regulate  the  duties  on  imports,"  which 
would  have  justified  my  silence  on  the  occasion, 
but  that  it  is  something  more,  as  clearly  ap- 
pears from  the  latter  part  of  its  title,  and  it 
would  more  properly  be  entitled,  "  a  bill  for 
the  encouragement  of  domestic  manufactures," 
the  avowed  object  of  its  advocates.  Nor  can  I 
persuade  ^myself,  continued  he,  notwithstand- 
ing the  ingenious  and  imposing  manner  in 
which  the  subject  has  been  placed  by  the  hon- 
orable gentleman  from  Pennsylvania,  (Mr. 
BALDWIN,)  who  opened  the  debate,  that  the 


other  great  interests  of  the  country  have  been 
associated  and  identified  with  it  in  principle, 
while  all  due  regard  has  likewise  been  paid  to 
the  revenue  of  the  Government,  no  less  impor- 
tant. Here  we  find  ourselves  unfortunately  at 
issue,  and  it  becomes  us  calmly  to  deliberate 
and  weigh  well  the  effects,  before  we  yield  our 
assent  to  the  truth  of  a  position,  which,  to  say 
the  least  of  it,  is  extremely  problematical.  The 
gentleman  who  was  first  in  the  debate,  (Mr. 
B.,)  has  openly  denounced  the  present  system 
of  revenue,  (derivable,  by  much  the  greatest 
part,  from  duties,)  as  unsound  and  inadequate 
for  the  purposes  of  Government ;  and  he  de- 
clares his  readiness  to  adopt  a  more  permanent 
one,  operating  directly  as  a  tax  upon  the  people. 
In  this  opinion,  he  fortifies  himself  under  the 
Message  of  the  President  upon  the  opening  of 
the  session  of  Congress,  and  the  report  of  the 
Secretary  of  the  Treasury  on  the  state  of  the 
finances.  So  far  as  these  can  add  strength  to 
his  argument,  (and  no  one,  I  am  persuaded,  is 
more  disposed  to  give  weight  to  their  charac- 
ter than  myself,)  he  is  fully  entitled  to  their 
benefit.  But,  if  a  negative  can  anywise  grow 
out  of  an  affirmative  expression,  I  think  it  may 
be  fairly  inferred  in  both  cases. 

It  will  be  perceived,  said  Mr.  A.,  that  I  as- 
sume, as  the  basis  of  my  argument,  that  the 
branch  of  industry  which  is  capable  of  support- 
ing the  greatest  quantity  of  capital,  is  most  ad- 
vantageous to  the  community,  and  consequently 
to  the  nation,  and  should  remain  unfettered, 
unrestrained,  in  exclusion  of  the  claim  of  any 
other  towards  encouragement;  or,  in  other 
words,  that  nations,  like  individuals,  might  be 
permitted  to  pursue  their  own  interests  in  their 
own  way.  Leaving  the  channel  of  trade  per- 
fectly free  and  natural,  there  can  remain  but 
little  doubt  that,  like  the  fluid  which  gives 
health  to  the  system,  it  will  seek  its  proper 
level,  and  contribute  to  the  mutual  benefit  of 
each  branch ;  and  wherever  the  wealth  of  in- 
dividuals has  been  promoted,  that  of  the  society 
will  be  augmented  in  an  equal  degree.  But 
depress  it  by  force  of  causes,  and  it  immediately 
becomes  like  the  stagnation  of  blood  in  the 
body,  and  there  ia  danger  of  an  apoplexy. 

Statesmen,  Mr.  A.  said,  were  never  more 
uselessly  employed  than  in  attempting  to  direct 
the  avenues  of  trade,  by  producing  an  equal 
division  of  labor  among  them.  These  depend 
upon  circumstances  as  variable  and  undefinable 
as  the  causes  that  operate  upon  the  circulating 
medium  of  a  country,  which,  since  no  human 
ingenuity,  law,  or  punishment,  has  ever  yet 
been  able  to  regulate,  so  neither  are  they  with- 
JQ.  the  control  of  any  power,  without  detriment 
to  the  public  interest.  But  it  has  been  said, 
ihat  national  pride  should  induce  us  to  adopt  a 
policy  countervailing  that  of  foreign  powers,  by 
which  we  throw  off  a  state  of  dependency  alto- 
gether in  favor  of  the  citizen,  to  become  sub- 
ected  to  a  greater  and  more  intolerable  degree 
of  servitude. 

Sir,  said  Mr.  A.,  I  should  be  extremely  sorry 


DEBATES  OF  CONGRESS. 


627 


APRIL,  1820.] 


Revision  of  the  Tariff. 


[H.  OF  R. 


to  see  our  pride  so  far  get  the  better  of  our 
judgments,  as  to  lead  to  a  course  ruinous  to  the 
best  interests  of  the  country ;  little  else,  in  fact, 
I  humbly  conceive,  than  an  act  of  political  in- 
fanticide, and  for  the  encouragement  of  manu- 
factures, which,  like  false  pride,  always  places 
true  beauty  in  the  background.  That  cases 
may  arise  where  it  becomes  necessary  to  resort 
to  retaliatory  measures,  I  shall  not  pretend  to 
deny,  but  mean  only  to  say,  that  this  is  not  one 
of  that  character ;  and  even  then  they  should 
not  be  adopted  without  proper  caution  and  de- 
liberation, and  where  there  was  a  probability 
of  removing  the  evil  complained  of,  because 
their  efforts  are  felt  in  a  greater  or  less  degree 
at  home. 

Even  England  herself,  whose  policy  is  always 
made  the  fatal  example  of  reasoning,  (and,  un- 
less we  depart  somewhat  from  the  track  she  has 
marked  out,  I  fear  we  shall  find  ourselves  at 
last  in  the  same  wretched  condition  of  poverty 
and  distress  which  she  at  present  exhibits, 
groaning  under  a  burden  of  excessive  taxation, 
which  is  but  oppression  under  the  best  of  gov- 
ernments,) has  not  found  it  to  her  advantage  to 
exclude  entirely  foreign  articles,  many  of  which 
she  is  capable  of  producing  to  a  high  degree  of 
perfection.  Although  high  duties  are  imposed, 
both  by  England  and  France,  upon  the  respec- 
tive manufactures  of  each,  dictated,  not  so  much 
from  a  spirit  o  f  national  aggrandizement  as  na- 
tional animosity,  goaded  on  by  the  clamors  and 
insatiable  avarice  of  monopolizing  merchants 
and  manufacturers,  yet,  trade  is  stiU  carried  on 
between  them,  under  the  most  odious  and  de- 
moralizing of  all  traffics.  And  when  we  call 
the  worst  passions  of  men  into  action,  it  is  rea- 
sonable to  apprehend  like  consequences  in  our 
Government,  whose  basis  rests  on  the  moral 
character  of  its  citizens.  It  may  be  said  that 
the  same  effect  will  not  be  produced  here,  be- 
cause they  are  not  intended  to  be  prohibitory. 
I  shall,  however,  consider  them  presently  in  this 
point  of  view,  and  endeavor  to  show,  unless 
they  are  so  to  a  certain  degree,  no  advantage 
can  be  derived  from  the  increase,  but  it  must 
operate  entirely  as  a  tax  upon  the  consumption 
of  the  country.  The  wines  of  France  are  per- 
mitted to  be  imported  into  England,  although 
it  is  well  known,  that  certain  parts  of  her  king- 
dom might  be  made  favorable  to  the  growth  of 
the  grape ;  and  with  equal  propriety,  under  the 
idea  of  encouraging  domestic  industry,  ought 
you  to  extend  this  benefit  to  the  inhabitants  of 
Vevay,  or  any  other  portion  of  our  Southern 
country,  whose  soil  and  climate  are  peculiarly 
suited  to  the  cultivation  of  the  vine,  because 
you  have  it  in  your  power  to  supply  the  whole 
United  States.  China  (who  treats  the  com- 
merce of  the  rest  of  the  world  as  beggarly,  and 
where  the  laborer  exalts  his  situation  little  less 
than  that  of  the  Mandarin  himself,  in  claiming 
a  portion  of  the  soil  as  his  own)  is  not  shut  out 
from  the  markets  of  England  with  her  rich  fa- 
brics, although  many  of  them  are  successfully 
promoted  within  her  own  dominions.  Yet, 


even  these  people,  for  the  want  of  a  more 
liberal  foreign  intercourse,  present  the  most 
abject  state  of  poverty,  ignorance,  and  bar- 
barism ;  and,  in  truth,  it  may  be  said,  that  the 
laborer  here  is  not  always  "worthy  of  his 
hire." 

The  policy  cannot  be  otherwise  than  founded 
in  the  best  of  all  possible  reasons :  that  there 
can  be  no  justice  in  causing  fifty  or  a  hundred 
times  as  much  capital  and  labor  to  be  employed 
at  home,  in  the  production  of  an  article,  that 
would  be  required  to  purchase  the  same  of 
foreign  manufacture.  There  are  advantages 
possessed  by  some  countries  hi  a  greater  degree 
than  others ;  so  much  so,  that  it  would  be  dan- 
gerous to  come  in  competition  with  them,  and 
folly  in  the  extreme  to  prosecute  a  policy, 
where  would  be  seen  failure  in  the  very  attempt, 
and  total  annihilation  in  the  end. 

This  brings  me  to  consider  the  situation  of 
our  country  with  regard  to  England  in  such  a 
contest,  where  she  would  occupy  entirely  the 
"  vantage  ground."  I  take  it  to  be  a  correct 
principle  for  the  interest  of  a  nation,  to  aug- 
ment as  much  as  possible  its  rude  products,  and 
to  exchange  them  for  foreign  commodities ;  and 
that  which  is  good  economy  among  private 
families,  can  hardly  be  bad  among  nations,  to 
buy  of  others  what  we  cannot  make  so  cheaply 
ourselves.  For,  if  a  Government  can  increase 
the  quantity  of  its  annual  exports,  whatever  is 
gained  in  the  way  of  exchange  is  so  much  added 
to  the  capital  of  the  society,  aqd,  of  course,  to 
its  own  wealth ;  and  it  is  not  correct  to  say, 
that,  whatever  is  purchased  abroad  when  it 
can  be  made  at  home,  is  one  man's  loss  and 
another's  gain ;  the  difference  of  price  in  bring- 
ing the  articles  to  market  forming  the  differ- 
ence in  value,  which  may  relatively  be  in  favor 
of  each. 

Such  is  the  very  purpose  for  which  society 
was  established,  and  what  would  be  the  use  of 
trade  among  individuals,  were  they  to  manu- 
facture within  themselves  ah1  that  their  wants 
might  require  ?  The  mechanic  of  one  descrip- 
tion finds  it  to  his  advantage  to  buy  of  that  of 
another,  and  thus,  by  the  combined  exertions 
of  each,  society  becomes,  as  it  were,  a  machine 
to  carry  on  all  the  various  operations  of  labor, 
too  great  for  the  power  of  any  one  individual 
to  accomplish;  and  if  nations  were  governed 
by  the  same  selfish  and  contracted  views,  the 
trade  and  commerce  of  the  world  would  soon 
be  at  an  end,  and  all  the  advantages  arising  from 
them  be  entirely  destroyed. 

But  it  is  as  essential  -to  the  prosperity  of  a 
nation  to  encourage  foreign  trade,  as  it  is  for 
individuals  the  industry  of  each  other,  by  a 
proper  division  of  labor.  Considering  the  rest 
of  the  world  as  a  manufacturing  people,  it  is 
more  important  to  us  that  our  capital  should  be 
employed  in  the  channel  through  which  it  at 
present  flows,  in  the  improvement  of  agricul- 
ture, than  that  of  any  other,  Nor  do  I  conceive 
the  argument  of  my  honorable  colleague,  (Mr. 
TTLEB,)  to  prove  that  we  stood,  in  relation  to 


628 


ABKIDGMENT  OF  THE 


H.  OF  R] 


Revision  of  the  Tariff". 


[APRIL,  1820. 


the  rest  of  the  world,  as  a  granary,  which 
Egypt  once  was  to  Europe,  and  Sicily  to  Italy, 
at  all  shaken  by  that  employed  by  the  honor- 
able gentleman  from  New  York,  (Mr.  STORES,) 
to  show  that,  if  it  were  a  granary,  it  was  that 
sort  of  granary  which  permitted  all  our  grain 
to  remain  upon  our  hands.  For,  let  me  ask  the 
honorable  gentleman,  if  we  were  cut  off  from 
the  extensive  market  that  is  now  opened  for 
the  reception  of  our  produce,  and  confined  to 
the  limits  of  the  United  States,  would  we  not 
be  more  properly  a  granary  in  the  sense  in 
which  he  used  it  ?  England,  possessing  advan- 
tages peculiar  to  herself  in  this  respect,  where 
her  population  is  dense,  and  wages  of  labor  are 
comparatively  small,  finds  it  to  her  interest  to 
manufacture  for  the  greater  part  of  the  world ; 
whereas,  on  the  other  hand,  we,  whose  popula- 
tion is  sparse,  and  price  of  labor  is  high,  find 
that  greater  profits  are  derived  from  agriculture. 
Such  is  the  fair  and  honest  course  of  trade  that 
should  exist  among  nations,  that,  while  one 
should  be  manufacturers,  the  other  should  be- 
come the  growers  of  the  material ;  and  thus, 
the  competition  of  the  whole  world  being 
brought  to  a  particular  market  for  the  rude  pro- 
ducts of  the  soil,  a  monopoly  to  a  certain  extent 
is  obtained  in  the  one  case,  while  it  is  diminish- 
ed in  the  other.  The  trade  which  is  carried  on 
in  this  way,  consists  in  an  exchange  of  the  rude 
for  the  manufactured  article,  and  the  smaller 
the  quantity  of  one  which  is  required  to  pur- 
chase a  greater  quantity  of  the  other,  will  be 
the  proportionate  value  of  the  two.  Whatever 
tends  to  diminish  the  value  of  the  former,  by 
high  duties  or  prohibitions,  operates  injuriously 
in  two  ways :  firstly,  by  enhancing  the  value  of 
the  foreign  commodity,  the  price  of  the  surplus 
produce  of  the  land  is  diminished,  and  a  mono- 
poly is  given  to  the  home  manufacturer  and  ar- 
tificer, at  the  expense  of  the  landed  interest,  by 
diverting  a  portion  of  its  capital  to  another 
employment.  And  it  would  be  an  absurdity 
to  say,  the  market  of  the  world  is  open  to 
you,  when  it  must  be  manifest,  unless  you 
export  something,  you  can  bring  nothing  in 
return. 

This,  then,  I  take  to  be  the  case,  said  Mr.  A., 
which  is  intended  to  be  produced  by  the  present 
measure ;  and,  let  me  ask  if  it  is  just,  if  it  is 
desirable,  that  the  most  valuable  branch  of  in- 
dustry should  suffer,  or  be  made  to  contribute 
to  the  protection  of  any  other,  than  in  the  nat- 
ural way  ?  For  one,  I  am  prepared  to  say  that 
it  is  not,  generally  speaking;  and  as  agriculture 
was  the  first  among  the  Greeks  and  Romans  in 
their  best  days,  who  regarded  all  others  as  me- 
nial, from  being  unfavorable  to  the  exercises  of 
the  Gymnasium  and  Campus  Martius,  so  should 
it  be  the  last  to  be  forsaken  by  us.  For,  if  such 
be  not  the  effect  of  the  system,  I  take  it  for 
granted  the  expected  result  will  not  take  place. 
If  the  duty  be  not  so  high  as  to  diminish  the 
revenue  of  the  country,  the  enhanced  value  of 
the  foreign  will  only  give  an  equal  advance  to 
the  home  manufacture ;  and,  standing  precisely 


in  the  same  relation  to  each  other,  the  supe- 
rior quality  of  the  former  will  give  it  a  pre- 
ference over  the  latter,  and  it  can  operate 
only  as  a  tax  upon  the  industry,  without  a  cor- 
responding benefit.  I  take  the  fact  to  be,  said 
Mr.  A.,  that  the  manufacturing  interests  of  this 
country  require  a  greater  quantity  of  capital,  in 
order  to  carry  on  their  operations,  than  it  is 
within  their  power  to  command. 

It  then  follows,  that  all  the  capital  of  the  na- 
tion is  employed  in  the  most  natural  and  advan- 
tageous way  in  which  it  can  be  used.  The  de- 
ficiency can  be  supplied  in  only  one  of  two  ways 
— either  by  diverting  a  portion  of  it  from  one 
branch  of  trade  to  another,  or  suffering  all  the 
sources  to  remain  uninterrupted  and  free,  until 
they  are  filled,  and  then  the  surplus  will  turn 
itself  to  that  employment  which  brings  in  the 
next  greatest  revenue,  and  will  afford  the  proper 
encouragement  to  industry.  I  am  disposed  to 
adopt  the  latter  expedient,  because  it  is  not 
forced,  and  no  unnatural  convulsions  are  likely 
to  arise  out  of  it  to  the  commercial  world,  and 
to  avoid  the  former  as  altogether  in  favor  of  the 
producer  and  against  the  consumer.  And  I 
must  confess,  that  I  do  not  understand  this  way 
of  taxing  the  right  hand  to  support  the  left. 
Let  nature  have  her  course,  and  she  will  work 
out  her  own  safety.  For,  I  lay  it  down  as  an 
incontrovertible  position,  said  Mr.  A.,  that  the 
general  industry  of  a  society  can  never  exceed 
the  capital  which  it  employs,  and  increases  in 
proportion  to  the  increase  of  its  capital.  When- 
ever this  takes  place,  it  immediately  seeks  and 
finds  out  new  and  different  objects,  to  which  it 
is  directed,  and  adds  to  the  productive  labor  of 
the  country. 

If  the  fixed  capital  of  the  existing  manufac- 
tures be  sufficient  to  sustain  them,  I  contend 
that  they  require  no  further  support,  as  they 
possess  superior  advantages  over  any  foreign, 
and  much  greater  than  can  be  expected  to  be 
enjoyed  by  new  ones  coming  in  competition 
with  them ;  and  if  it  be  intended  to  raise  up 
new  manufactures,  not  by  the  creation  of  new, 
but  by  the  diversion  of  old  capital,  it  must 
operate  as  a  tax  upon  the  consumption  of  the 
country,  amounting  to  a  prohibition  of  all  for- 
eign productions. 

It  is  in  vain  for  the  friends  of  the  system  to 
say  that  such  is  not  their  design ;  when  we  rea- 
son from  cause  to  effect,  and  view  the  interests, 
passions,  and  prejudices,  that  lead  men  to  ac- 
tion, we  cannot  but  distrust  the  consequences, 
and  look  to  the  ultimatum  of  which  it  is  capa- 
ble. Suppose,  for  a  moment,  that  it  should 
succeed,  to  the  admiration  of  its  advocates. 
Can  it  be  expected  to  bring  the  manufactures  of 
our  country  (which  of  all  other  trades  requires 
the  most  extensive  circulation)  in  competition 
with  those  of  foreign  powers,  where  labor  is 
cheap,  and  who  are  many  centuries  before  us, 
or  is  it  intended  to  confine  their  circulation  to 
the  home  market  ?  If  the  former  be  the  intent, 
it  cannot  be  executed ;  and  the  latter  must 
equally  fail,  since,  for  all  valuable  purposes,  the 


DEBATES  OF  CONGRESS. 


629 


APRIL,  1820.] 


Revision  of  the  Tariff. 


[H.  OF  R. 


agricultural  part  of  the  community  are  a  manu- 
facturing class,  and  want  only  those  richer  and 
finer  fabrics,  which  it  is  impossible  for  us,  with- 
in any  short  time,  if  ever,  to  bring  to  any  sort 
of  perfection.  And  then  will  the  American 
tar,  the  honest  defender  of  "  free  trade  and 
sailors'  rights,"  become,  like  the  Chinese  boat- 
man, without  a  hovel  to  breast  him  from  the 
storms  of  the  ocean,  lying  upon  his  oars,  in  the 
bed  of  his  own  waters. 

Mr.  ARCHER,  of  Virginia,  said,  that  the  whole 
merits  of  the  bill  being  presented  by  the  motion 
under  consideration,  he  would  offer  himself,  for 
a  short  period,  to  the  notice  of  the  committee. 
He  had  no  design  of  abusing  the  patience  he 
solicited,  by  going  at  large  into  the  discussion 
of  the  question,  which  was  one  of  the  most  ex- 
tensive in  the  science  of  political  economy.  His 
purpose  was  limited  to  the  narrow  object  of  a 
brief  exposition  of  some  of  the  more  considerable 
of  those  views  of  the  question,  and  topics  con- 
nected with  it,  which  appeared  to  him  to  be  the 
best  entitled  to  claim  attention,  or  the  most 
calculated  to  attract  it. 

The  first  objection  to  the  bill  related  to  its 
apparent  ineflicacy  in  reference  to  its  avowed 
object.  The  augmentation  of  the  duties  on  im- 
ports which  had  been  made  when  the  subject 
had  been  last  under  the  consideration  of  Con- 
gress, in  1816,  amounted,  Mr.  A.  believed,  to  an 
average  of  about  twenty-five  per  cent.  The 
additional  augmentation  contemplated  by  the 
present  bill  would  amount,  he  had  been  informed 
— he  had  not  himself  made  the  estimate — to  an 
average  of  not  more  than  seven  or  eight  per 
cent  Had  the  former  augmentation  produced, 
in  any  degree,  the  effect  which  was  now  designed 
of  protection  to  domestic  manufactures  ?  Eo. 
We  were  told  by  the  friends  of  the  protecting 
system  that  our  manufacturing  establishments 
have  gone  to  absolute  ruin,  under  the  protection 
which  had  been  heretofore  afforded  them.  If 
this  representation  were  correct,  could  the  in- 
crease of  duties  now  proposed  be  considered 
sufficient  for  the  retrieval  from  ruin,  and  effi- 
cient protection  of,  these  establishments?  If  it 
could,  the  imposition  which  it  created  must  be 
regarded  as  unreasonably  high  and  oppressive, 
in  relation  to  all  classes  of  the  community  other 
than  that  which  was  intended  to  be  protected. 
But  if  this  increase  could  not  be  considered 
adequate  to  the  effect  which  had  been  stated, 
then  the  imposition  was  nugatory  to  its  alleged 
object.  Take  it  either  way  and  this  imposition 
would  either  be  excessive,  or  else  inadequate. 
In  either  character  it  was  equally  indefensible. 
Mr.  A.  was  aware  that  an  object  larger  than  the 
alleged  object  of  the  bill,  had  been  imputed  to  the 
framers  and  supporters  of  it.  It  had,  he  knew, 
been  supposed,  that  their  design  extended  to 
the  inception  of  a  system,  which  was  to  be  ren- 
dered gradually  progressive  to  positive  prohibi- 
tion on  the  admission  of  foreign  manufactured 
articles,  or  to  a  rate  of  duties  so  high  as  to  be 
tantamount  to  prohibition  in  its  effects.  It  was 
alleged,  in  evidence  of  the  entertainment  and 


possible  success  of  such  a  design,  that  the  same 
topics  of  argument  derived  from  the  supposed 
advantage  ahd  propriety  of  the  protective 
policy,  which  were  employed  in  recommenda- 
tion of  the  augmentation  of  duties  now  proposed, 
would  be  of  equal,  and  greater,  efficacy  in  the  re- 
commendation of  further  augmentations  which 
might  hereafter  be  demanded,  from  the  force  of 
the  obvious  connected  consideration  (which 
would  not  fail  to  be  relied  on)  of  the  necessity  of 
these  further  impositions  to  prevent  the  cost  and 
effect  of  the  former  from  being  thrown  away. 
Mr.  A.  was  himself  far  from  imputing  any  such 
view  as  had  been  stated ;  nor,  if  such  a  system 
of  policy  ever  should  be  proposed,  could  he 
have  any  fear  of  its  success,  founded,  as  he 
conceived  it  to  be,  in  an  obvious  principle  of  in- 
justice and  inequality,  as  respected  its  operation 
on  the  different  interests  of  the  community,  and 
condemned,  as  it  unquestionably  was,  by  a  uni- 
form experience  of  fruits  of  mischief  and  suffer- 
ing in  every  country  in  which  an  experiment 
had  been  made  of  it.  "Without  connecting  the 
bill  under  consideration  with  any  odious  policy 
of  this  sort,  it  stood  sufficiently  divested  of  title 
to  support,  by  reference  to  the  demerit  of  its 
real  objects  and  proper  operations. 

While  upon  this  topic,  the  objects  of  the  bill, 
frankness  required  Mr.  A.  to  state,  that  he  did 
not  consider  it  as  directed  to  the  attainment  of 
any  object  of  public  policy  at  all.  He  considered 
it  as  one  of  the  instances  of  that  practice  of  ap- 
peal to  public  authority  for  the  relief  of  private 
distress,  the  remarkable  prevalence  of  which 
was  the  unhappy  characteristic  of  the  period  in 
which  we  were  called  upon  to  deliberate.  A 
general  depression  and  distress  affected  all 
classes  of  the  community,  the  result,  as  was 
conceived,  of  commercial  over-action,  and  the 
operation  of  that  system  of  paper  currency,  of 
which  some  species  of  necromancy  must  have 
dragged  us  into  the  adoption. 

The  manufacturing  class  was  supposed  to  par- 
take, in  a  peculiar  degree,  of  this  distress,  and 
the  present  bill  was  a  project  for  the  relief  of 
their  private  adversity,  through  the  medium  of 
a  legislative  intervention.  Mr.  A.  considered 
himself  justified  in  regarding  the  subject  in  this 
view,  both  from  the  inadequacy  of  the  bill  to 
any  purpose  of  public  policy,  (which  had  already 
been  adverted  to,)  and  the  nature  of  the  repre- 
sentations employed  in  its  support.  What  were 
these  representations  ?  Did  they  relate  to  any 
inherent  disadvantage,  or  incapacity,  affecting 
domestic  fabrics,  in  maintaining  competition 
with  the  imported  for  the  domestic  market? 
Not  at  all.  The  depression  affecting  domestic 
manufacturing  establishments,  which  was  made 
the  foundation  of  the  demand  for  relief,  was  re- 
ferred to  causes  accidental  entirely  in  their  ac- 
cess, or  temporary  in  their  operation.  Excessive 
importations  of  foreign  manufactured  articles, 
the  unusual  reduction  of  their  price,  and  of  that 
of  the  labor  employed  in  preparing  them ;  the 
undue  extension  of  domestic  business,  dispro- 
portionate investments  of  capital  in  a  fixed 


630 


ABRIDGMENT  OF  THE 


H.  OP  R.] 


Revision  of  the  Tariff. 


[APRIL,  1820. 


form,  (buildings,  machinery,  &c.,)  the  effects 
of  a  general  restoration  of  peace,  and  the 
operation  of  the  paper  system  on  markets 
and  industry :  these  were  the  causes  assigned 
as  the  sources  of  manufacturing  distress,  and  the 
grounds  of  legislative  interposition  for  its 
remedy.  But  did  these  grounds  disclose  any 
object  of  general  permanent  policy,  requiring 
the  adoption  of  the  measure  which  was  pressed 
for  adoption  ?  Mr.  A.  could  not  perceive  that 
they  did.  He  considered  the  present  bill  as 
belonging  to  the  same  class  of  character  with 
the  bankrupt  bill.  The  distinction,  indeed,  was 
to  the  disadvantage  of  the  present  bill,  in  the 
comparison.  A  bankrupt  act  operated  only  on 
a  particular  injustice.  The  sacrifice  of  interest 
which  it  involved  affected  only  a  peculiar  class, 
(the  creditors  of  bankrupts.)  It  might  be  con- 
sidered, too,  as  a  contingent,  and  was  not  a  con- 
tinuing sacrifice.  Bnt  the  imposition  which  the 
present  bill,  if  it  passed,  would  create,  would  not 
only  be  a  general  burden  on  the  community,  for 
the  benefit  of  a  peculiar  class  of  it,  but  would 
be  a  certain,  and  was  designed  to  be  a  per- 
manent, imposition. 

The  impairment  of  manufacturing  capital,  fur- 
nished no  sufficient  reason  for  the  adoption  of 
the  bill.  The  preservation  of  manufacturing, 
could  not  be  more  important  than  of  commercial 
capital.  The  fund  which  supplied  consumption 
could  not  be  considered  of  greater  consequence 
than  that  which  afforded  the  means  of  disposal 
for  production.  No  person,  however,  would 
think  of  a  measure  of  the  character  of  that  now 
proposed  for  the  relief  of  commercial  distress. 
If  the  commercial  capital  of  the  country  were 
entirely  annihilated,  no  factitious  incitement  or 
aid  to  the  operation  of  capital,  in  this  direction, 
would  be  thought  of.  And  why?  Because 
occasions  for  the  employment  of  capital  were 
known  always  to  attract  capital,  or  create  it,  in 
pretty  nearly  the  exact  proportion  of  the  exi- 
gency of  these  occasions.  An  occasion  so  essen- 
tial as  the  disposal  of  the  productions  of  a 
country  which  were  elsewhere  in  demand,  could 
not  fail  of  finding  means  for  its  discharge.  Even 
could  a  state  of  circumstances  be  imagined,  in 
which  there  was  no  subsisting  accumulation  of 
capital,  and  no  description  of  public  currency, 
yet  credit,  or  an  artificial  substitute  of  some 
kind,  would  be  found  to  supply  their  place,  in 
ministering  to  the  operations  of  commerce.  The 
remark  was  no  less  inevitably  true  in  relation 
to  the  occasions  of  a  country  for  manufactures. 
No  fear  was  to  be  entertained  of  any  serious  or 
lasting  defect  of  the  essential  facilities  for  their 
supply.  The  capital  for  this  purpose  might  not 
indeed  be  derived  from  domestic  sources ;  but 
this  circumstance  did  not  present  a  considera- 
tion with  which  the  community  were  in  any 
material  degree  concerned.  It  was  the  cer- 
tainty, not  the  source  of  supply,  which  formed 
the  principal  subject  of  their  interest,  and  was 
entitled  to  claim  the  chief  exercise  of  their 
solicitude. 

We  had  come  to  realize,  in  our  public  con- 


duct, the  justice  of  an  expression  used  in  refer- 
ence to  another  and  more  important  subject  of 
human  interest.  We  confessed  truth  with  our 
lips,  but  in  practice  we  denied  it.  There  was 
scarce  any  person,  perhaps,  who  did  not  admit 
the  abstract  proposition,  that  capital,  in  the 
pursuit  of  the  modes  of  employment  most  pro- 
ductive of  profit  to  its  proprietors,  fell,  un- 
assisted, unto  those  which  were  calculated  to 
produce  the  most  beneficial  results  to  the  com- 
munity. This  was  one  of  the  principles  the 
least  liable  to  controversy  or  qualification, 
which  were  presented  by  the  theory  of  a  just 
political  economy.  Yet,  it  was  in  the  direct 
contravention  and  overthrow  of  this  indisput- 
able principle,  that  the  foundations  of  the  policy, 
which  was  at  present  recommended  to  us,  were 
laid. 

The  reason,  too,  which  explained  this  prin- 
ciple, it  was  material  to  understand,  both  on 
account  of  its  own  illustration,  and  the  impor- 
tance of  the  deductions  to  which  it  led  in  the 
discussion.  The  reason  was  to  be  found 
in  the  tendency  of  capital,  uninfluenced  by 
public  authority,  to  be  determined,  as  respected 
the  modes  of  its  employment,  by  demand, 
which  furnished  the  standard  at  the  same 
time  of  the  utility  of  its  employment.  The 
expenditure  of  capital  was  directed  by  obvious 
considerations  (relative  to  the  interest  of  its 
proprietors)  to  subjects  of  the  greatest  and  most 
general  request;  and  these  were  the  subjects 
and  the  employments  of  labor  and  capital  which 
procured  them  the  employments  which  had,  in 
a  general  view,  the  strongest  presumptions  of 
utility  in  their  favor.  Demand  was  the  index 
of  the  beneficial,  as  it  was  of  the  unbiassed, 
direction  of  capital. 

The  inference  from  this  proposition  was  of 
singular  importance.  It  was,  that  no  direction 
of  capital,  relatively  useful,  could  require  adven- 
titious encouragement.  Why?  Because  this 
character  of  utility  was  the  infallible  source  of 
adequate  demand  for  the  productions  of  capital 
employed  in  this  direction,  and  adequate  de- 
mand for  the  productions  of  any  employment, 
dispensed  from  the  necessity  of  its  adventitious 
encouragement.  The  converse  of  the  last  pro- 
position was  equally  true,  that  no  employment, 
requiring  factitious  encouragement,  could  be 
relatively  useful.  Why?  Because  this  occa- 
sion for  encouragement'demonstrated  a  defect  of 
adequate  demand  for  its  productions,  and  the  de- 
fect of  adequate  demand  for  its  productions  was 
evidence  of  its  want  of  relative  utility.  The  force 
of  these  conclusions,  in  their  application  to  do- 
mestic manufacturing  establishments,  was  in  no 
degree  obviated  by  the  suggestion,  that  the  ex- 
istence of  adequate  demand  for  their  produc- 
tions was  prevented  by  the  interchange  of 
foreign  competition;  because  this  suggestion 
only  proved  that,  although  in  a  different  condi- 
tion of  circumstances,  in  which  a  deficiency  in 
the  supply  of  foreign  manufactured  articles  was 
experienced,  the  establishments  in  question 
would  be  useful;  yet,  under  existing  circum- 


DEBATES  OF  CONGRESS. 


631 


APRIL,  1820.] 


Revision  of  the  Tariff. 


[H.  OF  R. 


stances,  in  which  no  such  deficiency  was  ex- 
perienced, they  could  assert  no  pretension  to 
this  character  of  utility. 

The  proposition  which  had  heen  stated,  of 
the  voluntary  tendency  of  capital  in  a  course 
of  unbiassed  distribution,  to  conform  to  the  or- 
der of  employment  which  public  utility  would 
prescribe,  was,  in  its  general  acceptation,  per- 
haps the  most  familiar  trash  in  the  science  of 
political  economy.  We  are  told,  in  every  book 
of  elements  on  the  subject,  that  the  natural  and 
most,  advantageous  course  of  the  distribution  of 
capital  was,  in  a  progressive  succession,  from 
agriculture  to  internal  trade,  and  thence  to  a 
foreign  trade  of  exportation ;  to  manufactures, 
or  to'indirect  foreign  trade,  as  peculiar  circum- 
stances might  determine.  Could  any  adequate 
reason  be  assigned  for  the  contravention,  with 
a  view  to  the  peculiar  encouragement  of  manu- 
factures, of  the  general  laws  of  the  distribution 
of  capital  ?  The  ground  of  such  a  proceeding 
was  to  be  found,  not  in  sound  policy,  but  pre- 
possession. 

It  was  an  evident  proposition,  that  an  em- 
ployment which  required  factitious  encourage- 
ment, must,  in  a  pecuniary  view,  be  a  losing 
one.  If,  therefore,  encouragement  was  due  to 
domestic  manufactures,  it  could  not  be  in  an 
economical  view,  but  from  their  supposed  sub- 
serviency to  some  collateral  object,  regarded  as 
important — as  national  independence,  for  ex- 
ample. The  question,  in  this  aspect,  would 
present  itself  for  examination  in  a  succeeding 
part  of  the  discussion. 

The  freedom  which  had  been  used,  in  speak- 
ing of  the  reasonings  in  opposition  to  the  bill, 
authorized  Mr.  A.  in  indulging  the  frankness  of 
saying,  that  the  argument  employed  in  its  sup- 
port appeared  to  him  to  be  founded  in  a  series 
of  fallacies.  It  was  irrelevant,  as  respected  sev- 
eral of  the  principal  propositions  sought  to  be 
established.  It  was  misconceived,  as  respected 
the  time  and  circumstances  to  which  it  was  ap- 
plied. It  was  erroneous,  as  respected  the  top- 
ics of  reasoning  it  employed.  A  person  would 
be  led  to  suppose,  from  the  course  of  observa- 
tion adopted  on  the  other  side,  that  the  ques- 
tion related  to  the  importance  and  necessity  of 
adequate  supplies  of  manufactured  articles,  or  to 
the  abstract  advantage  attending  the  possession 
of  domestic  establishments  for  the  attainment 
of  these  supplies.  But  these  were  propositions 
not  liable  to  controversy.  The  question  related 
not  to  the  necessity  or  value  of  supplies  of  man- 
ufactured articles,  but  to  the  relative  advan- 
tages of  different  methods  of  procuring  them — 
to  the  choice  to  be  exerted  between  obtaining 
them  at  a  cheaper  rate  from  foreign,  or  at  a 
higher  price  from  domestic  sources.  Neither 
did  the  controversy  refer  to  any  abstract  su- 
periority of  domestic  over  foreign  sources  of 
supply,  but  to  the  mode  and  time  of  their  es- 
tablishment— to  the  choice  between  an  artificial 
introduction  of  domestic  establishments  at  an 
earlier  period,  attended  with  the  charge  of  a 
burdensome  system  of  protective  duties  for 


their  support,  and  a  natural  spontaneous  growth 
of  these  establishments,  at  a  more  advanced 
period,  unattended  with  any  system  of  regula- 
tion, or  charge  for  their  encouragement. 

But  there  was  no  part  of  the  argument  em- 
ployed in  recommendation  of  the  proposed  sys- 
tem, which  appeared  so  egregiously  exposed  to 
criticism,  as  that  in  which  the  favorable  char- 
acter of  the  present  period  for  its  introduction 
was  asserted.  The  condition  of  general  distress 
which  characterized  the  existing  period  was  ad- 
mitted, and  yet  it  was  conceived  to  present  a 
favorable  occasion  for  the  experiments  of  a  pol- 
icy involving  an  addition  to  the  ordinary  and 
necessary  sources  of  expense,  by  which  all 
classes  of  the  community  would"  be  affected. 
The  peculiar  characteristic  of  the  distress  com- 
plained of,  related  to  the  depression  in  the  price 
of  whatever  there  was  to  sell.  One  strong  cir- 
cumstance of  relief,  however,  had  been  found, 
in  the  corresponding  depression  in  the  price  of 
the  most  material  articles  we  had  to  buy.  In 
such  a  condition  of  things,  what  was  the  policy 
recommended?  An  operation,  by  which  the 
only  circumstance  of  relief  which  the  situation 
of  the  country  presented,  was  to  be  cut  off— by 
which  the  prices  of  all  the  most  essential  ar- 
ticles of  purchase  would  be  enhanced,  whilst 
those  of  our  vendible  commodities  (to  state  the 
case  in  the  most  favorable  view)  were  to  remain 
unaltered.  Beneath  the  picture  of  a  policy  of 
this  sort,  it  could  not  be  necessary  to  write  the 
name.  Mr.  A.  had  been  describing  the  opera- 
tion of  the  bill,  as  tending  to  a  mere  purpose  of 
private  relief.  But  this  description  did  not  ex- 
press the  full  character  of  its  demerit.  It  was 
a  bill  against  public  relief. 

The  principal  advantages  anticipated  from  the 
success  of  the  proposed  system  were  referable 
to  two  general  heads,  the  establishment  of  do- 
mestic sources  of  supply  of  manufactured  ar- 
ticles, and  the  establishment  or  extension  of  a 
domestic  market  for  the  surplus  of  agricultural 
productions.  The  first  of  these  advantages  was, 
in  the  peculiar  circumstances  of  our  situation, 
rather  nominal  than  real ;  or,  in  the  most  favor- 
able statement  of  the  case,  far  less  important 
than  had  been  represented.  The  point  in  which 
the  public  were  interested  in  this  respect,  re- 
lated principally  to  the  character,  not  the 
source,  of  the  supply  of  manufactured  articles. 
Their  interest  required  that  this  supply  should 
be  good,  cheap,  abundant,  regular.  But  the 
supply  from  domestic  would  not  be  of  better 
quality  than  from  foreign  sources.  It  would  not 
be  of  cheaper,  but  on  the  contrary,  of  dearer  price, 
by  the  amount  of  the  difference  which  would 
be  created  by  the  proposed  increase  of  duties. 
It  would  not  be  more  abundant  or  regular. 
In  both  these  respects  the  supply  from  foreign 
sources,  except  in  the  contingency  of  a  disturb- 
ed state  of  the  foreign  relations  of  the  country, 
could  be  the  subject  of  no  complaint.  The  only 
real  advantage,  then,  attending  the  possession 
of  domestic  establishments  for  the  supply  of 
manufactured  articles,  related  to  periods  of  war, 


632 


ABRIDGMENT  OF  THE 


a  OF 


Revision  of  the  Tariff. 


[APRIL,  1820. 


which  might  be  expected  very  rarely  to  occur. 
By  the  policy  recommended,  we  were  to  be  sub- 
jected to  a  constant,  permanent  monopoly-price 
of  the  most  essential  articles  of  consumption, 
for  the  purpose  of  being  guarded  against  a  price 
somewhat  higher,  in  a  contingent,  remote,  un- 
frequent  event.  A  considerable  enhancement 
of  price  was,  in  this  respect,  the  sum  of  the  evil 
which  could  be  involved  in  the  event  of  war ; 
for  the  supply  of  no  essential  article  was  liable, 
in  such  a  contingency,  to  be  absolutely  cut  off. 
Nor  was  the  evil  consequence  to  be  apprehend- 
ed from  war,  liable  to  be  incurred  in  any  other 
than  the  single  instance  of  a  war  with  Great 
Britain.  The  concurring  interests  of  the  sup- 
plying countries,  and  the  superiority  of  our 
public  and  commercial  marine,  would  be  a  safe- 
guard against  the  material  obstruction  of  sup- 
ply, from  the  effect  of  war  with  any  other 
power.  The  feeling  of  resentment  prevailing 
against  Great  Britain,  the  result  of  the  perse- 
vering and  malignant  character  of  her  hostility, 
was  strong  and  general  in  this  country,  but  this 
feeling  was  not,  it  was  to  be  hoped,  of  a  nature 
to  be  susceptible  of  misdirection,  to  an  unrequit- 
ed and  essential  sacrifice  of  public  interests. 
The  abundance  of  the  materials  of  manufacture, 
and  the  facility  of  conversion  to  a  manufactured 
form,  which  the  most  important  of  them  ad- 
mitted, would  preclude,  even  in  a  war  with 
Great  Britain,  injury  from  the  obstruction  or 
enhanced  price  of  supply,  in  any  degree  com- 
mensurate with  the  cost  of  the  means,  which 
were  recommended  as  security  against  the 
chances  of  it.  More  injury,  in  disturbing  the 
regularity  of  supply,  was  to  be  apprehended 
from  the  effect  of  the  proposed  policy,  in  im- 
pairing the  regularity  of  our  demand  for  that 
supply. 

Arguments  were  rendered  palpable  by  ex- 
ample. There  were  few  articles  of  more  essen- 
tial necessity  than  salt.  From  this  character- 
istic of  it,  and  our  habit  of  reliance  on  external 
sources  for  supply,  there  was,  perhaps,  no  ar- 
ticle liable,  in  a  higher  degree,  to  enhancement 
in  price  in  time  of  war.  But  salt  was  suscepti- 
ble of  supply  from  domestic  sources,  to  an  in- 
definite amount.  Would  any  man  be  found  to 
recommend  the  protection  of  domestic  establish- 
ments for  the  preparation  of  salt,  by  such  a  sys- 
tem of  duties  as  would  insure  their  operation  in 
time  of  peace  ?  Yet  the  supply  of  no  article 
was  more  important.  "Why  should  the  policy 
surrendered  in  relation  to  this  article,  be  proper 
in  relation  to  others  ?  If  the  material,  in  the 
instance  of  any  other  article,  were  of  indigenous 
growth,  the  same  reliance  might  be  had  on  the 
resource  of  domestic  fabrication  in  time  of  war, 
with  which  we  were  content  in  case  of  salt. 
Or,  if  the  material  were  not  indigenous,  then 
the  supply  of  it  would  not  be  less  liable  to  ob- 
struction, in  a  season  of  war,  than  that  of  the 
wrought  article.  In  either  event,  the  resort  to 
high  protective  duties  for  the  encouragement  or 
preservation  of  the  domestic  manufacture,  ap- 
peared to  be  equally  unadvisable.  The  argu- 


ment derived  from  the  different  preparations  of 
machinery  or  skill,  required  in  different  depart- 
ments of  manufacture,  was  not  of  sufficient  force 
to  obviate  or  impair  the  correctness  of  the  con- 
clusion. 

The  principal  reliance,  however,  of  the  argu- 
ment in  favor  of  the  protective  system,  rested 
on  its  tendency  to  the  formation  of  a  domes- 
tic market  for  agricultural  productions.  The 
?reat  and  enlarging  amount  of  our  agricultural 
labor  and  productions,  might  be  expected  in  the 
lapse  of  a  short  period.  It  was  said,  to  ren- 
der these  productions  redundant,  in  relation  to 
their  present  markets,  and  an  obvious  policy, 
therefore,  required  the  immediate  substitution, 
through  the  medium  of  manufacturing  establish- 
ments, of  a  domestic  market ;  which,  by  its  pro- 
gressive extension,  might  have  the  effect  of 
obviating,  or  providing  a  remedy  for,  such  a 
condition  of  affairs.  The  answer  to  this  repre- 
sentation was  attended  with  no  difficulty.  It 
was,  that  the  remedy  sought  to  be  provided,  in 
the  mode  proposed,  would  be  found  available 
without  any  occasion  for  legislative  regulation, 
by  the  necessary  ultimate  operation  of  the  va- 
rious circumstances  which  were  thought  to  call 
for  this  regulation. 

The  population  of  the  country  being  progres- 
sive with  its  means  of  subsistence,  would  con- 
tinue to  observe  the  proportion  which  it  now 
did,  to  production.  Production,  therefore,  could 
be  expected  to  exhibit,  relatively  to  domestic 
demand,  no  greater  redundancy  than  it  did  at 
present.  The  redundancy  anticipated,  must  re- 
fer to  foreign  demand  entirely. 

But  the  labor  and  capital  which  it  would  be 
the  effect  of  this  supposed  redundant  state  of 
agricultural  productions  to  disenage  from  agri- 
cultural employment,  must  find  some  other 
mode  of  occupation.  They  could  not  remain 
unemployed ;  and  in  what  direction  could  em- 
ployment be  found  for  them  ?  Not  in  com- 
merce, for  the  capacity  of  commerce  to  furnish 
occupation  to  labor  and  capital  was  determina- 
ble  by  the  operation  of  foreign  demand  for  their 
productions,  and  this  demand,  under  the  cir- 
cumstances supposed,  must  be  excluded.  There 
was  left  but  one  resort  for  the  employment  of 
this  disengaged  labor  and  capital,  and  that  was 
in  manufactures.  Not  only  without  aid  or  di- 
rection, but  by  an  impulse  which  could  not  be 
controlled,  they  must  flow  to  fulfil  this  destina- 
tion. The  manufactures  thus  established,  (it 
was  to  be  further  observed,)  from  the  conti- 
guity and  abundance  of  materials,  and  the  de- 
pressed price  of  these  materials,  which  the 
hypothesis  supposed,  must  of  necessity  be  en- 
abled to  maintain,  unassisted  by  positive  en- 
couragement, a  successful  competition  with 
fabrics  of  foreign  origin.  Here,  then,  was  the 
effect  desired,  realized,  independently  of  any 
occasion  for  regulation.  The  object  proposed 
Avas,  through  the  medium  of  a  complicated  and 
burdensome  system  of  duties,  to  provide  a  rem- 
edy for  an  anticipated  contingency,  and  this 
contingency  was  found,  upon  inquiry,  to  intro- 


DEBATES  OF  CONGRESS. 


633 


APRIL,  1820.] 


Revision  of  the  Tariff. 


[H.  OF  R 


duce  in  its  occurrence,  the  very  remedy  pro- 
posed, without  necessity  for  any  duty  whatever. 
This  effect  was  in  consistency  with  the  order  of 
nature,  in  which  evils,  whether  of  physical  or 
social  character,  resulting  from  her  unforced 
operations,  were  invariably  found  to  generate 
their  proper  remedies.  It  was  the  eternal  effort 
of  politicians  to  supersede  this  salutary  order, 
which  formed  the  source  of  half  the  mischiefs 
by  which  mankind  were  afflicted. 

The  attempt  had  been  made  to  show,  that 
the  artificial  introduction  of  a  domestic  market, 
through  the  medium  of  manufactures,  was  su- 
perfluous, as  this  market  would,  at  the  proper 
season,  be  introduced,  without  exertion  or  ex- 
pense, by  a  spontaneous  operation.  But  sup- 
pose the  contrary  to  be  the  fact,  still  the  ad- 
vantage of  the  proposed  policy  was,  to  say  the 
least  of  it,  equivocal.  There  was  no  accession 
contemplated  as  the  result  of  this  policy,  to  the 
amount  of  capital  or  labor.  The  effect  contem- 
plated in  this  respect,  was  confined  to  a  mere 
change  of  destination,  as  related  to  a  portion  of 
this  amount.  Nor  was  the  diversion  expected 
to  be  made  to  a  more  productive,  but  only  (as 
was  supposed)  to  a  more  convenient,  employ- 
ment. This,  however,  was  the  slightest  form 
of  the  objection.  If  it  appertained  to  the 
scheme  of  our  foreign  policy  to  prosecute  com- 
mercial intercourse  at  all  with  other  nations, 
our  account  must  be  laid  in  the  calculation  of  a 
general  equality  in  the  respective  amounts  of 
our  foreign  sales  and  purchases. 

A  resort,  in  particular,  to  the  cultivation  of 
domestic  resources  of  supply,  was  almost  in- 
variably found  to  present  irresistible  temptations 
to  its  extension.  Kesentment,  produced  by  the 
pursuit  of  a  supposed  illiberal  policy  on  the 
part  of  a  former  customer,  was  a  motive  of  ob- 
vious occurrence  in  co-operation  with  induce- 
ments of  this  description.  The  result,  then,  of 
the  policy  recommended  to  us  in  relation  to  the 
introduction  of  a  domestic  market,  through  the 
medium  of  the  encouragement  of  manufactures, 
besides  involving  the  certainty  of  a  loss  in  the 
extent  of  the  foreign  market,  equivalent  to  the 
acquisition  of  domestic  market,  led  to  an  ex- 
posure to  the  loss  of  a  much  larger  proportion, 
or  the  whole,  of  the  foreign  market.  In  the  best 
result  of  the  policy,  there  could  be  no  gain  in 
the  extent  of  market.  In  a  different  result,  a 
great  deal,  of  every  thing,  in  this  respect,  might 
be  lost.  A  course  of  policy  of  this  character 
could  set  up  no  pretensions  to  the  award  of  an 
impartial  judgment  hi  its  favor. 

Let,  then,  a  fair  account  be  stated  of  the  re- 
lative amount  of  advantage  or  disadvantage  to 
be  anticipated  from  the  proposed  system,  and 
how  would  the  balance  stand?  In  reference  to 
the  supposed  importance  of  the  introduction  of 
domestic  sources  of  supply  of  manufactured  ar- 
ticles, the  whole  advantage  had  been  shown  to 
be  contingent  on  a  particular,  and  not  probable 
or  frequent  event.  In  reference  to  the  suppos- 
ed importance  of  the  introduction  or  extension 
of  a  domestic  market,  through  the  medium  of 


manufacturing  establishments,  the  advantage 
had  been  shown,  in  the  most  favorable  view  of 
it,  to  be  equivocal. 

What  were  the  items  of  offset  to  he  stated? 
A  considerable  and  permanent  imposition  on 
many  of  the  articles  of  most  essential  consump- 
tion, in  the  amount  of  the  proposed  increase  of 
duties ;  subduction  from  agricultural  production 
to  the  amount  of  the  accession  to  manufactures ; 
deduction  from  the  foreign,  equivalent  to  the 
acquisition  of  domestic  market;  exposure  to  the 
hazard  of  greater  and  indefinite  deduction  from 
the  extent  of  the  same  market ;  and,  finally,  the 
amount  of  the  direct  or  other  taxation,  which 
would  be  rendered  necessary,  by  the  deficit  in 
the  revenue,  which  it  would  be  the  effect  (as 
was  admitted)  of  the  adoption  of  the  proposed 
system  to  occasion.  How  striking  was  the  dis- 
proportion of  objection  to  the  system  which  this 
statement  exhibited!  Nor  did  this  statement 
exhibit  the  whole  objections. 

There  was  a  peculiar  consideration  affecting 
the  condition  of  the  -larger  portion  of  foreign 
manufactures,  which  rendered  the  error  of  at- 
tempting to  substitute  the  supply  of  them  from 
domestic  sources,  susceptible  of  being  placed  in 
a  striking  point  of  view.  This  consideration  re- 
lated to  the  necessary  advantage  which  these 
manufactures  enjoyed  in  comparison  with  the 
domestic,  as  respected  the  important  character- 
istic of  cheapness.  The  principal  element  in 
the  price  of  any  article  was  derived  from  the 
value  of  the  labor  employed  in  producing  it. 
The  principal  circumstance  determining  the 
value  of  labor,  was  the  value  of  the  subsistence 
required  for  its  support.  The  last  value  was 
determined,  in  its  turn,  by  a  consideration  not 
merely  of  the  kind  and  style  of  subsistence  to 
which  the  classes  employed  in  labor  were  ac- 
customed. 

But  in  these  respects  the  operation  of  artifi- 
cial social  arrangements,  and  of  their  own  dis- 
proportionate multiplication,  in  reference  to  the 
regular  occasio'ns  of  employment,  had  sunk  the 
condition  of  the  laboring  classes,  in  the  coun- 
tries with  which  we  enjoyed  the  largest  share 
of  commercial  intercouse,  to  a  very  low  point 
of  depression.  From  the  causes  stated,  and 
perhaps  some  others,  then*  modes  of  subsistence, 
as  respected  both  the  quantity  and  description 
of  its  supply,  had  become,  to  the  last  degree, 
penurious.  The  amount  of  their  pecuniary  com- 
pensation had  been  of  course  proportionately 
affected.  A  laborer  in  those  countries  was  in 
the  practice  of  receiving  scarcely  a  greater  num- 
ber of  pence  than  one  engaged  in  a  similar  mode 
of  occupation  in  ours  required  shillings,  in  re- 
muneration of  his  labor.  The  necessary  re- 
sult of  the  operation  of  these  circumstances  had 
been  the  depression  of  the  real  value,  as  well  as 
pecuniary  price,  of  the  productions  of  labor  in 
such  countries,  below  the  just  standard  of  the 
value  and  price  of  productions  of  the  same  de- 
nomination and  quality  in  our  country.  Here 
was  a  peculiarity,  creating  a  source  of  recom- 
mendation of  foreign  manufactures,  of  which 


634 


ABRIDGMENT  OF  THE 


H.  OF  R.] 


Revision  of  the  Tariff. 


[APRIL,  1820. 


sound  policy  would  teach  us  rather  to  endeavor  |  would  take  occasion  to  warn  gentlemen  who 


to  avail  ourselves  of  the  advantage,  than  ob- 
stinately to  contend  against  it.  A  further 
source  of  similar  advantage  was  found  in  the  pe- 
culiar character  and  latitude  of  the  commercial 
regulations,  entirely  inconsistent  with  the  genius 
of  our  institutions,  of  which  the  forms  of  gov- 
ernment and  polity  prevailing  in  other  coun- 
tries, admitted  the  adoption  and  enforcement ; 
regulations,  of  which  the  policy  was  to  keep 
down  the  price  of  the  raw  material  of  manufac- 
ture, (like  that  by  which  the  price  of  wool  was 
reduced  fifty  per  cent,  in  Great  Britain,)  or  of 
which  the  design  was  to  force  an  extraordinary 
production  of  the  raw  material,  like  many  of 
the  regulations  of  France,  were  exemplifications 
of  the  remark;  If  the  question  related  to  the 
propriety  of  availing  ourselves  of  the  physical 
advantages  of  other  countries  in  giving  direction 
to  our  commercial  policy,  instead  of  engaging  in 
an  injurious  competition  with  these  advantages, 
there  would  be  no  diversity  of  opinion  as  to  the 
course  to  be  pursued.  It  could  not  be  made  a 
question,  for  example,  whether  there  would  be 
policy  in  availing  ourselves  of,  or  in  contending 
with,  the  advantages  of  France  for  the  growth 
of  wines  and  olives,  (supposing  that  our  soil  and 
climate  admitted  of  being  forced  to  the  growth 
of  such  products,)  or  of  the  West  Indies,  for  the 
supply  of  tropical  productions.  What  greater 
reason  could  there  be  for  refusing  to  avail  our- 
selves of  the  benefit  of  political  or  social  pecu- 
liarities, presented  by  the  circumstances  of  other 
countries,  or  for  insisting  on  contending  with 
them  ?  It  might  be  affirmed  without  difficulty 
that  no  adequate  reasons  for  such  a  policy  could 


Upon  the  whole,  Mr.  A.  regarded  the  bill  as 
involving  an  imposition  considerable  in  amount, 
and  which  was  neither  just  in  its  principle  nor 
equal  in  its  operation.  The  beneficial  results 
anticipated  from  its  adoption  he  considered  as 
illusory,  and  conceived,  on  the  contrary,  that  its 
operation  would  be  found  fraught  with  no  ordi- 
nary detriment  to  the  most  essential  interests 
of  the  community.  He  could  not  but  hope, 
therefore,  that  it  would  obtain  the  singular  tes- 
timony to  its  merit  which  the  chairman  of  the 
committee  (Mr.  BALDWIN)  had  spoken  of  as  the 
most  conclusive  and  unquestionable,  viz :  that 
of  giving  dissatisfaction  to  every  part  of  the 
House.  This  praise  it  had  already  earned,  as 
respected  one  quarter  of  the  House ;  and  it  was 
attended  by  the  hearty  good  wishes  of  Mr.  A. 
for  similar  success  in  every  other  quarter.  To 
the  general  principle  of  this  measure,  he  could 
not  express  his  objection  more  aptly  than  in  the 
reason  assigned  by  an  ancient  English  patriot, 
when  called  to  expiate  his  attachment  to  liberty 
on  the  scaffold,  for  resistance  to  an  arbitrary 
Government.  He  said  he  had  never  been  able 
to  discover  that  "  some  men  came  into  the  world 
with  saddles  on  their  backs,  and  others  booted 
and  spurred  to  ride  them."  Neither  could  Mr. 
A.  admit  that  parties  came  into  the  Federal 
Union  in  any  such  relative  conditions.  And  lie 


thought,  by  means  of  the  present  or  any  other 
injustice,  to  mount  upon  the  backs  of  the  South- 
ern people,  that  they  would  find  their  seats 
neither  pleasant,  nor  so  entirely  secure  but  that 
they  might  chance  to  encounter  a  fall,  from  the 
effects  of  which  it  might  not  be  easy  to  recover 

THUESDAY,  April  27. 
Eevision  of  the  Tariff. 

The  House  then  again  resolved  itself  into  a 
Committee  of  the  Whole  on  the  bill  regulating 
the  duties  on  imports. 

The  question  being  on  the  committee's  rising 
and  reporting  the  tariff  bill  to  the  House,  the 
debate  thereon  was  resumed. 

Mr.  BARBOFR,  of  Virginia,  addressed  the  com- 
mittee as  follows : 

Mr.  Chairman,  I  feel  much  indebted  to  the 
committee  for  their  goodness  in  rising  on  yes- 
terday, to  afford  me  an  opportunity  of  expressing 
my  views  upon  this  subject. 

I  am  about  to  attempt  an  answer  to  the  mem- 
ber from  Pennsylvania  who  reported  this  bill, 
and  other  gentlemen  who  followed  him  in  its 
support.  Considering  the  arduousness  of  the 
undertaking,  it  might  perhaps  be  the  part  of 
prudence  in  me  to  decline  it ;  for  one  gentle- 
man from  Kentucky  (Mr.  TKIMBLE)  informed  us 
that  he  had  demonstrated  many  of  his  proposi- 
tions, and  thus  placed  them  beyond  the  possi- 
bility of  question,  although  moral  and  political 
questions  are,  in  their  nature,  incapable  of 
demonstration,  and  it  cannot  be  affirmed  of 
any  thing  short  of  demonstration  that  there  is 
no  possible  doubt ;  whilst  another  member  from 
Kentucky  (the  Speaker)  has  invited  the  oppo- 
nents of  the  bill  to  attempt  an  answer  to  the 
member  from  Pennsylvania ;  from  which  it  may 
be  inferred,  that  the  advocates  of  the  bill  feel 
something  like  the  confidence  of  anticipated 
triumph.  Arduous  however  as  the  undertaking 
may  be,  fearful  as  the  odds  may  be  against  me, 
I  am  emboldened  to  proceed,  from  the  considera- 
tion that,  in  such  a  conflict  as  I  find  myself  en- 
gaged in,  success  on  my  part  Avould  be  a  cause 
of  self-gratulation,  whilst  defeat  would  not  be 
attended  with  disgrace. 

The  avowed  object  of  this  bill  is,  by  means  of 
increased  duties  upon  imported  goods,  to  afford 
encouragement  to  that  part  of  the  industry  of 
the  country  which  is  engaged  in  domestic  manu- 
factures ;  and  the  question  is,  whether  such  a 
measure  is  compatible  with  the  principles  of 
justice,  or  of  sound  policy  ?  It  will  be  my  en- 
deavor to  prove  that  it  is  not.  Before,  however, 
I  go  particularly  into  these  views,  I  beg  leave 
to  answer  the  remarks  of  the  gentleman  from 
Pennsylvania,  (Mr.  BALDWIN,)  and  the  gentle- 
man from  New  York,  (Mr.  STORES,)  of  a  general 
nature,  in  relation  to  our  system  of  revenue 
from  imposts.  They  have  characterized  it  with 
epithets  of  the  severest  reprobation.  It  has 
been  called  an  unsound,  a  rotten  system.  So 
far  from  thinking  that  these  epithets  are  merited, 


DEBATES  OF  CONGRESS. 


635 


APRIL,  1820.] 


Revision  of  the  Tariff. 


[H.  OF  R. 


I  have,  ibr  my  part,  a  decided  preference  for  the 
impost  system,  and  I  will  proceed  to  state  to 
the  committee  the  reasons  of  that  preference. 
The  whole  practice  of  the  Government,  from  its 
commenceme.nt  to  the  present  moment,  with 
but  few  exceptions,  and  those  principally  in  time 
of  war,  has  been  to  rely  upon  imposts  for  the 
purpose. of  defraying  its  expenditures.  Of  this 
(act  I  make  the  double  use,  that  those  who  have 
administered  the  Government  have  considered 
this  mode  of  raising  revenue  most  consistent 
with  the  feelings  of  the  people,  and  that  the 
people  themselves,  having  been  accustomed  to 
it  for  thirty  years,  would  find  it  more  agreeable 
and  convenient  than  any  other.  I  would  not 
innovate  upon  it,  then,  unless  there  were  very 
strong  reasons  for  a  change.  So  far  from  this, 
the  reasons  are,  in  my  opinion,  strong  in  favor 
of  its  continuance.  Let  us  examine  them  some- 
what at  large.  This  mode  of  raising  revenue 
by  impost  is  the  least  expensive  in  its  collection, 
and  of  course,  of  any  given  sum  raised  by  taxa- 
tion, the  less  there  may  be  expended  in  collec- 
tion, the  more  there  will  be  applicable  to  the 
purposes  of  the  Government.  Gentlemen  have 
said  that  the  excise  in  England  was  collected  at 
less  expense  than  any  other  tax.  Whatever  may 
be  the  case  in  England,  such  would  not  be  the 
fair  calculation  in  this  country.  In  England  the 
population  is  dense,  and  the  manufacturers  are 
collected  in  large  cities  and  towns,  which  would 
make  the  collection  much  less  expensive  than  in 
the  United  States,  where  the  population  is  com- 
paratively very  sparse,  and  the  manufacturers 
scattered  over  a  much  larger  surface.  But,  in- 
stead of  detaining  the  committee  with  proba- 
bilities, I  will  refer  them  to  matter  of  fact.  The 
report  from  the  Treasury  Department,  of  De- 
cember, 1801,  states  that  whilst  the  expenses  of 
collection  on  merchandise  and  tonnage  did  not 
exceed  four  per  cent.,  those  on  the  permanent 
internal  duties  amounted  to  almost  twenty  per 
cent.  This  he  ascribed  to  the  dispersed  situa- 
tion of  the  persons  paying  the  duties,  and  the 
total  amount  of  revenue  being  inconsiderable. 
But,  sir,  let  us  come  nearer  the  present  time. 
It  appears,  from  official  documents,  that  the 
total  amount  of  duties  on  imports,  for  the  years 
1815,  1816,  1817,  and  1818,  was  (not  regarding 
fractions)  $118,383,000,  and  the  whole  expense 
of  collection  (in  like  manner  discarding  frac- 
tions) was  $2,771,000,  not  equal  to  two  and  a 
half  per  cent,  upon  the  whole  amount.  From 
the  same  source  I  derive  the  fact  that  the  ex- 
pense of  the  collection  of  internal  duties,  in  1816, 
was  four  per  cent,  and  eight-tenths,  and  that 
of  the  collection  of  the  direct  tax  of  the  same 
year  was  five  per  cent,  and  three-tenths. 

A  second  advantage  in  favor  of  the  impost 
system  is,  that  there  is  much  less  loss  to  the 
Government  by  insolvency,  &c. ;  it  appears  that 
the  whole  loss  upon  customs,  from  the  com- 
mencement of  the  system,  amounting  to  the 
enormous  sum  of  $351,329,799,  is  not  quite  one 
half  of  one  per  cent.  Without  referring  the 
committee  to  the  minuti®  of  official  reports,  I 


am  justified  in  saying,  generally,  that  the  loss  in 
the  collection  of  internal  taxes  has  been  much 
greater,  and  for  this  obvious  reason,  that  the 
customs  are  collected  from  a  very  few  persons 
in  comparison  with  those  from  whom  the  other 
taxes  are  collected.  A  third  advantage  is,  that 
the  payment  of  this  kind  of  tax  is  an  act  of  vo- 
lition ;  the  duty  becomes  a  part  of  the  price,  and 
we  either  buy  or  not  as  we  choose ;  whereas,  as 
far  as  internal  taxes  should  consist  of  direct 
taxes,  the  payment  would  be  matter  of  compul- 
sion. A  fourth  advantage  is,  that  this  system 
is  calculated  to  operate  more  equally.  The  great 
desideratum  in  every  system  of  taxation  should 
be  to  make  every  citizen  contribute,  as  far  as 
practicable,  in  proportion  to  his  ability.  As 
there  is  no  mode  of  ascertaining  that  ability 
with  precision,  without  too  inquisitorial  a  scru- 
tiny, the  best  approximation  which  we  can 
make  to  it  is  to  act  upon  the  principle  that 
every  man's  expense  is  proportioned  to  his 
ability  ;  the  few  examples  which  we  observe  of 
a  departure  from  this  principle,  in  prodigality 
or  extravagance,  do  not  disturb  the  general 
truth ;  the  present  system  has  this  principle  for 
its  basis,  as  the  buyer  of  goods  pays  a  tax  ac- 
cording to  what  he  purchases.  Although  the 
same  reasoning  would  apply  to  excises,  yet  it 
clearly  would  not  to  direct  taxes ;  they,  by  the 
constitution,  must  be  laid,  not  according  to 
wealth,  but  according  to  population ;  thus,  in 
case  of  a  direct  tax,  a  manufacturing  State,  with 
millions  of  capital  profitably  employed  in  that 
way,  would  pay  not  one  cent  more  than  another 
State  of  equal  population,  whose  wealth  was 
even  fifty  per  cent,  less  than  that  of  the  other ; 
but  it  is  not  only  thus  unequal  in  its  operation 
between  different  States,  it  is  also  subject  to 
enormous  inequalities  between  citizens  of  the 
same  State. 

The  direct  tax  is  imposed  upon  land  with  its 
improvements  and  slaves.  Now,  sir,  it  might 
happen  that  a  man  worth  ten  thousand  dollars, 
if  it  consisted  in  lands  and  slaves,  might  pay 
more  direct  tax  than  one  worth  half  a  million, 
if  it  consisted  of  certain  descriptions  of  property, 
such  as  bank  stock,  funded  debt,  &c.,  for  this 
kind  of  property  pays  no  part  of  the  direct  tax. 
A  fifth  advantage  in  adhering  to  this  system  is, 
that  now  we  have  one  set  of  officers ;  whereas, 
if  we  introduce  a  permanent  system  of  internal 
taxation,  the  present  system  must  still  be  also 
continued,  and  thus  we  shall  create  another  set 
of  officers,  whose  salaries  and  perquisites  of 
office  will  be  an  entire  loss,  in  a  pecuniary  point 
of  view,  besides  the  vexation  produced  by  being 
liable  to  the  demands  of  a  double  set  of  tax- 
gatherers.  The  last,  but  not  the  least  advantage 
which  I  will  mention,  is,  that  the  power  of  lay- 
ing imposts  is  taken  from  the  States  and  given 
exclusively  to  Congress.  One  of  the  strongest 
objections  to  the  constitution  was,  the  collision 
which  might  arise  between  the  State  and  Fed- 
eral Governments,  hi  the  exercise  of  their  re- 
spective powers  of  taxation,  where  they  were 
concurrent ;  but  in  this  particular  mode  of  lay- 


ABRIDGMENT  OF  THE 


H.  OK  R.] 


Revision  of  the  Tariff. 


[APRIL,  1820. 


ing  duties  on  imports,  and  in  this  only,  the 
Federal  Government  having  the  power  exclu- 
sively, there  is  a  complete  obviation  of  all  dif- 
ficulties which  might  arise  from  colliding  juris- 
diction. 

The  advocates  of  this  bill  have  told  us  that 
we  cannot  much  longer  get  on  without  the  aid 
of  internal  taxation ;  that  sooner  or  later  we 
must  come  to  that  point ;  and  that,  therefore, 
we  had  better  do  it  at  once.  My  first  remark 
in  reply  to  this  is,  that  if,  as  I  have  attempted 
to  show,  the  system  of  impost  be  a  better  and 
more  equal  one  than  that  of  internal  taxation, 
then  the  argument  which  would  persuade  us  to 
adopt  the  latter,  by  anticipation,  because  we 
might  hereafter  be  obliged  to  do  it,  is  precisely 
like  persuading  a  man  that,  because  he  must,  in 
the  course  of  nature,  inevitably  die,  it  would 
become  him  to  anticipate  it  by  his  own  act,  in 
the  commission  of  suicide.  But,  say  gentlemen, 
the  revenue  from  imposts  is  unequal  to  the  exi- 
gencies of  the  Government ;  and  how  do  you 
propose  to  remedy  it  ?  Why,  it  would  seem,  by 
the  passage  of  a  bill,  the  effect  of  which  must 
be,  as  I  shall  presently  attempt  to  show,  to  di- 
minish that  very  revenue  which  gentlemen  say, 
even  now,  is  insufficient.  The  only  way  by 
which  this  apparent  inconsistency  can  be  ex- 
plained is,  that  this  subject  is  discussed  as  if  a 
system  of  internal  taxation  were  now  in  being ; 
but  I  call  upon  gentlemen  to  remember,  that 
whatever  their  wishes  or  opinions  as  to  the 
relative  merits  of  the  two  systems  may  be,  the 
impost  system  exists  now  in  point  of  fact,  whilst 
the  qther  does  not ;  and  I  will  add  my  wish, 
that  it  never  may,  until  it  shall  become  indis- 
pensably necessary,  not  by  our  forced  legisla- 
tion, but  .by  the  natural  course  of  events.  I 
have  just  said,  that  I  would  attempt  to  show 
that  the  passage  of  this  bill  would  diminish  our 
revenue  ;  I  will  now  redeem  nay  pledge,  or  en- 
deavor to  do  so. 

The  first  proposition  which  I  shall  lay  down 
is  this — that  it  will  lessen  the  amount  of  impor- 
tations upon  this  obvious  principle,  that  any 

land  and  labor  of  the  country  will  purchase 
fewer  commodities  at  a  higher,  than  it  would  at 
a  lower  price.  That  the  imposition  of  the  pro- 
posed duties  will  raise  the  price  of  the  com- 
modities imported,  no  gentleman  has  questioned. 
Our  exportable  produce  remaining  the  same, 
then,  will  purchase  less  than  if  the  duty  were 
not  raised ;  and,  consequently,  the  quantity  of 
articles  must  be  diminished.  If  it  be  said  that 
the  increased  duties  will  compensate  for  the 
diminished  consumption,  I  answer,  that,  with 
the  exception  of  a  few  mere  luxuries,  the  great 
bulk  of  imported  commodities  is  consumed  by 
that  portion  of  our  people,  who,  constituting 
the  middle  class  of  society  between  poverty  and 
wealth,  are,  with  various  degrees  of  property, 
only  independent  or  moderately  rich.  Though 
the  very  wealthy  man  might  still  continue  to 
purchase  his  luxuries  as  before,  without  regard 
to  price,  yet,  amongst  the  great  class  which  I 


have  mentioned,  (the  very  bone  and  sinew  of 
the  community,)  there  is  a  spirit  of  prudence 
and  calculation  which  makes  them  value  their 
comforts  and  pleasures  at  a  certain  price  only, 
beyond  which  they  will  not  go.  What  that  is, 
it  is  impossible  to  say,  with  any  thing  like  pre- 
cision, it  being  a  mere  question  of  quantity,  of 
more  or  less ;  I  venture,  however,  to  say,  that 
the  duties  now  proposed  would  pass  this  limit, 
and  consequently  cause  a  great  diminution  of 
consumption,  and  with  it  a  diminution  of  com- 
fort to  our  citizens,  and  of  revenue  to  the  Gov- 
ernment. 

I  shall  now  endeavor  to  prove  that  it  is  in 
violation  of  the  general  principles  of  political 
economy  to  build  up  a  manufacturing  system  by 
the  forced  means  of  legislative  interference,  and 
that  there  is  nothing  peculiar  in  the  situation  of 
this  country,  whether  considered  in  relation  to 
its  political  character  or  otherwise,  which  makes 
our  case  an  exception  to  the  general  rule.  It 
would  seem,  however,  from  what  has  been  said 
by  the  Speaker  of  the  writers  on  political  econ- 
omy, that  he  reposes  little  or  no  confidence  in 
them.  He  has  said  that  we  derive  our  visionary 
theories  from  European  writers,  whom  their 
own  Governments  do  not  acknowledge  as  guides 
in  legislation  ;  thus,  that  gentlemen,  instead  of 
meeting  and  refuting  the  doctrines  of  Stuart, 
Smith,  and  others,  has  at  once  put  them  under 
the  ban  of  his  denunciation  by  a  single  con- 
temptuous remark.  Indeed,  it  might  be  said  of 
him,  as  was  said  of  another  distinguished  man 
upon  another  occasion,  "  that  he  put  to  flight 
a  host  of  syllogisms  by  a  sneer."  After  all  his 
disparagement  of  European  writers  on  the 
science  of  political  economy,  I  must  be  permit- 
ted to  say,  that,  if  their  manufactures  of  cotton 
and  wool  exceed  ours  as  far  as  their  works  upon 
this  interesting  subject  surpass  ours,  then  indeed 
we  cannot  sustain  the  competition  to  which  we 
aspire  by  any  encouragement  which  we  can 
afford ;  and  though  their  Governments  do  not 
follow  their  counsels,  that  surely  is  no  reason 
why  we  should  not,  if  they  be  in  themselves 
correct,  and  calculated  to  enhance  the  prosper- 
ity of  the  country.  As  well  might  it  be  said, 
that  we  ought  not  to  respect  any  of  their  prin- 
ciples of  ethics  or  morality,  such,  for  example, 
as  the  doctrines  of  Paley  or  Rutherford,  because 
they  do  not  pursue  them.  There  is,  it  is  true, 
no  demonstration  in  the  sciences  of  morals  and 
politics,  as  there  is  in  the  mathematics  ;  but  there 
are,  in  each  of  those  sciences,  certain  truths  so 
obvious  in  themselves,  and  so  universally  as- 
sented to  by  mankind,  that  they  almost  rank  in 
the  class  of  axioms,  and  constitute  the  basis  of 
reasoning  in  questions  of  this  kind ;  such,  for 
example,  is  the  principle,  that  the  market  price 
of  commodities  is  regulated  by  the  proportion 
between  the  actual  demand  and  supply.  It  is 
to  principles  as  well  settled  as  this  that  I  shall 
resort  in  the  course  of  this  argument,  though 
they  may  even  be  drawn  from  European  wri- 
ters. Without  further  remarks,  I  will  proceed 
directly  to  the  general  reasoning  against  legisla- 


DEBATES  OF  CONGRESS. 


637 


APRIL,  1820.] 


Revision  of  the  Tariff. 


[H.  OF  R. 


tive  interference  to  create  and  sustain  a  manu- 
facturing system. 

The  strength  of  every  country  consists  in  the 
number,  the  character,  and  the  wealth  of  its 
population.  First,  then,  let  us  compare  two 
countries,  the  one  agricultural,  and  the  other 
manufacturing,  in  relation  to  numbers.  The 
very  obje'ct  of  agriculture  is  to  procure  the 
means  of  subsistence;  but  it  is  agreed  on  all 
hands  that  the  quantity  of  subsistence  is  pre- 
cisely the  measure  of  the  extent  of  population, 
since  without  it  they  cannot  exist;  of  conse- 
quence, other  things  being  equal,  the  country 
which  is  agricultural,  and  which  not  only  makes 
its  own  subsistence,  but  a  surplus  for  exporta- 
tion ;  which  upon  occasion,  may  be  applied  to 
supply  the  deficiency  of  any  year,  will  be  more 
populous  than  one,  a  great  part  of  whose  labor 
is  applied  to  manufactures,  and  which,  there- 
fore, in  ordinary  years,  scarcely  makes  a  suffi- 
ciency, and,  in  any  case  of  deficiency,  depends 
entirely  upon  a  foreign  supply,  for  the  very 
means  by  which  to  support  life.  If  it  be 
said  that  this  reasoning  does  not  apply  to  the 
present  situation  of  the  United  States,  I  answer, 
that  it  is  the  province  of  the  statesman,  not  to 
legislate  merely  for  the  present  moment,  but  to 
look  forward  to  that  state  of  things,  which,  ac- 
cording to  the  course  of  human  affairs,  may  fair- 
ly be  considered  as  inevitable ;  and,  according  to 
all  experience,  the  time  will  come  when  it  will 
apply  to  us  with  full  force  as  well  as  to  other 
nations.  When,  for  example,  the  manufacturers, 
together  with  their  families,  shall  bear  a  large 
proportion  to  the  remaining  population;  for 
let  it  be  remembered,  that  while  food  only 
increases,  arithmetically,  population  increases 
geometrically ;  an  idea  which  I  shall  have  oc- 
casion to  dwell  upon  more  at  large  hereafter. 

Let  us  now  compare  the  same  two  nations  in 
relation  to  the  character  of  their  population, 
whether  affected  by  moral  or  political  causes. 
The  agriculturist,  in  this  country,  cultivates  his 
own  farm ;  he  looks  only  to  the  beneficence  of 
the  Deity,  and  the  sweat  of  his  own  brow,  for 
the  maintenance  of  himself  and  family ;  by  his 
own  will  he  regulates  his  conduct ;  he  knows 
no  superior  except  those  who  are  clothed  with 
the  authority  of  the  law ;  he  thus  acquires  the 
proud  spirit  of  an  independent  freeman ;  he  has 
the  port,  the  stature,  the  dignity,  of  a  man. 
On  the  contrary,  the  manufacturer  has  no  source 
of  revenue  but  his  labor,  which  he  must  con- 
stantly sell  to  a  master ;  not  his  own,  but  that 
master's  will,  is  the  rule  of  his  conduct.  "While 
independence,  then,  is  the  characteristic  of  the 
agriculturist,  mere  servility  is  that  of  the  man- 
ufacturer. This  is  the  difference  in  the  moral 
effects ;  that  in  the  physical  is  just  as  striking ; 
the  agriculturist,  from  the  very  nature  of  his 
pursuits,  enjoys  the  light  and  air  of  Heaven,  in 
all  its  purity  ;  he  has  his  regular  periods  of  la- 
bor and  rest ;  ho  has  that  strong  and  healthy 
constitution  which  results  from  these.  The 
manufacturer,  on  the  contrary,  under  the  orders 
of  an  avaricious  task  master,  scarcely  knows 


the  distinction  of  day  and  night.  The  ham- 
mers of  Birmingham  are  never  at  rest;  the 
wheels  of  Manchester  never  stand  still.  They 
are  pent  up  in  task-houses  during  the  day,  amid 
noxious  effluvia,  and  crowded  in  huts  at  night 
— that  is,  such  of  them  as  are  allowed  to  sleep ; 
for  a  part,  in  alternate  succession,  pursue  their 
toils  during  the  night.  Such  is  the  condition 
of  the  adults  engaged  in  these  establishments. 
That  of  the  children  is,  if  possible,  still  more 
deplorable ;  taken  at  an  early  period  from  their 
parents  they  are  cut  off  from  the  sacred  moral- 
ity of  the  hearth,  and  lose  all  benefit  of  parent- 
al instruction,  which  instils  the  lessons  of  wis- 
dom into  the  mind,  and  morality  into  the  heart ; 
thrown  together  into  a  crowd,  where  there  is  a 
promiscuous  intercourse  between  different  ages 
and  sexes,  fatigued  with  a  degree  of  labor 
which  they  can  scarcely  bear ;  without  the  aid 
of  moral  or  religious  instruction,  they  grow  up 
unfit  to  be  members  of  society,  and  qualified 
only  to  obey  the  will  of  a  master  themselves, 
and  to  transmit  that  wretched  inheritance  to 
their  posterity.  How  different  the  condition  of 
the  children  of  the  agriculturist!  The  virtue 
and  independence  of  the  parent  are  learned  and 
practised  by  them,  and  they  become  qualified 
to  act  with  propriety  in  all  the  various  relations 
in  which  they  stand  bound  to  society.  But, 
sir,  I  will  not  pursue  this  subject  further.  I 
refer  the  committee  to  the  feeling  description 
of  those  who  have  written  upon  it,  and  partic- 
ularly to  that  of  the  celebrated  Aikin. 

Another  decided  recommendation  of  the 
agricultural  system  over  the  manufacturing,  is 
this :  the  interest  of  the  agriculturist  is  precisely 
identified  with  that  of  the  community ;  that 
of  the  manufacturer  is  not  only  not  identified, 
but  is,  in  some  degree,  opposed  to  it.  The  in- 
terest of  the  manufacturer  is  to  narrow,  as 
much  as  possible,  the  competition  in  the  sale 
of  his  commodities ;  the  interest  of  the  com- 
munity is,  obviously,  to  widen  that  competi- 
tion. "  Profit,  too,  is  naturally  low  in  rich, 
and  high  hi  poor  countries ;  and  it  is  always 
highest  in  countries  which  are  going  fastest  to 
rum."  In  a  political  point  of  view,  then,  it  is 
well  worthy  of  consideration  how  far  it  is  good 
policy  to  create  and  sustain,  by  artificial  means, 
a  class  in  society  whose  interests  are  thus,  in 
some  degree,  necessarily  opposed  to  those  of 
the  rest  of  the  society.  I  do  not  mean  to  say, 
that  manufactures  are  not  useful,  and  even 
necessary,  to  agriculture;  but  I  do  mean  to 
contend,  that  it  is  better  to  let  others  manufac- 
ture for  us,  as  long  as  we  can  appropriate  our 
capital  in  a  way  which  will  be  more  profitable ; 
and  I  do  mean  to  contend,  that,  if  Government 
attempt  to  judge  of  this,  it  will  be  perpetually 
subject  to  error,  and  may,  by  the  aid  which  it 
affords,  force  a  comparatively  unprofitable 
appropriation  of  the  capital  of  the  country; 
whereas,  if  it  be  left  to  individual  sagacity,  the 
thermometer  wih1  scarcely  mark  the  variations 
in  the  temperature  of  the  weather  with  more 
accuracy  than  this  will  the  variations  in  the 


638 


ABRIDGMENT  OF  THE 


H.  OF  R.] 


Revision  of  the  Tariff. 


[APRIL,  1820. 


rate  of  profit ;  and,  consequently,  we  have  the 
utmost  security  that  capital  will  be  applied  to 
manufactures,  whenever  it  ought  to  be  so  ap- 
plied ;  that  is,  whenever,  by  such  an  application, 
it  will  be  more  profitable  than  by  any  other. 
And  what  equivalent  are  we  promised  for  sub- 
mitting to  a  measure  subject  to  so  many  and 
such  strong  objections?  Why,  it  is  said,  that, 
if  we  will  protect  manufactures,  as  soon  as  they 
shah1  be  firmly  established,  they  will  afford  us  a 
revenue  from  excise.  In  the  first  place,  I  an- 
swer, that,  if  that  promise  should  be  realized, 
the  period  would  be  altogether  uncertain,  and, 
in  the  mean  time,  there  would  be  an  acknowl- 
edged deficiency  of  revenue  arising  from  im- 
post ;  and  further,  if  I  have  shown  that  an  ap- 
propriation of  capital  in  that  way  would  be  less 
profitable,  there  would  be  an  actual  annihilation 
of  national  wealth,  to  an  amount  equal  to  the 
difference  between  the  profit  arising  from  that 
and  a  different  appropriation.  It  is  said,  how- 
ever, that  manufactures  will  become  cheaper 
than  they  now  are :  this  is  a  downright  inconsist- 
ency ;  for,  at  their  present  price,  we  are  loudly 
called  upon  to  save  them  from  sinking,  and  yet, 
at  the  same  moment,  we  are  told  that  they  will 
actually  be  sold  at  a  price,  hereafter,  less  than 
that  for  which  they  now  sell,  and  a  sale  at 
which,  it  is  said,  will  produce  ruin.  There  is 
no  inducement,  then,  in  this  promised  equiva- 
lent. I  have  already  shown  that  the  proposed 
measure  is  wrong,  upon  general  principles,  and 
I  will  now  attempt  to  show,  not  only  that  there 
is  nothing  peculiar  in  the  situation  of  this  coun- 
try •which  would  require  us  to  depart  from  these 
general  principles;  but  that,  on  the  contrary, 
whatever  distinguishing  peculiarity  there  is, 
either  in  our  Government,  people,  or  country, 
it  contributes  rather  to  fortify  than  to  weaken 
their  force,  and  to  render  them  emphatically  ap- 
plicable to  us.  Our  Government  is  Republican ; 
next  to  the  virtue  of  its  citizens,  equality  is  one 
of  the  surest  foundations  upon  which  such  a 
Government  can  stand.  Equality  of  rights  is 
actually  attainable,  and  is  practically  enforced ; 
but  equality  of  property,  also,  as  far  as  it  can 
be  effected  by  constitutional  and  legal  means,  is 
also  greatly  desirable;  it  is  with  a  view  to  this 
result,  that  the  principle  of  primogeniture  has 
been  abolished  in  the  several  States,  which  gave 
to  one  member  of  a  family  the  whole  real  estate ; 
it  is  with  the  same  view  that  the  principle  of 
entails  has  been  abolished,  which  perpetuated 
the  estate,  so  given,  in  the  particular  person, 
and  his  heirs  in  a  particular  line.  These  princi- 
ples are  two  of  the  strongest  pillars  upon  which 
a  monarchy  rests,  because  they  concentrate  the 
property  of  the  country,  and  with  it  the  power 
and  influence  of  a  few ;  but  the  very  reverse 
of  this  is  the  proper  policy  in  our  Government; 
with  us  not  concentration,  but  the  most  exten- 
sive and  universal  diffusion  is  the  great  deside- 
ratum; the  very  same  property  which,  when 
broken  into  small  parts,  spreads  plenty,  com- 
fort, and  independence,  over  a  whole  country, 
when  accumulated  in  the  hands  of  a  few,  be- 


gets the  extremes  of  great  wealth  and  great 
poverty ;  by  this,  one  portion  of  the  society  is 
too  much  elevated,  the  other  is  too  much  de- 
pressed ;  the  one  feels  arrogance,  the  other  sub- 
mission. In  such  a  state  of  things,  the  force  of 
political  institutions  would  be  continually  im- 
paired by  the  aristocracy  of  wealth.  Inasmuch, 
then,  as  I  believe  that  the  effect  of  this  bill 
would  be  to  produce  this  concentration  of 
wealth,  so  much  to  be  reprobated,  and  thus 
place  the  General  Government  in  the  attitude 
of  counteracting  the  policy  of  the  States,  which, 
as  I  have  said,  consists  in  promoting  a  diffusion 
of  property — in  this  point  of  view,  I  think  there 
is  a  strong  political  reason,  derived  from  the 
nature  of  our  institutions,  in  aid  of  the  general 
principles  which  I  have  been  discussing. 

In  relation  to  our  people,  they  have,  from  a 
combination  of  circumstances,  the  most  impor- 
tant of  which,  is  the  immense  quantity  of  new 
and  fertile  land,  been  always  accustomed  to  the 
pursuits  of  agricultural  life.  The  force  of  habit, 
then,  co-operates  with  other  causes  to  give 
them  a  preference  to  that  kind  of  labor ;  but  I 
have  already  endeavored  to  prove  that  it  is 
more  contributive  to  the  health  of  the  body 
and  the  independence  of  the  mind.  If  these 
positions  be  correct,  and  especially  the  last, 
agriculture  is  a  pursuit  which,  more  than  man- 
ufactures, fits  the  people  for  the  Government 
under  which  they  live.  Surely  it  cannot  be 
the  part  of  a  statesman,  by  legislation,  to  hold 
out  an  inducement  to  the  people  to  abandon 
that  pursuit  which  qualifies  them  for  the  station 
in  which  they  are  placed  by  the  social  compact 
under  which  they  live ;  not  to  perform  the  part 
of  mere  servile  obedience,  but  to  fill  the  station 
of  independent  freemen,  who,  by  their  repre- 
sentatives, themselves  make  the  laws  by  which 
themselves  are  governed. 

In  relation  to  our  country,  let  it  be  remem- 
bered that  Europe,  particularly  the  manufac- 
turing part  of  it,  is  well  peopled,  whilst  our 
population  is  extremely  sparse.  The  population 
of  England,  including  Wales,  in  1803,  was  169 
to  the  square  mile ;  in  France  it  was  174  to  the 
square  mile.  In  1810,  the  population  of  Con- 
necticut, the  most  populous  State  in  the  Union, 
was  56.04  to  the  square  mile ;  that  of  Virginia 
only  13  and  a  fraction ;  and,  admitting  the  su- 
perficies of  the  United  States  to  be  two  millions 
of  square  miles,  the  whole  population  is  only 
three  and  eighty -three  hundredths  to  a  square 
mile. — [See  Seybert's  Statistical  Annals.]  The 
whole  land  of  England  and  Wales  is  estimated 
by  Bristed  at  38,500,000  acres.  I  have  already 
said,  that  Seybert  estimates  the  United  States 
at  2,000,000  square  miles;  this,  reduced  to 
acres,  amounts  to  1,280,000,000  acres  of  land. 
Now,  sir,  it  seems  to  me,  that  it  would  be  al- 
most sufficient  to  state  the  relative  population 
and  territory  of  the  two  countries,  to  convince 
any  man  that  what  may  be  a  correct  policy  in 
relation  to  England,  would  be  highly  improper 
for  us  to  pursue. 

The  population  of  England  and  Wales,  in 


DEBATES  OF  CONGRESS. 


639 


APRII,,  1820.] 


Revision  of  the  Tariff. 


[H.  OF  R. 


1803,  exceeded  that  of  the  United  States  in 
1810,  and  yet  the  territory  of  the  United  States 
is  more  than  thirty  tunes  that  of  England  and 
Wales;  whilst  the  population  of  the  United 
States,  to  the  square  mile,  is  more  than  forty 
times  less,  including  our  whole  superficies. 
Manufactures  suit  a  redundant  population,  with 
a  confined  territory ;  such  is  the  case  of  Eng- 
land ;  they  do  not  suit  a  sparse  population  and 
a  redundant  territory ;  such  is  the  situation  of 
the  United  States.  Manufactures,  if  not  forced 
into  existence  by  artificial  means,  are  the  natu- 
ral result  of  an  overflowing  capital;  it  never 
can  be  said  that  the  capital  of  any  country  can 
be  of  that  kind,  whilst  there  are  millions  and 
tens  of  millions  of  acres  of  the  most  fertile  land 
yet  uncultivated ;  such  is  the  situation  of  the 
United  States.  Whilst  there  is  land  of  this  sort 
to  cultivate,  its  cultivation  is  the  most  profitable 
appropriation  of  capital.  Take,  for  example, 
a  quarter  section  of  land  at  its  present  price, 
amounting  to  two  hundred  dollars;  let  but  one- 
half  of  this  be  well  cultivated,  and  I  know  of  no 
application  of  the  same  capital,  unconnected 
with  mere  speculation,  which  would  yield  an 
equal  result;  the  mere  maintenance  of  the 
family,  which  would  be  derived  from  it,  exclu- 
sive of  the  produce  which  might  be  sold,  under 
ordinary  circumstances,  to  an  amount  equal  to 
the  capital  invested,  would  be  more  than  the 
profit  of  any  other  appropriation  with  which  I 
am  acquainted.  What  is  true  of  one  quarter 
section,  is  equally  true  of  every  one  in  the 
United  States,  as  long  as  one  of  good  quality 
remains  in  an  uncultivated  state.  There  is 
an  argument  derived  from  the  influence  of 
machinery  upon  manufactures,  which  I  beg 
leave  to  present  to  the  committee,  because  it 
seems  to  ine  to  be  entitled  to  very  great  weight. 
To  make  the  application,  I  will  first  present  a 
few  facts.  In  a  note  to  Lauderdale,  on  Public 
Wealth,  page  294,  it  is  said,  that  a  machine  at 
Derby  contained  26,586  wheels,  and  97,746 
movements,  that  work  73,726  yards  of  silk 
at  every  turn  of  the  wheel ;  that  is  to  say, 
318,504,960  yards  in  twenty-four  hours.  In 
the  same  book,  page  301,  it  is  said  that,  in 
Scotland,  it  was  estimated  that  a  still  could  be 
discharged  about  once  a  day.  In  thirteen  years 
afterwards,  they  had  arrived  at  such  perfection 
as  to  discharge  it  almost  twenty-two  times  in 
an  hour — that  is,  upwards  of  five  hundred  times 
as  often.  These  statements  appear  to  be  such 
as  almost  to  startle  credibility.  Let  us  take 
Borne  much  more  moderate,  and  which  will 
answer  all  the  purposes  of  my  argument.  In 
Ganilh's  Political  Economy,,  it  is  said  that  Sir 
Richard  Arkwright's  invention  of  the  cotton- 
spinning  machine  shortened  that  kind  of  labor 
by  two-thirds,  and  rendered  it  twenty  tunes 
more  productive  than  it  had  been  before.  In  a 
supplement  to  the  Philadelphia  address  of  1819, 
it  is  said  that  a  British  spinner  can,  by  the  in- 
tervention of  labor-saving  machinery,  spin  as 
much  by  one  person  as  requires  in  India  sixty 
persons.  Finally,  in  the  same  book  it  is  said, 


upon  the  authority  of  a  British  writer,  that  the 
whole  laboring  population  of  Great  Britain  has 
its  powers  multiplied  fourteen  times  by  machi- 
nery. The  author  makes  an  estimation  which 
would  reduce  it  to  about  twelve-fold.  The 
general  purpose  for  which  I  have  made  these 
quotations  is  this — to  present  to  the  advocates 
of  this  bill  a  dilemma  from  which  it  seems  to 
me  they  cannot  extricate  themselves.  The  first 
part  of  it  is,  that,  if  we  have  not  the  advantage 
of  labor-saving  machinery,  it  is  utterly  impossi- 
ble to  sustain  a  competition  against  the  foreign 
manufacturer;  the  other  is,  that,  if  we  have 
that  machinery,  our  other  advantages  are  such 
that  our  manufacturers  do  not  need  any  further 
protection  from  the  Government.  The  first 
proposition  is,  that  it  is  impossible  to  sustain  a 
competition,  unless  we  have  the  advantage  of 
machinery.  If  I  were  to  take  the  case  of  the 
still,  which  I  have  stated,  and  rely  upon  that,  it 
would  be  so  striking  that  the  mere  statement 
of  the  fact  would  supersede  the  necessity  of 
argument  or  comment;  for  all  will  agree  at 
once  that  distillation,  carried  on  by  a  still,  dis- 
charged once  a  day,  could  not  maintain  a  com- 
petition against  that  carried  on  by  a  still  dis- 
charged five  hundred  times  a  day;  that  is  to 
say,  could  not  maintain  a  competition  where 
the  odds  were  five  hundred  to  one. 

The  profits  of  manufacturing  had  been  such 
during  the  war,  that  many  were  allured  to  em- 
bark in  it,  and  a  preat  portion  of  them  without 
an  adequate  capital  of  their  own,  but  deriving 
resources  from  the  facility  of  bank  accommoda- 
tions. The  great  depreciation  of  the  currency, 
on  account  of  its  excessive  quantity,  caused 
every  description  of  property  to  sell  extrava- 
gantly high.  This  would  have  been  nominal 
only,  if  the  currency  had  continued  of  its  then 
value ;  but  its  subsequent  great  and  actual  ap- 
preciation has  fatally  proven  that,  what  was 
only  a  nominal  high  price  in  the  commence- 
ment, has  turned  out  to  be  actually  so,  to  the 
ruin,  or  at  least  embarrassment  of  thousands. 
Thus,  a  considerable  portion  of  the  investments 
in  manufacturing  establishments  was  made 
whilst  every  thing  was  at  or  near  the  acme  of 
extravagant  price,  and  in  many  instances,  too, 
upon  a  borrowed  capital.  This  was  not  con- 
fined to  manufacturers;  every  interest  in  the 
country,  and  amongst  others,  the  agricultural, 
has  been  deeply  affected  by  this  state  of  things. 
Whenever,  from  any  cause,  the  circulating  me- 
dium of  a  country  begins  to  undergo  a  rapid 
depreciation,  the  immediate  and  necessary  effect 
is,  that  every  kind  of  property  begins  to  be  rep- 
resented by  more  dollars,  the  number  of  which 
increases  as  the  depreciation  increases.  This  is 
almost  universally  considered  a  rise  in  the  ac- 
tual value  of  property,  and  hence  a  spirit  of 
speculation  is  awakened  amongst  all  classes  of 
the  community ;  purchases  are  made,  contracts 
are  entered  into,  as  if  the  present  prices  were 
not  only  to  continue,  but  to  increase.  Soon, 
however,  depreciation  reaches  its  height,  and, 
according  to  the  course  of  human  affairs,  the 


640 


ABRIDGMENT  OF  THE 


H.  OF 


Revision  of  the  Tariff. 


[APRIL,  1820. 


currency  begins  to  move  in  a  contrary  progress ; 
appreciation  now  marches  with  as  gigantic 
strides  as  depreciation  had  done  before ;  and 
the  consequences  are  seen  in  the  ruin  of  thou- 
sands, who,  but  yesterday,  as  it  were,  seemed 
to  be  in  a  tide  of  prosperity.  The  condition  of 
the  United  States  is  a  practical  commentary 
upon  this  reasoning.  Within  three  or  four 
years  past,  the  farmer  got  two  dollars  per 
bushel  for  his  wheat ;  the  cotton  planter  thirty 
cents  for  his  cotton  ;  the  tobacco  planter  from 
twenty  to  thirty  dollars  per  hundred  for  his  to- 
bacco; contracts  and  purchases  were  made, 
predicated  upon  this  state  of  things;  lands 
which,  a  few  years  before,  had  sold  at  ten  and 
fifteen  dollars  per  acre,  now  sold  for  twenty 
and  thirty ;  slaves,  who  had  sold  at  four  or  five 
hundred,  now  sold  for  eight  hundred  or  a  thou- 
sand ;  and  so  of  all  the  other  transactions  in 
society.  The  great  bulk  of  society  cannot  dis- 
tinguish between  a  rise  in  price,  which  is  the 
result  of  depreciation  in  the  currency,  and  that 
which  proceeds,  from  actual  appreciation  in  the 
value  of  property. 

We  have  been  told,  however,  that  England 
has  derived  her  immense  wealth  from  manufac- 
tures, and  we  have  been,  therefore,  much 
pressed  with  the  weight  of  her  example.  I 
have  already  endeavored  to  show  that  in  this 
country  a  different  appropriation  of  capital  is 
more  profitable,  and  that,  therefore,  it  is  impos- 
sible to  increase  the  national  wealth  by  divert- 
ing it  to  a  less  profitable  one.  If  I  have  suc- 
ceeded in  this,  whatever  may  be  the  case  in  re- 
lation to  England,  her  example  is  not  for  our 
imitation.  I  beg  leave,  however,  to  tell  gentle- 
men that,  although  England  has  derived  much 
of  her  boasted  wealth  from  manufactures,  yet 
she  has  derived  a  large  portion  of  it  from  vari- 
ous other  sources ;  she  has  had,  for  a  long  series 
of  years,  with  the  unavoidable  interruptions  of 
war  only,  the  most  extensive  foreign  commerce 
in  the  world ;  she  for  a  long  time  had  the  mo- 
nopoly of  the  commerce  of  the  United  States, 
then  her  colonies ;  she  now  has  it  of  her  Amer- 
ican and  West  India  colonies;  but,  above  all, 
she  has  derived  immense  wealth  from  her  East 
India  possessions.  Whatever  may  have  been 
the  fate  of  her  East  India  Company,  the  nation 
itself,  per  fas  aut  nefas,  by  monopoly  and  op- 
pression, have  been  much  enriched  from  that 
extended  empire,  embracing  a  native  population 
of  forty  millions  of  people.  Let  us  for  a  mo- 
ment inquire  into  this  somewhat  in  detail: 
Colquhoun,  a  modern  British  writer,  informs 
us,  that  the  gross  revenue  of  the  East  India 
Company's  possessions  amounts  to  upwards  of 
£18,000,000  ;  the  same  writer  states  that  there 
are  6,000  British  people,  who,  as  civil  and  mili- 
tary officers,  receive  salaries  of  from  £200  to 
£10,000.  Besides  the  East  India  Company, 
there  are  in  their  territorial  possessions  4,000 
free  British  merchants ;  from  salaries,  and  from 
the  profits  of  the  free  trade,  large  sums  are  ac- 
cumulated by  individuals,  which  find  their  way 
to  the  mother  country.  It  is  true,  that  almost 


all  the  gross  revenue  is  expended  in  the  Com- 
pany's possessions ;  but  I  refer  the  committee 
to  the  history  of  that  suffering  country,  to  con- 
jecture of  how  much  they  have  been  plundered 
by  the  natives  of  England,  who  return  to  their 
native  land  to  riot  upon  the  spoils  which  their 
rapine  has  produced.  I  speak  upon  the  au- 
thority of  Colquhoun,  when  I  say  that  England 
has  been  much  enriched  from  that  source. 
But,  after  all,  what  is  this  boasted  wealth  of 
England?  Is  it  distributed  amongst  the  people 
at  large,  so  as  "  to  scatter  plenty  over  a  smiling  \ 
land  ?  "  No,  sir,  it  is  collected  into  the  hands 
of  comparatively  a  few ;  in  the  language  of 
another,  "  it  sprouts  into  wens  and  tumors,  and 
collects  in  aneurisms  which  starve  and  palsy  the 
extremities." 

Sir,  the  emblem  of  England  is  a  painted 
sepulchre — fair  without,  but  carious  within. 
View  that  country  at  a  distance,  and  you  see  a 
powerful  navy,  an  extensive  commerce,  and  a 
great  system  of  manufactures,  promising  almost 
boundless  wealth ;  but  lift  the  curtain — take  a 
nearer  view — and  you  behold  much  more  to  re- 
gret than  to  admire.  Such  a  view  will  present 
to  you  the  following  picture :  the  country 
mortgaged  as  it  were  by  a  debt,  the  mere  inter- 
est of  which  is  greatly  more  than  the  principal 
of  our  national  debt ;  this  interest  paid  to  the 
public  creditors,  who  are  less  than  one  million 
in  number,  whilst  the  whole  population  of  Great 
Britain  and  Ireland  is  between  sixteen  and 
seventeen  millions.  To  pay  this  interest  and 
the  current  expenses  of  Government  a  revenue 
was  raised  for  the  year  1819,  (which  for  that 
single  year  was  £54,000,000  sterling,)  equal  in 
our  currency  to  considerable  more  than  double 
the  whole  capital  of  our  national  debt,  and  then 
leaving  a  deficiency  of  £14,000,000.  The  taxes 
to  meet  this  enormous  expenditure,  supposed  to 
be  at  least  four  pounds  sterling  to  every  man, 
woman,  and  child;  the  poor  rates  for  1815, 
estimated  at  £7,800,000,  equal  to  $34,632,000 
— a  sum  considerably  larger  than  the  whole 
annual  expenditure  of  the  United  States 
Government,  including  the  Sinking  Fund  of 
$10,000,000 — the  paupers  estimated  as  being 
between  a  fifth  and  a  sixth  part  of  the  whole 
population  of  England.  Such  are  some  of  the 
outlines  of  the  picture  which  England  presents. 
There  is  indeed  much  wealth  in  the  country, 
but  so  distributed  as  to  make  extreme  riches 
and  extreme  poverty — a  state  of  things  which  I 
ardently  hope  never  to  see  existing  in  the  land 
which  gave  me  birth. 

Gentlemen  have  conceded,  that  the  proposed 
system  would  be  improper,  if  it  was  not  that 
the  nations  of  Europe,  and  especially  England, 
have  pursued  the  plan  of  positive  prohibition, 
or  high  duties  almost  amounting  to  prohibition, 
towards  us,  and  they  call  upon  us  to  imitate 
their  example.  The  first  answer  to  this  is, 
what,  I  believe,  has  been  already  urged, _  that  it 
would  be  strange  conduct,  because  foreign  na- 
tions have  injured  us  by  prohibition  or  high 
duties,  we  should,  therefore,  injure  ourselves 


DEBATES  OF  CONGRESS. 


641 


APRIL,  1820.] 


Revision  of  the  Tariff. 


[H.  OF  R. 


still  more  by  creating  a  monopoly  in  favor  of  a 
part  of  our  own  citizens,  at  the  expense  of  the 
rest.  But  let  us  now  trace  the  course  of  the 
English  policy,  and  the  reasons  which  led  to  it, 
together  with  the  point  at  which  it  has  now 
arrived,  and  I  think  I  shall  be  able  to  show  that 
it  ought  to  be  avoided,  not  pursued.  Govern- 
ments as  well  as  individuals  seem,  at  times,  to 
have  their  hobbies  ;  perhaps  there  are  few  sub- 
jects in  relation  to  which  the  hobby  has  been 
oftener  changed  than  that  of  political  economy, 
or  the  art  of  making  a  nation  rich ;  at  one 
time,  the  commercial  or  mercantile  system  is 
the  fashion  of  the  day;  at  another  time,  the 
doctrine  of  the  French  economists  prevails, 
that  agriculture  is  the  only  source  of  wealth ; 
now  it  seems  that  manufactures  alone  can  save 
us  from  ruin  and  bankruptcy.  But  I  return  to 
the  English  policy,  and  the  reasons  which  led 
to  it.  During  the  prevalence  of  the  mercantile 
system,  the  general  idea  was,  that  wealth  con- 
sisted in  gold  and  silver,  and  that  a  nation 
having  no  mines  could  only  get  them  by  ex- 
porting more  than  it  imported.  By  the  nse  of 
this  kind  of  reasoning,  persons  interested  in  the 
monopoly  of  the  home  market  induced  the  Par- 
liament either  to  prohibit  or  lay  heavy  duties 
on  importation;  and  those  concerned  in  the 
foreign  market  also  prevailed,  so  as,  in  some  in- 
stances, to  get  bounties  upon  exportation.  For 
some  time  this  was  submitted  to,  but,  at  last, 
the  country  gentlemen  began  to  perceive  these 
operations,  while  they  benefited  certain  classes, 
were  directly  at  their  expense.  With  a  view, 
then,  to  counteract  their  effects,  they  have, 
after  struggling  at  different  times,  procured, 
as  offsets,  the  following  provisions:  the  total 
prohibition,  except  from  Ireland,  of  cattle  and 
salted  provisions,  an  exclusion  of  all  foreign 
corn,  unless  when  the  scarcity  is  such  as  to 
raise  the  price  to  eighty  shillings  per  quarter, 
a  monopoly  price,  and  a  bounty  upon  the  ex- 
portation of  their  own  corn.  Now,  sir,  I  ask 
the  committee  whether  a  system  of  policy  can 
be  worthy  of  our  imitation,  which,  setting  out 
upon  entirely  false  principles,  creates  a  mo- 
nopoly in  favor  of  one  part  of  the  community  at 
the  expense  of  the  other,  and  then  seeks  to  re- 
store the  equality  by  a  set  of  countervailing 
provisions  in  favor  of  the  injured  party? 
Equality  is  the  desideratum;  you  may,  after 
having  made  one  scale  much  heavier,  restore 
the  equilibrium  by  putting  an  equal  weight  in 
the  other ;  but,  it  you  put  a  weight  into  neither 
scale,  the  equilibrium  has  never  been  destroyed. 
Thus  it  appears  that  all  which  can  be  hoped  for, 
after  piles  of  regulations  as  high  as  Atlas,  would 
be,  by  legislation  to  restore  an  equality,  which, 
by  legislation,  we  had  destroyed.  My  course, 
therefore,  is,  to  remain  where  we  are,  and  not 
disturb  the  balance  because  we  may  afterwards 
restore  it ;  if,  however,  we  must  imitate  the 
English  system  in  part,  I  hope  gentlemen  will 
give  it  all ;  a  part  of  which  is  a  bounty  upon 
the  exportation  of  their  corn.  If  gentlemen 
will  give  us  a  sufficient  bounty  on  the  exporta- 
VOL.  VI.— 41 


tion  of  our  breadstuff,  that  would  restore  us  to 
our  original  equality.  But,  it  is  said  that  Eng- 
land imposes  a  duty  upon  our  wool.  Do  not 
gentlemen  see  that,  unless  that  duty  is  drawn 
back,  upon  exportation,  to  the  United  States,  it 
operates  to  the  advantage  of  the  domestic 
manufacturer,  by  increasing  the  cost  of  the 
British  article?  And,  if  it  be  drawn  back, 
then  it  is  entirely  neutralized.  England,  also, 
say  gentlemen,  gives  her  manufacturers  a  draw- 
back upon  exportation  ;  and,  in  some  instances, 
a  bounty.  It  requires  only  to  define  the  terms 
drawback  and  bounty,  to  see  that  there  is  noth- 
ing in  this  complaint.  The  drawback  upon  the 
English  manufacturer  is,  where  an  excise  duty 
is  imposed  by  the  British  Government,  which 
raises  the  price  at  home ;  but,  as  they  cannot 
regulate  the  foreign  market,  therefore,  upon  the 
exportation,  they  draw  back  this  excise,  in  or- 
der that  their  people  may  come  into  foreign 
competition,  not  encumbered  with  this  increase 
of  cost.  The  case  of  the  bounty  is,  if  possible, 
still  plainer;  it  is  given  only  where,  without 
this  aid,  the  article  could  not,  upon  exportation, 
withstand  a  foreign  competition.  Any  article 
thus  situated,  it  is  obvious,  cannot  injure  the 
American  manufacturer  ;  that  is,  if  the  bounty 
be  not  too  large ;  and,  if  it  be,  the  British  Gov- 
ernment has  injured  its  people  in  favor  of  a  par- 
ticular class,  and  then  the  argument  is,  that  we 
must  inflict  a  like  injury  upon  the  American 
citizen,  in  favor  of  the  same  class ;  an  argu- 
ment, the  weight  of  which  it  is  submitted  to 
the  committee  to  appreciate. 

Mr.  HAKDIN  moved  to  postpone  the  bill  inde- 
finitely, and  the  House  adjourned. 


FBIDAY,  April  28. 
Revision  of  the  Tariff'. 

The  House  then  took  up  the  bill  to  regulate 
the  duties  on  imports,  and  the  amendments  re- 
ported thereto  by  the  Committee  of  the  whole 
House. 

Mr.  HARDIN'S  motion  to  postpone  the  bill  in- 
definitely being  under  consideration — 

Mr.  H.  rose  and  delivered,  in  a  speech  of 
nearly  two  hours  in  length,  his  sentiments  in 
opposition  to  the  bill. 

Mr.  McLANE,  of  Delaware,  addressed  the 
Chair  as  follows  : 

Mr.  Speaker :  I  am  too  sensible  of  the  value 
of  time,  at  this  protracted  period  of  the  session, 
to  task  the  patience  of  the  House  longer  than 
may  be  absolutely  necessary  to  submit  the  views 
I  entertain  of  this  subject.  When  efforts  so 
zealous,  urged  as  they  are  both  by  the  force  of 
individual  character  and  best  talents  of  the 
House,  are  made  to  defeat  the  principal  object 
of  this  bill,  I  owe  it  to  that  quarter  of  the  coun- 
try which  I  represent,  and  which  is  deeply  in- 
terested in  the  result  of  this  question,  to  contrib- 
ute my  aid  in  behalf  of  a  measure  which  I 
believe  is  calculated  to  mitigate  the  national 
distress,  and  promote  the  national  prosperity. 


642 


ABRIDGMENT  OF  THE 


H.  OF  R.] 


Revision  of  the  Tariff. 


[APRIL,  1820. 


Besides  the  general  principles  which  are  in- 
volved in  this  subject,  there  are  other  considera- 
tions, to  which  I  will  beg  leave  first  to  refer, 
why  this  motion  should  not  prevail. 

I  am  free  to  say  that  I  do  not  entirely  ap- 
prove of  the  bill  in  its  present  form.  It  em- 
braces too  many  subjects,  and  presents  a  com- 
bination of  objects  which,  I  fear,  will  counteract, 
in  the  extent  of  its  range,  some  of  the  benefits 
designed  to  be  afforded  to  that  portion  of  the 
national  labor  which  most  imperiously  requires 
to  be  cherished.  But,  though  it  may  be  in 
some  measure  true,  that  the  bill  proposes  more 
than  the  state  of  the  country  absolutely  requires, 
the  present  motion  does  not  propose  enough. 
If  the  bill  is  too  large,  and  calls  upon  us  to  do 
too  much,  it  is  no  reason  why  we  should  do 
nothing.  It  is  our  duty  to  modify  it,  and 
adapt  it  to  the  wants  and  condition  of  the 
country. 

And,  though  it  be  true,  as  has  been  urged, 
that  we  are  now  near  the  close  of  a  protracted 
session,  we  should  remember  that  it  has  been 
characterized  by  few  of  those  measures  to  which 
the  anxious  eyes  of  the  nation  have  been  con- 
stantly directed,  and  that  the  subject  now  be- 
fore us  is  one  neither  of  the  first  impression,  nor 
hastily  got  up.  It  has  been  before  the  people 
and  the  councils  of  the  country  for  many  years. 
and  forced  upon  the  reflectionof  the  least  consid- 
erate, by  the  pressure  of  the  private  and  pub- 
lic distress  which  this  bill  proposes  to  relieve. 
The  subject  underwent  a  full  investigation  when 
the  existing  tariff  was  established ;  and  the  great 
error  at  that  time  was,  that  there  was  not  af- 
forded a  degree  of  protection  commensurate 
with  the  evils.  The  inadequacy  of  the  existing 
tariff  has  been  fully  tested  by  past  experience, 
and  throughout  the  present  session  our  powers 
have  been  invoked  to  supply  its  defects.  We 
have  already  expended  a  week  in  investigating 
the  details  of  this  bill,  which  will  be  worse  than 
loss  of  time  if  we  separate  without  coming  to 
a  decision.  If  the  protecting  arm  of  the  Gov- 
ernment is  to  be  extended  to  the  national  labor, 
the  policy  should  be  announced  without  delay ; 
otherwise  it  may  prove  ineffectual  for  the  ob- 
ject. Considerable  capital  is  already  embarked 
"in  manufacturing  establishments,  and  if  it  be 
our  interest  to  preserve  it  there,  and  to  cherish 
its  employment,  it  is  indispensably  necessary 
that  we  should  inspire  the  capitalists  with  con- 
fidence in  our  policy,  to  prevent  them  from 
withdrawing  it,  or  to  save  it  from  actual  loss. 
If  we  fail  to  do  so  now,  the  remedy  may  be 
administered  when  the  disease  has  sunk  below 
its  efficacy.  A  determination  to  foster  this 
particular  employment  of  the  national  capital, 
may  prove  effectual  now,  even  with  an  inade- 
quate tariff,  when,  without  such  a  determina- 
tion, it  may  be  impossible  hereafter  to  repair 
the  ruins  which  might  have  been  prevented  by 
seasonable  aid. 

I  am  willing  to  unite  with  gentlemen  in  par- 
ing down  this  bill  to  reasonable  limits,  provided 
it  shall  be  allowed  to  give  abundant  encourage- 


ment to  the  principal  articles  of  public  necessity, 
and  afford  ample  relief  to  the  exigencies  of  the 
national  labor ;  but  I  will  take  it  as  it  is,  rather 
than  get  nothing.  It  is  our  duty  to  relieve  the 
distress  which  pervades  the  country,  and  there 
is  much  greater  danger,  in  my  opinion,  that  we 
shall  do  less,  than  more,  than  is  necessary. 

I  beg  leave,  also,  to  divest  this  subject  of  the 
particular  character  with  which  it  has  been  in- 
geniously attempted  to  stamp  it.  To  associate 
it  with  sectional  interests  and  particular  classes, 
is  treating  it  unfairly,  and  resembles  much  more 
the  indulgence  of  narrow  prejudices  than  the 
pursuit  of  a  liberal  policy  for  national  purposes. 
It  is  calculated  more  to  increase  a  common  evil 
than  to  promote  a  general  good,  or  to  conduct 
us  to  an  enlightened  decision.  The  object  is 
purely  national,  embracing  the  best  interests  of 
all  parts  of  the  community.  It  is  to  promote  a 
common  end,  for  a  common  benefit ;  to  cherish 
the  national  labor  and  capital  wherever  they 
may  be  found,  and  to  conduct  them  to  profitable 
and  national  results.  If  the  encouragement 
of  that  portion  of  our  labor  which  can  be  em- 
ployed in  the  manufactures  of  the  country,  will 
not  do  this,  it  ought  not  to  be  afforded.  1  claim 
for  them  no  particular  aid  beyond  what  may 
contribute  to  the  good  of  the  whole  mass  of  our 
national  industry. 

Having  said  thus  much,  Mr.  Speaker,  in  re- 
gard to  the  objections  against  the  tariff  as  a 
whole,  I  will  proceed  now  to  consider  the  gen- 
eral principles  upon  which,  I  think,  its  great 
objects  may  be  maintained  and  recommended 
to  our  adoption. 

I  was  fully  aware  of  the  principles  of  the 
writers  upon  political  economy,  which  have 
been  so  earnestly  and  ably  relied  upon  by  the 
opponents  of  the  tariff;  and  though  I  am  by  no 
means  disposed  to  involve  in  a  common  censure 
these  principles  and  their  authors,  they  appear 
to  me  to  be  unsafe  guides  in  this  discussion, 
where  they  are  not  sanctioned  by  experience, 
and  tested  by  the  practical  operation  of  national 
policy.  Much  of  the  numerous  treatises  upon 
political  economy  consists  in  plausible  theories, 
founded  upon  a  state  of  things  which,  in  fact, 
have  no  existence,  and,  with  regard  to  the  most 
of  these  theories,  the  greatest  difference  of  opin- 
ion prevails  among  the  authors  themselves. 
Among  these  numerous  theorists  each  is  the 
stout  advocate  of  his  own  system,  and  the  world 
has  not  yet  finally  decided  between  them.  One 
contends  that  agricultural  labor  is  the  only  profi- 
table source  of  wealth,  and  that  manufactur- 
ing capital  is  unproductive ;  this  is  denied  by 
another,  who  advocates  some  other  favorite 
branch  of  industry.  A  third  is  the  advocate  of 
commercial  capital ;  another  prefers  the  home 
trade ;  and  the  fifth  contends  for  the  superiority 
of  a  foreign  commerce;  so  that  scarcely  any 
two  of  them  agree,  when  they  come  to  carry 
their  respective  systems  throughout  the  details, 
and  are  yet  litigating  many  of  the  principles 
which  have  been  so  confidently  relied  upon  in 
this  debate.  Sir,  it  is  the  course  of  true  wisdom 


DEBATES  OF  CONGRESS. 


643 


APRIL,  1820.] 


Revision  of  the  Tariff. 


[H.  or  R. 


in  us  to  leave  them  to  their  employment;  and 
adopt  those  principles  only  which  we  find  in 
practical  and  successful  use.  With  these  as  our 
data,  we  must  adapt  our  measures  to  our  own 
wants,  and  the  actual  condition  of  the  world. 

Now,  sir,  whatever  contrariety  of  opinion 
may  prevail,  in  regard  to  the  mass  of  the  theo- 
ries upon  this  subject,  there  is  a  common  foun- 
dation for  them  all :  and  that  is,  that  the  source 
of  individual  and  national  wealth  is  labor,  and 
that  the  degree  of  the  former  will  be  in  propor- 
tion to  the  activity  of  the  latter.  We  may  also 
disagree  as  to  the  particular  mode  of  employ- 
ment in  which  this  labor  will  be  most  produc- 
tive, but  all  will  agree  that  it  must  be  employed 
in  some  way.  It  must  be  made  active ;  and,  if 
necessary,  must  be  stimulated  to  activity.  The 
evils  of  an  unemployed,  inactive  labor,  are  al- 
ways in  proportion  to  its  capacity,  and  all  the 
vices  which  follow  in  the  train  of  an  idle  pop- 
ulation will  soon  chastise  a  nation  whose  coun- 
cils are  inattentive  to  the  employment  of  its 
labor.  I  am  not  the  advocate  of  any  particular 
branch  of  labor.  I  believe  it  is  best,  in  general, 
that  it  should  be  diversified.  I  can  have  no 
idea  of  a  nation  purely  agricultural,  commer- 
cial, or  manufacturing.  Their  interests  are 
mutual,  and  the  advantage  of  each  is  always 
promoted  by  encouraging,  to  a  certain  extent, 
the  prosperity  of  the  others.  I  am  free  to  say, 
however,  that,  in  the  United  States,  the  pre- 
ference should  be  given  to  the  agriculture  of 
the  country.  This  should  be  the  basis  of  our 
strength,  the  great  fountain  of  onr  resources, 
and  in  the  nature  of  things  it  always  must  be 
so.  There  is,  therefore,  no  design  to  change 
the  agricultural  character  of  the  nation  into  a 
manufacturing  one,  as  has  been  so  seriously 
deprecated  in  this  debate.  Such  fears  are  alto- 
gether imaginary.  At  least  nine-tenths  of  the 
power  and  influence  of  this  country  are  agricul- 
tural, and  it  is  is  utterly  impossible  that  a  course 
of  policy  can  be  pursued,  for  any  length  of  time, 
which  shall,  in  any  degree,  subvert  that  inter- 
est. The  agriculturist  understands  his  interests, 
and  will  not  be  slow  in  resisting  any  serious 
encroachment  upon  them.  In  a  popular  gov- 
ernment like  ours,  his  resistance  will  always  be 
prompt  and  effectual.  Even  in  England,  ex- 
tended as  are  her  manufactures,  the  agricultural 
interest  is  always  predominant ;  and  there  is  no 
instance,  in  all  the  struggles  with  regard  to  the 
grain  laws,  and  other  measures  in  which  these 
two  great  interests  have  been  opposed,  that  the 
agriculturists  have  not  prevailed. 

It  is  clearly  among  the  first  duties  of  a  nation 
to  make  the  labor  of  its  citizens  active,  and 
direct  it  to  the  most  profitable  results.  Not  by 
undue  means  to  stimulate  any  particular  branch 
of  labor,  to  the  ruin  and  injury  of  any  other; 
but  to  stimulate  the  aggregate  of  its  own  against 
the  aggregate  of  foreign  labor,  and  to  protect 
any  particular  branch  of  its  own  labor  against 
the  rivalship  of  foreign  policy.  If  a  nation  ex- 
pects to  become  wealthy  and  powerful,  it  must 
exert  itself  to  supply  its  wants  by  its  own  la- 


bor, rather  than  depend  upon  foreign  labor  for 
articles  of  the  first  necessity. 

The  principle  is  not  only  sound  in  theory,  but 
is  that  which  is  in  practical  operation  in  every 
nation  which  understands  its  own  interest. 
They  sell  all,  and  buy  nothing  with  which  their 
own  labor  can  supply  them.  Let  us  look  to  the 
example  of  England.  She  is  agricultural,  com- 
mercial, and  manufacturing.  The  state  of  her 
agriculture  is  equal  to  that  of  any  part  of  the 
globe ;  her  manufacturing  interests  more  exten- 
sive than  in  any  other.  Her  policy  uniformly 
has  been  to  cherish  her  manufacturing  labor,  as 
auxiliary  to  her  national  wealth,  and  to  resist 
all  foreign  competition.  It  is  manifested  in  the 
earliest  dawnings  of  her  history.  She  began 
with  encouraging  the  manufacture  of  the  coarse 
articles  which  constituted  her  prime  wants,  and 
afterwards  followed  up  her  policy  with  an  un- 
ceasing assiduity,  until  she  not  only  shielded 
her  own  labor  from  the  competition  of  other 
nations,  but  in  a  great  measure  crippled  their 
labor  at  home,  and  became  the  source  of  supply 
for  all  the  world.  Have  we  not  seen  the  effects 
of  this  policy  diffusing  themselves  throughout 
every  branch  of  her  industry,  and  over  every 
part  of  her  empire,  until  by  this  means  there 
has  been  reared  up  a  mass  of  wealth  and  power 
almost  irresistible  ?  It  is  true,  we  have  been 
referred  to  England  for  an  example  of  the  evils 
of  what  has  been  termed  the  manufacturing 
system  and  her  national  debt ;  her  insurrectional 
temper  and  mass  of  pauperism,  have  been  in- 
geniously urged  in  the  debate.  But  these  are 
not  the  effects  of  her  manufacturing  system. 
They  are  the  result  of  the  expensive  wars  in 
which  she  has  been  perpetually  involved,  and 
the  insupportable  weight  of  taxation  conse- 
quent upon  them ;  of  a  policy  which  has  kept 
her  continually  embroiled,  by  intermeddling  in 
the  disputes  of  others,  when  she  had  none  of 
her  own  on  hand ;  a  policy  to  which  she  would 
long  since  have  fallen  a  victim,  but  for  those 
abundant  streams  of  wealth  which  her  active 
labor  continually  poured  into  her  lap,  and 
which  she  so  lavishly  drained  in  the  cause  of 
her  unhallowed  ambition.  It  does  not  follow- 
that  we  are  to  imitate  her  in  these  respects, 
because,  like  her,  we  afford  protection  to  our 
home  labor ;  and  I  cannot  believe  that  we  shall 
be  likely  to  beget  treasonable  insurrections  by 
rewarding  the  occupation  of  the  citizen  with 
ease  and  cheerfulness.  Insurrections  are  the 
fruits  of  an  idle,  discontented  population ;  they 
may  be  produced  by  the  neglect,  but  not  by  the 
watchful  protection  of  the  Government.  The 
same  policy  was  early  adopted,  and  has  been 
ever  since  pursued,  by  France,  Holland,  Prus- 
sia, Italy,  and  many  other  powers  of  Europe ; 
and  all  who  are  at  all  conversant  with  their 
history,  know  that  similar  effects  proved  the 
wisdom  of  affording  national  encouragement  to 
national  labor.  The  famous  continental  sys- 
tem of  Bonaparte  shows  that  he  early  discerned 
this  real  source  of  national  wealth  and  power. 
When  meditating  the  destruction  of  the  British 


644 


ABRIDGMENT  OF  THE 


H.  OF  R.] 


Revision  of  the  Tariff. 


[APRIL,  1820. 


empire,  he  knew  very  well  the  source  of  her 
strength,  and  he  wisely  conceived  the  policy  of 
drying  it  up.  Had  his  ambition  been  tempered 
with  some  portion  of  patience,  and  he  had  con- 
sented to  wait  a  few  years  for  the  gradual  suc- 
cess of  his  policy,  it  would  have  been  more  om- 
nipotent than  his  arms.  His  example,  however, 
has  not  been  lost  upon  the  other  nations  of  Eu- 
rope; and  though  they  did  not  yield  to  his 
schemes,  Kussia,  and  almost  every  other  nation, 
excepting  Spain  and  Portugal,  have  voluntarily 
adopted  it.  The  principle  of  the  Eussian  tariff 
is  to  receive  nothing  from  abroad  that  she  pos- 
sesses skill  and  labor  to  make  at  home.  Spain 
and  Portugal  are  the  victims  of  a  different  pol- 
icy. They  adopt  the  principles  which  are 
everywhere  written  and  nowhere  practised. 
Spain  stands  a  solitary  beacon  to  warn  us  of 
her  fatal  example,  which  buried  the  highest 
spirit  and  best  capacity  in  the  miseries  of  idle- 
ness and  luxury,  and  drove  her  population  to 
seek  a  remedy  through  the  dangerous  paths  of 
revolt  and  insurrection. 

The  system  is  not  a  new  one  in  the  United 
States.  We  have  always  deemed  it  our  duty 
to  protect  the  home  labor  against  foreign  com- 
petition. Our  duties  upon  the  agricultural  pro- 
ducts of  foreign  countries  were  not  imposed  for 
purposes  of  revenue,  but  for  the  protection  of 
our  own  agricultural  industry.  And  although 
gentlemen  may  be  disposed  to  regard  these  reg- 
ulations lightly  now,  because  of  the  peculiar 
condition  of  foreign  countries  heretofore,  they 
are,  nevertheless,  indicative  of  the  sense  we 
entertain  of  our  true  policy  ;  nor  should  it  be 
forgotten  that  East  India  cotton  is  already  im- 
ported into  the  United  States  cheaper  than  it  can 
be  procured  from  the  Southern  States ;  and  that 
the  day  may  not  be  distant,  when  the  com- 
petition in  this  article  will  be  much  more  for- 
midable. 

We  have  adopted  the  same  system  for  the 
protection  of  the  commercial  enterprise  of  the 
country.  The  heavy  foreign  tonnage,  the  high 
rate  of  duties  upon  merchandise  imported  in 
foreign  vessels;  bounties  allowed  on  the  ex- 
portation of  fish  ;  tonnage  and  drawback  grant- 
ed to  fishing  vessels ;  the  exclusion  of  foreign 
vessels  from  the  coasting  trade,  and  the  entire 
system  of  navigation  laws,  are  evidently  de- 
signed to  give  a  preference  to  American  ships 
and  enterprise,  over  those  of  foreigners.  I  do 
not  refer  to  these  in  the  spirit  of  complaint ; 
far  from  it ;  the  wisdom  of  the  policy  is  appa- 
rent in  its  effects.  Nor  do  I  refer  to  them  to 
show  that,  because  we  have  done  much  for 
commerce,  we  should,  therefore,  do  something 
for  manufactures ;  but  I  refer  to  them,  as  dem- 
onstrating the  utility  of  the  doctrine,  of  leaving 
things  to  regulate  themselves ;  as  evincing  the 
necessity  of  national  protection  for  national  la- 
bor, and  of  counteracting  the  effect  of  foreign 
competition  upon  our  home  enterprise,  in  what- 
ever channel  it  may  be  employed. 

Before  the  establishment  of  our  independ- 
ence, we  relied  for  our  supplies  principally  upon 


the  labor  of  England,  whose  policy  it  was  to 
preserve  that  state  of  dependence,  and  discour- 
age all  efforts  in  her  colonies  to  manufacture 
for  themselves.  But  the  successful  termination 
of  that  memorable  conflict  defeated  her  policy, 
and  gave  a  new  spring  to  our  enterprise,  and 
the  same  spirit  by  which  it  was  achieved  dic- 
tated a  resort  to  our  own  resources  to  give  it 
perpetuity.  The  subject  was  almost  the  first 
that  occupied  our  national  deliberations ;  and 
the  report  of  the  illustrious  man  who  then  pre- 
sided over  the  treasury,  Mr.  Hamilton,  por- 
trayed with  a  prophetic  hand  the  true  course 
of  national  policy.  It  would  have  been  pur- 
sued long  ago,  but  for  those  desolating  wars 
which  soon  afterwards  broke  out  in  Europe, 
and  which  have  continued  ever  since,  until  very 
recently,  with  scarcely  any  intermission,  and 
cramped  both  the  agricultural  and  commercial 
enterprise  of  those  nations.  Their  population 
was  drawn  from  these  employments  to  man 
their  fleets  and  fill  the  ranks  of  their  armies ; 
they  had  little  time  for  the  cultivation  of  the 
peaceful  arts,  and  we  became  their  growers  and 
carriers.  In  such  a  state  of  things,  the  popu- 
lation of  the  country,  at  that  time,  found  full 
employment  in  the  agricultural  and  commercial 
pursuits,  and  in  the  multiplicity  of  handicraft 
and  other  employments,  to  which  a  flourishing 
state  of  those  two  great  branches  of  industry 
always  give  rise. 

The  demand  abroad  exceeded  our  means  of 
supply;  we  received  high  prices  for  all  our 
produce ;  our  commerce  penetrated  all  parts  of 
the  world ;  every  man  found  constant  demand 
for  his  labor;  and  the  capital  of  the  country 
had  a  brisk  circulation ;  we  exchanged  all  our 
products  for  the  fabrics  of  foreign  countries,  un- 
der great  advantages,  and  increased  in  wealth 
and  power  with  an  unexampled  rapidity.  But 
a  new  state  of  things  has  taken  place.  Those 
wars  have  terminated,  and  the  world  is  at 
peace.  The  population  which  filled  the  fleets 
and  armies  of  Europe  is  withdrawn,  and  is  now 
turned  to  agricultural  and  commercial  pursuits. 
We  no  longer  possess  the  exclusive  advantages 
in  these  respects ;  they  neither  require  our 
ships  nor  our  agricultural  products.  Their  de- 
mand for  our  surplus  produce  will  diminish  an- 
nually ;  for  they  are  rapidly  carrying  into  prac- 
tical operation  their  policy  of  creating  their 
own  supply.  We  all  know,  too,  that  the  India 
trade  never  did,  and  never  will,  require  any 
part  of  our  products ;  it  deals  principally  in 
money,  and  operates  as  a  perpetual  drain  of  our 
specie.  If,  in  connection  with  these  causes,  we 
consider  our  increasing  population,  the  result 
is,  that  our  wants  of  Europe  are  augmenting 
and  theirs  of  us  are  diminishing.  As  we  can 
export  less,  we  must  raise  less ;  we  cannot  em- 
ploy the  same  quantity  of  labor,  and  all  those 
industrious  people  who  are  occupied  in  feeding 
the  demands  of  a  prosperous  state  of  agricul- 
ture and  commerce  are  cast~upon  society  with- 
out the  means  of  subsistence.  The  result  is, 
also,  that,  as  foreign  nations  will  not  take  our 


DEBATES  OF  CONGRESS. 


645 


APRIL,  1820.] 


Revision  of  the  Tariff. 


[H.  OF  R. 


surplus  produce  in  exchange  for  the  articles  for 
which  we  rely  upon  them,  we  must  go  in  debt 
for  the  amount,  and  without  any  means  that  I 
can  discover  of  making  payment.  The  balance 
of  trade  against  us  last  year  was  twenty-eight 
millions  of  dollars :  and  every  one  must  see 
that,  as  the  wants  of  foreign  nations  are  annu- 
ally diminishing,  this  balance  must  increase 
with  the  same  proportion.  What,  though  it 
may  be  true,  as  has  been  contended,  that  the 
present  embarrassments  may  be  occasioned  in 
some  degree  by  the  inordinate  extension  of  the 
bank  capital,  and  the  imprudent  speculations 
of  individuals,  it  neither  makes  the  evil  less, 
nor  varies  the  remedy.  If  the  distress  be  at 
all  ascribable  to  this  source,  it  is  more  because 
of  the  capital  having  been  suddenly  withdrawn 
from  circulation,  than  because  it  was  ever 
thrown  into  use.  No  doubt  much  of  the  indi- 
vidual embarrassment  which  now  prevails 
would  have  been  spared,  if  such  an  accumulation 
of  bank  capital  had  not  been  made.  But  it  can- 
not be  disguised,  that  this  capital  had  become 
the  standard  of  the  business  and  transactions 
of  the  country,  and,  if  it  had  been  permitted 
to  continue,  the  labor  of  the  country  would  in 
time  have  redeemed  it.  It  has  been,  however, 
suddenly  taken  up— a  stagnation  of  business, 
scarcity  of  a  circulating  medium,  sacrifice  of 
property,  and  want  of  employment  ensue.  The 
necessity  for  the  interposition  of  Congress  is 
only  increased,  therefore ;  and,  as  we  refuse  to 
create  a  national  currency,  the  duty  becomes 
more  imperious  to  provide  another  remedy. 
The  remedy  is,  to  foster  the  national  industry, 
to  create  a  market  at  home  for  our  surplus,  and 
to  make  for  ourselves  what  we  should  be 
obliged  otherwise  to  import  from  abroad. 

The  degree  in  which  the  encouragement  shall 
be  afforded  is,  then,  sir,  the  only  remaining 
question.  I  am  willing  that  this  should  be 
measured  by  the  capacity  of  our  labor,  and  the 
obstacles  with  which  it  has  to  contend.  But  it 
should  be  sufficient  to  produce  a  successful  ri- 
valship,  and  secure  the  preference  in  the  home 
market.  I  do  not  advocate  the  policy  of  pre- 
maturely drawing  the  labor  from  one  branch  of 
industry  to  another ;  by  extraordinary  encour- 
agement, or  by  high  duties,  to  create  a  capacity 
which  is  to  be  useful  some  twenty  years  hence. 
But,  where  we  possess  the  capacity,  which,  by 
a  due  preference  in  our  own  market,  would 
supply  our  consumption  with  those  articles,  with 
the  raw  material  of  which  our  own  country 
abounds ;  there,  I  contend,  the  duty  becomes 
imperious  to  cherish  the  capacity,  and  stimulate 
it  to  the  highest  activity.  It  is  in  this  point  of 
view,  among  others,  that  the  policy  of  the 
friends  of  the  tariff  avoid  the  narrow  construc- 
tion now  put  upon  the  visionary  theories  of  po- 
litical economists ;  it  is  not  entirely  giving  a  new 
direction  to  the  labor  of  the  country,  or  creat- 
ing new  habits  or  employments  at  a  great  ex- 
pense upon  other  classes.  It  finds  the  capacity 
existing ;  it  looks  to  the  direction  which  men's 
own  dispositions  and  the  course  of  events  have 


given  to  the  labor,  and  finding  it  struggling 
with  a  foreign  competition,  it  steps  in  to  its  aid, 
cherishes  its  resources,  and  secures  them  the 
scope  of  the  home  market.  But  the  relief  should 
be  prompt  and  effectual.  If  the  first  tariff  had 
gone  to  the  extent  now  proposed,  many  of  the 
evils  of  which  we  now  complain  would  have 
been  avoided.  It  is  no  answer  to  say  that  the 
tariff  was  then  deemed  sufficient;  and  if  the 
manufacturers  then  believed  it  would  be,  it  only 
proves  that  they  desired  no  extravagant  aid. 
One  thing,  however,  is  certain :  that  Congress 
did  not  fix  the  duties  at  as  high  a  rate  as  was 
recommended  by  the  Secretary  of  the  Treasury, 
and  the  result  has  clearly  proved  its  entire  in- 
adequacy. 

Mr.  LOWNDES  said,  that,  after  the  view  which 
had  been  taken  of  the  question  before  the  House 
by  his  friends  who  had  already  spoken,  he 
should  not  attempt  a  systematic  exposition  of 
the  grounds  of  his  vote ;  because,  in  doing  so, 
he  would  be  obliged  to  employ  arguments  which 
they  had  stated  more  clearly  and  strongly  than 
he  could  do.  On  this  account  his  observations 
must  be  very  desultory. 

The  question  was  not  whether  manufactures 
were  useful ;  a  great  deal  of  trouble  had  been 
taken  to  prove  what  nobody  denied.  Nor  was 
it  even  the  question,  whether  it  was  the  policy 
of  the  Government  to  encourage  them  by  duties 
upon  foreign  importations.  His  friends  had 
shown,  by  arguments  which  had  not  been  an- 
swered, that  that  employment  of  industry  which 
afforded  the  most  profit  to  the  individual  would 
ordinarily  conduce  most  to  the  wealth  of  the 
State,  and  that  the  duties  or  prohibitions  which 
should  direct  any  portion  of  the  labor  of  the 
country  to  a  business  which  it  could  not  other- 
wise engage  in,  would  usually  be  found  to  sub- 
stitute a  less  profitable  employment  for  one 
which  was  more  so.  If  they  are  right,  the 
present  bill,  which  proposed  a  large  additional 
encouragement  to  particular  branches  of  indus- 
try, must  be  entirely  indefensible ;  but,  if  there 
were  doubt  as  to  the  correctness  of  opinions,, 
(which  they  held  in  common  with  every  politi- 
cal economist,  to  whose  work  time  had  given 
its  sanction,)  this  doubt  was  enough  to  dissuade 
the  House  from  further  interference  on  a  subject 
on  which  they  had,  perhaps,  already  gone  too 
far.  While  his  principal  object  would  be  to 
show  that  the  encouragement  already  afforded 
was  as  great  as  could  reasonably  be  granted,  he 
wished,  before  he  engaged  in  an  inquiry  into 
the  degree  of  encouragement,  to  advert  to  some 
general  principles  which  he  supposed  to  be  in- 
volved in  the  discussion. 

The  gentleman  from  Delaware,  (Mr.  McLAXK,) 
whose  argument  he  had  heard  with  as  much 
attention  and  pleasure  as  any  of  those  who  most 
fully  concurred  in  his  opinions,  had  proposed  no 
partial  or  sectional  objects.  He  wished  to  en- 
courage the  industry  of  the  nation ;  to  raise  the 
value  of  labor  and  capital  employed  in  every 
pursuit.  This  was  very  patriotic,  but  very  im- 
practicable.  We  cannot  create  capital.  We 


646 


ABRIDGMENT  OF  THE 


H.  OF  R.] 


Revision  of  the  Tariff1. 


[APRIL,  1820. 


are  not  magicians  or  alchymists.  We  can  do 
no  more  than  to  produce  a  change  in  the  distri- 
bution of  labor  among  the  different  employ- 
ments of  life ;  and,  if  we  increase  the  profits  of 
any  branch  of  industry  by  our  legislation,  it 
must  be  by  taking  from  one  class  what  we  give 
to  the  other.  Perhaps  the  general  good  might 
be  promoted  by  such  an  act,  (he  was  not  now 
entering  into  this  question  ;)  perhaps  the  class 
at  whose  expense  the  interests  of  another  class 
were  to  be  promoted,  might  ultimately  be  in- 
demnified for  a  temporary  sacrifice;  but  the 
expectation  must  be  utterly  illusory,  that  a 
bounty  could  be  given  to  any  branch  of  indus- 
try without,  at  least,  a  temporary  sacrifice  by 
some  others. 

It  was  plain  that  the  defence  of  the  bill  be- 
fore the  House  implied  that  the  industry  em- 
ployed in  manufactures  at  home,  should  be 
more  encouraged  by  the  Government  than  that 
which  was  engaged  in  procuring  for  us  the  pro- 
duce of  foreign  countries  in  exchange  for  the 
labor  or  produce  of  our  own.  The  first  was 
called  the  home  industry,  and  the  phrase  had 
no  small  influence  in  the  discussion.  In  pur- 
chasing commodities  imported  from  abroad,  we 
are  supposed  to  encourage  principally  the  indus- 
try of  a  foreign  State.  Plausible  as  this  view 
might  appear,  he  thought  that  even  a  slight  ex- 
amination of  the  subject  would  show  that  man- 
ufactures and  commerce  might  be  equally  pro- 
ductive, and  might  equally  encourage  "home 
industry." 

Between  the  results  of  commercial  and  manu- 
facturing industry,  the  difference  is  not  as  great 
as  it  has  been  represented.  In  manufactures  a 
material  of  inferior  value  receives  a  change  in 
its  form  which  adds  greatly  to  its  utility.  The 
fabrication  which  is  completed  in  our  country 
affords  a  profit,  which  is  equal  to  the  difference 
in  value  between  the  raw  material  and  the 
manufactured  article,  after  deducting  the  ex- 
pense of  manufacture.  In  commerce  a  material 
of  inferior  value  is  carried  abroad,  and  converted 
into  an  article  (or  exchanged  for  one)  which  to 
us  is  much  more  valuable.  The  conversion  af- 
fords us,  as  in  the  first  case,  a  profit,  which  is 
equal  to  the  difference  in  value  between  the 
original  article  and  the  exchanged  product, 
after  deducting  the  expense  of  the  exchange. 
If  a  thousand  people,  in  a  corner  of  our  coun- 
try, make  among  them  all  the  provisions  which 
they  consume,  and  in  addition  to  these  furnish, 
by  their  industry,  one  hundred  thousand  dollars' 
worth  of  broadcloth,  it  does  not  appear  that 
they  add  more  to  the  wealth  of  the  State  than 
the  same  number  of  people  would  do  distributed 
among  the  employments  of  merchants,  sailors, 
and  farmers,  who,  after  supporting  themselves, 
should  exchange  the  surplns  productions  of  a 
part  of  them  (enhanced  in  value  by  the  other 
part  which  transports  and  exchanges  them)  for 
the  same  amount  of  one  hundred  thousand  dol- 
lars in  broadcloth,  the  same  value  of  the  same 
article.  If,  by  high  duties  or  by  positive  laws, 
we  could  force  these  merchants  and  seamen  to 


stay  at  home,  and  their  capital  and  industry 
should  produce,  as  before,  the  one  hundred 
thousand  dollars'  worth  of  broadcloth,  the  arti- 
cle, although  fabricated  in  the  country,  would 
not  more  be  the  result  of  American  industry 
(for  the  purpose  of  this  argument)  than  if  it 
had  been  obtained  by  the  other  process  of  mari- 
time adventure.  It  is  quite  natural  to  consider 
the  foreign  manufacture  as  entirely  the  product, 
and  its  purchase  as  the  encouragement  of  foreign 
industry.  But  how  did  we  get  it?  Whatever 
may  be  the  amount  of  foreign  fabrics  which  are 
spread  over  our  country,  if  it  be  the  industry  of 
Europe  which  produces,  it  is  the  industry  of 
America  which  acquires  them. 

The  industry  employed  in  commerce,  then,  is 
American  industry,  and  the  acquisition  even  of 
foreign  fabrics  is  the  result  of  American  indus- 
try and  its  encouragement.  He  should  have  an 
opportunity  of  illustrating  this  view  when  he 
came  to  treat  of  a  branch  of  trade  which  the 
bill  before  the  House  proscribed — he  meant  the 
East  India  trade.  He  could,  for  the  present, 
observe  only  that  the  importation  of  foreign 
fabrics  acquired  by  American  industry,  if  they 
were  furnished  at  a  lower  price  than  our  manu- 
facturers could  afford  to  sell  at,  produced  the 
same  loss  and  the  same  benefit  as  the  introduc- 
tion of  any  new  machinery,  or  of  any  simpler 
process  which  would  lessen  the  expense  of  fab- 
rication. In  employing  the  saw  mill  or  the 
spinning  jenny,  we  acted  upon  the  same  princi- 
ple of  getting  what  we  wanted  as  cheap  as  we 
could,  and  we  produced  the  same  distress  in 
throwing  out  of  employment  the  persons  whose 
ruder  industry  could  not  stand  this  new  compe- 
tition. There  was  one  admission,  however, 
which  he  frankly  made ;  the  effect  upon  home 
industry  was  the  same  of  improved  machinery 
or  of  foreign  trade — but  the  trade  which  bene- 
fited ourselves  benefited  also  the  country  whose 
wants  we  supplied,  or  whose  products  we  con- 
sumed. Let  this  objection  have  whatever 
weight  it  was  entitled  to.  Its  principle  was 
not  so  much  anti-commercial  as  anti-social. 

In  encouraging,  then,  the  manufactures  of 
the  country  by  duties  upon  importation,  his 
friend  from  Delaware  would  do  the  very  thing 
which  he  meant  to  avoid — he  would  promote 
one  branch  of  American  industry  at  the  ex- 
pense of  another.  But  whether  this  control  of 
individual  industry  was  right,  he  meant  to  leave 
to  the  arguments  of  his  friends  from  Virginia. 
It  had  been  said  that  the  plan  of  encouraging 
particular  branches  of  industry  had  been  applied 
to  commerce  as  well  as  manufactures.  This  was 
no  decisive  recommendation  of  it.  If  the  na- 
tion had  been  taxed  to  encourage  commerce,  it 
was  a  poor  indemnity,  (it  was  not  exactly  a 
compensation  of  errors,)  that  it  should  be  taxed 
for  the  support  of  manufactures.  There  was, 
too,  some  little  difference  between  the  two 
cases.  Taxes  for  the  support  of  Government 
were  laid  upon  commerce ;  these  were  paid  by 
the  consumers  of  foreign  merchandise,  and 
whatever  the  expenses  on  account  of  commerce 


DEBATES  OF  CONGRESS. 


647 


ATRIL,  1820.] 


Revision  of  the  Tariff. 


[H.  OF  R. 


may  have  been,  they  were  expenses  which  com- 
merce herself  was  made  to  pay.  The  merchant, 
or  the  purchaser  of  foreign  articles,  received,  if 
you  please,  some  relief  from  the  credit  which 
was  allowed  upon  the  payment  of  duties ;  but 
he  certainly  received  nothing  from  contributions 
which  were  paid  by  any  other  class  in  the  com- 
munity. 

Exclusive  advantages,  indeed,  have  been 
given  to  the  navigating  interest.  The  principal 
interest  of  it  was  the  monopoly  of  the  coasting 
trade.  This  was  connected  with  considerations 
of  defence,  not  of  profit — to  support  not  our 
merchants,  but  our  navy.  But  what  was  the 
extent  of  the  bounty?  In  the  direct  trade 
•with  the  first  navigating  country  in  the  world 
(England)  our  ships  obtained,  without  any  dis- 
crimination in  the  duties,  the  larger  part  of  the 
navigation.  Could  the  ships  of  foreign  nations, 
unable  successfully  to  compete  witli  ours  in 
foreign  trade,  have  carried  on  the  coasting 
trade  on  lower  terms  than  our  own  ?  No  other 
interest  has  contributed  a  bounty  to  commerce, 
and  the  discrimination  in  favor  of  American 
navigation,  in  the  only  instances  in  which  it 
could  be  expected  to  operate,  (if  it  ever  op- 
erated at  all,)  was  a  discrimination  of  ten  per 
cent. 

The  encouragement  of  manufactures  in  the 
mode  proposed,  whether  the  thing  were  right 
or  wrong,  must  produce  two  effects — the  one, 
that  of  withdrawing  labor  aud  capital  from 
commerce  or  agriculture,  and  thus  enlarging 
the  whole  amount  employed  in  manufactures ; 
the  other,  that  of  effecting  the  distribution  of 
labor  and  capital  among  the  different  branches 
of  manufactures  themselves.  He  would  say 
nothing  of  the  first  effect,  but  the  second  must 
be  allowed  to  be  one  of  unmixed  injury.  Ad- 
mit that  it  is  our  interest  to  manufacture  arti- 
cles which  we  could  procure  at  cheaper  rates 
from  abroad,  it  must  be  still  more  our  interest 
to  manufacture  such  as  prove  themselves  adapt- 
ed to  our  circumstances  by  being  able  to  bear 
foreign  competition.  Our  capital  and  labor  are 
limited,  and,  in  directing  the  largest  amount  of 
these  into  branches  which  require  most  encour- 
agement, we  really  divert  them  from  those  into 
which  they  would  flow  with  most  advantage. 
Thus,  every  branch  of  industry  which  is  en- 
tirely safe  from  foreign  competition,  and  in  re- 
spect to  which  protecting  duties  may  be  con- 
sidered as  nominal,  must  be  injured  by  the 
encouragement  of  those  which  draw  from  them 
their  resources  of  capital  and  labor.  We  have 
many  branches  of  industry  among  those  which 
may  be  expected  to  be  first  established  in  everv 
country,  which  seem  not  to  be  more  prosperous 
now  than  they  were  thirty  years  ago,  nor  are 
the  articles  which  they  furnish  by  any  means 
at  so  low  a  price.  What  are  called  the  me- 
chanic arts  are  generally  in  this  class.  Why  is 
this  so?  Because  Government,  in  fact,  bids 
against  them;  because  the  operation  of  this 
system  of  duties  must  be  relative,  and,  in  en- 
couraging one  branch  of  industry,  \ve  necessa- 


rily discourage  another.  Look  at  the  iron 
manufactory  as  a  proof  of  this.  It  is  said  to 
want  yet  further  encouragement,  recently  as  the 
duties  have  been  raised,  and,  it  is  true,  (he  had 
the  proof  of  it  upon  his  table,)  that  the  profits 
of  the  iron-master  were  greater  before  the  Rev- 
olution than  they  had  been  for  some  past  years; 
greater  when  our  capital  and  population  were 
small,  and  foreign  competition  unrestricted,  than 
when  all  these  circumstances  were  changed  in 
our  favor.  To  all  that  industry,  whether  agri- 
cultural or  manufacturing,  which  is  safe  from 
foreign  competition,  the  system  of  "  encourag- 
ing domestic  industry"  can  give  no  advantage, 
but  it  must  share  in  the  burden  without  parti- 
cipating in  the  profits.  We  exported  the  last 
year,  he  believed,  manufactured  goods  to  the 
amount  of  three  millions.  The  establishments 
which  furnished  these  could  not  gain  by  duties 
upon  importation ;  but  their  expenses  would' be 
increased,  though  their  profits  could  not. 

Mr.  L.  enlarged  for  some  time  upon  this  sub- 
ject, and  attempted  to  show  that  the  system  of 
laying  a  high  duty  upon  every  process  of  manu- 
facture must  frequently  produce  this  effect; 
that,  to  encourage  a  manufacture  which  em- 
ploys but  a  small  number  of  hands,  and  is  com- 
paratively unimportant,  we  may  raise  so  high 
the  price  of  an  article  which  supports  the  in- 
dustry and  subserves  the  comfort  of  a  large 
class  of  the  community,  as  to  produce  general 
inconvenience.  He  appealed  not  to  theory  but 
to  fact.  We  were  anxious  in  1816  to  encourage 
the  rolling  of  copper.  We  did  so,. and  laid  a 
duty  upon  copper  in  sheets.  Our  plan  has,  in 
part,  succeeded.  Two  establishments  have 
been  maintained,  which  are  said  to  employ 
fifty-four  workmen;  and  it  is  computed  that 
four  thousand  industrious  men,  the  braziers  who 
work  up  this  copper,  (whose  industry  even  be- 
gan to  furnish  articles  for  exportation,)  have 
suffered  heavy  and  general  injury,  which  has 
extended  to  all  their  customers — to  a  large  por- 
tion of  the  community. 

The  view  on  which  peculiar  reliance  appeared 
to  be  placed  for  the  defence  of  this  bill  was  that 
which  was  connected  with  the  alleged  failure 
of  our  policy  hitherto  in  respect  both  to  the  in- 
dustry and  revenue  of  the  country.  He  had 
heard  these  arguments  with  surprise.  He 
should  hereafter  make  some  observations  upon 
a  comparison  between  our  import  duties  and 
those  of  the  nations  of  Europe.  But,  was  it 
enough  to  condemn  our  policy  that  it  was  not 
European?  It  is  yet  more  true  of  internal 
taxes  than  of  impost,  that  the  nations  of  Europe 
are  very  far  in  advance  of  us.  Their  establish- 
ments of  other  kinds  differ  more  than  their 
tariffs  from  those  of  the  United  States.  W V 
had  ventured,  however  rash  it  might  be 
thought,  "to  adopt  principles  which  had  not 
been  tested"  by  their  experience.  And,  had 
we  suffered  for  our  temerity  ?  Had  our  experi- 
ment really  failed?  What  nation  in  Europe 
had  advanced  more  rapidly  to  prosperity  and 
wealth  by  the  most  successful  wars,  than  had 


6-18 


ABRIDGMENT  OF  THE 


H.  OF  R.] 


Revision  of  the  Tariff. 


[APRIL,  1820. 


the  United  States  without  a  conquest,  by  the 
mere  development  and  natural  growth  of  their 
resources?  Let  their  policy  be  changed  if  it 
must  be  so,  but  let  them  not  be  ungrateful  to 
the  wisdom  which  had  directed,  to  the  Provi- 
dence which  had  favored  them.  The  nominal 
value  of  property  might  change ;  the  currency 
might  rise  or  depreciate ;  but  a'  population 
quadrupled  in  less  than  fifty  years,  and  a  pro- 
duction increased  in  a  yet  larger  proportion, 
furnished  no  evidence  to  condemn  the  scheme 
under  which  security  had  resulted.  Independ- 
ently of  the  protection  of  property,  which  our 
laws  afforded,  the  principal  cause  of  a  growth 
so  extraordinary  must  be  found  in  the  high  re- 
wards of  labor.  In  new  countries,  where  land 
is  yet'  not  fully  appropriated,  labor  always  ob- 
tains a  high  price  in  the  raw  produce  of  the 
earth,  and  generally  but  a  small  one  in  manu- 
factured articles.  It  has  been  the  happy  pecu- 
liarity of  our  situation  and  of  our  policy  that 
the  laborer  has  obtained  as  large  an  amount  as 
anywhere  else  of  the  necessaries  which  agricul- 
ture furnishes,  and  a  much  larger  one  of  the 
comforts  which  manufacturers  provide.  The 
statesmen  may  mar  his  condition,  but  cannot 
mend  it.  He  cannot  raise  his  wages  estimated 
in  the  produce  of  the  earth,  and  by  a  large  for- 
eign import  he  must  lower  his  wages  if  you 
estimate  them  in  the  manufactures  which  he 
must  consume. 

The  revenue  which  the  impost  furnishes,  is 
paid  by  the  consumer,  and  not  by  the  mer- 
chant. It-is  paid  in  the  enhanced  price  of  the 
article  which  he  buys.  The  gentleman  from 
Pennsylvania  seems  to  think,  that,  if,  by  exclud- 
ing this  article,  he  is  forced  to  consume  only 
the  domestic  fabric,  the  Government,  which  has 
not  received  its  accustomed  duty  upon  the  im- 
portation of  foreign,  may  collect  the  same 
; amount  by  an  excise  upon  domestic  articles. 
"The  money  has  not  been  carried  out  of  the 
country."  If,  indeed,  by  ceasing  to  import  the 
foreign  fabric,  the  domestic  article  is  furnished 
-to  the  consumer  at  a  lower  price,  he  may  pay  a 
tax  upon  it — but  the  tax  which  was  paid  in  the 
price  of  the  article  is  not  reduced  by  its  exclu- 
sion ;  it  is,  indeed,  so  far  as  the  farmer  is  con- 
cerned, increased — he  pays  more  for  the  arti- 
cles which  he  buys ;  his  expenses  are  greater ; 
his  -clear  revenue  less.  Is  there  any  legerde- 
main'by  which,  under  these  circumstances,  his 
ability  to  pay  taxes  can  be  increased?  You 
-tell  him  that  he  paid  before  a  certain  tax  to  the 
Government,  and  that  he  does  not  pay  it  now ; 
he  answers  you,  that  he  pays  a  higher  tax,  be- 
cause he  pays  a  higher  price  now  than  he  did 
formerly,  and  that  it  is  not  his  fault  that  this 
tax  goes  into  the  pocket  of  the  manufacturer, 
and -not  into  the  public  treasury.  If,  in  addi- 
tion to  the  exclusion  of  the  foreign  article,  you 
•lay  an  excise  upon  the  domestic  product,  it  is 
evident  that  the  country  must  pay  a  double 
tax,  although  the  Government  will  not  receive 
it.  It  is  hardly  possible,  however,  to  reason 
upon  'this  subject.  The  ability  to  pay  taxes 


must  be  diminished  by  every  thing  which  adds 
to  the  expenses  (as  the  exclusion  of  foreign 
goods  must  do)  of  those  who  are  to  pay  them. 

Mr.  L.  said  that  he  would  return  for  a  mo- 
ment to  the  consideration  of  the  question,  how 
far  the  propriety  "  of  leaving  things  to  them- 
selves," was  affected  by  the  opposite  system 
which  was  pursued  by  foreign  powers.  If 
China  should  by  law  admit  all  our  produce, 
manufactured  or  agricultural,  it  is  plain  enough 
that  we  could  not  advantageously  send  there 
any  which  we  do  not  now  send.  Indeed,  he 
did  not  know  that  she  prohibited  any  of  our 
produce,  but  if  she  did  the  prohibition  was 
nominal,  and  it  was  evident  that  its  removal 
could  not  change  the  policy  which  it  was  our 
interest  to  pursue.  But  perhaps  China  be- 
longed to  a  sphere  of  industry  too  different 
from  ours,  for  the  application  of  these  princi- 
ples. "Would  the  admission  of  the  products  of 
our  industry  by  the  nations  of  Europe  justify, 
in  the  estimation  of  the  friends  of  this  bill,  the 
reciprocal  admission  of  theirs  ?  Of  what  avail 
would  it  be  to  us  that  England  should  consent 
to  take  our  manufactures  ?  An  engagement  to 
do  so  would  "  keep  its  promise  to  the  ear,  but 
break  it  to  the  sense."  Our  breadstuffs  she 
takes  now  only  when  wheat  is  above  ten  shil- 
lings, when,  by  the  by,  it  is  most  our  interest 
to  sell  it.  Suppose  her  laws  permitted  its  im- 
portation when  the  price  was  low ;  would  any 
friend  of  the  bill  avow  that  this  policy,  which 
would  make  the  establishment  of  manufactures 
here  a  matter  of  somewhat  more  difficulty, 
would  incline  him  to  dispense  with  protecting 
duties  in  favor  of  our  manufactures?  He  put 
it  to  the  candor  of  his  friends  on  the  other  side, 
to  say  whether  they  would  consent  to  a  treaty 
by  which  the  raw  produce  of  America  and  the 
manufactures  of  England  should  be  exchanged 
without  duty?  They  would  not.  Their  objec- 
tions to  an  intercourse  unburdened  by  duties, 
would  be  still  stronger  than  they  now  are,  if 
Europe,  in  affording  a  better  market  for  our 
agriculture,  should  oppose  still  stronger  diffi- 
culties to  the  establishment  of  manufactures. 

Yet  it  was  true  that  those  who  wished  to 
impose  heavier  duties  or  prohibitions  upon  for- 
eign manufactures,  alleged  that,  by  doing  so, 
the  price  of  agricultural  produce  would  be 
raised.  It  was  equally  true,  and  more  strange, 
that  a  great  many  good  people,  interested  in 
agriculture,  had  believed  the  allegation.  The 
error  was  susceptible  of  easy  refutation.  If, 
indeed,  the  allegation  were  just,  the  manufac- 
turer would  gain  nothing  by  the  change.  If 
the  prices  of  what  he  buys  and  sells  rise  in  the 
same  proportion,  he  might  as  well  leave  every 
thing  as  it  is.  But  the  notion  that  the  encour- 
agement of  manufactures  will  give  a  good  price 
to  the  productions  of  agriculture  is  entirely 
fallacious.  Whatever  may  be  the  domestic  de- 
mand for  our  grain,  the  supply  will  exceed  it. 

Mr.  L.  said  that,  in  the  detached  observations 
which  he  had  offered,  he  had  endeavored  to  re- 
move the  impression  which  some  of  the  general 


DEBATES  OF  CONGRESS. 


649 


APRIL,  1820.] 


Revision  of  the  Tariff. 


[H.  OF  R. 


arguments  of  the  friends  of  the  bill  had  made. 
The  propositions  which,  to  his  mind,  it  appeared 
necessary  that  they  should  establish,  they  did 
not  prove — they  scarcely  noticed.  Grant  that 
it  is  right  that  the  Government  should  encourage 
all  the  manufactures  of  the  country,  that  con- 
siderable duties  should  be  laid  upon  the  impor- 
tation of  every  article  which  can  compete  with 
our  own  fabrics.  This  we  have  done  already. 
He  believed  that  there  was  now  no  nation  in 
the  world  which,  in  proportion  to  its  income, 
paid  so  great  a  bounty  to  its  manufacturers,  as 
the  United  States.  Had  it  ever  been  contended, 
not  merely  that  manufactures  should  be  en- 
couraged, but  that  the  bounty  to  be  given 
should  not  be  limited  by  any  determined  rela- 
tion to  the  necessity  of  the  manufacture,  or  the 
fair  profits  of  the  manufacturer?  This  mode 
of  defending  the  bill  was,  perhaps,  judicious; 
it  was  certainly  embarrassing  to  its  opponents. 
You  say  that  it  is  important  to  encourage  the 
manufacture  of  cotton.  Be  it  so.  We  know 
that,  however  it  be  disguised,  this  can  be  done 
only  at  the  expense  of  the  other  classes  of  so- 
ciety. Is  it  not  proper  to  inquire  what  expense 
is  necessary  ;  what  would  be  adequate  ?  The 
operation  of  a  protecting  duty  was  simple,  but 
he  must  detain  the  House  for  a  few  moments 
upon  the  subject,  trite  and  familiar  as  it  was. 
Where  duties  are  laid  upon  the  importation  of 
articles  of  a  kind  which  is  not  produced  within 
the  country,  the  additional  price  which  is  paid 
by  the  community  is  received  into  the  public 
treasury,  with  a  deduction  only  for  the  costs  of 
collection.  Where  a  duty  is  laid  upon  the  im- 
portation of  an  article  which  is  produced  with- 
in the  country,  it  will  cause  the  same  rise  in  its 
price  as  in  the  former  case ;  but,  of  the  addi- 
tional sum  which  is  paid  by  the  community,  a 
part  will  be  received  by  the  Government  and  a 
part  by  the  manufacturer  or  producer  of  the 
domestic  article.  If,  for  instance,  one  hundred 
millions  of  pounds  of  sugar  were  consumed  an- 
nually in  the  United  States,  and  three-fourths 
of  this  amount  were  furnished  by  domestic  in- 
dustry, an  additional  duty  of  one  cent  the  pound 
would  cause  the  consumers  of  sugar  throughout 
the  country  to  pay  one  million  of  dollars  more 
in  the  price  of  the  article,  than  they  would 
otherwise  do — would  impose  upon  the  people  a 
new  tax  of  one  million ;  but,  of  this  sum,  less 
than  $250,000  would  be  received  by  the  Gov- 
ernment, and  $750,000  by  the  sugar  planter. 

What  he  regretted,  Mr.  L.  said,  most,  in  the 
course  pursued  by  the  Committee  of  Manufac- 
ture, was,  that  they  suggested  no  standard  by 
which  the  sufficiency  of  the  encouragement 
which  they  proposed  could  be  tested,  and  prom- 
ised, therefore,  no  limitation  to  the  burden 
which  might  be  imposed  upon  the  country. 
The  chairman  of  that  committee  had,  indeed, 
more  than  once  directed  our  attention  to  the 
duties  imposed  by  the  laws  of  Russia,  France, 
and  England — models  which  we  had  not  yet 
learned  to  imitate.  It  was  not  extraordinary 
that  Governments  which  were  obliged  to  drain 


every  resource  of  revenue,  should  lay  heavier 
duties  upon  importation  than  we  had  done. 
There  was  no  part,  however,  of  their  system  of 
exaction  in  which  we  approached  so  near  them 
as  in  our  duties  upon  commerce.  In  attempting 
any  comparison  between  their  duties  and  those 
of  the  United  States,  it  was  obviously  neces- 
sary to  consider  the  difference  of  our  circum- 
stances. 

Mr.  L.  said  that  he  would  say  no  more  as  to 
the  degree  of  additional  encouragement  which 
was  required  by  our  manufactories. 

But  he  had  a  few  observations  to  make  as  to 
the  principles  which  appeared  to  have  been 
adopted  in  the  tariff  proposed  by  the  Committee 
of  Manufactures. 

Among  the  most  objectionable  of  these  was 
what  he  considered  as  the  proscription  of  the  East 
India  trade,  the  principal  articles  afforded  by 
which  were  subjected  to  a  duty  of  forty  per  cent. 

The  ground  of  this  proscription  was,  that  the 
East  Indies  took  from  us  scarcely  any  article  of 
our  produce. 

He  had  occasion  on  a  former  day  to  advert  to 
one  of  the  most  interesting  branches  of  this 
trade — to  that  in  which  neither  specie  nor  pro- 
duce was  exported,  but  in  which  the  enterprise 
and  industry  of  our  seamen  formed  the  capital 
which  a  harsh,  and,  he  thought,  a  mistaken 
policy  would  condemn  to  inactivity.  They  took 
nothing  from  your  country  ;  but  they  explored 
the  most  distant  seas — they  climbed  almost  in- 
accessible rocks — they  pursued  their  hardy  and 
dangerous  employment  between  the  ports  of 
savage  nations,  and  earned  by  their  freights  a 
capital  'which  fortune  had  not  given  them. 
You  would  encourage  manufacturing  industry 
because  it  was  productive  ;  but  the  industry  of 
the  brave  men  of  whom  he  spoke  created  the 
capital  which  they  brought  back  to  our  country. 
They  did  not  twirl  the  spindle,  or  fling  the 
shuttle ;  but  when  they  brought  home  a  cargo 
of  India  fabrics,  (peculiarly  suited  to  the  wants 
of  the  poorest  class  of  our  society,)  was  their 
industry  less  worthy  of  encouragement,  because 
they  had  made  these  fabrics  on  tempestuous 
seas,  or  because,  in  pursuing  their  own  interests, 
they  acquired  and  perfected  the  naval  excellence 
which  made  them  our  pride  and  our  defence  ? 
We  gave  them  the  hospitality  of  our  ports :  they 
might  take  in  wood  and  water,  and  sail  in  search 
of  some  strange  land,  from  which  these  products 
of  American  industry  are  not  yet  excluded ! 
The  policy  appeared  to  him  unjust  and  cruel. 

But  the  other  branches  of  the  East  Indian 
trade  merited  encouragement  rather  than  pro- 
hibition. He  had  already  spoken  of  the  fallacy 
which  represented  a  trade  to  be  injurious,  in 
which  the  imports  exceeded  the  exports ;  and 
the  East  Indian  trade  furnished  a  good  illustra- 
tion of  the  fallacy.  It  takes,  if  you  please, 
nothing  of  domestic  produce  from  us ;  it  gave 
to  the  consumption  of  the  country,  in  the  year 
when  he  had  last  examined  the  subject,  an 
amount  of  goods  to  the  value  of  five  millions. 
How  were  these  goods  paid  for  ?  Specie  had 


650 


ABRIDGMENT  OF  THE 


H.  OF  R.] 


Revision  of  the  Tariff. 


[APRIL,  1820. 


undoubtedly  been  shipped  both  from  America 
and  Europe  for  their  purchase.  But  our  sales 
of  East  India  articles  in  foreign  countries  had 
exceeded  the  amount  of  our  purchases  in  India. 
Five  millions  of  goods  then  consumed  in  the 
United  States  were  paid  for  by  the  mere  profits 
of  the  trade.  Three  thousand  seamen,  support- 
ed by  the  requisite  capital,  added  in  one  year 
five  millions  to  the  clear  amount  of  national  in- 
come. There  was  no  exportation  of  our  pro- 
duce to  pay  for  these  fabrics,  because  they  were 
paid  for  already  ;  they  were  the  acquisitions  of 
American  industry. 

He  would  not  detain  the  House  by  talking  of 
the  injury  which  the  Indian  trade  was  supposed 
to  do  us  by  draining  our  specie.  How  the  pur- 
chase of  merchandise,  either  in  India  or  any- 
where else,  of  which  we  kept  the  part  that  we 
wanted,  and  sold  the  remainder  for  more  than 
we  gave  for  the  whole,  could  lessen  the  specie 
which  we  retained,  it  would  be  a  little  difficult 
to  explain. 

Another  characteristic  of  the  proposed  tariff, 
is  its  raising  the  duty  on  articles  which  had 
been  lowered  in  the  act  of  1816,  because  from 
their  small  bulk,  in  proportion  to  their  value,  it 
had  been  found  impracticable  to  prevent  their 
being  smuggled  into  the  country.  Watches, 
jewelry,  and  laces,  had,  among  other  articles, 
been  reduced  to  seven  and  a  half  per  cent. 
The  reduction  had  been  proposed  by  the  Secre- 
tary of  the  Treasury,  and  adopted  by  the  House 
on  this  ground.  Had  any  examination  into  the 
fact  been  made  by  the  Committee  of  Manufac- 
tures? They  had  raised  other  articles  also 
which  were  known  even  at  the  present  duties 
to  have  been  introduced  clandestinely — for  in- 
stance, coffee  from  five  to  six  cents,  segars  from 
$2  50  to  $5.  A  large  class  of  articles,  of  which 
the  supply  is  almost  exclusively  afforded  by  the 
industry  of  the  country,  and  on  which  an  in- 
creased duty  if  it  have  "any  effect  at  all  can  only 
have  that  of  unnecessarily  increasing  the  price, 
is  taxed  in  the  proposed  tariff  considerably 
higher  than  now.  Thus,  carriages  and  furniture 
are  raised  from  thirty  to  thirty-five  per  cent. ; 
boots  from  $1  50  to  $2  ;  candles  from  three  to 
five  cents ;  molasses  from  five  to  ten  cents ; 
nails  from  four  to  five ;  soap  from  three  to  four ; 
brown  sugar  from  three  to  four.  He  might 
make  the  list  much  longer. 

Mr.  BALDWIN  replied  to  Mr.  LOWKDES  and 
others. 

Mr.  FOOT  observed,  having  spent  the  whole 
.of  his  life  in  commercial  and  agricultural  pur- 
suits, and  being  a  practical  friend  to  domestic 
manufactures,  he  felt  it  to  be  his  duty  to  state 
the  reasons  which  induced  him  to  move  the 
postponement  of  this  bill  to  the  first  day  of  next 


Sir,  this  subject  is  not  only  very  important, 
but  very  intricate,  involving  the  interest  of 
every  portion  of  the  community.  A  radical 
or  very  material  alteration  of  a  commercial 
tariff  must  of  necessity  produce  a  sensible  shock 
in  every  community.  It  ought  never  to  be 


adopted  without  much  deliberation,  and  a  care- 
ful attention  to  its  effects  upon  the  several  in- 
terests which  must  of  necessity  be  affected  by 
any  change  in  the  system. 

If  the  Committee  of  Manufactures  had  con- 
fined their  attention  to  the  several  articles  of 
foreign  manufacture  which  interfere  with  our 
domestic  manufactures  alone,  the  bill  would 
have  received  my  vote  without  any  hesitation. 
But,  sir,  when  it  is  proposed  to  alter  the  whole 
system,  ostensibly  for  the  encouragement  of 
American  manufacturers,  and  proposes,  among 
the  first  articles,  to  impose  an  additional  duty 
of  6£  per  centum  on  the  dyeing  materials  essen- 
tial to  our  own  manufacture,  and  increases  the 
duty  on  the  most  necessary  articles,  while  it  re- 
duces the  duty  on  wines  and  luxuries ;  and 
when  we  are  told  by  the  chairman  that  our  sys- 
tem of  revenue  from  imports  is  rotten,  and  that 
our  dependence  on  commerce  as  a  source  of  rev- 
enue must  be  abandoned, — sir,  I  think  we 
should  pause  before  we  rashly  adopt  a  measure 
calculated — yes,  sir,  and  even  avowed  as  a  meas- 
ure— to  prohibit  the  importation  of  many 
articles  from  which  most  of  our  revenue  has 
always  been  obtained,  to  the  amount  of  more 
than  three  hundred  millions  of  dollars;  and 
when  we  have  been  also  sarcastically  threatened, 
that  if  we  complained  of  a  duty  of  ten  cents  on 
a  gallon  of  molasses,  because  of  its  unequal  and 
partial  operation  upon  the  interests  of  our  con- 
stituents, that  fifteen  cents  should  be  imposed. 
Sir,  I  think  the  system,  as  well  as  the  views  of 
those  who  advocate  it,  demand  our  serious  at- 
tention. 

Sir,  gentlemen  declare  this  measure  has  been 
requested  by  the  merchants  of  our  country,  and 
that  the  agricultural  interest  does  not  object 
to  it.  If,  sir,  the  commercial  and  agricultural 
interests  of  this  country  had  as  many  Represent- 
atives on  this  floor  as  there  are  gentlemen  of 
one  prof  ession  in  Congress,  you  would  hear  their 
voice  in  "  tones  of  thunder1'  against  the  pa.-sage 
of  this  bill.  Would  they  consent  to  pay  direct 
taxes  to  the  amount  of  twenty  millions  of  dollars 
annually?  Who  must  pay  your  additional  du- 
ties? The  consumers,  all  will  acknowledge: 
and  it  has  been  truly  said,  that  the  agricultural 
interest  composes  nine-tenths  of  the  whole 
population.  If  gentlemen  who  so  strenuously 
advocate  this  bill  would  encourage  domestic 
manufactures,  by  using  them  in  their  dress, 
rather  than  those  very  articles  of  foreign  manu- 
facture which  have  driven  the  American  manu- 
facturer to  ruin,  sir,  you  would  afford  them 
more  efficient  aid  than  by  any  legislative  provi- 
sions. 

Sir,  it  is  with  a  view  of  affording  to  those 
who  are  interested  in  this  subject  an  opportunity 
to  be  heard,  and  for  a  fair  investigation  of  the 
merits  of  this  bill,  (which  has  been  before  the 
public  but  about  one  week ;)  and  as  at  this  late 
period  of  the  session  there  is  not  sufficient  time 
to  digest  and  mature  a  proper  system  ;  and  with 
a  full  conviction  that  this  bill  will  not  aid  the 
manufacturer,  but  will  materially  inj  ure  the  two 


DEBATES  OF  CONGKESS. 


651 


MAY,  1820.] 


Small  Vessels  of  War, 


[H.  OF  R. 


great  interests  of  agriculture  and  commerce, 
and  most  sensibly  affect  the  revenue  of  the 
country, — that  this  motion  is  made.  And  I  do 
hope  gentlemen  will  consent  to  its  postponement 
until  the  next  session. 

I  presume  a  large  majority  of  this  House  will 
support  the  bill  for  laying  duties  on  sales  at 
auction,  which,  in  my  opinion,  will  afford  essen- 
tial encouragement  to  the  manufacturing  in- 
terest and  the  regular  merchant,  without  any 
material  injury  to  any  portion  of  the  coun- 
try. 

But,  sir,  I  am  not  prepared  to  give  my  vote 
in  favor  of  this  bill,  which  will,  in  my  opinion, 
materially  affect  the  interests  of  the  agricultu- 
ral and  commercial  portion  of  the  Eastern  sec- 
tion of  the  Union,  by  its  unequal  operation 
upon  the  East  India  trade,  with  but  a  doubtful 
prospect  of  benefit  to  the  manufacturer. 

Mr.  SILSBEE,  of  Massachusetts,  made  a  few 
remarks  in  reply  to  Mr.  BALDWIN  ;  when — 

Mr.  SIMKTNS  moved  that  the  bill  and  amend- 
ments be  postponed  until  the  first  day  of  the 
next  session.  In  favor  of  which  motion,  Mr. 
HAKDIN  withdrew  his  motion  for  indefinite  post- 
ponement. 

Mr.  PARKER,  of  Virginia,  then  demanded  the 
previous  question,  but  the  call  was  not  sustained 
by  a  majority  of  the  House. 

The  question  was  then,  about  six  o'clock, 
taken  on  the  motion  to  postpone  the  bill  until 
the  first  day  of  the  next  session,  and  was  de- 
cided in  the  negative. 

The  amendments  reported  from  the  Commit- 
tee of  the  Whole  to  the  said  bill,  were  then 
concurred  in  by  the  House. 

Mr.  EDWARDS,  of  North  Carolina,  then  moved 
further  to  amend  the  bill,  by  reducing  the  duty 
on  salt  imported,  from  twenty-five  cents  per 
bushel  to  twenty  cents  per  bushel. 

The  yeas  and  nays  being  ordered  on  this 
question,  Mr.  METCALF  moved  the  previous 
question,  (the  effect  of  which  would  be  to  de- 
cide forthwith  the  main  question,  viz.,  the  en- 
grossment of  the  bill  for  a  third  reading ;)  but 
the  call  was  negatived — 71  to  60. 

The  question  was  then  taken  on  reducing 
the  salt  duty,  and  decided  in  the  affirmative,  by 
yeas  and  nays — For  the  amendment  93,  against 
it  71. 

Mr.  HILL,  of  Massachusetts,  moved  to  amend 
the  bill  by  reducing  the  duty  on  imported  mo- 
lasses from  "  ten"  cents  to  "  five"  cents  a  gal- 
lon ;  on  which  motion  the  yeas  and  nays  were 
ordered. 

Mr.  PARKER,  perceiving  that  all  the  amend- 
ments which  had  been  discussed  and  rejected 
in  Committee  of  the  Whole  would  probably  be 
again  offered,  and  the  time  of  the  House  occu- 
pied in  the  tedious  process  of  deciding  them 
again,  by  yeas  and  nays,  moved  again  for  the 
previous  question. 

The  call  for  the  previous  question  was  sus- 
tained by  a  vote  of  86  to  62  ;  and  the  previous 
question,  "Shall  the  main  question  be  now 
put?"  was  stated  accordingly,  and  was  decided, 


by  yeas  and  nays,  in  the  affirmative — ayes  92, 
noes  71. 

The  said  main  question  was  then  put,  to  wit : 
"  Shall  the  bill  be  engrossed,  and  read  a  third 
time?"  and  passed  in  the  affirmative 
nays  69,  as  follows :  < 

YEAS. — Messrs.  Adams,  Allen  of  New  York,  Baker, 
Baldwin,  Bateman,  Beecher,  Bloomfield,  Boden, 
Brown,  Brush,  Campbell,  Case,  Clark,  Cook,  Dar- 
lington, Dennison,  Dewitt,  Dowse,  Eddy,  Edwards  of 
Connecticut,  Edwards  of  Pennsylvania,  Ervin,  Fay, 
Folger,  Ford,  Forrest,  Gross  of  New  York,  Gross  of 
Pennsylvania,  Guyon,  Hackley,  Hall  of  New  York, 
Hall  of  Delaware,  Hazard,  Hemphill,  Hendricks. 
Herrick,  Hibshman,  Heister,  Hostetter,  Kendall, 
Kinsey,  Kinsley,  Little,  Linn,  Lyman,  Maclay, 
McLane  of  Delaware,  McLean  of  Kentucky,  Mar- 
chand,  Mason,  Meigs,  Metcalf,  R.  Moore,  S.  Moore, 
Monell,  Morton,  Mosely,  Murray,  Newton,  Parker 
of  Massachusetts,  Patterson,  Phelps,  Philson,  Pitcher, 
Rich,  Richmond,  Rogers,  Ross,  Russ,  Sampson, 
Sawyer,  Sergeant,  Shaw,  Sloan,  Smith  of  New  Jer- 
sey, Southard,  Stevens,  Storrs,  Strong  of  New  York, 
Tarr,  Taylor,  Tomlinson,  Tompkins,  Tracy,  Trimble, 
Van  Rensselaer,  Wallace,  Wendover,  and  Wood. 

NAYS. — Messrs.  Alexander,  Allen  of  Tennessee, 
Anderson,  Archer  of  Maryland,  Archer  of  Virginia, 
Ball,  Barbour,  Bayley,  Bryan,  Buffum,  Burton,  Bur- 
well,  Butler  of  New  Hampshire,  Butler  of  Louisiana. 
Cannon,  Clagett,  Cobb,  Cocke,  Crafts,  Crawfordj 
Crowell,  Culbreth,  Culpeper,  Cushman,  Cuthbert, 
Davidson,  Earle,  Edwards  of  North  Carolina,  Fisher, 
Floyd,  Foot,  Fullerton,  Hall  of  North  Carolina, 
Hardin,  Hill,  Holmes,  Hooks,  Johnson,  Jones  of  Ten- 
nessee, Kent,  Livermore,  Lowndes,  McCoy,  McCreary, 
Mallary,  Mercer,  Neale,  Nelson  of  Massachusetts, 
Overstreet,  Parker  of  Virginia,  Plumer,  Rankin, 
Reed,  Rhea,  Robertson,  Settle,  Silsbee,  Simkins,  Slo- 
cumb,  B.  Smith  of  Virginia,  Smith  of  North  Caro- 
lina, Swearingen,  Terrell,  Tucker  of  Virginia,  Tucker 
of  South  Carolina,  Tyler,  Whitman,  Williams  of  Vir- 
ginia, and  Williams  of  North  Carolina. 

The  House  then  (having  rejected  ten  or 
twelve  previous  motions  to  adjourn,  at  various 
stages  of  the  evening  proceedings)  adjourned  be- 
tween 7  and  8  o'clock,  after  a  sitting  of  more 
than  nine  hours. 


FRIDAY,  May  12. 
Small  Vessels  of  War. 

The  bill  from  the  Senate,  authorizing  the 
building  of  certain  small  vessels  of  war,  passed 
through  a  Committee  of  the  Whole,  after  being 
amended,  so  as  to  reduce  the  number  from  seven 
to  five. 

[The  object  of  these  vessels  is  to  protect  the 
revenue,  and  pursue  pirates,  &c.,  in  the  waters 
of  our  Southern  coast,  which  are  too  shal- 
low to  be  navigated  by  the  vessels  now  in 
service.] 

The  bill  was  opposed  by  Mr.  CANNON,  as  un- 
necessary, and  also  because  the  cost  of  the  ves- 
sels ($60,000)  was  not  to  be  taken  from  the 
moneys  already  appropriated  for  repairs.  It 
was  supported  by  Messrs.  SILSBEE,  JOHNSON,  and 
NEWTON,  on  the  ground  of  its  being  required 


652 


ABRIDGMENT  OF  THE 


H.  OF  R.] 


Thanks  to  the  Speaker. 


[MAY,  1820. 


for  the  security  of  the  revenue,  and  the  detec- 
tion of  smugglers  and  pirates. 

The  question  on  ordering  the  bill  to  be  en- 
grossed for  a  third  reading,  was  decided  by  yeas 
and  nays— 78  votes  to  37. 

Seven  o'clock,  P.  M. 

The  bill  to  amend  the  act  for  the  reservation 
of  timber  lands  for  naval  purposes ;  the  bill  to 
continue  in  force  the  act  to  provide  for  persons 
disabled  by  known  wounds  in  the  Kevolutionary 
war;  and  the  bill  to  provide  for  repairing  the 
General  Post  Office  building, — passed  through 
Committees  of  the  Whole,  and  were  ordered  to 
be  engrossed  for  a  third  reading. 


MONDAY,  May  15. 
Treasury  Department. 

The  House,  on  motion  of  Mr.  SERGEANT,  re- 
solved itself  into  a  Committee  of  the  Whole,  on 
the  bill  from  the  Senate,  in  addition  to  the  acts 
providing  for  the  better  organization  of  the 
Treasury  Department. 

[This  bill  provides  a  summary  process  for  the 
recovery  of  moneys  belonging  to  the  United 
States,  in  the  hands  of  individuals,  collectors, 
and  other  public  agents,  &c.] 

The  bill  gave  rise  to  a  debate,  begun  by  Mr. 
EDWARDS,  of  North  Carolina,  in  opposition  to 
the  bill,  which  was  supported  by  Mr.  SERGEANT 
and  others. 

The  objection  set  up  to  the  bill  was,  that  it 
proposed  to  violate  the  right,  secured  by  the 
constitution,  of  a  trial  by  jury,  &c.,  and  also  the 
other  right,  that  no  man  should  be  deprived  of 
his  property  without  due  process  of  law. 

In  reply  to  this  objection,  it  was  argued,  that 
there  was  nothing  proposed  but  what  was 
sanctioned  by  numerous  precedents,  such  as 
sales  for  non-payment  of  taxes,  &c.  The  mo- 
ment a  man  receives  the  public  money,  he  is 
the  agent  or  instrument  of  the  Treasury,  and 
ought  to  be  subject  to  its  power,  so  far  as  to 
compel  him  to  account  for  the  money  which 
he  has  received,  and  refuses  or  neglects  to  ac- 
count for. 

The  bill  having  been  reported  to  the  House, 
a  motion  was  made  by  Mr.  CROWELL  to  post- 
pone the  further  consideration  thereof  to  the 
first  day  of  the  next  session ;  which  was  nega- 
tived. 

The  bill  was  then  ordered  to  be  read  a  third 
time ;  and  was  subsequently  read  a  third  time, 
and  passed — by  yeas  and  nays — 89  to  14. 

Thanks  to  the  Speaker. 

The  House  having  got  through  the  business 
before  it — 

Mr.  WARFIELD,  of  Maryland,  rose  and  ob- 
served, that  although  it  had  been  customary, 
whenever  there  existed  a  disposition  on  the  part 
of  the  House  by  a  unanimous  vote  to  express 
their  unqualified  approbation  of  the  course  pur- 
sued by  the  Speaker,  to  delay  the  expression  of 


that  opinion  until  the  termination  of  the  period 
for  which  he  was  elected,  yet  he  was  induced, 
on  this  occasion,  to  depart  from  that  course, 
having  distinctly  understood  that  it  was  the  in- 
tention of  the  Speaker  to  decline  the  duties  of 
the  chair  at.  the  close  of  the  present  session. 
Any  observations,  said  Mr.  W.,  to  enforce  the 
justice  and  propriety  of  unanimously  adopting 
the  resolution  would  be  altogether  superfluous. 
Every  member  of  the  House,  in  common  with 
himself,  had  witnessed,  during  the  present 
laborious  and  protracted  session,  the  dignity, 
ability,  and  impartiality,  with  which  the  Speaker 
had  discharged  the  duties  of  his  station ;  and 
he  was  persuaded  there  was  not  a  member  of 
that  body  to  whom  it  would  not  afford  the 
truest  gratification  to  offer  the  small  tribute  of 
respect  and  approbation  intended  to  be  expressed 
in  the  resolution  then  before  them.  Mr.  W. 
then  submitted  the  following  resolution,  the 
question  on  which  being  put  by  the  Clerk,  it 
was  adopted  unanimously : 

Resolved,  unanimously,  by  the  House  »f  Representa- 
tives of  the  United  States  of  America,  That  the  thanks 
of  this  House  be  given  to  the  honorable  HENRY  CLAY, 
Speaker  thereof,  for  the  dignity,  ability,  and  impar- 
tiality with  which  he  has  discharged  the  duties  of 
that  station. 

Upon  which  Mr.  CLAY  rose,  and  addressed 
the  House  as  follows : 

GENTLEMEN:  The  House  of  Representatives  has, 
on  former  occasions,  honored  me  by  a  vote  of  its 
thanks.  I  then  felt  that  the  sole  claim  which  I  had 
to  a  testimony  of  the  public  approbation,  so  distin- 
guished, was  the  zeal  with  which  I  have  ever  sought 
to  discharge  the  highly  responsible  duties  of  the 
chair ;  and  I  am  now  sensible  that  I  am  indebted  to 
your  belief  of  the  continued  exertion  of  that  zeal  for 
the  fresh  proof  of  your  favorable  sentiments  towards 
me,  in  the  resolution  which  you  have  just  adopted. 

If,  gentlemen,  the  traveller  parts  with  regret  from 
those  agreeable  acquaintances  which  he  casually 
makes,  as  he  journeys  on  his  way,  how  much  more 
painful  must  be  the  separation  of  those  who  have  co- 
operated many  months  in  the  anxious  endeavor  to 
advance  the  prosperity  of  a  common  country ;  who 
have  been  animated  by  mutual  sympathies ;  and 
who  have  become  endeared  to  each  other  by  an  in- 
terchange of  all  the  friendly  offices  incident  to  the 
freest  social  intercourse  ?  Addressing  you,  as  I  now 
do,  probably  the  last  time  from  this  place,  I  confess 
I  feel  a  degree  of  emotion  which  I  am  utterly  unable 
to  express.  I  shall  carry  with  me  into  that  retirement 
which  is  necessary  to  the  performance  of  indispensa- 
ble private  duties,  a  grateful  recollection  of  all  your 
kindnesses;  of  the  respectful  and  affectionate  con- 
sideration of  me  which  you  have  always  evinced  ;  of 
the  generous  and  almost  unlimited  confidence  which 
you  have  ever  reposed  in  me  ;  and  of  the  tenderness 
with  which  you  have  treated  even  my  errors.  But, 
interesting  as  have  been  the  relations  in  which  I 
have  stood,  for  many  years,  to  this  House,  I  have 
yet  higher  motives  for  continuing  to  behold  it  with 
the  deepest  solicitude.  I  shall  regard  it  as  the  great 
depositary  of  the  most  important  powers  of  our  ex- 
cellent constitution;  as  the  watchful  and  faithful 
sentinel  of  the  freedom  of  the  people;  as  the  fairest 


DEBATES  OF  CONGRESS. 


653 


MAY,  1820.] 


Adjournment. 


[H.  OF  R. 


and  truest  image  of  their  deliberate  will  and  wishes  ; 
and  as  that  branch  of  the  Government  where,  if  our 
beloved  country  shall  unhappily  be  destined  to  add 
another  to  the  long  list  of  melancholy  examples  of  the 
loss  of  public  liberty,  we  shall  witness  its  last  strug- 
gles and  its  expiring  throes. 

Gentlemen,  I  beg  yon  to  carry  with  you  my  sin- 
cerest  wishes  for  your  individual  happiness,  and  the 
prosperity  of  your  respective  families. 


Mr.  SMITH,  of  Maryland,  and  Mr.  VAN  EEXS- 
SELAER  having  been  appointed  to  wait  on  the 
President,  reported  to  the  House  that  the 
President  had  no  further  communication  to 
make;  and 

The  House  adjourned  to  the  second  Monday 
in  November  next,  being  the  thirteenth  day  of 
the  month. 


654 


ABRIDGMENT  OF  THE 


SENATE.] 


Proceedings. 


[NOVEMBER,  1820. 


SIXTEENTH  CONGRESS -SECOND  SESSION. 


BEGUN   AT    THE    CITY    OF    WASHINGTON,  NOVEMBER    13,   1820. 


PKOCEEDDsTGS  Ds  THE  SENATE. 


MONDAY,  November  13,  1820. 

The  second  session  of  the  Sixteenth  Congress 
commenced  this  day,  at  the  city  of  Washing- 
ton, conformably  to  the  act,  approved  the 
thirteenth  of  May,  one  thousand  eight  hundred 
and  twenty,  entitled  "  An  act  fixing  the  time  for 
the  next  meeting  of  Congress,"  and  the  Senate 
assembled. 

PRESENT : 

DAVID  L.  MORRILL  and  JOHN  F.  PAREOTT,  from 
the  State  of  New  Hampshire. 

JAMES  BURRILL,  jr.,  from  Rhode  Island. 

ISAAC  TIOHENOR,  from  Vermont. 

RUFUS  KINO  and  NATHAN  SANFORD,  from 
New  York. 

MAHLON  DICKER  SON  and  JAMES  J.  WILSON, 
from  New  Jersey. 

JONATHAN  ROBERTS  and  WALTER  LOWRIE, 
from  Pennsylvania. 

OUTERBBIDGE    HORSEY    and    NICHOLAS    VAN 

DYKE,  from  Delaware. 

JAMES  BABBOUR  and  JAMES  PLEASANTS,  from 
Virginia. 

NATHANIEL  MACON,  from  North  Carolina. 

JOHN  GAILLARD  and  WILLIAM  SMITH,  from 
South  Carolina. 

RICHARD  M.  JOHNSON,  from  Kentucky. 

JOHN  HENRY  EATON,  from  Tennessee. 

BENJAMIN  RUGGLES  and  WILLIAM  A.  TRIMBLE, 
from  Ohio. 

JAMES  BROWN  and  HENRY  JOHNSON,  from 
Louisiana, 

WALLER  TAYLOR  and  JAMES  NOBLE,  from  In- 
diana. 

THOMAS  H.  WILLIAMS  and  DAYID  HOLMES, 
from  Mississippi. 

NINIAN  EDWARDS  and  JESSE  B.  THOMAS,  from 
Illinois. 

WILLIAM  R.  KING  and  JOHN  W.  WALKER,  from 
Alabama. 

JOHN  CHANDLER  and  JOHN  HOLMES,  from 
Maine. 

JOHN  GAILLABD,  President  pro  tempore,  re- 
sumed the  chair. 


The  new  members  having  qualified  and  taken 
their  seats,  they  were  classed,  by  lot,  as  is  usual. 
The  result  was,  that  the  term  of  service  of  Mr. 
HOLMES  will  expire  on  the  3d  March  next,  and 
that  of  Mr.  CHANDLER  on  the  3d  of  March  two 
years  thereafter. 

Mr.  KING,  of  Alabama,  moved  the  appoint- 
ment of  a  committee  to  acquaint  the  President 
of  the  United  States  of  the  organization  of  the 
Senate,  and  of  its  readiness  to  receive  any  com- 
munication from  him ;  whereupon,  Messrs.  KING, 
of  Alabama,  and  MACON  were  appointed. 


TUESDAY,  November  14. 

WILLIAM  A.  PALMES,  from  the  State  of  Ver- 
mont, and  JOHN  WILLIAMS,  from  the  State  of 
Tennessee,  severally  attended. 

The  PRESIDENT  communicated  a  copy  of  the 
constitution,  as  adopted  for  the  government  of 
the  State  of  Missouri,  which  was  read. 

Whereupon,  on  motion  of  Mr.  SMITH, 

Resolved,  That  a  committee  be  appointed  to 
inquire  whether  any,  and  if  any,  what,  legisla- 
tive measures  may  be  necessary  for  admitting 
the  State  of  Missouri  into  the  Union. 

Messrs.  SMITH,  BTJBEILL,  and  MACON,  were 
appointed  the  committee. 


WEDNESDAY,  November  15. 

SAMUEL  W.  DANA,  from  the  State  of  Connec- 
ticut^ attended. 

Mr.  BURRILL  communicated  a  resolution, 
passed  by  the  Legislature  of  the  State  of  Rhode 
Island  and  Providence  Plantations,  instructing 
their  Senators,  and  requesting  their  Representa- 
tives in  Congress,  to  exert  their  influence  to  re- 
duce the  compensation  of  members  of  Congress 
to  six  dollars  per  day ;  and  the  resolution  was 
read. 

On  motion  by  Mr.  WALKER,  of  Alabama, 
the  Senate  adjourned  to  one  o'clock  in  the  af- 
ternoon. 


DEBATES  OF  CONGRESS. 


655 


NOVEMBER,  1820.] 


President's  Message. 


[SENATE. 


One  o'clock  in  the  afternoon. 

A  message  from  the  House  of  Representa- 
tives informed  the  Senate  that  a  quorum  of  the 
House  of  Representatives  is  assembled,  and  have 
elected  JOHN  W.  TAYLOR,  one  of  the  Representa- 
tives from  the  State  of  New  York,  their  Speaker, 
in  the  place  of  Henry  Clay,  resigned,  and  are 
ready  to  proceed  to  business;  and  that  they 
have  appointed  a  committee  on  their  part  to 
join  the  committee  appointed  on  the  part  of  the 
Senate,  to  wait  on  the  President  of  the  United 
States,  and  inform  him  that  a  quorum  of  the 
two  Houses  is  assembled,  and  ready  to  receive 
any  communications  he  may  be  pleased  to  make 
to  them. 

Mr.  KING,  of  Alabama,  reported,  from  the 
joint  committee,  that  they  had  waited  on  the 
President  of  the  United  States,  and  that  the 
President  informed  the  committee  that  he 
would  make  a  communication  to  the  two  Houses 
forthwith. 

President's  Message. 

The  following  Message  was  received  from  the 
PRESIDENT  OF  THE  UNITED  STATES: 
Fellow-citizens  of  the  Senate 

and  of  the  House  of  Representatives : 

In  communicating  to  you  a  just  view  of  public  af- 
fairs, at  the  commencement  of  your  present  labors, 
I  do  it  with  great  satisfaction ;  because,  taking  all 
circumstances  into  consideration  which  claim  atten- 
tion, I  see  much  cause  to  rejoice  in  the  felicity  of  our 
situation.  In  making  this  remark,  I  do  not  wish  to 
be  understood  to  imply  that  an  unvaried  prosperity 
is  to  be  seen  in  every  interest  of  this  great  commu- 
nity. In  the  progress  of  a  nation,  inhabiting  a  terri- 
tory of  such  vast  extent  and  great  variety  of  climate, 
every  portion  of  which  is  engaged  in  foreign  com- 
merce, and  liable  to  be  affected,  in  some  degree,  by 
the  changes  which  occur  in  the  condition  and  regula- 
tions of  foreign  countries,  it  would  be  strange  if  the 
produce  of  our  soil  and  the  industry  and  enterprise  of 
our  fellow-citizens  received  at  all  times,  and  in  every 
quarter,  a  uniform  and  equal  encouragement.  This 
would  be  more  than  we  would  have  a  right  to  expect, 
under  circumstances  the  most  favorable.  Pressures 
on  certain  interests,  it  has  been  admitted,  has  been 
felt ;  but  allowing  to  these  their  greatest  extent,  they 
detract  but  little  from  the  force  of  the  remarks  al- 
ready made.  In  forming  a  just  estimate  of  our  pres- 
ent situation,  it  is  proper  to  look  at  the  whole,  in  the 
outline,  as  well  as  in  the  detail.  A  free,  virtuous, 
and  enlightened  people  know  well  the  great  principles 
and  causes  on  which  their  happiness  depends ;  and 
even  those  who  suffer  most,  occasionally,  in  their 
transitory  concerns,  find  great  relief  under  their  suf- 
ferings, from  the  blessings  which  they  otherwise  en- 
joy, and  in  the  consoling  and  animating  hope  which 
they  administer.  From  whence  do  these  pressures 
come  ?  Not  from  a  Government  which  is  founded  by, 
administered  for,  and  supported  by  the  people.  We 
trace  them  to  the  peculiar  character  of  the  epoch 
in  which  we  live,  and  to  the  extraordinary  occur- 
rences which  have  signalized  it.  The  convulsions 
with  which  several  of  the  powers  of  Europe  have  Iwen 
shaken,  and  the  long  and  destructive  wars  in  which 
all  were  engaged,  with  their  sudden  transition  to  a 
state  of  peace,  presenting,  in  the  first  instance,  un- 


usual encouragement  to  our  commerce,  and  with- 
drawing it  in  the  second,  even  within  its  wonted 
limit,  could  not  fail  to  be  sensibly  felt  here.  The 
station,  too,  which  we  had  to  support  through  this 
long  conflict,  compelled  as  we  were  finally  to  become 
a  party  to  it  with  a  principal  power,  and  to  make 
great  exertions,  suffer  heavy  losses,  and  to  contract 
considerable  debts,  disturbing  the  ordinary  course  of 
affairs,  by  augmenting,  to  a  vast  amount,  the  circu- 
lating medium,  and  thereby  elevating,  at  one  time, 
the  price  of  every  article  above  a  just  standard,  and 
depressing  it  at  another  below  it,  had  likewise  its  due 
effect. 

It  is  manifest  that  the  pressures  of  which  we  com- 
plain have  proceeded,  in  a  great  measure,  from  these 
causes.  When,  then,  we  take  into  view  the  pros- 
perous and  happy  condition  of  our  country,  in  all  the 
great  circumstances  which  constitute  the  felicity  of  a 
nation — every  individual  iu  the  full  enjoyment  of  all 
his  rights :  the  Union  blessed  with  plenty,  and  rapidly 
rising  to  greatness,  under  a  national  Government, 
which  operates  with  complete  effect  in  every  part, 
without  being  felt  in  any,  except  by  the  ample  pro- 
tection which  it  affords,  and  under  State  governments 
which  perform  their  equal  share,  according  to  a  wise 
distribution  of  power  between  them,  in  promoting  the 
public  happiness — it  is  impossible  to  behold  so  grati- 
fying, so  glorious  as  spectacle,  without  being  pene- 
trated with  the  most  profound  and  grateful  acknowl- 
edgments to  the  Supreme  Author  of  all  good  for  such 
manifold  and  inestimable  blessings.  Deeply  impressed 
with  these  sentiments,  I  cannot  regard  the  pressures 
to  which  I  have  adverted  otherwise  than  in  the  light 
of  mild  and  instructive  admonitions  ;  warning  us  of 
dangers  to  be  shunned  in  future ;  teaching  us  lessons 
of  economy,  corresponding  with  the  simplicity  and 
purity  of  our  institutions,  and  best  adapted  to  their 
support;  evincing  the  connection  and  dependence 
which  the  various  parts  of  our  happy  Union  have  on 
each  other,  thereby  augmenting  daily  our  social  in- 
corporation, and  adding,  by  its  strong  ties,  new 
strength  and  vigor  to  the  political ;  opening  a  wider 
range,  and  with  new  encouragement,  to  the  industry 
and  enterprise  of  our  fellow-citizens  at  home  and 
abroad ;  and  more  especially  by  the  multiplied  proofs 
which  it  has  accumulated  of  the  great  perfection  of 
our  most  excellent  system  of  government,  the  power- 
ful instrument,  in  the  hands  of  our  all-merciful  Crea- 
tor, in  securing  to  us  these  blessings. 

Happy  as  our  situation  is,  it  does  not  exempt  us 
from  solicitude  and  care  for  the  future.  On  the  con- 
trary, as  the  blessings  which  we  enjoy  are  great,  pro- 
portionably  great  should  be  our  vigilance,  zeal,  and 
activity,  to  preserve  them.  Foreign  wars  may  again 
expose  us  to  new  wrongs,  which  would  impose  on  us 
new  duties,  for  which  we  ought  to  be  prepared.  The 
state  of  Europe  is  unsettled,  and  how  long  peace  may 
be  preserved  is  altogether  uncertain ;  in  addition  to 
which  we  have  interests  of  our  own  to  adjust,  which 
will  require  particular  attention.  A  correct  view  of 
our  relations  with  each  power  will  enable  you  to  form 
a  just  idea  of  existing  difficulties,  and  of  the  meas- 
ures of  precaution  best  adapted  to  them. 

Respecting  our  relations  with  Spain,  nothing  ex- 
plicit can  now  be  communicated.  On  the  adjourn- 
ment of  Congress  in  May  last,  the  Minister  Plenipo- 
tentiary of  the  United  States,  at  Madrid,  was  instructed 
to  inform  the  Government  of  Spain  that,  if  His 
Catholic  Majesty  should  then  ratify  the  treaty,  this 
Government  would  accept  the  ratification,  so  far  a* 


656 


ABRIDGMENT  OF  THE 


SENATE.] 


President's  Message. 


[NOVEMBER,  1820. 


to  submit  to  the  decision  of  the  Senate,  the  question, 
whether  such  ratification  should  be  received  in  ex- 
change for  that  of  the  United  States,  heretofore  given. 
By  letters  from  the  Minister  of  the  United  States 
to  the  Secretary  of  State,  it  appears  that  a  commu- 
nication, in  conformity  with  his  instructions,  had  been 
made  to  the  Government  of  Spain,  and  that  the 
Cortes  had  the  subject  under  consideration.  The  re- 
sult of  the  deliberations  of  that  body,  which  is  daily 
expected,  will  be  made  known  to  Congress  as  soon  as 
it  is  received.  The  friendly  sentiment  which  was 
expressed  on  the  part  of  the  United  States,  in  the 
Message  of  the  9th  of  May  last,  is  still  entertained 
for  Spain.  Among  the  causes  of  regret,  however, 
which  are  inseparable  from  the  delay  attending  this 
transaction,  it  is  proper  to  state  that  satisfactory  in- 
formation has  been  received,  that  measures  have 
been  recently  adopted,  by  designing  persons,  to  con- 
vert certain  parts  of  the  Province  of  Florida  into 
depots  for  the  reception  of  foreign  goods,  from  whence 
to  smuggle  them  into  the  United  States.  By  open- 
ing a  port  within  the  limits  of  Florida,  immediately 
on  our  boundary,  where  there  was  no  settlement,  the 
object  could  not  be  misunderstood.  An  early  ac- 
commodation of  differences  will,  it  is  hoped,  prevent 
all  such  fraudulent  and  pernicious  practices,  and 
place  the  relations  of  the  two  countries  on  a  very 
amicable  and  permanent  basis. 

The  commercial  relations  between  the  United 
States  and  the  British  colonies  in  the  West  Indies, 
and  on  this  continent,  have  undergone  no  change  ; 
the  British  Government  still  preferring  to  leave  that 
commerce  under  the  restriction  heretofore  imposed 
on  it,  on  each  side.  It  is  satisfactory  to  recollect 
that  the  restraints  resorted  to  by  the  United  States 
were  defensive  only,  intended  to  prevent  a  monopoly, 
under  British  regulations,  in  favor  of  Great  Britain ; 
as  it  likewise  is  to  know  that  the  experiment  is  ad- 
vancing in  a  spirit  of  amity  between  the  parties. 

The  question  depending  between  the  United  States 
and  Great  Britain,  respecting  the  construction  of  the 
first  article  of  the  Treaty  of  Ghent,  has  been  referred, 
by  both  Governments,  to  the  decision  of  the  Emperor 
of  Russia,  who  has  accepted  the  umpirage. 

An  attempt  has  been  made  with  the  Government  of 
France,  to  regulate,  by  treaty,  the  commerce  between 
the  two  countries,  on  the  principle  of  reciprocity  and 
equality.  By  the  last  communication  from  the  Min- 
ister Plenipotentiary  of  the  United  States  at  Paris, 
to  whom  full  power  had  been  given,  we  learn  that 
the  negotiation  had  been  commenced  there  ;  but,  se- 
rious difficulties  having  occurred,  the  French  Govern- 
ment had  resolved  to  transfer  it  to  the  United  States, 
for  which  purpose  the  Minister  Plenipotentiary  of 
France  had  been  ordered  to  repair  to  this  city,  and 
whose  arrival  might  soon  be  expected.  It  is  hoped 
that  this  important  interest  may  be  arranged  on  just 
conditions,  and  in  a  manner  equally  satisfactory  to 
both  parties.  It  is,  submitted  to  Congress  to  decide, 
until  such  arrangement  is  made,  how  far  it  may  be 
proper,  on  the  principle  of  the  act  of  the  last  session, 
which  augmented  the  tonnage  duty  on  French  ves- 
sels, to  adopt  other  measures  for  carrying  more  com- 
pletely into  effect  the  policy  of  that  act. 

The  act  referred  to,  which  imposed  new  tonnage 
on  French  vessels,  having  been  in.  force  from 
and  after  the  first  day  of  July,  it  has  happened  that 
several  vessels  of  that  nation  which  had  been  de- 
spatched from  France  before  its  existence  was  known, 
have  entered  the  ports  of  the  United  States,  and  been 


subject  to  its  operation,  without  that  previous  notice 
which  the  general  spirit  of  our  laws  gives  to  individ- 
uals in  similar  cases.  The  object  of  that  law  having 
been  merely  to  countervail  the  inequalities  which 
existed  to  the  disadvantage  of  the  United  States,  in 
their  commercial  intercourse  with  France,  it  is  sub- 
mitted, also,  to  the  consideration  of  Congress,  whether, 
in  the  spirit  of  amity  and  conciliation  which  it  is  no 
less  the  inclination  than  the  policy  of  the  United 
States  to  preserve,  in  their  intercourse  with  other 
powers,  it  may  not  be  proper  to  extend  relief  to  the 
individuals  interested  iu  those  cases,  by  exempting 
from  the  operation  of  the  law  all  those  vessels  which 
have  entered  our  ports  without  having  had  the 
means  of  previously  knowing  the  existence  of  the 
additional  duty. 

The  contest  between  Spain  and  the  Colonies,  ac- 
cording to  the  most  authentic  information,  is  main- 
tained by  the  latter  with  improved  success.  The 
unfortunate  divisions  which  were  known  to  exist 
some  time  since,  at  Buenos  Ayres,  it  is  understood, 
still  prevail.  In  no  part  of  South  America  has  Spain 
made  any  impression  on  the  colonies,  while,  in  many 
parts,  and  particularly  in  Venezuela  and  Xew  Gra- 
nada, the  colonies  have  gained  strength  and  acquired 
Sutation,  both  for  the  management  of  the  war,  in 
ich  they  have  been  successful,  and  for  the  order  of 
the  internal  administration.  The  late  change  in  the 
Government  of  Spain,  by  the  re-establishment  of  the 
constitution  of  1812,  is  an  event  which  promises  to  be 
favorable  to  the  Revolution.  Under  the  authority  of 
the  Cortes,  the  Congress  of  Angostura  was  invited  to 
open  a  negotiation  for  the  settlement  of  differences 
between  the  parties,  to  which  it  was  replied,  that 
they  would  willingly  open  the  negotiation,  provided 
the  acknowledgment  of  their  independence  was  made 
its  basis,  but  not  otherwise.  Of  further  proceedings 
between  them  we  are  uninformed.  No  facts  are 
known  to  this  Government,  to  warrant  the  belief, 
that  any  of  the  powers  of  Europe  will  take  part  in 
the  contest ;  whence,  it  may  be  inferred,  considering 
all  circumstances,  which  must  have  weight  in  pro- 
ducing the  result,  that  an  adjustment  will  finally  take 
place,  on  the  basis  proposed  by  the  colonies.  To 
promote  that  result,  by  friendly  counsels,  with  other 
powers,  including  Spain  herself,  has  been  the  uniform 
policy  of  this  Government. 

In  looking  to  the  internal  concerns  of  our  country 
you  will,  I  am  persuaded,  derive  much  satisfaction 
from  a  view  of  the  several  objects  to  which,  in  the 
discharge  of  your  official  duties,  your  attention  will 
be  drawn.  Among  these,  none  holds  a  more  impor- 
tant place  than  the  public  revenue,  from  the  direct 
operation  of  the  power,  by  which  it  is  raised,  on  the 
people,  and  by  its  influence  in  giving  effect  to  every 
other  power  of  the  Government.  The  revenue  de- 
pends on  the  resources  of  the  country,  and  the  facility 
by  which  the  amount  required  is  raised,  is  a  strong 
proof  of  the  extent  of  the  resources,  and  the  efficiency 
of  the  Government.  A  few  prominent  facts  will 
place  this  great  interest  in  a  just  light  before  you. 
On  the  30th  of  September,  1815,  the  funded  and 
floating  debt  of  the  United  States  was  estimated  at 
one  hundred  and  nineteen  millions  six  hundred  and 
thirty-five  thousand  five  hundred  and  fifty-eight  dol- 
lars. If  to  this  sum  be  added  the  amount  of  five  per 
cent  stock  subscribed  to  the  Bank  of  the  United 
States,  the  amount  of  Mississippi  stock,  and  of  the 
stock  which  was  issued  subsequently  to  that  date,  the 
balances  ascertained  to  be  due  to  certain  States,  for 


DEBATES  OF  CONGRESS. 


657 


NOVEMBER,  1820.] 


President's  Message. 


[SENAI 


military  services,  and  to  individuals,  for  supplies  fur- 
nished, and  services  rendered  during  the  late  war,  the 
public  debt  may  be  estimated  as  amounting,  at  that 
date,  and  as  afterwards  liquidated,  to  one  hundred 
and  fifty-eight  millions  seven  hundred  and  thirteen 
thousand  forty-nine  dollars.  On  the  30th  of  Septem- 
ber, 1820,  it  amounted  to  ninety-one  millions  nine 
hundred  and  ninety- three  thousand  eight  hundred 
and  eighty-three  dollars,  having  been  reduced  in 
that  interval,  by  payments,  sixty-six  millions  eight 
hundred  and  seventy-nine  thousand  one  hundred  and 
sixty-five  dollars.  During  this  term,  the  expenses  of 
the  Government  of  the  United  States  were  likewi&e 
defrayed,  in  every  branch  of  the  civil,  military,  and 
naval  establishments ;  the  public  edifices  in  this  city 
have  been  rebuilt,  with  considerable  additions  ;  ex- 
tensive fortifications  have  been  commenced,  and  are 
in  a  train  of  execution;  permanent  arsenals  and 
magazines  have  been  erected  in  various  parts  of  the 
Union ;  our  Navy  has  been  considerably  augmented, 
and  the  ordnance,  munitions  of  war,  and  stores,  of  the 
Army  and  Navy,  which  were  much  exhausted  during 
the  war,  have  been  replenished. 

By  the  discharge  of  so  large  a  proportion  of  the 
public  debt,  and  the  execution  of  such  extensive  and 
important  operations,  in  so  short  a  time,  a  just  esti- 
mate may  be  formed  of  the  great  extent  of  our  na- 
tional resources.  The  demonstration  is  the  more 
complete  and  gratifying,  when  it  is  recollected  that 
the  direct  tax  and  excise  were  repealed  soon  after  the 
termination  of  the  late  war,  and  that  the  revenue 
applied  to  these  purposes  has  been  derived  almost 
wholly  from  other  resources. 

The  receipts  into  the  Treasury,  from  every  source, 
to  the  30th  of  September  last,  have  amounted  to  six- 
teen millions  seven  hundred  and  ninety-four  thousand 
one  hundred  and  seven  dollars  and  sixty-six  cents  ; 
whilst  the  public  expenditures,  to  the  same  period, 
amounted  to  sixteen  millions  eight  hundred  and 
seventy-on>  thousand  five  hundred  and  thirty-four 
dollars  and  seventy-two  cents ;  leaving  in  the  Treas- 
ury, on  that  day,  a  sum  estimated  at  one  million  nine 
hundred  and  fifty  thousand  dollars.  For  the  prob- 
able receipts  of  the  following  year,  I  refer  you  to 
the  statement  which  will  be  transmitted  from  the 
Treasury. 

The  sum  of  three  millions  of  dollars  authorized  to 
be  raised  by  loan,  by  an  act  of  the  last  session  of 
Congress,  has  been  obtained  npon  terms  advantage- 
ous to  the  Government,  indicating,  not  only  an  in- 
creased confidence  in  the  faith  of  the  nation,  but  the 
existence  of  a  large  amount  of  capital  seeking  that 
mode  of  investment,  at  a  rate  of  interest  not  exceed- 
ing five  per  centum  per  annum. 

It  is  proper  to  add,  that  there  is  now  due  to  the 
Treasury,  for  the  sale  of  public  lands,  twenty-two 
millions  nine  hundred  and  ninety-six  thousand  five 
hundred  and  forty-five  dollars.  In  bringing  this  sub- 
ject to  view,  I  consider  it  my  duty  to  submit  to  Con- 
gress, whether  it  may  not  be  advisable  to  extend  to 
the  purchasers  of  these  lands,  in  consideration  of  the 
unfavorable  change  which  has  occurred  since  the 
sales,  a  reasonable  indulgence.  It  is  known  that  the 
purchases  were  made  when  the  price  of  every  article 
had  risen  to  its  greatest  height,  and  that  the  instal- 
ments are  becoming  due  at  a  period  of  great  depres- 
sion. It  is  presumed  that  some  plan  may  be  devised, 
by  the  wisdom  of  Congress,  compatible  with  the  pub- 
lic interest,  which  would  afford  great  relief  to  these 
purchasers. 

You  VL— 42 


Considerable  progress  has  been  made,  during  the 
present  season,  in  examining  the  coast  and  its  various 
bays  and  other  inlets ;  in  the  collection  of  materials, 
and  in  the  construction  of  fortifications  for  the  defence 
of  the  Union,  at  several  of  the  positions  at  which  it 
has  been  decided  to  erect  such  works.  At  Mobile 
Point  and  Dauphin  Island,  and  at  the  Rigolets,  lead- 
ing to  Lake  Pontchartrain,  materials  to  a  considerable 
amount  have  been  collected,  and  all  the  necessary 
preparations  made  for  the  commencement  of  the 
works.  At  Old  Point  Comfort,  at  the  mouth  of 
James  River,  and  at  the  Rip-Rap,  on  the  opposite 
shore,  in  the  Chesapeake  Bay,  materials  to  a  vast 
amount  have  been  collected  ;  and  at  the  Old  Point 
some  progress  has  been  made  in  the  construction  of 
the  fortification,  which  is  on  a  very  extensive  scale. 
The  work  at  Fort  Washington,  on  this  river,  will  be 
completed  early  in  the  next  spring  ;  and  that  on  the 
Pea  Patch,  in  the  Delaware,  in  the  course  of  the  next 
season.  Fort  Diamond,  at  the  Narrows,  in  the  har- 
bor of  New  York,  will  be  finished  this  year.  The 
works  at  Boston,  New  York,  Baltimore,  Norfolk, 
Charleston,  and  Niagara,  have  been  in  part  repaired ; 
and  the  coast  of  North  Carolina,  extending  south  to 
Cape  Fear,  has  been  examined,  as  have  likewise 
other  parts  of  the  coast  eastward  of  Boston.  Great 
exertions  have  been  made  to  push  forward  these 
works  with  the  utmost  despatch  possible  ;  but,  when 
their  extent  is  considered,  with  the  important  pur- 
poses for  which  they  are  intended,  the  defence  of  the 
whole  coast,  and  in  consequence  of  the  whole  interior, 
and  that  they  are  to  last  for  ages,  it  will  be  manifest 
that  a  well-digested  plan,  founded  on  military  princi- 
ples, connecting  the  whole  together,  combining  se- 
curity with  economy,  could  not  be  prepared  without 
repeated  examinations  of  the  most  exposed  and  diffi- 
cult parts,  and  that  it  would  also  take  considerable 
time  to  collect  the  materials  at  the  several  points 
where  they  would  be  required.  From  all  the  light 
that  has  been  shed  on  this  subject,  I  am  satisfied  that 
every  favorable  anticipation  which  has  been  formed 
of  this  great  undertaking  will  be  verified,  and  that 
when  completed  it  will  afford  very  great,  if  not  com- 
plete, protection  to  our  Atlantic  frontier  in  the  event 
of  another  war ;  a  protection  sufficient  to  counter- 
balance in  a  single  campaign  with  an  enemy  power- 
ful at  sea  the  expenses  of  all  these  works,  without 
taking  into  the  estimate  the  saving  of  the  lives  of  so 
many  of  our  citizens,  the  protection  of  our  towns  and 
other  property,  or  the  tendency  of  such  works  to  pre- 
vent war. 

Our  military  positions  have  been  maintained  at 
Belle  Point,  on  the  Arkansas,  at  Council  Bluffs,  on 
the  Missouri,  at  St  Peter's,  on  the  Mississippi,  and  at 
Green  Bay,  on  the  Upper  lakes.  Commodious  bar- 
racks have  already  been  erected  at  most  of  these 
posts,  with  such  works  as  were  necessary  for  their 
defence.  Progress  has  also  been  made  in  opening 
communications  between  them,  and  in  raising  sup- 
plies at  each  for  the  support  of  the  troops  by  their 
own  labor,  particularly  those  most  remote. 

With  the  Indians  peace  has  been  preserved,  and  a 
progress  made  in  carrying  into  effect  the  act  of  Con- 
gress, making  an  appropriation  for  their  civilization, 
with  the  prospect  of  favorable  results.  As  connected 
equally  with  both  these  objects,  our  trade  with  those 
tribes  is  thought  to  merit  the  attention  of  Congress. 
In  their  original  state,  game  is  their  sustenance  and 
war  their  occupation ;  and  if  they  find  no  employ- 
ment from  civilized  powers,  they  destroy  each  other. 


658 


ABRIDGMENT  OF  THE 


SENATE.] 


Admission  of  Missouri. 


[DECEMBER,  1820. 


Left  to  themselves,  their  extirpation  is  inevitable. 
By  a  judicious  regulation  of  our  trade  with  them,  we 
supply  their  wants,  administer  to  their  comforts,  and 
gradually,  as  the  game  retires,  draw  them  to  us.  By 
maintaining  posts  far  in  the  interior,  we  acquire  a 
more  thorough  and  direct  control  over  them  ;  with- 
out which  it  is  confidently  believed  that  a  complete 
change  in  their  manners  can  never  be  accomplished. 
By  such  posts,  aided  by  a  proper  regulation  of  our 
trade  with  them,  and  a  judicious  civil  administration 
over  them,  to  be  provided  for  by  law,  we  shall,  it  is 
presumed,  be  enabled  not  only  to  protect  our  own 
settlements  from  their  savage  incursions,  and  pre- 
serve peace  among  the  several  tribes,  but  accomplish 
also  the  great  purpose  of  their  civilization. 

Considerable  progress  has  also  been  made  in  the 
construction  of  ships  of  war,  some  of  which  have  been 
launched  in  the  course  of  the  present  year. 

Our  peace  with  the  powers  on  the  coast  of  Barbary 
has  been  preserved,  but  we  owe  it  altogether  to  the 
presence  of  our  squadron  in  the  Mediterranean.  It 
has  been  found  equally  necessary  to  employ  some  of 
our  vessels  for  the  protection  of  our  commerce  in  the 
Indian  sea,  the  Pacific,  and  along  the  Atlantic  coast. 
The  interests  which  we  have  depending  in  those  quar- 
ters, which  have  been  much  improved  of  late,  are  of 
great  extent,  and  of  high  importance  to  the  nation, 
as  well  as  to  the  parties  concerned,  and  would  un- 
doubtedly suffer  if  such  protection  was  not  extended 
to  them.  In  execution  of  the  law  of  the  last  session, 
for  the  suppression  of  the  slave  trade,  some  of  our 
public  ships  have  also  been  employed  on  the  coast  of 
Africa, .  where  several  captures  have  already  been 
made  of  vessels  engaged  in  that  disgraceful  traffic. 
JAMES  MONROE. 

WASHINGTON,  November  14,  1820. 

The  Message  was  read,  and  three  thousand 
copies  thereof  ordered  to  be  printed  for  the  use 
of  the  Senate. 


FBIDAY,  November  17. 
JAMES  LANMAN,  from  the  State  of  Connecti- 
cut, arrived  yesterday,  and  attended  this  day. 


MONDAY,  November  20. 
JOHN  ELLIOTT,  and  also,  FBEEMAN  WALKEB, 
from  the  State  of  Georgia,  severally  arrived,  on 
the  17th  instant,  and  attended  this  day. 

THURSDAY,  November  23. 

Restriction  of  Slavery. 

Mr.  SANFOBD  communicated  the  following 
resolutions,  passed  by  the  Legislature  of  the 
State  of  New  York ;  which  were  read : 
STATE  OF  NEW  YORK, 
In  Assembly,  November  13,  1820. 
Whereas  the  Legislature  of  this  State,  at  the  last 
session,  did  instruct  their  Senators  and  request  their 
Representatives  in  Congress  to  oppose  the  admission, 
as  a  State  into  the  Union,  of  any  Territory  not  com- 
prised within  the  original  boundaries  of  the  United 
States,  without  making  the  prohibition  of  slavery 
therein    an   indispensable    condition    of   admission : 
And  whereas  this  Legislature  is  impressed  with  the 
correctness  of  the  sentiments  so  communicated  to 
our  Senators  and  Representatives ;  therefore, 


Resolved,  (if  the  honorable  the  Senate  concur  here- 
in,) That  this  Legislature  does  approve  of  the  princi- 
ples contained  in  the  resolutions  of  the  last  session ; 
and,  further,  if  the  provisions  contained  in  any  pro- 
posed constitution  of  a  new  State  deny  to  any  citizens 
of  the  existing  States  the  privileges  and  immunities 
of  citizens  of  such  new  State,  that  such  proposed  con- 
stitution should  not  be  accepted  or  confirmed;  the 
same,  in  the  opinion  of  this  Legislature,  being  void 
by  the  Constitution  of  the  United  States.  And  that 
our  Senators  be  instructed,  and  our  Representatives 
in  Congress  be  requested,  to  use  their  utmost  exer- 
tions to  prevent  the  acceptance  and  confirmation  of 
any  such  constitution. 

Resolved,  (if  the  honorable  the  Senate  concur  here- 
in,) That  the  President  of  the  Senate  and  the  Speaker 
of  the  Assembly  do  cause  copies  of  these  resolu- 
tions, duly  certified  by  them,  to  be  transmitted  to 
the  Senators  and  Representatives  in  Congress  from 
this  State. 

Ordered,  That  the  clerk  deliver  a  copy  of  the  pre- 
ceding resolutions  to  the  honorable  the  Senate,  and 
request  their  concurrence  in  the  same. 

PETER  SHARPE,  Speaker. 

Attest— DL.  VAN  DU  WEYDER, 

Clerk  of  Assembly. 
STATE  OF  NEW  YORK, 
In  Senate,  November  15,  1820. 

Resolved,  That  the  Senate  do  concur  with  the  hon- 
orable the  Assembly,  in  their  said  resolutions  and 
recitals. 

Ordered,  That  the  clerk  deliver  a  copy  of  said  reso- 
lution of  concurrence  to  the  honorable  the  Assembly. 
JOHN  TAYLER,  President. 

Attest— JOHN  F.  BACON, 

Clerk  of  tJie  Senate. 


MONDAY,  November  27. 

HARBISON  GRAY  OTIS,  from  the  State  of  Mas- 
sachusetts, arrived  on  the  25th  instant ;  and 
WILLIAM  HUNTER  from  the  State  of  Khode 
Island  and  Providence  Plantations,  arrived  on 
the  24th  instant,  severally  attended  this  day. 

ISHAM  TALBOT,  appointed  a  Senator  by  the 
Legislature  of  Kentucky  to  supply  the  vacancy 
occasioned  by  the  resignation  of  William  Logan, 
produced  his  credentials,  was  qualified,  and  took 
his  seat  in  the  Senate. 


WEDNESDAY,  November  29. 

EDWARD  LLOYD,  from  the  State  of  Maryland, 
attended. 

Admission  of  Missouri. 

Mr.  SMITH,  from  the  committee  to  whom  was 
referred  the  constitution,  as  adopted  for  the 
government  of  the  State  of  Missouri,  reported 
a  resolution  declaring  the  admission  of  the  State 
of  Missouri  into  the  Union ;  and  the  resolution 
was  read,  and  passed  to  the  second  reading. 


FRIDAY,  December  1. 

ELIJAH  H.  MILLS,  appointed  a  Senator  by  the 
Legislature  of  the  State  of  Massachusetts,  to 
supply  the  vacancy  occasioned  by  the  resigna- 
tion of  Prentiss  Mellen,  produced  his  creden- 


DEBATES  OF  CONGRESS. 


659 


DECEMBER,  1820.] 


Admission  of  Missouri. 


[SENATE. 


tials,  was  qualified,  and  took  his  seat  in  the 
•  Senate. 


MONDAY,  December  4. 

WILLIAM  PIXKNEY,  from  the  State  of  Mary- 
land, took  his  seat  in  the  Senate. 

Admission  of  Missouri. 

The  Senate,  according  to  the  order  of  the 
day,  proceeded  to  the  consideration  of  the  reso- 
lution declaring  the  admission  of  the  State  of 
Missouri  into  the  Union  on  an  equal  footing 
with  the  original  States. 

Mr.  SMITH,  of  South  Carolina,  (chairman  of 
the  select  committee  which  reported  the  reso- 
lution,) observed  that  the  resolution  was  con- 
formable to  those  adopted  on  similar  occasions 
heretofore,  and  he  hoped  there  would  be  no 
difficulty  or  delay  in  its  passage.  The  constitu- 
tion of  the  new  State  was  republican,  and  no 
objection,  he  presumed,  could  arise  to  it :  it  was 
unnecessary  to  detain  the  Senate  with  any  re- 
marks on  the  subject,  unless  any  explanations 
were  desired  by  gentlemen,  which  he  would 
with  pleasure  afford,  so  far  as  he  was  able. 
He  trusted  the  resolution  would  now  be  acted 
on,  and  the  members  from  the  new  State, 
who  had  been  waiting  for  a  considerable 
time,  be  admitted  to  their  seats  in  the  National 
Councils. 

Mr.  EATON,  of  Tennessee,  disclaimed  any  dis- 
position to  create  delay  on  this  subject ;  but  it 
was  proper,  Mr.  E.  said,  that  the  mind  of  every 
member  should  be  satisfied  on  a  question  of 
so  much  importance  before  he  was  called  on 
to  give  his  vote.  His  own  mind,  he  confessed, 
was  not  satisfied;  and,  to  obtain  time  for  re- 
flection, and  to  mature  his  opinion  on  it,  he 
should  move  to  postpone  the  resolution  to  a 
future  day.  At  present,  he  repeated,  he  was 
not  prepared  to  vote  either  in  the  affirmative 
or  negative,  with  the  conviction  of  being  right. 
There  were  'controverted  points  in  the  constitu- 
tion presented  by  the  new  State,  and  he  wished  to 
see  whether  it  was  in  all  respects  conformable  to 
the  Constitution  of  the  United  States.  Another 
reason  which  Mr.  E.  offered  in  favor  of  a  post- 
ponement of  the  question  here,  was,  that  the 
House  of  Representatives  (if  he  might  refer  to 
its  proceedings  without  being  out  of  order)  had 
fixed  on  Wednesday  next  for  going  into  the 
consideration  of  the  subject,  and  he  did  not 
consider  it  expedient  or  proper  for  both  Houses 
to  be  discussing  the  same  question  contempora- 
neously. He  deemed  it  a  more  eligible  course 
that  the  subject  should  be  acted  on  in  one 
House  first,  and  then  be  taken  up  in  the  other. 
To  obtain  time  for  himself,  however,  as  he  at 
first  intimated,  he  should  ask  the  Senate  to 
postpone  the  resolution  to  Wednesday  next 
only,  and  accordingly  made  a  motion  to  that 
effect. 

Mr.  SMITH  would  not  oppose  the  motion,  but 
he  objected  to  that  reason  of  the  gentleman,  for 
postponement,  which  referred  to  the  purposes 
of  the  other  House.  There  was  no  such  comity 


due  to  that  House  from  this,  as  to  wait  until  it 
had  decided  a  question  before  it  should  be  taken 
up  here.  This  opinion  was  not  incompatible 
with  perfect  respect  for  the  other  House ;  and 
such  an  argument  ought  not  to  govern  the 
Senate  or  any  other  body.  This  question,  Mr: 
S.  remarked,  had,  in  another  shape,  at  the  last 
session  occupied  a  vast  portion 'of  the  time  of 
the  Senate,  and  there  was  no  authority  for  be- 
lieving that  the  present  would  be  a  debated 
question.  If  gentlemen  had  any  objections  to 
the  constitution,  let  them  state  them  at  once, 
and  it  would  then  be  known  whether  any  dis- 
cussion was  to  ensue.  Heretofore,  States  had 
come  into  the  Union  without  being  stopped  at 
the  threshold.  He  referred  to  the  State  of 
Indiana,  in  1816;  while  the  resolution  for  the 
admission  of  Indiana  was  under  progress  in  the 
Senate,  the  House  of  Representatives  had  the 
member  from  that  State  in  his  seat  debating 
and  voting.  There  was  no  reason  why  the 
Senate,  in  the  present  case,  should  wait  for  the 
other  House ;  let  this  branch  go  on  and  decide 
whether  the  new  members  have  a  right  to  their 
seats.  It  was  only  when  this  ill-fated  Missouri 
presented  itself  for  admission,  that  a  desire  was 
expressed  for  procrastination  and  delay.  He 
hoped  the  Senate  would  not  agree  to  the  mo- 
tion, unless  divested  of  the  reason  given  by  the 
mover  in  relation  to  the  other  House. 

Mr.  BABBOUR,  of  Virginia,  was  never  opposed 
to  allowing  gentlemen  time  to  make  up  their 
opinions  on  all  matters  of  deliberation  ;  but  in 
this  case  he  concurred  with  Messrs.  SMITH  and 
JOHNSON,  in  their  opposition  to  the  motion,  for 
the  reasons  they  had  assigned.  The  argument 
used  by  Mr.  EATON,  that  it  was  proper  to  wait 
the  decision  of  the  other  House,  amounted  al- 
most to  an  indefinite  postponement  of  the  sub- 
ject here.  He  was  averse  to  delay  on  that 
ground.  The  question,  he  thought,  had  been 
forever  sealed  at  the  last  session ;  so  fully  was 
he  persuaded  of  this,  that  he  had  supposed  ac- 
cursed would  have  been  the  hand  that  should 
again  open  this  fountain  of  bitter  waters.  Mr. 
B.  then  proceeded  into  a  brief  argument  to  show 
that  it  was  right  and  proper,  under  every  con- 
sideration of  courtesy  towards  the  members 
from  the  new  State,  now  kept  waiting  at  the 
bar  for  admission,  and  towards  the  State  itself, 
to  decide  the  question  without  more  delay.  A 
contrary  course,  he  urged,  would  be  a  departure 
from  the  proceeding  in  all  pre-existing  cases ; 
and  he  could  not  believe  that  a  mere  technical 
exception  could  operate  on  the  wisdom  of  the 
Senate,  of  which  he  entertained  the  most  ex- 
alted opinion,  to  prevent  it  from  eternally  bury- 
ing the  brand  of  discord  which  had  been  lighted 
up  at  the  last  session.  Mr.  B.  said,  as  their 
was  no  good  reason  for  the  postponement  ask- 
ed for,  he  must  vote  against  it.  He  hoped  the 
time  would  never  come  when  the  opinion  of 
this  body,  solemnly  expressed,  would  not  have 
a  great  moral  effect  out  of  doors  as  well  as  in 
doors.  This  question  was  looked  at  by  the  nation 
with  much  anxiety  and  some  degree  of  alarm,  and 


660 


ABRIDGMENT  OF  THE 


SENATE.] 


Case  of  Matthew  Lyon  under  the  Sedition  Law. 


[DECEMBER,  1820. 


he  hoped  the  Senate  would  not  keep  the  public 
mind  in  suspense,  but  decide  it  without  delay. 

Mr.  EATON  having  again  varied  his  motion 
to  its  original  shape,  for  Wednesday — 

Mr.  JOHNSON,  of  Kentucky,  said,  as  the  gen- 
tleman had  placed  his  motion  on  the  ground  of 
personal  indulgence,  he  would  cheerfully  with- 
draw his  opposition  to  the  postponement,  as  he 
was  always  ready  to  accord  to  any  gentleman 
reasonable  time  for  preparation. 

The  question  was  then  taken  on  postponing 
the  resolution  to  Wednesday,  and  was  agreed 
to,  nem.  con. 

TUESDAY,  December  5. 
Case  of  Matthew  Lyon  under  the  Sedition  Law. 

Mr.  BARBOUR  from  the  committee  to  whom 
was  referred  the  petition  of  Matthew  Lyon, 
submitted  the  following  report ;  which  was 
read: 

The  claim  of  the  petitioner  to  redress  rests  on  the 
facts,  that  he  was  convicted  under  the  law  commonly 
called  the  sedition  act,  and  suffered  in  his  body  by  a 
long  and  loathsome  confinement  in  jail,  and  in  his 
estate  by  the  payment  of  a  large  fine.  He  asserts 
that  the  law  under  which  he  suffered  was  unconsti- 
tutional ;  and  proceeds  to  infer  that  when  a  citizen 
has  been  injured  by  an  unconstitutional  stretch  of 
power  he  is  entitled  to  indemnity. 

Although  this  be  the  case  of  an  individual,  its  cor- 
rect decision  involves  general  principles,  so  highly 
important  as  to  claim  a  profound  consideration. 

Under  this  solemn  impression,  a  majority  of  the 
committee,  after  the  severest  investigation,  have  de- 
cided that  the  petitioner  is  entitled  to  relief. 

They  owe  it  to  themselves  and  to  the  occasion,  to 
present  succinctly  to  the  Senate  some  of  the  promi- 
nent reasons  which  have  produced  this  determination. 
The  first  question  that  naturally  presents  itself  in  the 
investigation  is,  Was  the  law  Constitutional  ?  The 
committee  have  no  hesitation  in  pronouncing,  in  their 
opinion,  it  was  not.  They  think  it  is  not  necessary 
at  this  day  to  enter  into  an  elaborate  disquisition  to 
sustain  the  correctness  of  this  opinion.  They  will 
content  themselves  by  referring  to  the  history  of  the 
times  in  which  the  law  originated,  when  both  its 
constitutionality  and  expediency  underwent  the  strict- 
est scrutiny.  The  opponents  of  the  law  challenged 
its  advocates  to  point  out  the  clause  of  the  constitu- 
tion which  had  armed  the  Government  with  so  for- 
midable a  power  as  the  control  of,  or  interference 
with  the  press.  A  Government,  said  they,  of  limit- 
ed powers,  and  authorized  to  execute  such  only  as 
are  expressly  given  by  the  constitution,  or  such  as 
are  properly  incident  to  an  express  power,  and  neces- 
sary to  its  execution,  has  exercised  an  authority  over 
a  most  important  subject,  which,  so  far  from  having 
been  delegated,  has  been  expressly  withheld.  That 
the  patriots  contemporary  with  the  adoption  of  the 
constitution,  not  content  with  the  universally  receiv- 
ed opinion,  that  all  power  not  granted  had  been  with- 
held, to  obviate  all  doubt  on  a  point  of  such  moment, 
insisted  that  an  amendment  to  that  effect  should  be 
inserted  in  the  constitution  ;  and  still  jealous  of  that 
propensity,  incident  to  all  Governments,  no  matter 
what  may  be  the  form  of  its  organization,  or  by 
whom  administered,  to  enlarge  the  sphere  of  its  au- 
thority, they,  by  express  provisions,  guarded  from 


violation  some  of  the  cardinal  principles  of  liberty ; 
among  these,  as  most  important,  they  placed  the 
liberty  of  conscience  and  of  the  press.  Profoundly 
versed  in  the  history  of  human  affairs,  whose  every 
page  made  known  that  all  Governments  had  seized 
on  the  altar  and  the  press,  and  prostituted  them  into 
the  most  formidable  engines  against  the  liberty  of 
mankind,  they  resolved,  and  most  wisely  so,  as  the 
sequel  has  evinced,  to  surround  these  great,  natural, 
and  inalienable  rights  by  impassable  barriers ;  and, 
to  that  end,  have  expressly  declared,  that  Congress 
should  have  no  power  to  legislate  on  them  ;  and,  not- 
withstanding these  great  obstacles,  you  have  passed 
this  act.  The  advocates  of  the  law  vainly  endeavored 
to  defend  themselves  by  a  technical  discrimination 
between  the  liberty  and  licentiousness  of  the  press. 
The  American  people,  by  overwhelming  majorities, 
approaching,  indeed,  unanimity,  denounced  the  law 
as  a  palpable  and  an  alarming  infraction  of  the  consti- 
tution ;  and,  although  no  official  record  of  that  de- 
cision can  be  produced,  it  is  as  notorious  as  a  change 
of  their  public  servants,  which  took  place  at  that 
time,  and  to  which  this  obnoxious  measure  so  essen- 
tially contributed. 

The  committee  are  aware,  that,  in  opposition  to 
this  view  of  the  subject,  the  decision  of  some  of  the 
judges  of  the  Supreme  Court,  sustaining  the  constitu- 
tionality of  the  law,  has  been  frequently  referred  to, 
as  sovereign  and  conclusive  of  the  question. 

The  committee  entertain  a  high  respect  for  the 
purity  and  intelligence  of  the  judiciary.  But  it  is 
a  rational  respect,  limited  by  a  knowledge  of  the 
frailty  of  human  nature,  and  the  theory  of  the  consti- 
tution, which  declares,  not  only  that  judges  may  err 
in  opinion,  but  also  may  commit  crimes,  and  hence 
has  provided  a  tribunal  for  the  trial  of  offenders. 

In  times  of  violent  party  excitement,  agitating  a 
whole  nation,  to  expect  that  judges  will  be  entirely 
exempt  from  its  influence,  argues  a  profound  igno- 
rance of  mankind.  Although  clothed  with  the  er- 
mine, they  are  still  men,  and  carry  into  the  judgment 
seat  the  passions  and  motives  common  to  their  kind. 
Their  decisions,  on  party  questions,  reflect  their  in- 
dividual opinions,  which  frequently  betray  them  un- 
consciously into  error.  To  balance  the  judgment  of 
a  whole  people,  by  that  of  two  or  three  men,  no  mat- 
ter what  may  be  their  official  elevation,  is  to  exalt 
the  creature  of  the  constitution  above  its  creator,  and 
to  assail  the  foundation  of  our  political  fabric,  which 
is,  that  the  decision  of  the  people  is  infallible,  from 
which  there  is  no  appeal,  but  to  Heaven. 

Taking  it,  therefore,  as  granted,  that  the  law  was 
unconstitutibnal,  we  are  led  to  the  next  question, 
growing  out  of  the  inquiry,  is  the  petitioner  entitled 
to  relief?  This  question,  as  a  general  one,  is  not  sus- 
ceptible of  that  precise  answer,  which  might  establish 
a  uniform  rule,  applying  equally  to  all  times,  and  to 
all  occasions.  On  the  contrary,  it  must  be  decided 
by  the  peculiar  circumstances  of  every  case  to  which 
its  application  is  attempted. 

The  committee,  for  instance,  would  themselves  de- 
cide that  relief  was  impracticable,  where,  from  a  long 
course  of  tyranny,  attended  with  a  rapacity  far  and 
wide,  society  had  become  so  impoverished  that  the 
attempt  to  relieve  might  blight  every  prospect  of  fu- 
ture prosperity.  Nor  could  they  advocate  relief, 
where  the  authority  exercised  admitted  of  a  rational 
doubt  as  to  its  constitutionality,  upon  powers  not  ex- 
pressly inhibited,  nor  in  cases,  perhaps,  where  the 
amount  of  the  injuries  complained  of  could  not  be  as- 


DEBATES  OF  CONGRESS. 


661 


DECEMBER,  1820.]          Constitution  of  Missouri — Citizenship  of  Free  Colored  Persons. 


[SEHATE. 


certained  with  a  reasonable  precision.  None  of  these 
difficulties,  however,  present  themselves  in  this  case. 
The  law  tinder  which  the  petitioner  suffered,  as  has 
been  previously  asserted,  and  attempted  to  be  shown, 
was  palpably  xinconstitutional,  as  being  directly  hi  op- 
position to  an  express  clause  of  the  constitution.  The 
amount  of  the  injury  sustained,  in  so  far  as  relates 
to  the  fine  paid  by  the  petitioner,  is  fixed  and  certain, 
and  the  sum  equal  to  a  reimbursement  is  insignifi- 
cant to  the  nation.  In  this  case,  therefore,  the  com- 
mittee think  the  Government  is  under  a  moral  obli- 
gation to  indemnify  the  petitioner.  An  indemnity  as 
consistent  with  policy  as  with  justice,  inculcating  an 
instructive  lesson  to  the  oppressor  and  the  oppressed. 
Successful  usurpation  yields,  indeed,  to  but  fewchecks ; 
among  the  few  is  the  justice  to  posterity,  who  take 
cognizance  equally  of  the  crimes  of  the  usurper,  and 
of  the  sufferings  and  the  virtues  of  his  victim — con- 
demning the  former,  and  administering  relief  to  the 
latter.  And  what  more  consolatory  to  the  suffering 
patriot,  what  better  calculated  to  inspire  constancy 
and  courage,  than  a  conviction,  founded  on  facts,  that 
his  wrongs,  on  the  restoration  of  sound  principles,  will 
attract  the  regard  of  the  successful  asserters  of  free- 
dom, and  who  will  cheerfully  indemnify  him  for  the 
injuries  he  has  sustained  ?  Such  examples  are  not 
wanting  in  Governments  less  beneficent  than  ours — 
that  of  England  is  replete  with  instances  of  this  kind. 
Acts  of  Parliament,  passed  in  times  of  heat  and  ex- 
citement, are  frequently  reversed,  and  the  individuals 
on  whom  they  had  operated  are  restored  to  the  rights 
of  which  they  had  been  deprived.  Succeeding  Par- 
liaments do  not  hesitate  to  indemnify  the  victims  of 
oppression,  because  they  had  suffered  under  the  forms 
of  law.  Acts  of  their  Legislature,  whose  power  is 
omnipotent,  form  no  obstacle  with  those  to  whom 
their  injustice  is  made  manifest,  in  granting  relief. 
An  American  Congress  will  not  suffer  itself  to  be  ex- 
ceeded by  any  Government  in  acts  of  justice  or  bene- 
ficence. 

The  committee  have  only  further  to  remark,  that 
the  Executive  interposed  its  authority  in  various 
cases,  and  granted  a  full  pardon  to  those  convicted 
under  the  act  in  question,  by  which  their  fines  were 
either  remitted,  or  restored ;  relief,  therefore,  to  the 
petitioner,  would  be  only  a  common  measure  of  jus- 
tice. According  to  information  received  from  the 
Department  of  State,  no  money  has  ever  been  paid 
into  the  Treasury  by  the  officer  who  received  the  fines 
imposed  under  the  sedition  act  It  is  submitted  to 
the  discretion  of  the  Senate,  whether  provision  shall 
be  made  by  law  to  indemnify  the  petitioner,  by  direct- 
ing the  amounting  of  his  fine  to  be  paid  out  of  the 
Treasury,  or  to  reclaim  it  from  the  delinquent  officer 
or  officers  ;  and,  in  the  latter  event,  to  be  at  liberty 
to  use  the  name  of  the  United  States  in  any  prose- 
cution to  which  resort  may  be  had,  with  a  view  to 
that  end. 

Inasmuch,  however,  as  the  relief  proposed  to  be 
given  in  this  case  is  on  general  principles,  the  com- 
mittee are  of  opinion  it  should  be  afforded  also  to 
every  sufferer  under  the  law. 

They,  therefore,  beg  leave  to  submit  the  following 
resolutions : 

Resolved,  That  so  much  of  the  act,  entitled  "  An 
act  for  the  punishment  of  certain  crimes  against  the 
United  States,"  approved  the  14th  of  July,  17U8,  as 
pretends  to  prescribe  and  punish  libels,  is  unconstitu- 
tional. 

Resolved,  That  the  fines  collected  under  that  act 


ought  to  be  restored  to  those  from  whom  they  were 
exacted  ;  and  that  these  resolutions  be  re-committed 
to  the  committee  who  brought  them  in,  with  ins 
tions  to  report  a  bill  to  that  effect. 


WEDNESDAY,  December  6. 

Constitution  of  Missouri — Citizenship  of  Free 

Colored  Persons. 

Mr.  BABBOUR,  of  Virginia,  rose  merely  to  sug- 
gest, as  there  was  no  doubt  the  mind  of  every 
gentleman  was  fully  made  up  on  the  subject, 
that  the  question  should  *be  decided  without 
consuming  the  time  of  the  Senate  in  further 
debate. 

Mr.  EATON,  of  Tennessee,  said,  before  the  ques- 
tion was  taken,  he  would  ask  leave  to  offer  the 
following  proviso  to  the  resolution : 

Provided,  That  nothing  herein  contained  shall  be 
so  construed  as  to  give  the  assent  of  Congress  to  any 
provision  in  the  constitution  of  Missouri,  if  any  such 
there  be,  which  contravenes  that  clause  in  the  Con- 
stitution of  the  United  States,  which  declares  that 
"  the  citizens  of  each  State  shall  be  entitled  to  all 
privileges  and  immunities  of  citizens  in  the  several 
States." 

Mr.  KING,  of  New  York,  thought  this  amend- 
ment of  too  much  importance  to  be  decided 
without  a  moment's  reflection.  Some  little 
time,  he  thought,  ought  to  be  allowed  to  see  its 
bearing  ;  to  see  whether  it  meant  any  thing  or 
nothing,  and,  if  any  thing,  what  that  was.  He 
hoped  the  question  would  be  postponed  at  least 
until  to-morrow. 

Mr.  EATON  observed,  that  there  was  a  feature 
in  the  constitution  of  Missouri  which  presented 
a  difficulty  to  the  minds  of  some  gentlemen,  and 
to  his  among  the  number.  Doubts  were  enter- 
tained whether  that  constitution  was  not  re- 
pugnant to  the  Constitution  of  the  United  States, 
and  some  might  not  be  willing  to  adopt  the  un- 
conditional terms  of  the  resolution  which  de- 
clared the  new  constitution  to  be  republican, 
and  in  conformity  to  the  Constitution  of  the 
United  States.  It  was  to  obviate  difficulty  on 
this  point,  by  avoiding  a  declaration  one  way 
or  the  other  on  the  questionable  clause,  that  he 
offered  the*  amendment. 

Mr.  KING,  of  New  York,  confessed  himself  at 
some  loss  how  to  decide  on  this  amendment.  If 
he  voted  in  the  affirmative,  it  might  seem  as  if 
the  Senate  could  pass  a  resolution  contrary  to 
the  constitution ;  if  in  the  negative,  it  would 
declare  that  a  clause  should  have  no  effect 
which  could  have  none,  and  must  be  nugatory. 
He  thought  a  day,  at  least,  should  be  given  to 
consider  the  matter.  For  himself,  he  had  ask- 
ed no  delay  of  the  resolution ;  he  was  ready  to 
vote  on  it ;  and  he  took  this  occasion  to  say  he 
had  not  desired  the  subject  to  be  reopened  in 
the  Senate ;  he  believed  it  would  do  no  good, 
but,  on  the  contrary,  that  the  public  tranquillity 
would  be  promoted  by  deciding  it  quietly ;  the 
subject,  he  conceived,  had  been  exhausted,  and 
his  opinion  had  undergone  no  change.  He  re- 


662 


ABRIDGMENT  OF  THE 


SENATE.] 


Constitution  of  Missouri — Citizenship  of  Free  Colored  Persons.  [DECEMBER,  1820. 


gretted  that  these  sentiments  had  not  been  felt 
elsewhere,  and  where*  he  thought  they  ought 
to  have  been  felt.  As  to  the  amendment,  he 
thought  a  moment's  delay  should  be  allowed  to 
examine  it,  and  he  moved  its  postponement  until 
to-morrow. 

Mr.  BUEKILL  was  in  favor  of  a  longer  post- 
ponement, but  hoped  until  to-morrow  at  least 
would  be  permitted.  He,  too,  expressed  his  re- 
gret that  the  question  had  been  reopened,  and 
added  a  few  remarks  on  the  propriety  of  giving 
some  time  to  consider  this  amendment,  which 
was  certainly  of  an  important  character. 

Mr.  MOBRILL  moved  a  postponement  of  the 
question  to  Monday,  and  spoke  a  few  words  in 
favor  of  that  course. 

Messrs.  SMITH  and  BAEBOTJB  opposed  so  long 
a  postponement  as  to  Monday,  but  were  willing 
to  allow  until  to-morrow. 

.The  motion  to  postpone  the  subject  to  Mon- 
day was  lost;  and  the  resolution  and  amend- 
ment were  postponed  until  to-morrow. 


THTJESDAY,  December  7. 
Missouri   State    Constitution — CitizensJdp    of 

Free  Colored  People. 

The  Senate  then  resumed  the  consideration 
of  the  resolution  for  the  admission  of  Missouri 
into  the  Union ;  the  question  being  on  the  fol- 
lowing proviso,  offered  yesterday  by  Mr.  EATON  : 

"  Provided,  That  nothing  herein  contained  shall 
be  so  construed  as  to  give  the  assent  of  Congress  to 
any  provision  in  the  constitution  of  Missouri,  if  any 
such  there  be,  which  contravenes  that  clause  in  tiie 
Constitution  of  the  United  States  which  declares  that 
'  the  citizens  of  each  State  shall  be  entitled  to  all 
privileges  and  immunities  of  citizens  in  the  several 


Mr.  KING,  of  New  York,  observed  that  the 
decision  had  been  deterred  yesterday  at  his  re- 
quest. For  himself,  he  could  discover  no  good 
effect  which  the  proviso  would  produce.  Such 
a  declaration  could  not  weaken  the  effect  of  the 
repugnant  article  of  the  constitution  adopted  by 
Missouri,  or  alter  in  any  respect,  he  conceived, 
the  question  as  it  already  stood  before  the  Sen- 
ate, concerning  the  admission  of  the  new  State. 
He  therefore  could  not,  viewing  it  as  he  did,  as- 
sent to  this  proposition. 

Mr.  WJLSON,  of  New  Jersey,  offered  the  fol- 
lowing substitute,  by  way  of  amendment  to  the 
proposition  of  Mr.  EATON,  which,  Mr.  "W.  said, 
would  answer  better  his  view  of  the  subject, 
being  more  specific  and  particular  than  the  pro- 
viso already  offered : 

That  nothing  herein  contained  shall  be  construed 
as  giving  the  assent  of  Congress  to  so  much  of  the 
constitution  of  the  State  of  Missouri  making  it  the 
duty  of  the  Legislature  of  said  State  to  pass  a  law 
'  to  prevent  free  negroes  and  mulattoes  from  coming 
to  and  settling  in  said  State,  under  any  pretext  what- 
soever,' as  may  be  repugnant  to  that  provision  of 
the  Constitution  of  the  United  States  which  pre- 
scribes that  '  the  citizens  of  each  State  shall  be  en- 


titled to  all  the  privileges  and  immunities  of  citizens 
in  the  several  States.'  " 

Mr.  EATON  said  his  wish  was  that  Congress 
should  avoid  giving  an  opinion  at  all  on  the 
doubtful  clause,  or  any  particular  clause  of  the 
constitution  of  Missouri ;  and  the  amendment 
offered  by  Mr.  WILSON  differed  from  his  own  in 
this  only,  that  it  did  designate  a  particular  fea- 
ture in  the  constitution  which  was  declared 
unacknowledged,  lie  did  not  think  this  course 
so  eligible  as  the  one  suggested  by  his  own  mo- 
tion, and  therefore  could  not  accept  the  amend- 
ment in  lieu  of  his. 

Mr.  PINKNET  was  opposed  to  the  amendment 
offered  by  Mr.  WILSON,  because  the  clause  which 
it  pointed  out  was  not  before  Congress  in  any 
manner  whatever,  and  he  would  accompany  the 
resolution  of  admission  with  no  opinion  on  that 
clause,  even  should  the  Legislature  of  Missouri 
legislate  to  the  utmost  verge  of  the  clause.  The 
first  amendment  being  general,  he  had  no  ob- 
jection to  it. 

On  the  question  to  agree  to  Mr.  WILSON'S 
amendment,  the  Senate  divided,  and  there  ap  • 
peared  nine  only  in  the  affirmative ;  so  it  was 
rejected,  and  the  question  recurred  on  the  pro- 
viso offered  by  Mr.  EATON. 

Mr.  SMITH  viewed  this  amendment  as  inoffen- 
sive, and  therefore  had  no  strong  objection  to 
it ;  but  as  he  saw  nothing  in  the  constitution  of 
Missouri  which  was  not  republican  and  conform- 
able to  the  Constitution  of  the  United  States, 
and  of  the  correctness  of  which  opinion  he  was 
convinced,  without  assuming  any  thing  on  the 
score  of  talents,  he  could  satisfy  any  member  of 
the  Senate  he  could  not  vote  for  an  amendment 
which  implied  a  doubt  of  the  constitutionality 
of  that  document. 

The  question  was  then  taken  on  adopting  Mr. 
EATON'S  proviso,  and  was  decided  in  the  nega- 
tive, by  yeas  and  nays,  as  follows  : 

YEAS. — Messrs.  Brown,  Chandler,  Dana,  Eaton, 
Edwards,  Gaillard,  Holmes  of  Maine,  Holmes  of 
Mississippi,  Horsey,  Hunter,  Johnson  of  Louisiana, 
King  of  Alabama,  Lloyd,  Parrott,  Pinkney,  Taylor, 
Thomas,  Trimble,  Van  Dyke,  Walker  of  Alabama, 
and  Williams  of  Mississippi — 21. 

NAYS.— Messrs.  Barbour,  Burrill,  Dickerson,  Elliott, 
Johnson  of  Kentucky,  King  of  New  York,  Lanman, 
Lowrie,  Mason,  Mills,  Morrill,  Noble,  Otis,  Palmer, 
Pleasants,  Roberts,  Kuggles,  Sanford,  Smith,  Talbot, 
Tichenor,  Walker  of  Georgia,  Williams  of  Tennessee, 
and  Wilson— 24. 

The  question  being  then  stated  on  the  reso- 
lution going  to  a  third  reading — 

Mr.  SMITH  made  a  few  remarks,  to  say  that 
as  it  seemed  to  be  the  wish  of  the  Senate  to 
take  the  question  without  debate,  he  would  not 
thwart  that  wish,  although  it  might  be  expect- 
ed of  him,  from  his  situation  of  chairman  of 
the  committee  which  reported  the  resolution, 
to  enter  into  some  defence  of  it  against  the  ob- 
jections which  had  been  indicated.  As  a  mem- 
ber of  the  Southern  States,  he  was  ready  to 
maintain  the  ground  he  had  assumed,  but 


DEBATES  OF  CONGRESS. 


663 


DECEMBER,  1820.]  Constitution  of  Missouri — Citizenship  of  Free  Colored  Persons. 


would  yield  to  the  desire  for  a  quiet  decision, 
unless  called  out  by  gentlemen  on  the  oppo- 
site side. 

Mr.  BUKEILL,  of  Khodc  Island,  addressed  the 
Chair. 

[Mr.  B.,  in  attempting  to  rise  and  address  the 
President,  found  his  surtout  entangled  by  his 
chair,  and  was  so  long  detained  by  the  embar- 
rassment, that  the  Secretary  had  begun  to  call 
the  yeas  and  nays,  and  one  gentleman  had  act- 
ually answered.  Mr.  B.  apologized  to  the  Presi- 
dent for  not  rising  sooner,  by  stating  the  em- 
barrassment, when  Mr.  BA'RBOUB,  of  Virginia, 
jocularly  observed  across  the  House,  that  the 
gentleman  ought  to  regard  it  as  an  omen  of  de- 
feat, and  yield  to  it  accordingly  ;  to  which  Mr. 
B.  replied :  "  I  fear  no  omen  in  my  country's 
cause.''] 

Mr.  B.  proceeded.  No  other  gentleman,  he 
said,  seemed  disposed  to  address  the  Senate  in 
defence  of  the  opinions  which  he  entertained 
on  this  question,  and  as  he  was  a  member  of 
the  committee  which  reported  the  resolution, 
from  which  he  dissented,  it  was  in  some  meas- 
ure incumbent  on  him  to  submit  briefly  the 
reasons  which  governed  him,  especially  after 
the  remarks  of  gentlemen  on  the  other  side. 
We  conceive,  said  Mr.  B.,  that  it  would  be  con- 
trary to  the  Constitution  of  the  United  States 
to  accept  this  constitution  sent  up  by  the  people 
of  Missouri.  The  people  of  Missouri  did  not 
assemble  under  their  own  authority  to  frame 
this  constitution,  but  under  the  authority  of 
Congress.  After  performing  this  duty  in  a 
way  that  they  deemed  proper,  they  had  sent 
it  here  for  acceptance,  and  it  was  the  duty 
of  Congress,  Mr.  B.  conceived,  to  examine  and 
pronounce  upon  the  legality  of  the  instrument 
presented.  He  stated  that  it  had  been  the  prac- 
tice heretofore  to  admit  the  members  from  new 
States  to  their  seats  in  both  Houses,  in  various 
ways;  but  inquiry  had  generally  been  made 
into  the  constitutions  adopted  by  new  States, 
and  Congress  satisfied  that  they  were  conforma- 
ble to  the  acts  authorizing  them  to  be  formed. 
The  States  had  been  admitted  into  the  Union, 
some  in  one  way,  some  in  another ;  the  latest 
mode,  Mr.  B.  thought,  ought  to  be  the  one 
which  should  have  most  weight  on  the  present 
occasion.  The  three  States  last  formed  had 
been  admitted  much  in  the  same  mode  ;  their 
constitutions  had  been  formed  nearly  in  the 
same  way,  and  on  the  same  models ;  Louisiana 
only  was  an  exception  to  the  usual  form  of  ad- 
mission— in  her  case  more  form  was  observed, 
and  obvious  reasons  made  it  necessary. 

It  appeared  to  him,  Mr.  B^  continued,  to  be 
right  and  proper  for  Congress  to  examine  the 
constitution  now  presented,  and  ascertain 
whether  it  was  in  conformity  with  the  Consti- 
tution of  the  United  States,  and  republican :  in 
other  words,  whether  it  was  conformable  to 
the  terms  on  which  the  people  of  that  Territory 
were  authorized  by  Congress  to  form  a  consti- 
tution and  State  government.  Some  gentle- 
men entertained  a  different  opinion.  New 


States,  said  Mr.  B.,  are  admitted  into  the  Union 
by  the  consent  of  Congress — that  consent  was 
given  to  'Missouri  at  the  last  session ;  by  it  she 
had  many  things  to  do.  She  had  first  to  decide 
whether  she  would  accept  the  terms  offered  to 
her ;  by  it  she  was  prohibited  from  interfering 
with  the  rights  of  navigating  the  Mississippi ; 
she  was  confined  to  certain  boundaries,  which 
she  could  not  change  or  exceed ;  she  was  re- 
strained from  any  interference  with  the  public 
lands.  These  things  were  all  in  the  act ;  and 
Mr.  B.  asked  if  it  would  not  be  idle  to  insert 
conditions,  if  Congress  possessed  no  right  to  as- 
certain and  decide  if  they  had  been  complied 
with  by  the  people  to  whom  they  were  offered? 
It  was  in  the  nature  of  a  contract  between  the 
United  States  and  the  people  of  Missouri,  and 
it  was  competent  for  Congress,  and  was  its  duty 
to  see  if  that  contract  had  been  faithfully  ob- 
served. It  was  held  by  some  gentlemen  that, 
as  soon  as  the  convention  cf  Missouri  was  dis- 
solved, it  became  a  State,  and  had  a  right  to  all 
the  immunities  and  attributes  of  a  State.  But 
suppose,  Mr.  B.  said,  the  people  of  Missouri  had 
taken  no  notice  of  those  conditions  of  the  act 
which  he  had  referred  to,  but  had  disregarded 
or  contravened  them,  would  gentlemen  then 
say  the  constitution  ought  to  be  received?  Mr. 
B.  offered  some  other  arguments  to  show  that 
the  consent  of  Congress  was  necessary  to  the 
admission  of  the  State  ;  otherwise  it  admitted 
the  strange  doctrine,  that  the  State  might  come 
into  the  Union  in  spite  of  Congress.  This  con- 
sent, he  contended,  ought  not  to  be  given,  un- 
less all  the  conditions  of  the  act  had  been  com- 
plied with. 

In  general,  Mr.  B.  said,  this  constitution  was 
sufficiently  republican ;  and,  in  one  respect,  he 
might  say,  it  was  almost  too  much  so;  for  it 
took  no  notice  whatever  of  the  act  under  which 
the  convention  assembled  which  formed  it.  Its 
language  is :  "  We,  the  people  of  Missouri,  do 
mutually  agree  to  form  and  establish  a  free  and 
independent  Republic."  In  Alabama,  where 
every  thing  in  the  formation  of  their  State  gov- 
ernment was  conducted  with  much  propriety, 
their  convention  set  out  by  saying  they  assem- 
bled under  the  authority  of  an  act  of  Congress. 
The  constitution  of  Missouri  is  entirely  silent 
on  this  point,  although  some  of  its  language 
could  not  be  understood  without  referring  to 
the  act  of  Congress  authorizing  a  convention ; 
they  declare  that  they  establish,  ratify,  and 
confirm,  certain  boundaries,  but  they  nowhere 
recognize  the  authority  which  prescribed  these 
boundaries  to  them.  Mr.  B.  repeated,  that  he 
thought  Congress  ought  not  to  vary  from  the 
former  mode  of  declaring  its  assent  to  the  ad- 
mission of  new  States.  They  would  have  to 
admit  other  States  hereafter,  and  a  departure 
now  from  the  practice  of  the  Government  in 
receiving  the  constitutions  of  new  States,  would 
form  a  precedent  which  might,  in  future  cases, 
be  deplored. 

But  proceeding  to  the  question,  whether  this 
constitution  was  such  a  one  as  ought  to  be 


664 


ABRIDGMENT  OF  THE 


SENATE.] 


Constitution  of  Missouri — Citizenship  of  Free  Colored  Persons.  [DECEMBER,  1820. 


accepted,  Mr.  B.  said  his  objections  to  it  arose 
on  the  following  clause,  which  he  found  in  the 
26th  section  of  the  3d  article :  "  That  ft  shall  be 
the  duty  of  the  General  Assembly  of  the  State, 
as  soon  as  may  be,  to  pass  such  laws  as  may  be 
necessary  (among  other  things)  to  prevent  free 
negroes  and  mulattoes  from  coming  to  and  set- 
tling in  this  State,  under  any  pretext  whatso- 
ever." This  clause,  Mr.  B.  conceived  to  be  en- 
tirely repugnant  to  the  Constitution  of  the 
United  States.  It  prohibits  a  very  large  class 
of  persons  from  entering  the  State  at  all ;  it 
does  not  say  what  shall  be  done  when  they  get 
there,  but  it  peremptorily  prohibits  their  enter- 
ing it  under  any  pretext  whatsoever.  Even  if 
soldiers  of  the  United  States,  people  of  this 
proscribed  class  cannot  enter  Missouri  without 
violating  the  constitution  of  the  State.  It  was 
well  known,  Mr.  B.  said,  that  we  have  colored 
soldiers  and  sailors,  and  good  ones,  too,  but 
under  no  pretext,  whether  of  duty  or  any  other 
motive,  can  they  enter  Missouri.  He  did  not 
suppose  if  people  of  this  description,  in  the 
service  of  the  country,  should  enter  the  State,  it 
would  be  attempted  by  the  State  authorities  to 
exclude  them ;  but  it  was  sufficient,  he  thought, 
to  show  the  unconstitutionally  of  the  clause. 

Great  difficulty  seemed  to  arise  in  deciding 
the  question,  as  to  what  constituted  citizens  in 
the  different  States.  Citizens  of  one  State 
were  entitled  to  the  rights  of  citizens  of  all  the 
States;  yet  the  different  States  exercised  the 
power  of  prescribing  certain  probationary  rules 
to  those  coming  from  another  State,  to  entitle 
them  to  all  the  privileges.  If  a  citizen  of  Mas- 
sachusetts removes  to  another  State,  he  cannot 
vote  as  soon  as  he  enters  it — a  certain  residence 
is  required  of  him — and  the  people  of  Missouri 
were  competent  by  law  to  impose  a  residence 
of  one  or  more  years  on  a  citizen  going  there, 
to  entitle  him  to  all  the  privileges  of  citizens 
of  the  State ;  he  complies  with  no  more  than  is 
exacted  of  all,  and  which  the  State  has  a  right 
to  require.  This  was  a  question,  however, 
which  they  did  not  touch ;  they  avoided  it  al- 
together, and  bave  declared  that  a  certain  class 
shall  not  come  into  their  State  at  ah1,  even 
though  they  may  be  citizens  of  other  States, 
enjoying  all  the  privileges  of  such. 

Mr.  B.  did  not  himself  conceive  it  difficult  to 
define  what  constituted  a  citizen.  If  a  person 
was  not  a  slave  or  a  foreigner — but  born  in  the 
United  States,  and  a  freeman — going  into  Mis- 
souri, he  has  the  same  rights  as  if  born  in 
Missouri ;  after  complying  with  the  conditions 
prescribed  by  the  laws  to  qualify  him  for  the 
exercise  of  these  rights,  he  stands  precisely  on 
the  same  footing,  and  his  rights  are  in  every 
respect  the  same  as  if  he  had  been  born  there. 
The  question  then  was,  Mr.  B.  said,  had  the 
people  of  Missouri  the  constitutional  right  to 
prohibit  from  entering  that  State  a  large  class 
of  persons  who  were  citizens  of  the  Common- 
wealth of  Massachusetts?  To  establish  the 
negative  of  this  proposition,  Mr.  B.  adduced 
various  other  arguments  in  addition  to  the 


I  preceding,  and  endeavored  to  show  that  even 
many  laws  of  the  United  States  would  become 

j  inoperative  in  Missouri,  if  the  clause  which  he 

I  opposed  could  be  maintained  in  force ;  and,  as 
an  instance,  he  referred  to  the  laws  against  kid- 

j  napping.     In  regard  to  this  crime  of  kidnap-   . 
ping,  Mr.  B.  remarked,  the  constitution  of  Mis- 

i  souri  had  done  nothing ;  for,  according  to  it,  all 
people  of  color  who  are  carried  there,  must, 
ipso  facto,  be  slaves,  inasmuch  as  a  free  negro 
could  in  nowise  go  there,  admitting  the  clause 
to  have  its  full  effect. 

Mr.  B.  said  he  was  not  prepared  at  present  to 
affirm  that  Missouri  might  not  pass  laws  to  pro- 
hibit persons  from  carrying  there  negro  or  mu- 
latto convicts,  or,  perhaps,  foreigners  from  com- 
ing into  the  State ;  this  was  a  question  on 
which  no  opinion  now  was  necessary ;  but  he 
contended  that  the  clause  as  it  stood  prohibited 
the  entrance  of  a  large  portion  of  people  who 
were,  to  all  intents  and  purposes,  citizens  in 
other  States.  Admit  the  legality  of  this  clause, 
and,  Mr.  B.  said,  the  Legislature  of  Missouri 
might,  with  the  same  right,  go  still  further, 
and  pass  laws  to  exclude  citizens  born  in  cer- 
tain portions  or  districts  of  the  United  States. 
This  was  a  measure,  he  argued,  which  one  in- 
dependent nation  could  not  adopt  towards 
another.  England  could  not  pass  such  a  law 
against  the  people  of  France,  or  of  any  other 
friendly  nation;  such  a  measure  would  be  too 
offensive  to  be  borne,  and  would  be  considered 
to  amount  almost  to  a  declaration  of  war.  If 
distinct  and  independent  nations  dare  not  enact 
such  laws  towards  each  other,  how  was  it  pos- 
sible, Mr.  B.  said,  that  the  power  could  be  ex- 
ercised by  one  of  these  States  towards  other 
States  of  the  Union  ? 

All  the  distinctions  among  citizens  which 
arise  from  color,  rested,  Mr.  B.  said,  on  State 
laws  alone — there  was  nothing  in  the  Constitu- 
tion of  the  United  States  which  recognized  dis- 
tinctions. In  Massachusetts  there  was  no  dis- 
tinction ;  a  man  of  color  possessed  there  pre- 
cisely and  identically  the  same  rights  as  a  white 
man  born  in  the  same  State,  and  he  asked  if  it 
was  possible  for  Missouri,  consistently  with 
the  Constitution  of  the  United  States,  to  ex- 
clude any  of  those  people  from  that  State,  who 
should  think  proper  to  remove  from  Massachu- 
setts to  Missouri  ?  The  States  of  this  Union 
were  not  distinct  and  independent  nations — 
they  are,  said  Mr.  B.,  a  confederacy  of  kindred 
republics ;  when  they  formed  their  constitution 
of  government,  they  used  the  language,  "  We, 
the  people  of  the  United  States,"  and  it  is  not 
in  the  power  of  one  of  the  members  of  this  con- 
federacy to  enforce  the  clause  Missouri  has 
adopted,  and  it  is  the  duty  of  Congress  to  re- 
ject it. 

Mr.  B.  said  he  would  add  nothing  more  about 
the  right  of  Congress  to  decide  this  question ; 
lie  would  merely  say,  Congress  must  from  ne- 
cessity decide  it;  it  must  admit  the  members 
of  Missouri;  in  that  act  the  question  was  in- 
volved, and  they  were  obliged,  therefore,  to  de- 


DEBATES  OF  CONGRESS. 


DECEMBER,  1820.]         Missouri  State  Constitution — Citizenship  of  Free  Colored  Persons. 


cide  it.  It  was  useless,  therefore,  to  talk  of  re- 
ferring the  question  to  the  judiciary.  As  Con- 
gress "  might  admit  new  States"  into  the 
Union,  it  was  clear  to  his  mind  that  Congress 
must  determine  the  conditions  on  which  they 
should  come  in. 

Mr.  B.  said  he  would  offer  a  few  words  as  to 
the  dangers  which  were  apprehended  by  some 
gentlemen  from  a  rejection  of  the  constitution 
offered  by  Missouri.  What  were  the  conse- 
quences, Mr.  B.  asked,  which  would  follow  the 
rejection?  The  only  one  which  he  could  per- 
ceive was,  that  Missouri  must  remain  one  year 
longer  out  of  the  Union.  Was  this  such  a  hard- 
ship ?  And  to  avoid  this  trifling  consequence, 
must  we,  said  Mr.  B.,  give  a  vote  which  will 
violate  the  constitution  we  have  sworn  to  sup- 
port, and  which  we  are  all  so  deeply  interested 
in  maintaining  ?  As  a  Territory  the  people  of 
Missouri  had  gone  on,  he  said,  very  prosper- 
ously, and  no  great  inconvenience  could  result 
from  continuing  in  the  territorial  condition  one 
year  longer.  It  is  said  they  have  formed  a  con- 
stitution, and  under  it  have  elected  a  Governor 
and  Legislature,  and,  having  assumed  the  func- 
tions and  character  of  a  State,  if  they  are  not 
now  admitted  into  the  Union,  they  will  go  on 
without  our  consent.  Mr.  B.  said  he  presumed 
the  people  of  Missouri  felt  the  same  attachment 
to  the  Union,  and  to  the  tranquillity,  and  honor, 
and  glory  of  it  as  we  do  ;  and  he  would  not  be- 
lieve, he  would  not  do  them  the  injustice 
to  believe,  that  rather  than  endure  the  small 
inconvenience  of  retaining  the  territorial  char- 
acter a  few  months  more,  they  would  rashly 
throw  away  all  the  interest  they  had  in  the 
greatness  and  glory  of  their  country.  They 
might  possibly  still  think  that  their  constitution 
ought  not  to  have  been  rejected  on  account  of 
this  offensive  clause,  and  may  feel  some  excite- 
ment on  the  occasion ;  yet  they  must  see  the 
necessity  and-propriety  of  some  sacrifice  to  the 
conscientious  opinion  of  Congress,  and  would 
consent  to  qualify  their  constitution  in  the  ob- 
jectionable feature.  But,  said  Mr.  B.,  if  we 
ratify  it  as  it  is,  we  establish  a  precedent  and 
admit  a  point  that  the  judiciary  will  never  be 
able  to  overthrow ;  do  not  then  leave  to  an- 
other tribunal  the  decision  of  a  question  which 
belongs  to  us,  but  let  us  meet  and  decide  it  our- 
selves. 

If  the  constitution  were  not  accepted,  Mr.  B. 
said  it  would  be  easy  to  obviate  any  difficulty 
by  passing  an  additional  act  authorizing  the 
people  of  Missouri  to  form  another  convention 
and  revise  their  constitution ;  and  he  was  confi- 
dent this  odious  feature  would  be  expunged. 
These  people,  Mr.  B.  said,  were  not  Missourians, 
properly  so  distinguished,  but  were  Americans, 
collected  there  from  all  the  States,  the  same 
people  as  ourselves.  They  would  appreciate 
the  motives  of  Congress,  and  do  them  justice; 
they  would  recollect,  also,  that  this  act  passed 
in  a  spirit  of  compromise  and  accommodation, 
from  a  desire  to  preserve  peace  and  quietness 
in.  every  part  of  tho  Union ;  and  re-assembling 


with  such  views,  finding  the  clause  could  do  no 
good,  they  would  repeal  it.  Sanction  this  im- 
proper clause  now,  said  he,  and  you  sanction  it 
for  all  time  to  come ;  and  however  we  may 
desire  hereafter  to  avoid  it,  it  will  be  irrevoca- 
bly established. 

Mr.  B.  said  the  little  he  had  spoken  had  ex- 
hausted his  strength,  and  he  could  add  nothing 
more  if  he  wished  to  do  so. 

When  Mr.  B.  had  concluded— 

Mr.  SMITH,  of  South  Carolina,  intimated  an 
intention  of  replying  to  Mr.  B. ;  but,  as  he 
would  have  to  refer  to  several  constitutions  and 
other  authorities,  in  the  course  of  his  argument, 
he  asked  a  short  time  to  prepare  them,  and 
moved  the  postponement  of  the  subject  until 
to-morrow;  which  motion  prevailed,  and  it 
was  postponed  accordingly. 


FEIDAY,  December  8. 

Missouri  State  Constitution — Citizenship  of 
Free  Colored  Persons. 

The  Senate  then  resumed  the  consideration 
of  the  resolution  declaring  the  admission  of  the 
State  of  Missouri  into  the  Union  on  an  equal 
footing  with  the  original  States. 

Mr.  SMITH,  of  South  Carolina,  addressed  the 
Senate,  as  follows : 

He  observed  that,  on  any  subject,  however 
interesting  it  might  be,  he  could  not  flatter  him- 
self with  a  hope  that  he  could  entertain  the 
Senate.  But,  what  he  had  to  offer  at  present, 
on  this  very  important  occasion,  would  consist 
very  much  of  references,  and  he  feared  might 
prove  tedious ;  therefore  he  felt  more  necessity 
than  on  most  occasions  to  ask  for  a  little  pa- 
tience and  their  kind  indulgence. 

The  resolution  declaring  the  admission  of 
Missouri  into  the  Union,  he  thought,  was  noth- 
ing more  than  a  matter  of  form,  and  might  be 
dispensed  with.  He  had  examined  the  jour- 
nals of  the  Senate  and  House  of  Kepresentatives 
for  the  course  heretofore  pursued  by  Congress 
on  the  admission  of  new  States  into  the  Union, 
and  found  it  had  been  various.  He  would  give 
their  history. 

Vermont  was  the  first  new  State  admitted 
after  the  adoption  of  the  Federal  Constitution. 
On  the  9th  of  February,  1791,  President  WASH- 
INGTON laid  before  Congress  documents  received 
from  the  Governor  of  Vermont,  expressing  the 
consent  of  the  Legislature  of  New  York,  and  of 
the  Territory  of  Vermont,  that  the  said  territory 
shall  be  admitted  to  be  a  distinct  member  of 
our  Union.*  On  the  18th  of  the  same  monthf 
an  act  of  Congress  was  approved  for  the  admis- 
sion of  Vermont  into  the  Union,  without  any 
of  this  formality,  that  her  constitution  should  be 
republican,  &c.  The  act  says,  "  Vermont,  hav- 
ing petitioned  Congress,  &c.,  on  the  4th  day  of 
March,  &c.,  shall  be  received  and  admitted  iuto 
this  Union,  as  a  new  and  entire  member  of  the 


*  Senate  Journal,  241. 

t  Public  Laws,  2<i  vol.  page  193. 


666 


ABRIDGMENT  OF  THE 


SENATE.] 


Missouri  State  Constitution^- Citizenship  of  Free  Colored  Persons.       [DECEMBER,  1820 


United  States  of  America."  On  the  31st  of 
October  following,  Mr.  Robinson  took  his  seat 
in  the  Senate,*  and  on  the  4th  of  November  Mr. 
Bradley  took  his  eeat.f  There  was  no  constitu- 
tion either  submitted  to,  or  required  by,  Con- 
gress. Nor  were  there  any  traces  of  a  consti- 
tution of  that  new  State  to  be  found  previous 
to  the  9th  of  July,  1793.  Congress  never  sup- 
posed at  that  day  they  had  a  power  to  re- 
quire a  constitution  from  a  new  State  coming 
into  the  Union,  nor  to  examine  if  such  consti- 
tion  was  republican.  Mr.  S.  said  he  knew 
very  well  that  the  people  of  that  respectable 
State  contend  it  was  one  of  the  original  States. 
We  know  of  none  but  thirteen  original  States. 
Vermont  would  have  made  fourteen;  and  it 
was  treated  of,  and  so  called  at  the  time,  as  a 
territory.  It  was  detached  from  New  York, 
and,  by  the  express  consent  of  the  Legislature 
of  New  York,  she  was  received  into  the 
Union. 

Kentucky  was  the  next  new  State  admitted 
into  the  Union.  On  the  18th  of  December, 
17891,  and  after  the  adoption  of  the  Federal 
Constitution,  the  Legislature  of  Virginia  passed 
the  act  authorizing  Kentucky  to  form  a  sepa- 
rate State.J  On  the  4th  of  February,  1791, 
Congress  passed  an  act  of  consent  that  Ken- 
tucky should  become  a  separate  State,  and  be 
admitted  into  the  Union  on  the  first  day  of  June, 
1792.  On  the  19th  of  April,  1792,  its  consti- 
tution was  formed,  but  was  never  submitted  to 
Congress.§  On  the  5th  of  November,  1792, 
Messrs.  Brown  and  Edwards,  as  Senators  from 
that  State,  took  their  seats  in  the  Senate,  with- 
out even  an  inquiry  for  a  constitution. 

Tennessee  formed  her  constitution  on  the  6th 
of  February,  1796.  This  was  the. first  consti- 
tution of  a  new  State  submitted  to  Congress. 
There  does  not  appear  to  have  been  any  refer- 
ence, made  of  this  constitution  to  any  committee. 
or  any  other  order  taken  upon  it.  There  is  to  be 
found  in  the  debates  of  the  5th  and  6th  of  May, 
1796,  an  objection  made  to  one  provision  of  that 
constitution,  inasmuch  as  it  was  repugnant  to 
the  Constitution  of  the  United  States.  This 
objection  was  made  by  a  member  from  South 
Carolina,  and  was  replied  to  by  Mr.  Baldwin  of 
Georgia,  "  that,  if  repugnant  to  the  Constitu- 
tion of  the  United  States,  it  was  a  nullity,  be- 
cause the  Constitution  of  the  United  States  was 
paramount."  And  this  appears  to  have  put  an 
end  to  the  objection. 

Ohio  was  the  next  new  State  adopted  into 
the  Union.  On  the  30th  of  April,  1802,  the 
law  passed  authorizing  Ohio  to  form  a  constitu- 
tion and  State  government.  On  the  29th  of 
November,  1802,  she  formed  her  constitution^ 
On  the  7th  "January,  1803,  it  was  laid  before 


*  Vide  1  vol.  new  ed.  Senate  Journal,  882. 

t  Ib.  886. 

±  Laws  of  the  U.  S.  3d.  vol.  191. 

§  Ib.  192. 

I  Vide  Journal,  451. 

«[  Laws  of  the  U.  S.  vol.  3d,  page  496. 


the  Senate,  and  was  referred  to  a  committee* 
which  never  reported  on  it.*  On  the  19th  of 
February,  1803,  Congress  passed  a  law  "  to 
provide  for  the  due  execution  of  the  laws  of  the 
United  States  within  the  State  of  Ohio.''t  In 
this  last  law,  it  is  declared  that,  by  the  law  of 
30th  April,  1802,  authorizing  the  people  of  the 
Territory  of  Ohio  to  form  a  constitution  and 
State  government,  Ohio  had  become  one  of  the 
United  States  of  America.  This  law  says  noth- 
ing about  her  being  admitted  into  the  Union  on 
an  equal  footing  with  the  original  States ;  but 
simply  says,  "  whereby  the  said  State  has  be- 
come one  of  the  United  States  of  America." 

Louisiana  was  authorized,  by  an  act  of  Con- 
gress of  the  20th  of  February,  1811,  to  form  a 
constitution  and  State  government,  and  formed 
her  constitution  on  the  28th  January,  1812. 
On  the  8th  of  April,  1812,  was  admitted 
into  the  Union  by  a  law.J  This  was  the 
first  State  admitted  with  formality.  The  new 
mode  of  declaring  this  State  to  be  admitted, 
by  law,  seems  to  have  been  dictated  from  mo- 
tives of  interest.  Louisiana  had  within  her 
limits  the  Mississippi  and  other  valuable  navi- 
gable rivers.  By  that  law,  which  admits  her 
into  the  Union,  the  free  navigation  of  all  those 
rivers  is  secured  forever  to  all  the  old  States, 
free  from  "  any  tax,  duty,  impost,  or  toll ;" 
whilst  the  old  States  retain  the  right  to  these 
exactions,  and  some  of  them  do  actually  exact 
it.  The  State  of  New  York  now  exacts,  as  a 
toll,  one  dollar  upon  every  passenger  in  the 
steamboats  that  go  up  the  North  River,  and  de- 
rives from  that  source  an  immense  revenue, 
laying  the  whole  United  States  under  contribu- 
tion; whilst  her  own  citizens  are  navigating 
the  Mississippi  and  its  waters,  under  the  act  of 
Congress,  without  being  subjected  to  any  such 
duty.  And  this  is  what  they  have  been  pleased 
to  call  admitting  her  "  into  the  Union  upon  an 
equal  footing  with  the  original  States,  in  all 
respects  whatsoever." 

Indiana  was  admitted  into  the  Union  by  a 
joint  resolution  of  both  Houses  of  Congress,  on 
the  llth  of  December,  1816;  but  its  history 
proves  beyond  a  doubt  that  it  was  considered  a 
State,  to  all  intents  and  purposes,  before  the 
resolution  passed.  An  act  in  the  usual  form 
had  passed  for  its  admission ;  and  it  had,  by  a 
convention,  formed  a  constitution  on  the  20th 
of  June,  1816.  Congress  assembled  on  the  2d 
of  December,  1816;  on  that  day  the  House  of 
Representatives  admitted  Mr.  Hendricks,  the 
member  elect,  to  take  the  oath  of  office,  and 
take  his  seat  in  the  House.  On  the  4th,  the 
resolution  originated  in  the  Senate  ;  on  the  6th 
it  passed;  was  sent  to  the  House  on  the  9th, 
and  passed  that  day — eight'days  after  the  mem- 
ber had  been  admitted  to  his  seat ;  nor  had  the 
House  of  Representatives  ever  taken  up  the 
subject  at  all.  On  the  llth,  the  resolution  was 


.  *  Vide  Senate  Journals, 
t  Laws  U.  S.  page  524. 
$  Laws  U.  S.  TO!  4,  page  402. 


DEBATES  OF  CONGRESS. 


667 


DECEMBER,  1820.]         Missouri  State  Constitution— Citizenship  of  Free  Colored  Persons. 


approved.  Here,  it  is  evident  there  was  a 
great  falling  off  in  vigilance ;  but,  it  is  to  be  re- 
marked, we  were  going  north  about.  Louisi- 
ana could  not  be  admitted  by  any  thing  less 
solemn  than  a  law.  Indiana  did  not  require  a 
resolution,  for  the  House  of  Representatives  at 
least.  On  the  12th  of  February,  1817,  the 
Presidential  votes  were  counted  in  the  Repre- 
sentatives' Chamber,  whither  the  Senate,  in  a 
body,  had  gone  for  that  purpose.  All  the  votes 
of  the  several  States  were  counted,  except  the 
votes  of  Indiana.  Here  Mr.  S.  said,  he  would 
read  from  the  Journals  of  the  House  of  Repre- 
sentatives, what  passed  on  that  occasion,  as  there 
were  several  gentlemen  of  the  Senate  who  had 
taken  their  seats  since.* 

Mr.  S.  said,  in  consequence  of  this  proceed- 
ing, the  Senators  had  a  very  solemn  procession 
down  the  stairs  and  up  again,  and  there  it 
ended  ;  for  they  unanimously  concurred  in  con- 
sidering it  so  frivolous  that  they  forbid  it  a 
place  on  the  Journals.  The  Electors  of  Presi- 
dent and  Vice  President  were  elected  by  the 
State  of  Indiana,  and  the  electoral  votes  given 
before  the  resolution  was  offered  for  its  admis- 
sion into  the  Union.  This  act  was  solemnly 
sanctioned  by  both  Houses  of  Congress.  It 
was  the  highest  act  which  a  State,  in  its  politi- 
cal capacity,  can  perform.  Who,  then,  can 
doubt  for  a  moment  that  Indiana  was  a  State, 
as  perfect  as  it  is  possible  for  this  Government 
to  make  ?  It'  Indiana  was  so,  why  should  not 
Missouri  be  so,  under  the  same  circumstances  ? 
It  cannot  be  doubted.  She  is  a  State,  and  you 
cannot  disfranchise  her.  But,  it  is  said  she  can- 
not be  admitted  into  the  Union,  because  her 
constitution  is  repugnant  to  the  Constitution  of 
the  United  States,  and  is  not  republican;  and 
that  Congress,  by  the  Federal  Constitution,  is 
to  guarantee  to  every  State  a  republican  form 
of  government ;  therefore,  it  is  the  province  of 
Congress  to  examine  for  this  quality  in  the  con- 


*  Journal  II.  R.  2d  session,  14th  Congress,  pages  885, 
886,  887. 

"  \V  hen  the  President  of  the  Senate  was  about  to  open  the 
votes  of  that  State,  for  the  purpose  of  having  the  same 
counted, 

"Mr.  Taylor,  one  of  the  Representatives  from  the  State  of 
New  York,  rose,  and  objected  to  the  same,  and  stated  that, 
in  his  opinion,  the  votes  of  the  Electors  of  Indiana,  for 
President  and  Vice  President,  ought  to  be  received. 

"  Upon  which  objection  being  made,  the  Senate,  on  mo- 
tion of  one  of  its  members,  withdrew;  and,  being  absent,  a 
resolution  was  then  submitted  by  Mr.  Sharp,  in  the  fol- 
lowing words: 

"  Resolved,  by  the  Senate  and  House  of  Representatives, 
&c.,  That  the  votes  for  the  electors  for  theStateof  I,i>li<m,i, 
for  President  and  Vice  President  of  the  United  States, 
were  properly  and  legally  given,  and  ought  to  be  counted. 

"A  motion  was  made  DV  Mr.  Taylor,  of  New  York,  to 
amend  the  said  resolution,  by  striking  out  all  thereof  after 
the  enacting  clause,  and  inserting  the  following :  '  That  the 
votes  of  the  Electors  of  the  State  of  Indiana,  for  President 
and  Vice  President  of  the  United  States,  having  been  given 
previous  to  tho  admission  of  that  Stain  into  the  Union, 
ought  not  to  be  received  and  counted?  And  debate  arising 
thereon,  a  motion  was  made  by  Mr.  Ingham,  that  the  reso- 
lution !»•  postponed  indefinitely.  And  tho  question  being 
taken  thereon,  it  passed  in  the  affirmative. 

-Tin- Senate  again  attended,  Ac.     And  the  President  of 

the  Senate,  in  the  presence  of  both  Houses,  proceeded  to 

open  the  certificates  of  the  Electors  of  the  State  of  Indiana, 

,  which  he  delivered  to  the  tellers,  by  whom  it  was  read,  and 

who  took  lists  of  the  votes  therein  end-  •• 


stitution  of  any  State  which  applies  for  admis- 
sion into  the  Union. 

If,  sir,  Congress  has  to  decide  upon  the  re- 
publican form  of  government  of  the  new  States, 
it  has  also  to  decide  upon  it  for  all  the  old 
States.  The  language  of  the  constitution  is, 
"  the  United  States  shall  guarantee  to  every 
State  in  this  Union  a  republican  form  of  gov- 
ernment." This  applied  immediately  to  the 
old  States ;  and,  if  it  is  the  duty  of  Congress, 
why  did  not  Congress  examine  all  the  constitu- 
tions of  the  several  States  ?  Why  not  require 
each  State,  when  it  alters  or  new-models  its  con- 
stitution, to  submit  it  to  that  tribunal  to  decide 
whether  it  is  republican  ?  Nine  of  the  States 
have  altered  their  constitutions  since  the  adop- 
tion of  the  Constitution  of  the  United  States. 
New  Hampshire,  in  February,  1792 ;  Connec- 
ticut, in  September,  1818 ;  Vermont,  in  July, 
1793,  or  rather  formed  one;  Pennsylvania,  in 
September,  1792;  Delaware,  in  June,  1792; 
Maryland,  at  sundry  times ;  South  Carolina,  in 
June,  1790  ;  Georgia,  in  May,  1798 ;  and  Ken- 
tucky, in  August,  1799.  None  of  these  States 
have  ever  submitted  their  renewed  constitu- 
tions to  Congress  for  its  approbation.  It  is  the 
duty  of  Congress,  under  the  term  "  guarantee," 
to  look  into  any  constitution.  Who  will  be 
bold  enough  to  say  it  is  not  its  duty  to  see  that 
no  State  shall  alter  its  constitution,  but  by  its 
permission  and  authority  ?  It  would  be  to  lit- 
tle purpose  to  say  the  United  States  shall  guar- 
antee the  republican  form  of  government,  un- 
less its  control  can  be  continued.  Every  State 
has  the  power  to  revise  its  constitution  when- 
ever it  shall  think  proper.  And,  if  you  look  at 
the  constitution  of  Missouri  to-day,  and  pass  it 
as  republican,  and  that  State  should  alter  it  to- 
morrow, and  destroy  its  republican  features, 
and  defy  your  control,  this  power  has  been 
given  to  very  little  purpose,  and  had  much  bet- 
ter been  withheld. 

Mr.  S.  said,  upon  looking  into  the  constitu- 
tion of  the  thirteen  original  States,  he  had  dis- 
covered that  Rhode  Island  had  no  constitution ; 
nor  had  she  ever  any.  She  has  what  the  good 
people  of  that  State  call  the  "  charter  of  Rhode 
Island,"  granted  by  King  Charles  the  Second ;  in 
which  he  has  made  certain  reservations,  as  an 
acknowledgment  of  his  sovereignty.  And 
throughout  the  whole  instrument,  the  people 
are  treated  of,  and  called  subjects.  They  can 
have  no  claim  to  a  republican  form  of  govern- 
ment under  such  a  charter. 

Why,  then,  does  not  Congress  issue  its  writ 
of  quo  warranto  to  the  Governor  or  the  Legis- 
lature of  Rhode  Island,  calling  on  them  to  show- 
by  what  authority  they  claim  to  be  one  of  tho 
United  States  ?  Or  to  show  cause,  if  any  they 
can,  why  that  State  should  not  be  disfranchised 
for  holding  her  government  under  a  foreign 
Prince?  Or  else  issue  some  process  to  compel 
her  to  form  such  a  constitution  as  shall  guaran- 
tee to  her  a  republican  form  of  government  ? 
Congress  has  as  much  power  to  do  this  as  it  has 
to  reject  the  constitution  of  Missouri. 


668 


ABRIDGMENT  OF  THE 


SENATE.] 


Missouri  State  Constitution — Citizenship  of  Free  Colored  Persons.         [DECEMBER,   1820. 


If  Congress  has  the  power  to  guarantee  the 
republican  form  of  government,  and  it  can  only 
be  exercised  when  a  State  presents  itself  for  ad- 
mission into  the  Union,  there  ought  to  be  a 
uniformity  in  its  course.  The  same  State  of 
Rhode  Island  refused  to  adopt  the  Federal  Con- 
stitution for  some  time  after  the  organization  of 
this  Government.  Then  Rhode  Island  stood 
precisely  on  the  ground  on  which  Missouri  now 
is  said  to  stand.  Missouri  is  a  State,  but  it  is 
said  is  not  in  the  Union ;  Rhode  Island  was  a 
State,  and  acknowledged  on  all  hands  to  be  out 
of  the  Union  at  that  time.  Why  did  not  Con- 
gress exercise  this  salutary  control  when  Rhode 
Island  came  into  the  Union ;  and  abrogate  her 
English  charter,  and  give  her  a  constitution, 
with  at  least  some  semblance  of  a  republican 
form  of  government  in  it,  and  blot  out  the  odi- 
ous words,  sovereign  and  subject,  monarchical 
vestiges  which  still  characterize  it  ?  It  is  evi- 
dent, to  a  demonstration,  that  Congress  is  not 
the  tribunal  to  decide  this  constitutional  ques- 
tion. It  must  be  left  to  the  judicial  department, 
whose  province  alone  it  is  to  judge  the  private 
rights  of  individuals.  There  are  no  govern- 
mental rights  to  be  involved,  but  the  rights  of 
persons  only,  if  any ;  and  shall  Congress  erect 
itself  into  a  tribunal  to  investigate  whether  by 
chance  some  free  negro  or  mulatto,  fifty  years 
hence,  might  suffer,  and  put  this  whole  Union 
in  jeopardy?  He  viewed  such  a  crisis  with 
awe.  Mr.  S.  said  he  would  be  amongst  the  last 
to  invoke  it,  but  we  could  not  shut  our  eyes 

of  this*  Union.  At  the  time  they  were  fulmi- 
nating their  threats  to  dissolve  the  Union,  if 
Missouri  should  be  admitted  into  it,  they  were 
declaring  to  the  world  that  the  Southern  States 
were  endeavoring  to  intimidate,  but  would  not 
dare  to  disturb  the  Confederacy.  One  printer, 
of  Philadelphia,  tired  of  waiting  for  some  post 
of  honor  or  profit  under  the  old  government, 
has  divided  the  Union  on  paper,  and  laid  out  a 
snug  government  for  himself  and  his  friends, 
under  which,  perchance,  he  may  be  better  pro- 
vided for.  Another  fellow  has  called  himself 
Patrick  Henry,  and  writes  as  if  it  belonged  to 
him  to  dissolve  this  empire,  if  he  should  so  will 
it.  He  intends  to  bring  about  in  this  country  a 
succession  of  Patrick  Henrys,  in  imitation  of 
the  Caesars  of  the  Roman  world;  and  he  is  to 
be  Patrick  Henry  the  second.  This  Patrick 
Henry  the  second  has  declared  if  Missouri  with 
her  constitution  is  received,  it  is  of  itself  a  dis- 
solution of  the  Union.  If  ever  this  Union  is 
disturbed,  it  will  be  by  such  monsters  as  these. 
It  is  not  here  that  revolution  is  to  commence ; 
it  is  to  begin  with  the  people,  by  means  of  mis- 
representations— by  imposing  on  their  honesty. 
Let  those  who  are  fanning  this  flame  beware  of 
the  consequences.  If  the  torrent  begins  to  roll, 
there  is  no  telling  where  it  is  to  stop. 

We  are  told  this  constitution  is  not  republi- 
can; therefore  it  cannot  be  sanctioned,  because 
it  is  the  duty  of  the  Government  to  guarantee  to 
every  State  of  this  Union  a  republican  form  of 


government.  The  evidence  of  this,  it  is  said,  is 
manifested  in  the  third  and  fourth  clauses  of  the 
twenty-sixth  section  of  the  third  article  of  the 
constitution  of  Missouri,  which  authorizes  the 
Legislature  to  pass  laws  "  to  prevent  free  negroes 
and  mulattoes  from  coming  to  and  settling  in 
this  State  under  any  pretext  whatsoever." 

The  Convention,  which  formed  our  Federal 
Constitution,  has  not  been  as  explicit  as  we 
could  wish  in  defining  what  a  republican  form 
of  government  is.  But  we  have  always  under- 
stood that  sort  of  government  which  is  admin- 
istered by  the  people  to  be  a  republican  form 
of  government,  and  does  not  obtain  nor  lose 
this  form  when  the  free  negroes  and  mulattoes 
are  excluded  from  a  participation.  This  is  a 
case  sui  generic.  The  history  of  the  ancient 
world  furnishes  no  precedent.  The  Grecian 
Republics  abounded  in  slaves ;  but  they  had  no 
share  in  the  political  concerns  of  the  nation. 
Sparta  was  said  to  approach  nearer  to  a  pure 
democracy  than  any  other  government  that 
ever  existed.  Yet  they  had  slaves  in  thousands 
and  hundreds  of  thousands,  who  had  no  share 
in  political  affairs.  They  were  white,  and  what 
of  them  were  not  sold  to  foreign  nations,  or 
butchered  by  their  masters,  who  had  the  abso- 
lute control  over  their  persons  and  lives,  with- 
out account,  were  finally  suffered  to  mingle 
with  the  free  men,  and  became  one  people. 
But  the  difference  of  color  forbids  that  course 
with  us,  and  will  operate  as  a  perpetual  bar- 
rier, until  time  shall  overcome  it.  Although 
they  are  not  slaves  themselves,  who  were  pro- 
hibited by  this  constitution  to  settle  in  Missou- 
ri ;  yet  they  are  the  late  offspring  of  slaves,  and 
have  been  placed  and  considered  in  the  body 
politic  upon  the  same  footing  and  no  other. 
Their  parents  were  slaves  during  the  Revolu- 
tionary war.  They  were  in  a  state  of  slavery 
from  Boston  to  the  St.  Mary's,  laboring  in  your 
fields.  It  was  not  then  slaveholding  States  and 
non-slaveholding  States,  but  all  were  slavehold- 
ing States.  It  is  true  since  that  time  the 
Northern  States,  finding  it  their  interest  to  do 
so,  have-  sold  the  greater  part  of  them  to  the 
Southern  people,  and  have  freed  the  rest. 
These  freed  negroes  and  mulattoes  are  now,  for 
the  first  time,  called  citizens  of  the  United 
States ;  and  are,  it  is  said,  by  the  Constitution 
of  the  United  States,  entitled  to  all  the  privi- 
leges and  immunities  of  citizens  of  the  several 
States. 

As  no  example  is  to  be  found  in  the  his- 
tory of  any  other  nation,  and  this  being  the 
first  time  this  question  has  occurred  in  our 
own  Government,  whether  free  negroes  and 
mulattoes  are,  as  such,  citizens,  must  be  ascer- 
tained by  such  evidences  as,  from  the  nature 
of  things,  we  are  compelled  to  give  the  highest 
credence  to.  Mr.  S.  said  this  was  to  be  found 
in  the  Constitution  and  laws  of  the  United 
States,  and  in  the  constitutions  or  laws  of  the 
several  States.  They  furnish  a  mass  of  evi- 
dence, which  nobody  could  doubt  but  a  sceptic, 
that  free  negroes  and  mulattoes  have  never 


DEBATES  OF  CONGRESS. 


DECEMBER,  1820.]         Missouri  State  Constitution — Citizenship  of  free  Colored  Persons. 


[SESATB. 


been  considered  as  a  part  of  the  body  politic ; 
neither  by  the  General  Government  nor  the 
several  State  governments.  All  their  laws,  and 
all  their  constitutions,  contain  marked  distinc- 
tions by  which  this  class  of  people  are  excluded 
from  all  participation  in  your  political  institu- 
tions ;  not  in  the  Southern  States,  but  in  the 
Eastern '  States,  the  Northern  States,  and  the 
Western  States.  Almost  all  the  States  in  the 
Union  have  excluded  them  from  voting  in  elec- 
tions. There  is  no  State  that  admits  them  into 
the  militia.  Very  few  States  admit  them  to 
give  evidence.  No  State  had  passed  any  law 
constituting  them  citizens.  Mr.  S.  said  he 
would  not  inquire  in  what  department  the  pow- 
er existed,  if  it  existed  anywhere,  whether  in 
the  State  governments  or  in  the  General  Gov- 
ernment, to  naturalize  them  ;  but  at  present 
neither  the  one  nor  the  other  had  done  so ;  and, 
until  some  supreme  power  should  do  so,  they 
could  not  claim  "  the  privileges  and  immunities 
of  citizens  of  the  several  States."  He  would 
now  ask  the  Senate  for  their  further  indulgence, 
till  he  could  examine  this  subject  more  minute- 
ly, from  the  written  documents  themselves, 
which  he  would  beg  leave  to  read  severally. 
In  doing  so,  he  would  begin  with  the  Declara- 
tion of  Independence  itself.  This  sacred  instru- 
ment says :  "  We  hold  these  truths  to  be  self- 
evident  :  that  all  men  are  created  equal ;  that 
they  are  endowed  by  their  Creator  with  cer- 
tain inalienable  rights;  that  among  these  are 
life,  liberty,  and  the  pursuit  of  happiness." 

If  this  was  a  declaration  of  independence  for 
the  blacks  as  well  as  the  whites,  why  did  you 
not  all  emancipate  your  slaves  at  once,  and  let 
them  join  you  in  the  war.  But  we  know  this 
was  not  done.  We  know  that  slavery  was  as 
much  cherished  in  Massachusetts,  and  the  other 
New  England  States,  as  it  was  anywhere  else 
in  the  Union.  In  fine,  there  was  a  universal 
consent,  at  that  day,  that  these  people  were 
slaves,  and  were  our  personal  property,  and  had 
no  share  in  the  body  politic.  No  gentleman 
will  now  be  bold  enough  to  say  otherwise. 
New  York  is  yet  seeking  for  remuneration  from 
the  British  Government  for  their  slaves,  by  that 
name,  which  were  plundered  from  that  State 
during  the  Revolutionary  war.  The  very  con- 
stitution under  which  we  are  now  assembled, 
which  Avas  formed  for  the  better  cementing  the 
Government,  derived  from  that  Declaration  of 
Independence,  has  not  only  sanctioned  the 
slavery  which  then  existed  in  the  United  State?, 
but,  by  the  ninth  section  of  the  first  article,  ex- 
pressly permitted  the  whole  of  the  States, 
twelve  years  after  this  Declaration  of  Inde- 
pendence, to  open  their  ports  to  the  African 
slave  trade  for  a  succession  of  twenty  years. 
But  it  is  said  these  free  negroes  and  mulattoes 
are  citizens.  The  most  of  them  were  born 
slaves,  and  the  act  of  manumission  by  the  mas- 
ters could  not  constitute  them  citizens.  If  the 
master  can  make  a  citizen,  it  must  be  by  some 
other  process  than  his  sign  manual  on  paper. 
By  the  act  of  Congress,  passed  on  the  14th  of 


April,  1802,  to  establish  a  uniform  rule  of 
naturalization,  the  Congress  itself  has  guarded 
against  naturalizing  any  but  white  population. 
The  first  clause  of  the  act  is  these  words: 
"That  any  alien,  being  a  free  white  person, 
may  be  admitted  to  become  a  citizen  of  the 
United  States,  or  any  of  them,  on  the  following 
conditions,"*  Ac.  The  Government  of  Hayti 
was  then  an  independent  Empire ;  and  why 
were  they  excluded  this  privilege,  if  all  men 
were  created  equal  1 

Mr.  SMITH  said  he  would  now  examine  the 
constitutions  of  those  States  which  had  been 
admitted  into  the  Union  since  the  adoption  of 
the  Federal  Constitution ;  the  most  of  which 
bad  passed  under  the  eye  of  Congress,  and  had 
their  solemn  sanction;  and  would  show  how 
assiduously  they  had  kept  up  the  distinction 
between  the  white  and  black  population,  and 
how  carefully  the  colored  people  were  ex- 
cluded from  all  share  in  the  affairs  of  the  body 
politic  in  the  State  governments. 

In  the  eighth  section  of  the  second  article  of 
the  constitution  of  Kentucky,  are  these  words : 
"  In  all  elections  for  Representatives,  every  free 
male  citizen,  (negroes,  mulattoes,  and  Indians, 
excepted,)  &c.,  shall  enjoy  the  right  of  an 
elector." 

In  the  first  section  of  the  seventh  article  of 
that  constitution  it  is  said :  "  The  General  As- 
sembly shall  have  no  power  to  pass  laws  for 
the  emancipation  of  slaves  without  the  consent 
of  their  owners,  or  without  paying  their  own- 
ers a  full  equivalent  in  money  for  the  slaves  so 
emancipated." 

In  the  first  section  of  the  fourth  article  of  the 
constitution  of  Ohio,  it  is  said :  "  In  all  elec- 
tions, all  white  male  inhabitants,  &c.,  shall  en- 
joy the  right  of  an  elector." 

In  the  constitution  of  Louisiana,  it  is  said: 
"  No  person  shall  be  a  Representative  who,  at 
the  time  of  his  election,  is  not  a  free  white  male 
citizen  of  the  United  States." 

This  constitution  was  submitted  to  Congress^ 
and  was  examined  with  more  than  ordinary 
vigilance.  So  much  so,  that  the  State  could 
not  gain  admittance  into  the  Union  without 
passing  a  very  special  and  a  very  rigid  law ;  in 
which  Louisiana  was  laid  under  injunctions  im- 
posed on  no  other  State,  before  or  since.  Yet, 
with  all  this  vigilance,  she  is  suffered  to  ex- 
clude from  the  right  of  representing  the  State, 
all  colored  people.  If  there  are  black  and  yel- 
low citizens,  how  could  Congress  permit  that 
constitution  to  exclude  from  so  valuable  a 
privilege  men  who,  perhaps,  had  all  the  requi- 
sites of  a  representative  except  that  of  color  1 
Who  can  estimate  the  difference  between  being 
denied  a  residence  in  a  State,  or  denied  the  val- 
uable privilege  of  being  a  representative,  or 
even  the  right  of  being  represented  1 

In  the  1st  section  of  the  8d  article  of  the  con- 
stitution of  the  State  of  Mississippi,  you  find  the 
same  in  substance.  The  words  are,  "Every 


*  Laws  of  the  United  States,  3d  volume,  page  4T5. 


670 


ABRIDGMENT  OF  THE 


SENATE.] 


'Missouri  State  Constitution— Citizenship  of  Free  Colored  Persons.         [DECEMBER,  1820. 


free  white  male  person,  &c.,  shall  be  deemed  a 
qualified  elector." 

In  the  1st  section  of  the  2d  division  of  the 
6th  article  of  the  same  constitution,  are  the 
words:  "The  General  Assembly  shall  have  no 
power  to  pass  laws  for  the  emancipation  of 
slaves  without  the  consent  of  their  owners." 
Mr.  S.  observed,  that  he  read  this  last  part  of 
that  constitution  because  it  was  nearly  in  the 
same  words  as  the  26th  section  of  the  3d  arti- 
cle of  the  constitution  of  Missouri,  to  which  he 
had  heard  great  objections  because  it  prevented 
the  desirable  work  of  emancipation.  When 
the  constitution  of  Mississippi  was  before  the 
Senate,  only  three  years  ago,  there  was  not  a 
dissenting  voice,  nor  a  murmur  in  the  commu- 
nity. 

In  the  constitution  of  Indiana,  which  passed 
the  scrutiny  of  the  Senate  only  four  years  ago, 
in  the  1st  section  of  the  1st  article,  it  is  said, 
"  That  all  men  are  bora  equally  free  and  inde- 
pendent, and  have  certain  natural,  inherent, 
and  inalienable  rights  ;  among  which  are  the 
enjoying  and  defending  life  and  liberty,  and  of 
acquiring,  possessing,  and  protecting  property, 
and  pursuing  and  obtaining  happiness  and 
safety." 

How  very  incompatible  would  these  two 
clauses  of  that  constitution  appear,  if  it  were 
not  for  that  universal  assent  which  prevails 
throughout  the  Union,  that  free  negroes  and  mu- 
lattoes  are  not  known  in  your  political  institu- 
tions. This  is  a  more  marked  distinction  than 
any  of  the  preceding.  They,  for^the  most  part, 
say,  "free  white  male,"  &c.,  but 'this  is  simply 
a  distinction  between  white  and  black,  Avith  the 
utter  exclusion  of  the  colored  man.  What 
citizen  of  the  United  States  would  prefer  this 
degrading  distinction  to  exile  ?  The  people  of 
Indiana  had  been  eulogized  by  a  gentleman  of 
the  Senate,  (Mr.  KING,  of  New  York,)  on  this 
very  question,  at  the  last  session  of  Congress, 
and,  Mr.  S.  said  he  believed,  very  deservedly, 
as  a  wise  and  prudent  people.  These  people 
could  have  had  no  prejudices  from  habitual 
slavery.  They  had  been  nursed  in  the  lap  of 
freedom.  When  that  territory  was  ceded  by 
Virginia  to  the  United  States,  there  was  a  stip- 
ulation to  exclude  slavery;  notwithstanding 
which,  their  men  of  color  are  excluded  from 
any  portion  of  political  rights.  As  a  further 
evidence  of  the  degraded  condition  of  free  ne- 
groes and  mulattoes,  in  Indiana,  below  that  of 
a  citizen,  he  would  beg  leave  to  read  a  law  of 
that  State,  passed  about  two  years  after  it  was 
elevated  from  its  territorial  government.  He 
read  as  follows :  "  No  negro,  mulatto,  or  In- 
dian, shall  be  a  witness,  except  in  pleas  of  the 
State  against  negroes,  mulattoes,  or  Indians,  or 
in  civil  cases  where  negroes,  mulattoes,  or  In- 
dians, alone,  shall  be  parties."  They  have,  by 
another  clause  of  the  same  law,  graduated  the 
mulatto.  It  says,  "  Every  person  other  than  a 
negro,  of  whose  grandfathers  or  grandmothers 
any  one  is,  or  shall  have  been  a  negro,  although 
all  his  other  progenitors,  except  that  descending 


from  a  negro,  shall  have  been  white  persons, 
shall  be  deemed  a  mulatto,  and  so  every  person 
Avho  shall  have  one-fourth  part  or  more  of  ne- 
gro blood,  shall  in  like  manner  be  deemed  a  mu- 
latto." Can  any  possible  doubt  exist  that  the 
people  of  Indiana  consider  that  free  negroes  and 
mulattoes  are  not  citizens  ? 

Mr.  S.  said  he  would  now  beg  leave  to  advert 
to  some  laws  of  Congress,  of  recent  dates,  which 
would  show,  as  strongly  as  can  be  shown,  that 
Congress  have  not  only  believed  them  to  be  de- 
graded below  the  level  of -citizens,  but  have  ac- 
tually placed  them  there,  by  their  laws.  Con- 
gress required  all  territorial  laws  to  come  under 
its  revision,  and  particularly  so  the  laws  of  the 
Territory  of  Orleans,  before  it  became  the  State 
of  Louisiana.  By  one  of  the  territorial  laws  of 
Orleans,  of  the  Yth  of  June,  1806,  it  is  enacted, 
"  That  free  people  of  color  ought  never  to 
insult  or  strike  white  people,  nor  presume  to 
conceive  themselves  equal  to  the  white;  but, 
on  the  contrary,  that  they  ought  to  yield  to 
them  on  every  occasion,  and  never  speak  or  an- 
swer to  them  but  with  respect,  under  the  pen- 
alty of  imprisonment,  according  to  the  nature 
of  the  offence."*  This  is  a  law  which  • 
under  the  immediate  inspection  of  Congress. 

He  would  now  turn  to  the  act  of  Congress,  of 
last  session,  which  passed  on  the  15th  of  May, 
1820,  and  not  long  after  the  heated  debate  upon 
the  bill  for  admitting  Missouri  into  the  Union, 
when  the  minds  of  all  the  members  were  filled 
with  this  subject,  for  incorporating  the  inhabi- 
tants of  the  City  of  Washington,  &c.,  by  which 
they  were  continued  to  be  a  body  politic  and 
corporate.  In  this  act  is  to  be  found  these 
words:  ''Any  person  shall  be  eligible  to 
the  office  of  Mayor  who  is  a  free  white  male 
citizen  of  the  United  States."  t  In  another  part 
of  the  same  act  it  says,  "  That  no  person  shall 
be  eligible  to  a  seat  in  the  Board  of  Aldermen, 
or  Board  of  Common  Council,  unless  he  shall 
be  more  than  twenty-five  years  of  age,  a  free 
white  male  citizen  of  the  United  States,"  &c.  In 
another  part  of  that  act,  in  enumerating  the 
powers  of  the  corporation,  it  is  said  it  shall 
have  full  power  and  authority  "  to  prescribe  the 
terms  and  conditions  upon  which  free  negroes 
and  mulattoes  may  reside  in  the  city." 

Mr.  SMITH  observed,  that,  when  this  law  was 
before  the  Senate,  it  was  thoroughly  investi- 
gated by  an  honorable  gentleman  from  the  J];i~t, 
(Mr.  BUEEILL.)  Seeing  it  in  such  hands,  he 
paid  but  little  attention  to  it  himself ;  but  he 
found,  upon  examining  it,  free  negroes  and  mu- 
lattoes were  not  only  excluded  from  all  share  in 
the  offices,  but  were  placed  under  the  inspection 
of  the  corporation,  to  prescribe  the  terms  and 
conditions  upon  which  they  may  reside  in  the 
city.  Giving  power  to  prescribe  the  terms,  is, 
in  effect,  giving  power  to  expel.  This  is  an  un- 
answerable proof  of  the  degraded  condition  in 
which  Congress  consider  free  negroes  and  mu- 


*  Territorial  Laws  of  Orleans,  vol.  1,  p.  183, 190. 
+  Acts  1st  session  IGth  Congress,  page  14. 


DEBATES  OF  CONGRESS. 


671 


DECEMBER,  1820.]         Missouri  State  Constitution— Citizenship  of  Free  Colored  Persons. 


[SENATE. 


lattoes  ought  to  be  placed.  "With  this  strong 
and  peculiar  example  before  their  eyes,  well 
might  the  people  of  Missouri  conceive  they  had 
a  right  to  provide  against  this  evil.  The  ex- 
ample is  peculiar,  because  Congress  have  sat 
here  for  the  last  twenty  years ;  during  which 
time,  he  had  understood,  a  swarm  of  mulattoes 
had  been  reared  in  the  city ;  many  of  whom, 
no  doubt,  had  as  illustrious  fathers  as  any  In  the 
nation.  These  mulattoes  have  been  under  the 
parental  care  of  Congress,  until  some  of  them 
have  nearly  arrived  to  the  years  of  maturity ; 
and,  if  their  education  has  been  equal  to  their 
parentage,  might,  in  a  few  years,  fill  the  mayor- 
alty with  great  dignity.  Instead  of  which, 
they  are  now  to  be  placed  at  the  disposal  of  a 
petty  corporation.  All  their  hopes  are  blasted, 
and  themselves  drove  to  seek  their  fortunes  in 
the  wilds  of  Missouri,  on  account  of  their  color. 
And  shall  a  mulatto  to  whom  Congress  will  deny 
a  residence  in  the  City  of  Washington,  unless 
he  is  specially  licensed  by  the  corporation,  be 
considered  by  that  same  Congress,  if  he  will 
only  emigrate  to  the  State  of  Missouri,  entitled 
to  all  the  privileges  and  immunities  of  the  most 
distinguished  citizens  of  the  United  States  ? 

He  supposed  gentlemen  who  contended  for 
the  rights  of  these  sable  brethren  in  Missouri, 
and  who  had  denied  them  a  residence  at  Wash- 
ington, could  have  no  objection  to  see  x>ne 
of  them  returned  as  a  member  of  this  honor- 
able body.  And  if  they  are  entitled  to  all  priv- 
ileges and  immunities  of  the  citizens  of  the 
several  States,  wheresoever  they  would  go,  it 
would  be  infringing  much  upon  the  republican 
principle  to  refuse  them  this  honor.  Had 
Christophe,  the  famous  chief  of  Hayti,  come  to 
some  sections  of  our  country,  before  he  blew  his 
own  brains  out,  if  he  could  have  obtained  the 
naturalization  which  our  free  negroes  and  mu- 
lattoes have  done,  by  a  residence  merely,  he 
might,  under  the  spirit  of  these  times,  soon  have 
found  his  way  liere.  He  had  seen  in  this 
morning's  paper  some  high  encomiums  on  his 
rival  and  successor,  Boyer,  his  present  Majesty 
of  Hayti,  by  a  correspondent  of  his,  in  the  State 
of  Connecticut,  who  seems  to  invite  an  alliance 
with  his  Excellency.  This  correspondent  thinks 
it  would  be  very  useful  to  this  country. 

In  the  very  law  which  authorized  Missouri 
to  elect  the  convention  which  formed  the  con- 
stitution now  before  you,  is  the  following  pro- 
vision :  "  that  all  free  white  male  citizens  of 
the  United  States,  &c.,  shall  be  qualified  to  be 
elected,  and  they  are  hereby  qualified  and 
authorized  to  vote  and  choose  representatives 
to  form  a  convention."*  We  find  nothing  in 
that  law  for  tho  free  negroes  and  mulattoes. 
Mr.  S.  said  he  had  not  been  able  to  obtain  the 
statute  laws  of  Ohio  and  Illinois,  but  was  in- 
formed that  both  those  States  had  laws  impos- 
ing penalties  upon,  and  degrading  free  negroes 
and  mulattoes.  So  far  he  had  confined  his  ob- 
servations and  references  to  the  Declaration  of 


*  Laws  1st  session  16th  Congress,  page  14. 


Independence,  the  Constitution  and  laws  of  the 
United  States,  and  to  the  constitutions  and  laws 
of  such  of  the  separate  States  as  had  been 
formed,  under  the  authority,  and  since  the 
adoption  of  the  Federal  Constitution.  He  had 
done  so  for  the  purpose  of  showing  the  uni- 
formity of  sentiment  and  of  action,  which  had 
so  invariably  prevailed,  on  every  political  occa- 
sion, to  give  d  decisive  character  to  the  degraded 
condition  of  free  negroes  and  mulattoes.  He 
had,  as  yet,  offered  no  evidence  derived  from 
the  laws  and  constitutions  of  the  original  States. 
He  would  now  do  so,  and  see  how  far  they 
maintained  the  arguments  of  the  gentleman  from 
Ehode  Island,  (Mr.  BUBKILL,)  that  the  constitu- 
tion of  Missouri  is  repugnant  to  the  Constitution 
of  the  United  States,  and  wants  the  republican 
form,  which  it  is  the  duty  of  Congress  to  guar- 
antee ;  because  it  provides  for  prohibiting  free 
negroes  and  mulattoes  from  going  to,  and  settling 
in  that  State.  We  were  taught  to  believe  that 
no  State  in  the  Union,  besides  Missouri,  had  had 
the  boldness  to  restrain  the  ingress  or  egress 
of  any  citizen  ;  or  that  any  distinction  had 
been  made  between  the  white  citizens  and 
the  yellow  and  black  citizens.  He  would 
endeavor  to  show  the  gentleman's  arguments 
were  incorrect.  In  this  examination  he  would 
pass  by  all  those  States  which  held  slaves. 
It  was  known,  and  would  be  admitted,  that  each 
of  them  had,  either  in  their  laws  or  constitution, 
deprived  free  negroes  and  mulattoes  of  all  the 
political  rights  of  citizens ;  such  as  denying 
them  the  right  to  vote  at  elections  ;  or  depriv- 
ing them  of  the  liberty  to  give  evidence  against 
a  white  person ;  forbidding  them  to  bear  arms ; 
and  several  of  these  States  have  compelled  them 
to  depart,  and  forbidden  them  to  return.  For 
this  we  have  been  often  reproached.  To  pro- 
ceed with  the  course  he  had  laid  out  to  himself, 
he  would  begin  with  New  Hampshire. 

New  Hampshire  had  said  in  her  constitution 
"that  all  men  are  born  equally  free  and  inde- 
pendent. Have  certain,  natural,  .essential,  and 
inherent  rights — among  which  are  the  enjoying 
and  defending  life  and  liberty,"  &c. 

In  the  year  1808  she  passed  a  law  to  regulate 
her  militia,  in  which  it  is,  amongst  other  things, 
enacted  "  that  each  and  every  free  able-bodied 
white  male  citizen  of  this  State,  resident  there- 
in, who  is,  or  shall  be,  of  the  age  of  sixteen 
years,  and  under  the  age  of  forty,  &c.,  shall  be 
enrolled." 

If  the  white  man  and  the  black  man  are  born 
equally  free  and  independent,  and  have  the 
same  natural  rights,  &c.,  among  which  are  the 
enjoying  and  defending  his  life  and  liberty,  how 
is  the  colored  man  to  defend  his  life  if  ho  is  pre- 
vented from  the  means  given  to  the  white  man  ? 
This  absurdity  is  so  palpable  that  no  man  will 
attempt  to  reconcile  it.  No  other  conclusion 
can  result,  but  that  New  Hampshire,  too,  has 
yielded  her  assent,  that  free  negroes  and  mn- 
lattoes  are  not  citizens ;  but  that  these  govern- 
ments are  constituted  of  white  citizens  only.  A 
man  deprived  of  his  arms,  or  deprived  of  the 


672 


ABRIDGMENT  OF  THE 


SENATE.] 


Missouri  State  Constitution — Citizenship  of  Free  Colored  Persons.        [DECEMBER,  1820. 


means  of  using  them  as  his  fellow-citizens  do,  is 
deprived  at  least  of  half  his  defence.  Republi- 
can New  Hampshire  would  never  do  that. 

He  would  next  examine  the  laws  and  consti- 
tution of  Vermont.  Although  this  was  one  of 
the  new  States,  on  account  of  her  local  situation 
and  political  habits,  he  had  classed  her  with  the 
States  in  her  neighborhood. 

Vermont,  also,  had  said,  in  the  first  article  of 
her  constitution,  "  that  all  men  are  born  equally 
free  and  independent,  and  have  certain  natural, 
inherent,  and  inalienable  rights,  amongst  which 
are  the  enjoy  ing  and  defending  life  and  liberty,  ac- 
quiring, possessing,  and  protecting  property,  and 
pursuing  and  obtaining  happiness  and  safety." 

She  passed  a  law  on  the  10th  of  March,  1797, 
to  regulate  the  militia.  In  which  it  is  also 
enacted:  "that  every  free  able-bodied  white 
male  citizen  above  the  age  of  eighteen,  and 
under  forty-five,  &c.,  shall  be  enrolled,"*  &c. 

The  defending  life  and  protecting  property, 
by  the  appointment  of  Heaven,  must  depend 
upon  our  physical  powers.  And  will  the  State 
of  Vermont,  which  knows  so  well  the  benefit  of 
arms,  strip,  by  law,  a  portion  of  her  citizens  of 
this  essential  means  of  defending  life  and  pro- 
tecting property  ?  This,  like  the  case  of  New 
Hampshire,  proves  that  they  have  free  negroes 
and  mulattoes  in  Vermont,  but  have  no  black  or 
yellow  fellow-citizens  there. 

Vermont,  as  far  as  the  decisions  of  one  State 
could  go,  had  decided  the  political  right  which 
each  State  possesses,  of  expelling,  by  law,  the 
citizens  of  any  other  State,  if  any  should  be 
rash  enough  to  attempt  to  go  there  to  reside. 
The  19th  article  of  her  constitution,  which  was 
ratified  on  the  9th  of  July,  1793,  is  in  the  fol- 
lowing words :  "  That  all  people  have  a  natural 
and  inherent  right  to  emigrate  from  one  State 
to  another  that  will  receive  them." 

In  pursuance  of  this  authority,  in  their  own 
constitution,  Vermont,  on  the  6th  November, 
1801,  passed  a  law  to  exclude,  not  only  free 
negroes  and  mulattoes,  but  the  citizens  of  every 
description,  male  and  female,  of  the  other 
States.  It  says:  "The  selectmen  shall  have 
power  to  remove  from  the  State  any  persons 
who  come  there  to  reside.  And  any  person  re- 
moved, and  returning  without  permission  of  the 
selectmen,  shall  be  whipped  not  exceeding  ten 
stripes."f 

He  could  not  conceive  how  Vermont  could 
possibly  say,  that  the  constitution  of  Missouri 
was  repugnant  to  the  Constitution  of  the  United 
States,  because  it  forbids  a  residence  to  free  ne- 
groes and  mulattoes,  when  its  own  laws  and 
constitution  forbid  a  residence  to  the  most  re- 
spectable citizens,of  all  the  other  States.  Un- 
less they  considered  the  whipping  to  be  a  saving 
clause,  which  might  distinguish  it  from  the 
Missouri  case.  However  desirable  a  country 
Vermont  may  be,  Mr.  S.  said,  he  believed  there 
would  be  but  few,  either  black  or  white,  who 


*  See  Laws  of  Vermont,  2  vol.,  page  122. 
t  Laws  of  Vermont,  1  vol.,  page  400. 


would  become  citizens,  until  there  should  bo 
some  other  mode  of  naturalizing  than  at  the 
whipping-post. 

Mr.  S.  said,  the  more  he  examined  the  subject 
the  better  he  was  satisfied  that  the  great  and  re- 
spectable State  of  Pennsylvania,  however  mis- 
taken he  might  think  he/ policy,  for  indiscrimi- 
nate emancipation,  had  had  more  benevolent 
views  than  any  other  State  in  the  Union.  They 
had  examined  it  more  than  any  other,  and  knew 
the  rights  of  free  negroes  and  mnlattoes  better, 
and  defended  them  with  more  zeal.  For  the  pur- 
pose of  showing  what  was  the  opinion  enter- 
tained in  her  Legislature,  at  its  last  session,  of 
the  right  of  States  to  prohibit  the  migration  of 
free  negroes  and  mulattoes,  he  would  read  from 
the  journals  of  that  body,  which  he  then  held, 
a  resolution,  offered  by  two  of  its  well-informed 
and  respectable  members. 

"  A  motion  was  made  by  Mr.  Kerlin  and  Mr. 
G.  Eobinson,  and  read  as  follows,  viz.  : 

"  Resolved,  That  the  Committee  on  the  Judi- 
ciary system  be  instructed  to  inquire  into  the 
expediency  of  prohibiting  the  migration  or  im- 
portation of  free  negroes  and  mulattoes  into 
this  Commonwealth.''* 

This  resolution  was  not  acted  on,  but  it  shows 
the  opinion  of  Pennsylvania,  itself,  upon  the- 
right  which  Missouri  claims.  And  this  resolu- 
tion, it  is  observed,  was  presented  on  or  about 
the  20th  of  January,  1820,  at  the  very  mo- 
ment that  Legislature  passed  a  unanimous  res- 
olution for  instructing  their  Senators,  in  Con- 
gress, to  oppose  the  admission  of  Missouri  into 
the  Union,  unless  under  the  restriction  of  pro- 
hibiting slavery,  when  their  minds  were  alive 
to  the  subject. 

He  said  he  would  now  examine  the  laws  of 
Rhode  Island,  for  she  had  no  constitution,  upon 
the  subject  of  negroes  and  mulattoes  generally. 
By  one  of  their  statute  laws  it  is  said :  "  The 
town  council  shall,  if  any  free  negro  or  mulatto 
shall  keep  a  disorderly  house,  or  entertain  any 
person  or  persons  at  unseasonable  hours,  break 
up  his  house,  and  bind  him  out  to  service  for 
two  years."! 

If  all  were  citizens,  why  not  bind  out  a  white 
brother  citizen  as  well  as  a  black  or  yellow  one  ? 
The  nature  of  the  offence  was  certainly  the 
same,  and,  it  is  reasonable  to  conclude,  ought  to 
be  punished  in  the  same  way.  By  another  clause 
of  the  same  statute,  it  is  enacted : 

"  That  no  white  person,  Indian,  or  mulatto, 
or  negro,  keeping  house  in  any  town,  shall  en- 
tertain any  Indian,  mulatto,  or  negro  servant 
or  slave ;  if  he  does,  to  be  punished  by  fine,'"'!  &c. 

Another  clause  of  the  same  statute  says,  in 
treating  of  Indian,  negro,  and  mulatto  servants 
or  slaves : 

"  That  none  should  be  absent  at  night,  after 
nine  o'clock.  If  found  out,  to  be  taken  up 
and  committed  to  jail  till  morning,  and  then 
appear  before  a  justice  of  the  peace,  who  is  or- 

*  See  Journal,  page  841. 

t  Laws  of  Rhode  Island,  pajres  611,  612. 

t  Laws  of  Khode  Island,  page  614. 


DEBATES  OF  CONGRESS. 


G73 


DECEMBER,   1820.]         Missouri  State  Constitution — Citizenship  of  Free  Colored  Persons. 


[SENATE. 


dered  and  directed  to  cause  such  servant  or  slave 
to  be  publicly  whipped,  by  the  constable,  ten 
stripes."* 

In  the  same  statute  book  is  a  law  of  a  more 
rigid  character.  It  is  in  these  words : 

"  That  whosoever  is  suspected  of  trading 
with  a  servant  or  slave,  and  shall  refuse  to  purge 
himself,  by  oath,  shall  be  adjudged  guilty,  and 
sentence  shall  be  given  against  him."t 

Our  Northern  friends  had  taken  great  liberties 
with  the  Southern  people  concerning  the  rigid 
manner  of  treating  their  slaves.  But  this  is  a 
refinement  upon  any  thing  of  that  sort  to  be 
found  in  the  statute  books  of  the  Southern 
States.  You  can  find  no  law  for  selling  or  bind- 
ing out  a  free  negro  or  mulatto,  for  entertaining 
his  friends  at  what  the  town  council  .might 
think  an  unseasonable  hour.  But  to  judge  a 
man  guilty  and  sentence  him,  if  you  suspect  him, 
unless  he  will  purge  himself  upon  oath,  is  a 
stretch  of  political  power,  not  known  in  any 
of  the  United  States  but  Rhode  Island.  It  was 
a  species  of  despotism.  This,  however,  must  be 
added  to  the  catalogue  of  evidence,  which  irre- 
sistibly shows  that  Ehode  Island,  as  well  as  the 
other  States,  never  intended  to  put  free  negroes 
and  mulattoes  upon  the  footing  of  citizens. 
Otherwise  the  laws  would  not  sell  the  man  of 
color  for  what  the  white  man  may  commit  with- 
out notice.  Mr.  S.  said,  this  discussion  would 
be  useful  in  one  respect,  if  injurious  in  another. 
We  should  understand  the  laws  and  constitutions 
of  our  neighboring  States.  Until  this  question 
was  agitated  he  had  been  led  to  believe  that 
slaves,  as  well  as  free  negroes  and  mulattoes,  in 
the  Northern  States,  were  as  unrestrained  as 
their  masters.  He  now  had  the  consolation  to 
know  that  the  laws  of  South  Carolina,  at  least, 
were  more  mild  on  this  subject  than  the  laws 
of  Rhode  Island.  Gentlemen  might  say  these 
laws  were  repealed  for  aught  he  knew ;  if  they 
were,  he  knew  nothing  about  it.  He  had  not 
yet  heard  they  were  repealed;  he  had  found 
their  statute  books,  which  contain  these  laws, 
in  the  law  library  attached  to  the  Senate  Cham- 
ber. He  supposed  some  of  them  may  be  grow- 
ing obsolete  since  they  sold  the  greater  part 
of  their  slaves  to  the  people  of  the  Southern 
States. 

He  would  now  examine  the  evidence  the  re- 
spectable State  of  Massachusetts  would  afford  us 
in  illustrating  this  subject ;  and  would  first  ad- 
vert to  her  constitution.  In  the  first  section  of 
the  first  article  are  to  be  found  the  following 
words : 

"All  men  are  born  free  and  equal,  and  have 
certain  natural,  essential,  and  inalienable  rights ; 
among  which  may  be  reckoned  thdfright  of  en- 
joying and  defending  their  lives  and  liberties ; 
that  of  acquiring,  possessing,  and  protecting 
property ;  in  fine,  that  of  seeking  their  safety 
and  happiness." 

This  declaration  of  rights  comprehends  all  that 


*  Laws  of  Rhode  Island,  page  614. 
t  Laws  of  Ehode  Island,  page  615. 

You  VI.— 43 


a  citizen  could  ask,  for  but  no  more  than  he  is 
entitled  to.  And  it  gives  to  every  citizen  the 
same  rights.  Who  will  deny  the  right  of  every 
man,  according  to  this  constitution,  to  remain 
within  the  State,  if  he  is  a  citizen,  as  long  as  he 
pleases  ?  Who  will  say  that  marriage,  to  whom- 
soever the  citizen  shall  think  proper,  if  each 
party  is  agreed,  is  not  a  right  of  the  highest  im- 
portance ?  To  grant  this  right  to  one  citizen, 
and  take  it  from  another,  would  be  giving  to 
one  and  taking  from  the  other  the  means  of  his 
happiness,  which  the  constitution  secures  to  him 
so  emphatically.  By  a  law  of  Massachusetts, 
passed  the  6th  of  March,  1788,  and  which  ap- 
pears to  have  been  revised  in  1798,  and  again  in 
1802,  it  is  expressly  enacted — 

"  That  no  person,  being  an  African  or  negro, 
other  than  a  subject  of  the  Emperor  of  Morocco, 
or  a  citizen  of  the  United  States,  to  be  evidenced 
by  a  certificate,  &c.,  shall  tarry  within  this  Com- 
monwealth for  a  longer  time  than  two  months ; 
if  he  does,  the  justices  have  power  to  order  such 
person  to  depart,  &c. ;  and  if  such  person  shall 
not  depart  within  ten  days,  &c.,  such  person 
shall  be  committed  to  the  prison  or  house  of 
correction.  And  for  this  offence,  &c.,  he  shall 
be  whipped,  &c.,  and  ordered  again  to  depart 
in  ten  days ;  and  if  he  does  not,  the  same  pro- 
cess and  punishment  to  be  inflicted,  and  so  toties 
quoties." 

This  toties  quoties,  we  all  understand  to  mean 
that  he  shall  be  whipped  as  often  as  he  returns. 
Many,  or  at  least  some  of  the  States,  have  passed 
laws  to  regulate  the  solemnization  of  marriage, 
which  they  have  a  right  to  do.  Massachusetts, 
on  the  15th  of  June,  1795,  passed  a  law  for  the 
orderly  solemnization  of  marriage,  &c,,  from 
which  the  following  is  an  extract : 

"  That  no  person  by  this  act  authorized  to 
marry,  shall  join  in  marriage  any  white  person 
with  any  negro,  Indian,  or  mulatto,  on  penalty 
of  the  sum  of  fifty  pounds,  two-thirds  part 
thereof  to  the  use  of  the  county  wherein  such 
offence  shall  be  committed,  and  the  residue  to 
the  prosecutor,  to  be  recovered  by  the  treasurer 
of  the  county,  &c.,  and  the  said  marriage  shall 
be  null  and  void,"*  &c. 

Massachusetts  emancipated  her  slaves,  what 
she  had  not  sold  off,  at  a  pretty  early  period 
after  the  Revolutionary  war.  Those  alluded  to 
must  be  free  negroes  and  mulattoes.  Massachu- 
setts we  all  know  to  be  a  republican  State,  and 
to  have  a  republican  form  of  government.  She 
had  been  called  the  cradle  in  which  the  Revo- 
lution had  been  rocked.  Her  early  achieve- 
ments in  that  Revolution  had  been  conspicuous. 
The  battles  of  Bunker  Hill  and  Concord  would 
be  spoken  of  by  posterity  with  delight.  She 
had  been  famed  for  her  men  of  eloquence,  and 
he  had  the  pleasure  to  say,  without  flattery  or 
bony,  that  he  believed  justly.  She  had  the 
most  numerous  legislative  body  of  any  State  in 
the  Union — her  number  of  representatives  was 
about  six  hundred.  Amidst  such  a  multitude 


*  Laws  of  Massachusetts,  voL  1,  pp.  823-1. 


674 


ABRIDGMENT  OF  THE 


SENATE.] 


Missouri  State  Constitution — Citizenship  of  Free  Colored  Persons.         [DECKMBER,  1820. 


of  council,  is  it  possible  for  one  member  to  be- 
lieve for  a  moment,  that  such  a  law  could  have 
passed,  to  prohibit  a  citizen  to  marry  whomso- 
ever he  could  gain  the  affections  of?  Or  is 
there  a  man  in  Massachusetts  who  will  say  that 
marriage  is  not  an  essential  happiness  ?  If  it  is 
not  secured  to  every  citizen,  where  is  their 
declaration  of  rights  ?  We  must  look  for  the 
reason  of  this  law,  as  in  all  the  other  States,  in 
the  universal  assent  to  the  degraded  condition 
of  that  class  of  people,  and  from  which  none  of 
the  States  would,  perhaps,  ever  think  it  expe- 
dient to  raise  them.  From  the  ranting  of  some 
enthusiasts,  and  the  jeerings  of  some  politicians, 
Mr.  S.  said,  he  had  been  led  to  believe  there 
were  no  mulattoes  in  the  New  England  States. 
But  looking  into  their  statute  books,  he  found 
they  were  numerous ;  so  much  so,  as  to  become 
the  subjects  of  legislative  control,  and  that  a 
long  time  ago.  It  appears  they  were  breeding 
them  as  far  back  as  1V88,  and  he  did  not  know 
how  much  earlier,  but  he  supposed  as  long  ago 
as  when  they  began  to  import  the  Africans  into 
Portsmouth,  in  the  State  of  New  Hampshire. 

As  the  laws  and  constitution  of  Connecticut 
would  give  some  aid  in  illustrating  this  ques- 
tion, he  would  refer  to  them. 

In  the  first  section  of  the  first  article  of  that 
constitution,  are  the  following  words : 

"  That  all  men,  when  they  form  a  social  com- 
pact, are  equal  in  rights." 

In  the  second  section  of  the  sixth  article  of 
that  constitution,  it  is  said :  "  Every  white  male 
citizen  of  the  United  States,  &c.,  shall  be  an 
elector." 

This  constitution  was  formed  on  the  15th  of 
September,  1818.  The  good  people  of  that  State 
called  the  convention  which  formed  that  con- 
stitution, for  the  express  purpose  of  making  it 
republican.  Nor  will  any  one  doubt  but  that 
the  citizens  of  Connecticut  and  their  constitu- 
tion are  republican.  But  how  can  the  consti- 
tution be  republican,  if  their  free  negroes  and 
mulattoes  are  citizens  and  not  entitled  to  all  the 
privileges  and  immunities  of  citizens  in  the  sev- 
eral States  ?  All  men  cannot  be  equal  in  rights, 
and  be  deprived  of  all  these  rights,  or  any  of 
them,  and  still  be  called  equal,  without  a  gross 
violation  of  the  rights  it  declares  to  be  sacred. 
Such  absurdities  cannot  be  ascribed  to  the  wise 
men  of  Connecticut,  who  so  recently  formed 
this  constitution.  And  they  must  be  ascribed 
to  them,  if  the  free  negroes  and  mulattoes  are 
citizens,  and  deprived  of  the  elective  franchise. 
We  have  been  taught  to  consider  it  the  highest 
privilege  of  a  freeman.  Some  extracts  from  the 
kws  of  that  cautious  and  prudent  people  will 
throw  much  light  on  the  question  of  State  sov- 
ereignty, and  the  powers  of  a  State  to  prohibit 
the  ingress  of  persons  from  other  States.  By  a 
law  of  the  State,  published  in  1792,  and  which 
was  since  the  adoption  of  the  Constitution  of  the 
United  States,  they  have  carried  their  powers 
much  further  than  those  assumed  by  Missouri 
for  excluding  the  free  negroes  and  mulattoes. 
He  would  read  the  extracts,  which  he  had  taken 


from  their  statute  books.  The  first  was  in  these 
words : 

"  That  when  an  inhabitant  of  any  of  the 
United  States  (this  State  excepted)  shall  come 
to  reside  in  any  town  in  this  State,  the  civil 
authority,  or  major  part  of  them  are  authorized, 
upon  the  application  of  the  selectmen,  if  they 
judge  proper,  by  warrant  under  their  hand?, 
directed  to  either  of  the  constables  of  said  town, 
to  order  said  persons  to  be  conveyed  to  the  State 
from  whence  he  or  she  came,"*  &c. 

Another  part  of  the  same  law,  in  further  exe- 
cution of  the  foregoing  principle,  says : 

"  The  selectmen  of  the  town  are  author- 
ized to  warn  any  person,  not  an  inhabitant  of 
this  State,  to  depart  such  town,  and  the  person 
so  warned,  if  he  does  not  depart,  shall  forfeit 
and  pay  to  the  treasurer  of  such  town  one  dol- 
lar and  sixty-seven  cents  per  week.  If  such 
person  refuses  to  depart,  or  pay  his  fine,  such 
person  shall  be  whipped  on  the  naked  body,  not 
exceeding  ten  stripes,  unless  such  person  departs 
in  ten  days." 

"  If  any  such  person  returns,  after  warning, 
he  is  to  be  whipped  again,  and  sent  away  again, 
and  as  often  as  there  is  occasion."t 

No  argument  can  be  drawn  from  the  facts 
that  Missouri  makes  constitutional  provisions  to 
deprive  a  citizen  of  his  right  of  residence,  and 
that  of  Connecticut  is  only  by  law.  There  is  no 
man  of  sense  and  honesty,  too,  who  will  venture 
to  say  a  State  may  prohibit  by  a  law  those  whom 
the  constitution  protects.  It  would  be  nugatory 
to  protect  a  right  by  the  constitution,  if  you  can 
destroy  it  by  law.  The  constitution  of  a  State 
is  paramount  to  all  other  of  its  laws.  Then,  if 
Connecticut  can  prohibit  the  citizens  of  other 
States  from  remaining  or  residing  in  that  State, 
by  a  law,  they  will  certainly  permit  Missouri  to 
exclude  free  negroes  and  mulattoes  by  their 
constitution.  Nor  could  he  be  easily  brought 
to  believe  that  a  citizen  of  Connecticut  would 
not  rather  be  entirely  forbidden  to  reside  in  any 
State  to  which  he  might  remove,  than  to  be 
whipped  out  of  it  after  he  had  got  there.  Is  it 
not  absurd,  to  a  demonstration,  for  the  people 
of  a  State  to  say  the  constitution  of  Missouri  is 
not  republican,  because  it  provides  for  excluding 
free  negroes  and  mulattoes  from  a  residence, 
when  their  own  laws,  recently  enacted,  exclude 
all  the  citizens  of  all  the  rest  of  the  Union? 
South  Carolina,  some  years  ago,  passed  a  law  to 
prohibit  slaves  from  the  Northern  States,  when 
they  were  selling  them  to  the  Southern  people, 
from  coming  into  that  State ;  but  there  was  an 
exception  in  favor  of  the  servants  of  public  func- 
tionaries aod  members  of  Congress.  The  laws 
of  Connecncut  do  not  exempt  the  members  of 
Congress  themselves,  much  less  their  servants. 
A  member  of  Congress,  going  from  the  Southern 
States  to  Connecticut,  would  not  conceive  him- 
self very  highly  honored  if  put  under  an  es- 
cort of  town  constables ;  nor  could  he  well  sup- 


*  Laws  of  Connecticut,  page  240. 
t  Laws  of  Connecticut,  page  241. 


DEBATES  OF  CONGRESS. 


675 


DECEMBER,  1820.]         Missouri  State  Constitution— Citizenship  of  Free  Colored  Persons. 


[SENATE. 


pose  the  honor  enhanced  by  being  whipped  on 
the  naked  body  if  he  should  happen  to  return 
that  way. 

Another  law  of  that  State,  published  in  1796, 
concerning  free  negroes,  mulattoes,  and  negro, 
mulatto,  and  Indian  servants,  is  worth  notice. 
One  clause  says  : 

"  "Whatsoever  negro,  mulatto,  or  Indian  ser- 
vant, shall  be  found  wandering  out  of  the 
bounds  of  the  town  or  place  to  which  they  be- 
long, without  a  ticket,  or  pass,  in  writing,  to 
be  taken  up,"  &c. 

By  another  clause  there  is  a  distinct  and  de- 
grading restraint  laid  upon  free  negroes.  It  says : 

"  No  free  negro  is  to  travel  without  a  pass 
from  the  selectmen  or  justices." 

So  careful  have  they  been  to  restrain  this 
degraded  class  of  people,  in  the  same  law  it  is 
provided : 

"  That  every  free  person  shall  be  punished  by 
fine,  &c.,  for  buying  or  receiving  any  thing  from 
a  free  negro,  mulatto,  or  Indian  servant,"  &c. 

If  free  negroes  and  mulattoes  are  citizens, 
why  this  distinct  restraint  on  their  right  of 
locomotion  more  than  on  a  white  citizen  ?  If 
citizens,  why  restrained  from  travelling  with- 
out a  pass?  "Who  is  authorized  by  the  Consti- 
tution of  the  United  States  to  prescribe  the 
terms  to  a  particular  class  of  citizens,  by  what 
means  they  shall  be  suffered  to  pass?  And 
who  shall  interdict  the  rest  of  the  community 
from  buying  or  receiving  from  a  particular  poa- 
tion  of  citizens,  if  they  are  citizens  ? 

The  great  and  respectable  State  of  New  York 
would  afford  us  some  light  also  upon  this  sub- 
ject. In  the  42d  article  of  the  constitution  of 
that  State  we  find  the  following  words : 

"  And  this  convention  doth  further,  in  the 
name  and  by  the  authority  of  the  good  people 
of  this  State,  ordain,  determine,  and  declare, 
that  it  shall  be  in  the  discretion  of  the  Legisla- 
ture to  naturalize  all  such  persons,  and  in  such 
manner,  as  they  shall  think  proper." 

This  remains  a  prominent  part  of  the  consti- 
tution of  New  York.  She  has  reserved  to  her- 
self, or  to  her  Legislature,  the  sole  right  to 
naturalize  all  such  persons  as  they  shall  think 
proper.  They,  perhaps,  may  have  the  power 
to  do  so ;  but  they  ought  to  be  candid  enough, 
at  least,  to  allow  Missouri  to  naturalize  such 
persons,  and  in  such  manner  as  they  may  think 

g roper,  also.  Her  powers  are  co-ordinate, 
ut,  so  far  is  the  Legislature  of  New  York 
from  this,  that  whilst  she  retains  the  power 
herself,  she  not  only  denies  it  to  the  State  of 
Missouri,  but  has  sent  her  resolutions  of  in- 
structions to  her  Senators,  which  now  lie  on 
your  table,  to  endeavor,  by  all  means,  to  dis- 
franchise her  for  attempting  to  exercise  this  right 
upon  free  negroes  and  mulattoes  only.  With 
what  grace  she  can  do  so  let  the  world  judge. 
Her  citizens,  too,  are  declaring  in  their  bul- 
letins, that,  for  this  defect  in  the  Missouri  con- 
stitution, she  ought  to  be  rejected,  and  if  ad- 
mitted, it  will,  of  itself,  be  a  complete  dissolu- 
tion of  the  Union  of  the  States. 


By  a  law  of  New  York,  passed  the  8th  of 
April,  1801,  they  have  shown,  in  the  most  em- 
phatic words,  the  power  which  each  State  re- 
tains, of  excluding  from  their  limits  all  and 
every  person  who  shall  come  therein.  Nor  are 
their  means  for  imposing  this  power  the  least 
energetic.  This  power  they  have  not  limited 
to  exclusion  of  free  negroes  and  mulattoes  only, 
as  Missouri  has  done,  but  they  have  extended  it 
to  every  class  of  citizens,  of  every  age,  sex, 
and  denomination.  He  would  read  the  several 
clauses.  The  first  is  in  these  words : 

"  If  a  stranger  is  entertained  in  the  dwel- 
ling-house or  out-house  of  any  citizen  for  fifteen 
days,  without  giving  notice  to  the  overseers  of 
the  poor,  he  shall  pay  a  fine  of  five  dollars."  * 

This  clatise  goes  to  punish  any  hospitable 
man  who  shall  have  the  rashness  to  entertain  a 
stranger.  Whatever  may  be  the  custom  of  the 
people  of  that  State,  the  laws  deny  to  a  stranger 
even  the  rights  of  hospitality.  The  next  clause 
comes  a  little  closer  to  the  stranger.  He  would 
read  it.  It  is  in  these  words : 

"  If  such  person  continues  above  forty  days, 
the  justices  can  call  on  all  the  inhabitants 
of  the  town  or  city,  and  the  person  may  be 
sent  to  jail,  &c.  And  the  justices  may  cause 
such  stranger  to  be  conveyed  from  constable  to 
constable,  until  transported  into  any  other 
State,  if  from  thence  he  came."  t 

This  stranger  may  be  a  man  of  the  purest 
morality,  the  most  accomplished  manners,  ex- 
tensive fortune,  or  most  finished  education ;  or 
he  may  be  an  object  for  the  exercise  of  charity ; 
it  is  immaterial  which — he  is  put  into  the 
hands  of  a  constable,  who  hands  him  to  his 
brother  constable,  and  so  he  goes  on,  until  they 
hand  him  out  of  the  State  of  New  York.  This 
is  the  first  legal  entertainment  which  a  gentle- 
man or  lady,  for  they  are  to  be  entertained 
pretty  much  alike,  are  subjected  to  when  they 
visit  the  State  of  New  York,  if  they  remain 
forty  days.  There  was  another  clause,  if  they 
made  a  second  visit,  which  entertains  them  in 
a  different  style.  It  is  in  the  following  worda : 

"  If  such  person  returns,  the  justices,  if  they 
think  proper,  may  direct  him  to  be  whipped 
by  every  constable  into  whose  hands  he  shall 
come ;  to  be  whipped,  if  a  man,  not  exceeding 
thirty-nine  lashes,  and  if  a  woman  not  exceed- 
ing twenty-five  lashes.  And  so  as  often  as 
such  person  shall  return."  J 

It  may  be  said,  this  law  was  only  intended 
to  guard  against  transient  poor  from  other 
States.  The  rights  of  a  poor  man  are  and 
ought  to  be  held,  if  he  is  a  citizen  of  the  United 
States,  as  sacred  as  the  rights  of  the  rich  man. 
But  this  law  itself  has  made  no  distinction. 
The  constitution  authorizes  the  Legislature  to 
naturalize  in  such  manner  as  they  shall  think 
proper.  If  this  was  the  manner  of  naturaliz- 
ing, and  no  other  appeared  yet  to  have  been 


*  Laws  of  New  York,  vol.  1,  p.  568. 
t  Laws  of  New  York,  vol.  1.  p.  563. 
t  Laws  of  New  York,  vol.  1,  pp.  568,  569. 


676 


ABRIDGMENT  OF  THE 


SENATE.] 


Restriction  of  Slavery. 


[DECEMBER,  1820. 


adopted,  to  be  whipped  at  the  public  whipping- 
post by  every  town  constable  into  whose  hands 
he  should  come,  it  was  not  so  very  inviting  to 
foreigners ;  and  it  was  more  than  probable  that 
but  few  would  like  the  certificate,  as  the  regis- 
try is  to  be  made  on  the  back  of  the  man,  by 
thirty-nine  lashes,  (Moses's  Law :)  of  the  wo- 
man, by  twenty-five  lashes.  It  has  been  re- 
marked by  enlightened  travellers,  that  the  at- 
tention to  ladies  is  in  proportion  to  the  civiliza- 
tion and  refined  manners  of  nations.  New 
York  has  given  in  this  law  a  proof  of  her  re- 
finement of  manners  by  their  marked  attention 
to  ladies,  as  they  are  to  receive  fourteen  lashes 
less  than  the  gentlemen. 

However  romantic  this  may  all  appear,  it  is 
literally  true  that  such  a  law  is  not  only  to  be 
found  in  the  statute  books  of  New  York,  but 
has  been  enacted  twelve  years  since  the  adop- 
tion of  the  Constitution  of  the  United  States,  is 
now  in  full  force,  and  is  constantly  practised 
upon ;  by  which  they  can  drag  from  the  State 
the  most  worthy  gentleman  or  lady  of  the 
United  States,  by  the  rude  hand  of  town  con- 
stables ;  and,  if  they  should  dare  to  return,  can 
make  them  hug  the  whipping-post.  Yet,  with 
this  gigantic  stretch  of  power  in  full  exercise 
by  their  own  State,  the  people  of  that  State 
are  riding  foremost  in  the  cause  of  the  wander- 
ing vagabond  free  negroes  and  mulattoes  with 
a  view  to  thrust  them  upon  others,  or  with 
some  other  more  unkind  view. 

If  this  concatenation  of  constitutional  and 
legal  authorities,  beginning  with  the  Declara- 
tion of  Independence  itself,  and  running  through 
the  Constitution  and  every  law  of  the  United 
States,  wherever  the  subject  could  occur,  or  be 
acted  on,  as  well  as  a  voluminous  concurrence 
of  the  State  constitutions  and  State  laws,  all 
bearing  directly  on  this  question,  without  a 
solitary  case  to  be  found  to  contravene  them, 
when  combined  with  that  universal  sentiment 
and  universal  rule  of  action  of  the  whole  of  the 
white  population  of  the  whole  nation,  denying 
positively  all  the  precious  and  valuable  privi- 
leges of  citizenship  to  free  negroes  and  mulat- 
toes, would  not  demonstrate  that  they  were  not 
citizens,  he  knew  no  human  proof  which  could 
comprehend  it. 


SATURDAY,  December  9. 
Restriction  of  Slavery. 

Mr.  TICHENOR  communicated  the  following 
resolutions  of  the  Legislature  of  the  State  of 
Vermont ;  which  were  read : 

STATE  OF  VERMONT, 
In  General  Assembly,  Nov.15,  1820. 
The  committee,  to  whom  wr.s  referred  so  much  of 
his  Excellency's  speech  as  relates  to  the  admission  of 
the  Territory  of  Missouri  into  the  Union  as  a  State, 
submit  the  following  report : 

The  history  of  nations  demonstrates  that  involun- 
tary servitude  not  only  plunges  the  slave  into  the 
depths  of  misery,  but  renders  a  great  proportion  of 


community  dependent  and  wretched,  and  the  remain- 
der tyrannic  and  indolent. 

Opulence,  acquired  by  the  slavery  of  others,  degen- 
erates its  possessors,  and  destroys  the  physical  powers 
of  government.  Principles  so  degrading  are  incon- 
sistent with  the  primitive  dignity  of  man,  and  his 
natural  rights. 

Slavery  is  incompatible  with  the  vital  principles  of 
all  free  governments,  and  tends  to  their  ruin.  It 
paralyzes  industry,  the  greatest  source  of  national 
wealth,  stifles  the  love  of  freedom,  and  endangers  the 
safety  of  the  nation. 

It  is  prohibited  by  the  laws  of  nature,  which  are 
equally  binding  on  Governments  and  individuals.  The 
right  to  introduce  and  establish  slavery  in  a  free  gov- 
ernment does  not  exist. 

The  Declaration  of  Independence  declares,  as  self- 
evident  truths,  "  that  all  men  are  created  equal ;  that 
they  are  endowed  by  their  Creator  with  certain  in- 
alienable rights ;  that  among  these  are  life,  liberty, 
and  the  pursuit  of  happiness;  that,  to  secure  these 
rights,  governments  are  instituted  among  men,  de- 
riving their  just  powers  from  the  governed ;  that 
whenever  any  form  of  government  becomes  destructive 
of  these  ends,  it  is  the  right  of  the  people  to  alter  or 
abolish  it" 

The  Constitution  of  the  United  States,  and  of  the 
several  States,  have  recognized  these  principles  as  the 
basis  of  their  governments,  and  have  expressly  in- 
hibited the  introduction  or  extension  of  slavery,  or 
impliedly  disavowed  the  right. 

The  powers  of  Congress  to  require  the  prohibition 
of  slavery  in  the  constitution  of  a  State,  to  be  admit- 
ted as  one  of  the  United  States,  is  confirmed  by  the 
admission  of  new  States  according  to  the  ordinance 
of  1787,  and  by  a  constitutional  "guarantee  to  every 
State  in  the  Union  of  a  republican  form  of  govern- 
ment." This  power  of  Congress  is  also  admitted  in 
the  act  of  March  6,  1820,  which  declares  that,  in  all 
that  territory  ceded  under  the  name  of  Louisiana, 
which  lies  north  of  thirty-six  degrees  thirty  minutes 
north  latitude,  "slavery  and  involuntary  servitude 
shall  be  forever  prohibited." 

Where  slavery  existed  in  the  United  States,  at  the 
time  of  the  adoption  of  the  Constitution  of  the  United 
States,  a  spirit  of  compromise,  or  painful  necessity, 
may  have  excused  its  continuance ;  but  can  never 
justify  its  introduction  into  a  State  to  be  admitted 
from  the  Territories  of  the  United  States. 

Though  slavery  is  not  expressly  prohibited  by  the 
constitution,  yet  that  invaluable  instrument  contains 
powers,  first  principles,  and  self-evident  truths,  which 
bring  us  to  the  same  result,  and  lead  us  to  Liberty 
and  Justice,  and  the  equal  rights  of  man,  from  which 
we  ought  never  to  depart.  "  In  it  is  clearly  seen  a 
deep  and  humiliating  sense  of  slavery,"  and  a  cheering 
hope  that  it  would,  at  some  future  period,  be  abolish- 
ed— and  even  a  determination  to  do  it. 

It  is  apparent  that  servitude  produces,  in  the  slave- 
holding  States,  peculiar  feelings,  local  attachments, 
and  separate  interests ;  and,  should  it  be  extended 
into  new  States,  "  it  will  have  a  tendency  to  form 
a  combination  of  power  which  will  control  the 
measures  of  the  General  Government,"  and  which 
cannot  be  resisted,  except  by  the  physical  force  of 
the  nation. 

The  people  of  the  United  States  adopted  the  con- 
stitution "  to  form  a  more  perfect  union  of  the  several 
States,  to  establish  justice,  to  secure  domestic  tran- 
quillity, provide  for  the  common  defence,  promote  the 


DEBATES  OF  CONGRESS. 


677 


DECKMBEK,  1820.]  Admission  of  Missouri— Citizenship  of  Free  Colored  Penons. 


[SEXATE. 


general  welfare,  and  secure  the  blessings  of  liberty ; 
and  have  thereby  blended,  and  inseparably  connect- 
ed the  interests,  the  safety,  and  welfare,  of  every 
State  in  the  Union.  We,  therefore,  become  deeply 
concerned  in  the  fundamental  principles  of  the  con- 
stitution of  any  new  State  to  be  admitted  into  the 
Union.  Whatever  powers  are  necessary  to  carry 
into  effect  the  great  objects  of  the  Union  are  implied 
in  the  constitution,  and  vested  in  the  several  depart- 
ments of  the  General  Government. 

The  act  of  the  United  States  authorizing  a  provi- 
sional admission  of  Missouri  into  the  Union  as  a  State, 
does  not  pledge  the  faith  of  the  Government  to  admit 
whatever  may  be  its  constitution  or  system  of  State 
government ;  for  that  constitution,  by  the  act,  must 
be  republican,  and  not  repugnant  to  the  Constitution 
of  the  United  States. 

From  information,  it  is  to  be  seriously  apprehend- 
ed that  Missouri  will  present  to  Congress,  for  their 
approbation,  a  constitution  which  declares,  that  "  the 
General  Assembly  shall  have  no  power  to  pass  laws 
—first,  for  the  emancipation  of  slaves,  without  the 
consent  of  their  owners,  or  without  paying  them,  be- 
fore emancipation,  a  full  equivalent  for  such  slaves  so 
emancipated;"  and,  "secondly,"  to  prevent  emi- 
grants from  bringing  slaves  into  said  State,  so  long 
as  slavery  is  legalized  therein. 

It  is  also  made  the  imperious  duty  of  its  Legisla- 
ture to  pass  laws,  as  soon  as  may  be,  "  to  prevent 
free  negroes  and  mulattoes  from  coming  to,  and 
settling  in,  that  State,  under  any  pretence  what- 
ever." 

These  powers,  restrictions,  and  provisions,  to 
egalize  and  perpetuate  slavery,  and  to  prevent  citi- 
zens of  the  United  States,  on  account  of  their  origin, 
color,  or  features,  from  emigrating  to  Missouri, 
are  repugnant  to  a  republican  government,  and  in 
direct  violation  of  the  Constitution  of  the  United 
States. 

If  Missouri  be  permitted  to  introduce  and  legalize 
slavery  by  her  constitution,  and  we  consent  to  her 
admission,  we  shall  justly  incur  the  charge  of  insin- 
cerity in  our  civil  institutions,  and  in  all  our  profes- 
sions of  attachment  to  liberty.  It  will  bring  upon 
the  Constitution  and  Declaration  of  Independence  a 
deep  stain,  which  cannot  be  forgotten  or  blotted  out 
"  It  will  deeply  affect  the  Union  in  its  resources,  po- 
litical interests,  and  character." 

The  admission  of  another  new  State  into  the  Union 
with  a  constitution  which  guarantees  security  and 
protection  to  slavery,  and  the  cruel  and  unnatural 
traffic  of  any  portion  of  the  human  race,  will  be  an 
error  which  the  Union  cannot  correct,  and  an  evil 
which  may  endanger  the  freedom  of  the  nation. 
.  Congress  never  ought,  and  we  trust  never  will, 
plant  the  standard  of  the  Union  in  Missouri,  to  wave 
over  the  heads  of  involuntary  slaves,  "who  have 
nothing  they  can  call  their  own,  except  their  sorrows 
and  their  sufferings,"  and  a  life  beyond  the  grave, 
and  who  can  never  taste  the  sweets  of  liberty,  unless 
they  obtain  it  by  force  or  by  flight.  Nor  can  a  com- 
munity made  up  of  masters  and  slaves  ever  enjoy  the 
blessings  of  liberty,  and  the  benefits  of  a  free  govern- 
ment ;  these  enjoyments  are  reserved  for  a  commu- 
nity of  freemen,  who  are  subject  to  none,  but  to  God 
and  the  laws. 

The  committee,  therefore,  submit  for  the  consider- 
ation of  the  General  Assembly  the  following  resolu- 
tions, viz. : 

Unsolved,  That,  in  the  opinion  of  this  Legislature, 


slavery,  or  involuntary  servitude,  in  any  of  the  United 
States,  is  a  moral  and  political  evil,  and  that  its  con- 
tinuance can  be  justified  by  necessity  alone. 

That  Congress  has  a  right  to  inhibit  any  further 
introduction  or  extension  of  slavery,  as  one  of  the 
conditions  upon  which  any  new  State  shall  be  ad- 
mitted into  the  Union. 

Resdved,  That  this  Legislature  views  with  regret 
and  alarm  the  attempt  of  the  inhabitants  of  Missouri 
to  obtain  admission  into  the  Union,  as  one  of  the 
United  States,  under  a  constitution  which  legalizes 
and  secures  the  introduction  and  continuance  of  sla- 
very ;  and  also  contains  provisions  to  prevent  free- 
men of  the  United  States  from  emigrating  to  and 
settling  in  Missouri,  on  account  of  their  origin, 
color,  and  features.  And  that,  in  the  opinion  of  this 
Legislature,  these  principles,  powers,  and  restrictions, 
contained  in  the  reputed  constitution  of  Missouri,  are 
anti-republican,  and  repugnant  to  the  Constitution 
of  the  United  States,  and  subversive  of  the  inalienable 
rights  of  man. 

Resolved,  That  the  Senators  from  this  State  in  the 
Congress  of  the  United  States,  be  instructed,  and  the 
Representatives  requested,  to  exert  their  influence 
and  use  all  legal  means  to  prevent  the  admission  of 
Missouri,  as  a  State,  into  the  Union  of  the  United 
States,  with  those  anti-republican  features  and  powers 
in  their  constitution. 

Resolved,  That  the  Secretary  of  State  be  requested 
to  transmit  a  copy  of  the  foregoing  report  and  reso- 
lutions to  each  of  the  Senators  and  Representatives 
from  this  State  in  the  Congress  of  the  United  States. 

Admission  of  Missouri — Citizenship  of  Free 
Colored  Persons. 

The  Senate  resumed  the  consideration  of  the 
resolution  declaring  the  consent  of  Congress  to 
the  admission  of  the  State  of  Missouri. 

Mr.  HOLMES,  of  Maine,  addressed  the  Chair 
as  follows : 

Mr.  President,  it  is  not  my  intention  to  trouble 
the  Senate  with  any  remarks  on  that  part  of 
the  constitution  of  Missouri  which  recognizes 
the  right  to  hold  slaves.  The  act  of  the  last 
session  has  settled  that  question ;  and,  in  spite 
of  the  reasoning  in  the  Vermont  memorial  just 
read,  and  the  authority  from  whence  it  ema- 
nates, I  feel  bound  by  a  solemn  compact  to  ad- 
mit Missouri,  unless  it  is  manifest  that  her  con- 
stitution is  repugnant  to  that  of  the  United 
States.  The  honorable  gentleman  from  Rhode 
Island  (Mr.  BUBEILL)  who  opposed  this  resolu- 
tion, gives  up  the  ground  of  restriction;  and  I 
understand  that  he,  and  other  gentlemen  who 
think  with  him  on  that  subject,  would  consent 
to  the  admission  of  Missouri,  if  her  constitution 
does  not  contravene  any  provision  of  the  Con- 
stitution of  the  United  States,  nor  the  act  of 
last  session  which  authorizes  her  admission. 
The  honorable  gentleman  from  Rhode  Island 
did,  to  be  sure,  suggest  some  objections  not 
strictly  consistent  with  this  admission,  on  which 
he  did  not  seem  to  place  much  reliance,  and 
which  probably  were  not,  in  his  mind,  insuper- 
able. He  thinks  it  was  improper,  and  somewhat 
"ndecorous,  that  the  act  was  not  incorporated  in 
the  constitution,  or  at  least  referred  to  bv  the 
convention  as  the  ground  of  their  proceedings. 


678 


ABRIDGMENT  OF  THE 


SENATE.] 


Admission  of  Missouri — Citizenship  of  Free  Colored  Persons.  [DECEMBER,  1820. 


But,  if  they  have  complied  with  the  provisions 
and  conditions  of  the  act,  it  is  equally  binding 
as  if  they  had  recited  the  whole,  and  the  con- 
stitution itself  is  more  concise,  explicit,  and  in- 
telligible. 

Another  objection  is,  that  the  constitution  of 
Missouri  allows  emigration  from  the  State,  but 
prohibits  free  blacks  and  mulattoes  from  coining 
in  and  settling.  This  is  charged  upon  Missouri 
as  an  inconsistency.  But  surely  there  can  be 
nothing  inconsistent  in  this.  The  people  are 
forming  a  compact,  and  one  of  its  provisions  is, 
that  those  members  of  the  State  who  shall  be- 
come dissatisfied  may  abandon  it.  "  Go,"  they 
say,  "  when  you  please,  and  where  you  can. 
We  give  you  no  warrant  to  break  open  the 
doors  of  our  neighbors  and  force  them  to  re- 
ceive you  against  their  consent.  We  allow  no 
such  liberties  to  be  taken  with  us."  This  is  the 
substance  of  the  provision.  It  surely  is  neither 
inconsistent  nor  illiberal. 

Passing  by  these  objections,  which  were  not 
urged  with  much  confidence  or  zeal,  I  come  to 
that  which  is  principally  relied  on.  Free  ne- 
groes and  mulattoes  are  to  be  prohibited  by  law 
from  coming  to  and  settling  in  the  State ;  and 
this,  it  is  contended,  contravenes  that  clause  of 
the  Constitution  of  the  United  States  which 
provides  that  "  the  citizens  of  each  State  shall 
be  entitled  to  all  privileges  and  immunities  of 
citizens  in  the  several  States." 

The  honorable  gentleman  from  Khode  Island 
contends  that  this  prohibition  would  exclude 
them  from  entering  the  State,  even  without  an 
intent  to  settle.  This  construction  makes  the 
clause  consist  of  two  distinct  prohibitions,  the 
one  against  entering,  the  other  settling;  and 
this  absurdity  would  result — that  the  legislature 
should  prohibit  free  blacks  without  from  com- 
ing in,  and  free  blacks  within  from  settling. 
The  true  construction  is — that  they  are  not  to 
be  permitted  to  come  in  and  settle. 

It  is  true  that  it  is  made  imperative  on  the 
legislature  to  exclude  free  blacks  and  mulattoes, 
and  they  are  not  to  be  admitted  to  settlement 
in  the  State,  under  any  pretext  whatever.  Had 
the  expression  been  all  free  blacks  and  mulat- 
toes, the  legislature  could  have  made  no  excep- 
tions. But  the  omission  of  the  word  "  all" 
leaves  them  a  discretion ;  and  other  provisions 
in  their  constitution  limit  the  extent  of  the  pro- 
hibition, and  expound  its  meaning. 

All  purchasers  of  lands  in  Missouri,  previous 
to  the  law  enacted  under  this  clause,  are  ex- 
pressly provided  for.  A  purchase  of  lands  by 
deed  is  "  a  contract  executed."  The  covenants 
in  the  deed  secure  to  the  purchaser  the  right  to 
hold,  possess,  and  enjoy.  Should  the  purchaser 
be  lawfully  excluded  from  the  possession,  the 
covenant  or  "contract"  is  broken.  If  the  State 
by  law  excludes  a  purchaser  from  his  possession, 
it  impairs  the  obligation  of  the  contract.  In 
the  celebrated  Georgia  case  in  relation  to  the 
Yazoo  purchase,  it  was  determined  that  a  law 
annulling  a  precedent  sale  was  void,  as  impair- 
ing the  obligation  of  a  contract.  And  whatever 


law  takes  from  a  purchaser  the  benefit  of  any 
covenant  in  his  deed  is  void,  being  repugnant 
to  the  Constitution  of  the  United  States.  Now, 
there  is  the  same  clause  in  the  constitution  of 
Missouri  as  in  that  of  the  United  States.  Any 
law,  therefore,  which  should  exclude  a  prece- 
dent purchaser  from  the  enjoyment  of  his  pur- 
chase, would  be  contrary  to  a  provision  in  the 
bill  of  rights  of  Missouri.  Wherefore,  taking 
these  two  provisions  together,  the  meaning  is 
this;  "  the  legislature  shall  exclude  free  blacks 
and  mulattoes,  provided  they  are  not  purchas- 
ers of  lands  within  the  State." 

This  reasoning  will  apply  to  all  soldiers  who 
hold  under  the  United  States,  and  all  subse- 
quent purchasers  nnder  them  will  be  also  ex- 
cepted  by  another  provision  in  the  constitution 
of  Missouri.  Among  the  terms  and  conditions 
in  the  act  of  last  session,  Missouri  is  never  to 
interfere  with  the  primary  disposal  of  the  soil 
by  the  United  States,  nor  with  any  regulations 
Congress  may  find  necessary  for  securing  the 
title  in  such  soil  to  the  bona  fide  purchasers. 
Now,  a  title  is  never  perfected,  or  "  secured," 
unless  the  purchaser  has,  not  only  the  rights  of 
property  and  possession,  but  the  possession  it- 
self. To  prohibit  a  purchaser  under  the  United 
States  from  enjoying  the  possession,  would  most 
unquestionably  interfere  with  those  regulations 
which  Congress  might  adopt  to  secure  the  title 
to  the  purchaser.  But  it  is  still  more  manifest 
that  it  would  be  an  interference  with  the 
"  primary  disposal"  of  the  soil.  Could  Missouri, 
without  a  violation  of  this  compact,  provide  that 
no  purchaser  of  the  United  States  lands  in  the 
State  should  possess  or  enjoy  it?  If  not,  how 
can  she  prohibit  any  portion  of  purchasers 
from  this  possession  or  enjoyment  ?  If,  in  the 
sale  of  a  dwelling-house,  which  I  had  the  right 
to  prevent,  I  should  covenant  not  to  interfere, 
should  I  fulfil  my  covenant  by  prohibiting  the 
purchaser  from  entering  and  inhabiting  it? 
Here,  then,  is  a  positive  stipulation  made  a  part 
of  the  constitution  of  Missouri,  and  unalterable 
without  the  consent  of  Congress,  which  ex- 
pressly excepts  from  the  prohibition  all  pur- 
chasers of  the  United  States.  The  whole  power 
given,  then,  taken  in  connection  with  the  rest 
of  the  constitution,  is  to  exclude  free  blacks 
and  mulattoes  from  the  State,  except  purchas- 
ers of  every  description,  before  the  act  of  ex- 
clusion, and  purchasers  of  the  United  States, 
whether  before  or  after.-  Inasmuch,  then,  as 
we  find  express  limitations  to  this  power,  and 
the  word  "  all"  not  inserted  in  the  prohibition, 
and  the  members  of  the  legislature  bound  by 
oath  to  support  the  Constitution  of  the  United 
States,  would  it  not  be  fair  to  expound  this 
clause  to  extend  to  those  cases  only  which  are 
nut  repugnant  to  this  constitution  ? 

Having,  as  it  is  believed,  ascertained  the  ex- 
tent and  meaning  of  the  clause  objected  to,  let 
us,  before  we  proceed  to  a  discussion  of  the 
part  of  the  Constitution  of  the  United  States 
said  to  be  infringed,  glance  for  a  moment  at 
some  of  the  inconveniences  which  would  result 


DEBATES  OF  CONGRESS. 


DECEMBER,  1820.]  Admission  of  Missouri— Citizenship  of  Free  Colored  Persons. 


67n 

[SKXATB. 


from  denying  to  a  State  the  power  to  exclude 
free  blacks  and  rnulattoes. 

These  are  an  unfortunate  class.  They,  or 
their  ancestors,  having  been  subjected  to  the 
control  of  a  master,  are  most  of  them  ignorant 
and  poor,  and  many  of  them  infirm,  decrepit, 
and  vicious.  Their  vices  and  frailties  render 
them  an-  encumbrance,  if  not  a  nuisance,  wher- 
ever they  reside.  It  is  just  that  the  evils  aris- 
ing from  such  a  population  should  be  sustained 
by  those  who  have  had  the  benefit  of  their 
labor,  and  who  have  contributed  in  some  meas- 
ure to  their  degradation.  To  confine  them  to 
the  State  by  whose  laws  they  or  their  ancestors 
were  enslaved,  and  compel  that  State  to  ad- 
minister to  their  relief  without  imposing  a  bur- 
den on  their  neighbors,  comports  as  well  with 
justice  as  humanity.  These  reasons  have  pre- 
vailed in  almost  every  State  in  the  Union,  and 
have  produced  exclusive  laws  of  the  same  char- 
acter and  principle,  and  of  greater  extent,  than 
the  offensive  clause  in  the  constitution  of  Mis- 
souri. The  people  of  Missouri,  possessing  a 
territory  whose  soil  and  products  would  not 
admit  of  a  nume^us  slave  population,  whose 
extent  and  climate  would  afford  facilities  to 
emigrants,  and  whose  vicinity  to  States  and 
Territories  having  a  crowded  black  population, 
would  induce  an  inundation  of  this  description 
of  people,  have  thought  it  prudent,  the  better 
to  facilitate  the  emancipation  of  their  own 
slaves,  and  to  improve  the  condition  of  their 
own  free  blacks  and  mulattoes,  to  prohibit  their 
emigration  from  other  States. 

If  a  State  does  not  possess  this  power,  the 
condition  of  the  non-slaveholding  States  is  most 
alarming.  A  free  black  population  is  fast  in- 
creasing and  gaining  upon  the  whites,  in  the 
slaveholding  States.  An  asylum  for  these  un- 
fortunate people  is  now  become  important,  and 
•will  be  more  so.  This  has  been  an  object  of 
solicitude  with  all  the  colonization  and  abolition 
societies,  and  all  the  friends  of  freedom  and 
humanity.  Slaves  would  be  manumitted  if 
they  could  be  transported.  But  to  let  them 
loose  among  an  already  crowded  free  black 
population,  would  make  them  miserable  and 
dangerous.  Send  them  to  St.  Domingo,  you 
subject  them  to  the  disposal  of  a  cruel  tyrant ; 
transport  them  to  Africa,  and  they  are  food  for 
pestilence ;  colonize  them  on  the  Columbia  Kiver, 
and  they  will  be  butchered  and  eaten  by  the 
Indians. 

To  this  time,  no  suitable  place  has  been  found 
which  afforded  a  safe  and  comfortable  retreat 
for  the  emancipated  slave.  But  this  doctrine 
has  solved  the  doubt  and  removed  the  difficulty. 
Free  blacks  are  citizens  and  may  go  where  they 
will,  or  where  their  emancipators  shall  please 
to  send.  All  the  slaves  in  a  State  may  be  made 
free  at  once,  on.  condition  of  their  removal  to  a 
non-slaveholding  State,  and  this  State  cannot 
prevent  it.  The  New  England  States  are  pro- 
bably in  little  danger  from  this  principle.  It  is 
the  States  bordering  on  the  slaveholding  States 
which  will  experience  its  tendency  and  effect. 


Ohio,  Indiana,  and  Illinois,  are  now  thinly  pop- 
ulated and  little  cultivated.  Vast  tracts  of 
land  in  them  are  owned  by  the  United  States. 
The  State  of  Virginia,  for  example,  might  pur- 
chase some  millions  of  acres  and  parcel  them 
out  in  small  lots,  as  gratuities  to  her  free  blacks 
who  should  emigrate  and  settle  them.  Such 
an  event  would  probably  create  no  uneasiness 
at  first,  in  a  State  which  had  the  power  at  any 
time  to  prevent  it.  The  non-slaveholding  States 

it,  having  a  discretion  at  all  times  to  check  it 
when  it  should  become  dangerous.  But  to  be 
forced,  against  our  will,  to  receive  free  blacks 
from  the  slaveholding  States,  is  a  doctrine  that 
I,  as  a  Northern  man,  do  not  so  fully  relish,  and 
to  which  I  cannot  subscribe  without  the  fullest 
examination  and  strongest  necessity.  This 
effect  has  been  perceived,  and  some  have  at- 
tempted to  avoid  it  by  making  a  distinction 
between  free  and  freed  blacks.  The  former 
only  having  been  born  free,  it  is  said,  are  cit- 
izens. The  latter  are  a  degraded  class,  not  en- 
titled to  the  privileges  and  immunities  of  citizens, 
and  can  therefore  be  prohibited  from  entering 
and  settling  in  a  State.  This  distinction  is 
entirely  visionary.  It  neither  compoz-ts  with 
reason  nor  humanity.  It  is  the  local  authority, 
the  State  sovereignty  which  makes  a  slave. 
The  same  supreme  power  which  deprives  a  man 
of  his  freedom  can  restore  it,  and  restore  it,  too, 
in  its  highest  perfection.  The  same  power 
which  makes  a  slave  can  make  him  free,  and 
advance  him  to  the  highest  privileges  of  a  cit- 
izen. If  this  power  does  not  exist  in  the  States, 
it  exists  nowhere;  and  this  absurdity  would 
necessarily  follow,  that  there  is  no  power  in 
this  country  to  convert  a  slave  into  a  citizen. 
The  Constitution  of  the  United  States  gives  no 
such  right  to  Congress.  They  have  the  power 
to  establish  uniform  rules  of  naturalization; 
but  naturalization  is  the  converting  a  foreigner 
into  a  citizen.  To  suppose  an  emancipated 
negro,  whose  ancestors  had  resided  here  ever 
since  the  settlement  of  the  country,  and  who 
had  never  quitted  the  plantation  where  he  was 
born,  could  be  made  a  citizen  by  naturalization, 
and  in  no  other  way,  is  an  absurdity  too  gross 
and  palpable  to  be  seriously  entertained.  It 
hence  follows,  inevitably,  that  an  emancipated 
slave  may,  if  the  State  will  it,  be  placed  on 
the  same  footing  as  any  other  free  black,  and 
one  may  be  a  citizen  as  well  as  the  other.  The 
State  which  gave  them  their  freedom  for  pur- 
poses of  emigration  would  take  care  to  obtain 
its  object  by  breaking  down  this  distinction  if 
it  ever  existed. 

The  honorable  gentleman  from  Khode  Island 
disregards  this  distinction,  and  takes  broader 
ground  still.  His  definition  of  a  citizen  com- 
prehends all  the  inhabitants  except  slaves  and 
foreigners.  With  free  blacks  and  mulattoes, 
he  includes  convicts,  dissolute  persons,  paupers, 
and  vagabonds.  Yet  he  seems  to  admit  that  a 
State  may  exclude  for  personal  demerit.  And 
who  establishes  the  standard  of  merit,  and 


680 


ABRIDGMENT  OF  THE 


SENATE.] 


Admission  of  Missouri — Citizenship  of  Free  Colored  Persons. 


[DECEMBER,  1820. 


makes  the  discrimination?  The  State.  By 
what  rule  is  it  governed  ?  Discretion,  policy, 
expediency.  It  is  the  State  law  which  defines 
•who  are  worthy  of  a  residence  within  the  State. 
What,  then,  becomes  of  his  definition,  but  that 
it  includes  all  but  those  which  a  State  may,  in 
its  discretion,  except  ?  If  a  State  can  fix  a  name 
of  disgrace  or  demerit  on  any  population,  and 
exclude  them,  the  point  is  yielded  that  free 
blacks  may  be  excluded. 

If  this  definition  of  the  honorable  gentleman 
be  correct,  it  would  be  much  the  safest  infer- 
ence that  one  State  might  exclude  all  the  popu- 
lation of  another,  except  those  which  the  Con- 
stitution of  the  United  States  specially  authori- 
zes. Self-protection  seems  to  require  that  a 
State  should  retain  the  power  to  prevent  a 
troublesome  or  dangerous  population.  In  do- 
ing this,  they  might  exclude  those  who  are 
useful  and  respectable.  Of  this  there  is  no  dan- 
ger. The  State  from  which  they  would  emi- 
grate, would  not  wish  to  spare  them ;  and  that 
to  which  they  would  come,  would  always  find 
it  for  its  interest  to  receive  them.  The  Consti- 
tution of  the  United  States  would  provide  for 
all  who  have  a  duty  to  perform  under  that 
constitution,  and  the  laws;  members  of  Con- 
gress, and  judges  of  courts,  must  perform  fed- 
eral duties.  The  President  must  command  the 
army  and  navy,  and  the  militia,  when  in  ser- 
vice; the  soldiers  must  be  called  to  suppress 
insurrection  and  repel  invasion.  To  all  these 
and  others,  having  federal  duties  to  perform, 
the  constitution  says  "go;"  and  a  State  cannot 
oppose.  The  clause  of  the  Constitution  of  the 
United  States  said  to  be  infringed  by  this  of 
Missouri,  by  no  means  repels  this  construction. 
The  citizens  of  one  State  are  to  enjoy  "  all  the 
privileges  and  immunities  of  citizens,"  when 
"  in  "  another.  The  State  is  left  at  its  option 
whether  it  will  receive  the  citizens  of  another 
as  residents.  It  may  impose  restrictions  which 
amount  to  prohibition ;  but  if  the  citizen  does 
come,  by  express  or  implied  consent,  this  clause 
secures  him  "  the  privileges  and  immunities," 
and  subjects  him  to  the  duties  and  disabilities 
of  citizens. 

I  do  not  say  that  this  construction  admits  of 
no  doubts  or  difficulties.  But  I  do  say,  that, 
upon  this  broad  definition,  it  is  the  safest  and 
most  consistent  with  the  practice  and  rights  of 
the  States.  And  I  can  never  admit  the  prin- 
ciple that  free  blacks  of  any  description,  and  to 
any  extent,  may  fix  their  residence  in  a  State 
against  its  consent. 

The  honorable  gentleman  from  South  Caro- 
lina, (Mr.  SMITH,)  with  much  talent  and  indus- 
try, has  given  us  a  history  of  the  practice,  and 
proved  that  this  power  claimed  by  Missouri  has 
been  exercised  by  nearly  every  State  in  the 
Union,  and  the  right  has  never  before  been 
questioned.  The  subject  has  been  so  fully  and 
ably  presented,  that  no  further  time  need  be 
occupied  in  discussing  it. 

Permit  me  now  to  take  a  different  view  of 
the  subject,  and  endeavor  to  present  a  con- 


struction of  the  constitution  which  will  avoid 
the  difficulties. 

Gentlemen,  I  apprehend,  reason  from  wrong 
premises.  In  the  broad  and  comprehensive 
definition  of  citizen,  lies  the  error.  Let  us  en- 
deavor to  select  a  meaning  for  the  word  which 
will  comport  with  the  constitution,  the  prac- 
tice, and  the  convenience.  The  Constitution  of 
the  United  States  has  nowhere  defined  it ;  it 
occurs  on  five  different  occasions  in  that  con- 
stitution— in  prescribing  the  qualification  of 
Representative,  Senator,  and  President,  in  giv- 
ing jurisdiction  to  the  Federal  Court,  and  in 
the  controverted  clause.  In  the  three  first 
cases,  no  one  will  pretend  that  it  is  to  be  taken 
in  this  unlimited  sense.  That  the  framers  of 
the  constitution  intended  that  blacks  and  mulat- 
toes  might  be  members  of  Congress  or  Presi- 
dents, is  a  supposition  too  absurd  to  be  for 
a  moment  entertained.  Gentlemen,  with  all 
their  humanity,  to  be  obliged  to  sit  in  this  Sen- 
ate by  a  black  man,  would  consider  their  rights 
invaded.  The  section  of  the  constitution  which 
gives  jurisdiction  to  the  courts,  uses  it  in  a  dif- 
ferent sense,  but  gives  it  nfprecise  definition. 
If  all  entitled  to  be  parties  to  suits  are  citizens, 
and  those  only,  then  a  large  and  respectable 
portion  of  the  community  are  excluded,  and 
probably  resident  foreigners  included.  The 
word  here  is  inaptly  used,  and  intended  in  this 
case  to  mean  the  same  as  inhabitant.  The 
laws  of  Congress  are  as  deficient  in  furnishing 
a  meaning  as  the  constitution.  But,  as  the 
naturalization  laws  have  uniformly  restricted 
the  right  to  become  citizens  to  free  ichite  per- 
sons, so  far  as  practice  is  to  influence  a  decision, 
it  is  in  favor  of  the  constitutionality  of  the  ob- 
jectionable clause. 

The  word  was  never  used  by  the  ancient 
Republics,  but  to  include  privileges  and  immu- 
nities of  a  high  character.  In  the  Grecian 
States,  these  privileges  were  preserved  with 
much  tenacity,  and  conferred  with  much  so- 
lemnity. The  Romans  divided  their  inhabitants 
into  citizens,  subjects,  freedmen,  and  slaves. 
To  be  a  Roman  citizen  was  a  proud  distinction, 
and  carried  with  it  privileges  and  immunities 
of  the  highest  order.  After  the  subversion  of 
the  Roman  Empire,  and  some  time  in  the 
eleventh  century,  cities  began  to  be  established 
or  incorporated  in  Europe,  and  first  in  Italy, 
and  the  inhabitants  entitled  to  their  freedom 
and  liberties  were  called  citizens.  These,  prin- 
ipally,  were  to  elect  and  be  elected,  and  to 
bear  arms  in  their  own  defence,  under  com- 
manders of  their  own  choice. 

The  best  definition  of  citizen,  according  to 
European  writers,  which  I  have  been  able  to 
find,  is  "  a  native  or  inhabitant  of  a  city,  vested 
with  its  freedom  and  liberties."  The  "  freedom 
.nd  liberties,"  or  "privileges  and  immunities," 
essential  to  a  citizen,  were  those  I  have  men- 
loned ;  and,  although  the  name  was  originally 
confined  to  the  inhabitant  of  a  city,  yet  when 
hese  principles  were  diffused  among,  and  con- 
erred  on,  the  inhabitants  of  the  country,  they, 


DEBATES  OF  CONGKESS. 


681 


DECKMBER,  1820.]  Admission  of  Missouri— Citizenship  of  Free  Colored  Persons. 


[SENATE. 


having  the  same    attributes,   took  the   same 
name. 

The  rights  of  an  American  citizen  are  essen- 
tially the  same :  to  elect,  be  elected,  and  bear 
arms  in  his  defence ;  they  are  essential,  for, 
divest  him  of  these,  and  you  divest  him  of  his 
citizenship.  He  has  other  essential  rights,  such 
as  those -of  property  and  personal  security  under 
the  protection  of  laws  fairly  administered ;  but 
he  has  these  in  common  with  foreigners,  and 
in  some  respects  with  slaves.  No  person  can 
be  said  to  be  entitled  to  the  privileges  of  an 
American  citizen,  nnless  he  can  have  an  agency 
in  the  formation  or  administration  of  the  laws ; 
that  agency  may  be  prospective,  but  a  per- 
petual exclusion  from  this  deprives  him  of  the 
essential  attributes  of  a  citizen ;  but  these  at- 
tributes are  conferred  or  withheld  by  the  will 
of  the  State,  legally  or  constitutionally  express- 
ed; a  citizen,  therefore,  has  his  character  from 
the  State  of  which  he  is  a  member ;  the  State 
may  deprive  him  of  it,  and  again  restore  it 
back;  as  it  can  totally  destroy  it,  so  it  can 
create  it  in  its  highest  perfection.  It  would 
seem,  then,  inevitable  that,  inasmuch  as  the 
privileges  of  citizenship  are  conferred  or  with- 
held by  each  State  at  its  will,  they  may  be  and 
almost  unavoidably  must  be  different  in  differ- 
ent States.  The  question  then  presents,  what 
"  privileges  and  immunities "  of  citizens  have 
the  .free  blacks  of  Missouri  ?  And  we  see  at 
once  they  have  none.  By  the  charter  which 
you  made  for  them,  free  blacks  can  neither 
elect  nor  be  elected,  and  this  disability  is  made 
perpetual  by  their  constitution.  By  the  exist- 
ing territorial  laws  they  cannot  bear  arms  with- 
out being  housekeepers  and  having  a  license 
from  the  civil  authority ;  nor  act  as  jurors  in 
any  case,  nor  testify  as  witnesses,  except  in 
suits  between  persons  of  their  own  color.  The 
free  black  of  Missouri,  then,  has  no  privileges 
of  citizenship  there.  Then,  can  a  free  black 
citizen  of  Maine  have  any  greater  privileges  or 
immunities  in  Missouri,  than  her  own  free 
blacks  ?  Does  a  citizen  of  one  State  going  to 
another  carry  his  political  condition  with  him, 
or  assume  that  of  the  State  where  he  goes? 
The  former  principle  breaks  down  every  quali- 
fication required  by  a  constitution  of  a  State, 
and  authorizes  one  State  to  confer  privileges 
for  the  whole.  No  gentleman  has,  I  believe, 
pretended  to  insist  on  sneh  a  construction.  A 
citizen  of  Maine  entitled  to  elect  and  be  elected, 
goes  to  Virginia;  the  constitution  of  Maine 
made  him  an  elector  without  property  and 
with  a  year's  residence ;  that  of  Virginia  re- 
quires a  freehold  and  further  residence ;  does 
he  instantaneously  become  an  elector  in  Vir- 
ginia, or  must  he  be  subjected  to  the  disabilities 
of  Virginians  conditioned  like  him  ?  He  must 
submit  of  course  to  the  laws  of  the  State  to 
•which  he  goes.  But  in  Maine  a  free  black  is  a 
citizen ;  he  goes  to  Virginia — can  he  there  have 
any  other  privileges  and  immunities  than  the 
free  blacks  of  Virginia?  By  the  same  rule, 
certainly  not ;  if  he  could,  the  free  blacks  of 


Virginia  might  emigrate  to  Maine,  tarry  a  year, 
become  electors  there,  and  return,  bringing 
with  them  the  elective  franchise,  which  they 
could  exercise  in  spite  of  the  constitution  of 
Virginia.  A  person,  then,  going  from  one 
State  to  another,  takes  all  the  privileges  and 
immunities,  and  is  subject  to  all  the  restraints 
and  disabilities  as  to  residence,  property,  age, 
and  color,  of  the  people  of  the  State  where  he 
goes.  If,  then,  free  blacks  and  mulattoes  going 
into  Missouri,  could  have  no  privileges  and  im- 
munities of  citizens  when  there,  she  has  a  right 
to  exclude  them.  Their  right  to  go  is  only  by 
inference.  They  are  entitled,  you  say,  to  cer- 
tain privileges  and  immunities  when  there; 
and,  therefore,  they  have  a  right  to  go.  We 
answer,  they  are  entitled  to  no  privileges  and 
immunities  of  citizens,  when  there ;  and  there- 
fore Missouri  has  a  right  to  exclude  them. 

A  contrary  decision  would  moreover  be 
against  all  precedent,  and  the  constant  practice 
of  most  of  the  States  in  the  Union.  When  a 
contest  for  power  between  the  United  States 
and  a  State  occurs,  it  becomes  this  Senate  jeal- 
ously to  guard  those  rights  which  it  was  con- 
stituted to  preserve.  The  tendency  of  the 
Federal  Government  is  to  acquire  by  slow  and 
imperceptible  encroachments  on  the  rights  of  the 
States — one  acquisition  may  succeed  another 
until  there  shall  be  nothing  left. 

It  is,  furthermore,  unusual  strictly  to  scruti- 
nize every  clause  of  a  constitution  of  a  new 
State,  on  her  admission  into  the  Union.  Reject 
a  State  for  one  objectionable  clause,  and,  if  you 
err,  the  error  cannot  be  easily  corrected.  Ad- 
mit her,  and  if  a  clause  is  repugnant  to  the 
Constitution  of  the  United  States,  it  is  inopera- 
tive and  void,  and  would  be  annulled  by  a  judi- 
cial decision.  The  State  would  be,  in  the 
Union,  pruned  of  the  offensive  limb,  and  the 
residue  of  her  constitution  would  remain. 

This  is  a  question  which  may  be  very  safely 
trusted  with  the  Judiciary.  Who  are  the  par- 
ties to  the  compact  in  the  act  of  last  session  ? 
The  United  States  and  Missouri.  Missouri  con- 
tends that  she  has  complied  with  the  terms, 
and  demands  a  fulfilment  on  our  part.  We  re- 
fuse, and  charge  her  with  a  failure  to  fulfil  her 
stipulations.  Who  is  to  decide  ?  Will  we  in- 
sist on  deciding  our  own  case,  or  will  we  con- 
sent to  the  decision  of  an  umpire  ?  There  is 
no  risk  on  our  part  in  submitting  the  question 
to  the  Supreme  Court.  In  questions  of  State 
and  Federal  powers,  they  have,  I  believe,  never 
been  suspected  of  leaning  very  far  in  favor  of 
the  former.  Indeed,  it  is  not  in  the  nature  of 
men  placed  as  they  are  to  do  it.  Their  origin, 
compensation,  responsibility,  and  pride,  all  for- 
bid it.  If  the  people  of  Missouri  are  willing  to 
submit  to  this  tribunal,  we  act  not  as  an  hon- 
orable man  would  act  with  his  neighbor  if  we 
refuse. 

But  suppose  you  insist  on  the  objection.  Is 
it  by  any  means  certain  that  you  may  not  pro- 
duce a  state  of  things  perplexing,  if  not  dan- 
gerous ?  I  do  not  pretend  that  Missouri  will 


682 


ABRIDGMENT  OF  THE 


SENATE.] 


Admission  of  Missouri— Citizenship  of  Free  Colored  Persons.  [DECEMBER,  1820. 


resist  your  authority.  My  fear  is,  that  you 
cannot  agree  to  exercise  it. 

Suppose  a  case,  not  improbable — suppose 
Missouri  rejected  by  a  disagreement  between 
the  two  Houses  of  Congress — one  branch  be- 
lieving that  she  has  complied  with  the  condi- 
tions, is  a  State,  and  entitled  to  admission ;  the 
other  believing  that  she  has  failed  to  comply, 
and  must  retire  back  to  her  territorial  condi- 
tion. You  promised  Missouri  two  things — a 
State  government,  and  admission  into  the 
Union.  She  is  in  the  enjoyment  of  one,  and 
demands  the  other.  One  House  of  Congress  is 
willing  she  should  enjoy  the  other,  and  the 
other  House  refuses,  and  demands  that  she 
should  yield  up  what  she  has  obtained.  One 
House  having  a  negative  on  the  other,  what 
could  be  done?  The  necessity  should  be 
strong,  and  the  case  clear,  before  I  would  haz- 
ard such  a  state  of  things.  But,  so  far  from 
the  case  being  clear,  and  the  necessity  strong, 
it  is  manifest,  I  think,  that  you  have  no  power, 
and,  if  you  had,  it  is  not  only  unnecessary,  but 
impolitic  and  unsafe,  to  exercise  it.  The  prop- 
ositions upon  which  I  have  insisted,  and  en- 
deavored to  maintain,  are  these : 

The  "  privileges  and  immunities"  of  citizens 
are  nowhere  extended  to  free  blacks  and  mu- 
lattoes,  by  the  Constitution  of  the  United  States 
nor  laws  of  Congress. 

The  constitution  and  laws  of  the  States  are 
alone  capable  of  conferring  them. 

The  State  of  Missouri  has  not  conferred  them 
on  this  class  of  her  population. 

Black  citizens  of  other  States  acquire  no 
other  privileges  and  immunities  there  than  her 
own  black  population. 

But  the  latter  are  not  citizens  there,  nor  are 
the  former ;  and  as  the  former  could  have  no 
privileges  and  immunities  of  citizens  there,  they 
may  be  excluded. 

Mr.  OTIS,  of  Massachusetts,  said  that,  in  pre- 
senting to  the  Senate  a  few  general  observations 
upon  the  question  before  them,  he  would  take 
leave  to  begin  where  the  honorable  gentleman, 
(Mr.  HOLMES,)  who  had  just  sat  down,  had  left 
oft'.  That  gentleman  had  enlarged  upon  the 
consequences  to  be  apprehended  from  the  rejec- 
tion of  Missouri  under  her  present  constitution, 
in  terms  adapted  to  excite  alarm.  But  while 
he  admitted  that,  in  all  cases,  where  discretion 
can  be  exercised,  the  consequences  of  measures, 
as  they  might  affect  not  only  the  welfare  but 
the  feelings  of  the  people,  and  their  disposition 
to  execute  the  laws,  should  justly  be  regarded ; 
yet  when  the  dictates  of  conscience,  and  the 
obligation  of  oaths,  and  language  of  the  constitu- 
tion, left  no  alternative,  it  was  the  part  of  those 
who  had  duties  to  perform  to  discharge  them  with 
firmness,  after  due  deliberation,  and  to  trust  to 
the  consequences  and  effects.  This  would  be 
his  course,  under  any  view  to  be  imagined,  of 
the  reception  of  the  fate  of  their  application  for 
admission  by  the  good  people  of  Missouri.  But 
he  did  not  permit  himself  to  indulge  any  fears 
of  such  results  as  had  been  intimated.  His  re- 


spect for  that  people,  and  his  persuasion  of  their 
knowledge  of  their  true  interests,  banished 
from  his  mind  every  suspicion  of  a  temper  that 
would  lead  them  to  adopt  rash  and  violent 
measures,  and  embroil  themselves  with  the 
Union  upon  a  question  of  constitutional  law, 
which  it  would  be  so  much  easier  to  settle  by 
an  amicable  adjustment.  He  was  sorry  that 
the  question  had  arisen,  and  had  presumed  that 
the  people  of  Missouri  would  have  placed  them- 
selves in  a  condition  to  claim  their  admission, 
upon  the  ground  of  a  compliance  with  the  terms 
held  forth  to  them  by  Congress ;  and  thus  to  have 
disarmed  the  opposition  of  such  of  the  former 
minority  as  might  have  considered  those  terms 
binding  on  the  public  faith.  But  this  they  had 
not  done,  and,  although  some  inconvenience 
might  be  attached  to  the  course  they  had  taken, 
the  only  remedy  could  be  found  in  a  course  of 
reasonable  and  moderate  measures  on  the  part 
of  themselves  and  their  friends. 

The  resolution  upon  the  table,  said  Mr.  O., 
contains  a  proposition,  which  Congress  is  either 
bound  to  adopt  of  course,  as  a  ministerial  act, 
or  upon  which  they  are  entitled  to  exercise  a 
sound  discretion.  But  propositions  of  the  first 
description,  calling  upon  Congress  to  register 
the  acts  of  another  State,  and  to  do,  pro  forma, 
what  was  already  done  in  substance  without 
their  consent,  were,  as  he  humbly  conceived, 
anomalies  entirely  unknown  to  the  constitution, 
and  not  recognized  by  any  rules  or  proceedings 
of  this  House. 

Under  the  sanction  of  an  act  of  Congress,  the 
people  of  Missouri  have  been  authorized  to 
form  a  constitution,  subject  to  certain  limita- 
tions and  conditions,  and  thereupon  to  become 
an  integral  part  of  the  Union.  How,  then,  is  it 
possible  to  advance  a  step  without  reading  and 
examining  their  constitution,  and  deciding  upon 
the  fact  whether  or  not  they  have  complied 
with  these  terms  ?  To  a  certain  extent,  he  pre- 
sumed, this  investigation  would  be  admitted 
on  all  sides  to  be  indispensable ;  Avithout  it, 
who  can  tell  whether  she  has  confined  herself 
within  the  prescribed  territorial  limits?  Who 
would  know  that  she  had  not  extended  her 
claim  of  jurisdiction  to  the  Rocky  Mountains  ? 
We  may  also  be  entitled  to  ascertain  whether 
she  has  established  a  republican  or  a  monarchical 
government ;  whether  she  arrogates  the  power 
of  making  peace  and  war,  regulating  commerce, 
collecting  imposts,  or  other  powers  inhibited  in 
express  terms  of  the  constitution  to  the  several 
States.  If,  then,  we  not  only  may  carry  our 
researches  thus  far,  but  should  be  bound  in  duty 
not  to  shut  our  eyes  against  these  flagrant  as- 
sumptions of  power,  who  will  say  where  the 
line  of  discrimination  begins,  and  class  under 
their  proper  heads  those  invasions  of  the  con- 
stitution which  we  are  held  to  notice,  and  those 
at  which  it  behooves  us  to  wink  ? 

Gentlemen  who  deny  this  right  of  Congress 
to  decide  upon  a  question  placed  before  them 
for  decision,  insist  with  great  vehemence  that 
Missouri  is  a  State,  and,  of  consequence,  that 


DEBATES   OF  CONGRESS. 


683 


DECEMBER,  1820.]  Admission  of  Missouri— Citizenship  of  Free  Colored  Persons. 


[Sou 


her  members  are  entitled  to  their  seats ;  and  if 
she  be  not  a  State,  they  call  upon  us  to  describe 
her  actual  condition,  and  to  say  what  she  is. 
But,  to  say  nothing  of  the  inference  which 
seems  unavoidable,  that,  upon  this  hypothesis, 
the  proceedings  of  Congress  are  superfluous,  and 
the  foundation  for  all  debate  is  removed,  and 
the  members  need  only  offer  themselves  to  be 
qualified ;  it  might  with  equal  truth  be  affirmed 
that  Missouri  would  be  a  State,  if  she  had  made 
a  Governor  for  life,  or  instituted  an  hereditary 
Senate,  or  claimed  the  public  lands,  or,  in  many 
other  particulars,  trenched  upon  the  rights  of 
the  General  Government,  and  held  the  terms 
of  the  proffered  admission  in  contempt.  But 
the  assumption  of  her  being  a  State  is  a  fallacy 
— a  begging  of  the  question — and  an  illusion, 
arising  from  the  repetition  of  a  high-sounding 
word.  In  truth,  the  people  of  the  United  States, 
by  their  Congress,  are  parties  to  an  executory 
contract.  The  people  of  Missouri  are  the  other 
parties.  The  former  have  granted  to  the  latter 
the  faculty  of  becoming  a  State  when,  among 
other  things,  they  shall  have  formed  a  constitu- 
tion not  repugnant  to  the  Constitution  of  the 
United  States.  Now,  by  what  law  or  usage,  or 
principle  of  natural  equity,  does  a  party,  who, 
by  certain  acts  to  be  performed  on  his  part,  is 
to  be  entitled  to  the  benefit  of  a  subsequent  act 
to  be  performed  by  another  party,  become  the 
sole  judge  of  his  own  fulfilment  and  perfect 
claim  ?  Has  not  the  party  who  is  called  upon 
to  make  the  last  concession  a  right  to  be  satis- 
fied ?  If  there  be  a  controversy  and  a  tribunal, 
will  not  this  last-mentioned  party  stand  upon 
his  defence  ?  In  the  ordinary  transactions  of 
civil  life  there  could  be  no  doubt.  Why,  then, 
is  it  expected  that  Congress  should  surrender 
an  advantage  which  every  individual  would  re- 
tain ?  Congress,  it  may  be  said,  cannot  be  ar- 
raigned before  any  tribunal,  neither  can  it  be 
impleaded  upon  any  of  the  innumerable  private 
pecuniary  claims  that  are  constantly  made  upon 
its  justice.  In  these  cases  it  invariably  makes  a 
law  for  itself.  Doubtful  claims  are  always  re- 
jected; and  there  could  be  no  consistency  in 
reserving  scrupulously  the  power  of  deciding 
upon  the  demands  for  money  and  services, 
which  are  often  paltry  and  insignificant,  and 
shrinking  from  decisions  which  involve  the  civil 
or  political  rights  of  any  portion  of  the  people, 
however  poor  and  humble  their  condition.  It 
is,  then,  entirely  fallacious  to  insist  that  Mis- 
souri, by  taking  advantage  of  her  own  wrong, 
has  become  a  State,  and  precluded  your  right 
of  inquiring  into  her  condition.  The  fallacy  is 
apparent  when  the  inquiry  is  made,  Is  she  a 
State  of  that  description  which  is  entitled  to  be 
admitted  into  the  Union?  This  involves  the 
further  questions,  Is  her  constitution  republican  ? 
Is  it  conformable  to  the  Constitution  of  the 
United  States?  Has  she  complied  with  the 
precedent  conditions  annexed  to  her  grant  ?  J  t' 
in  these  points  her  constitution  is  defective,  it  is 
not  incumbenton  those  whooppose  her  admission 
to  waive  their  objections  in  consequence  of  the 


change  of  name  or  organization ;  neither  is  it  es- 
sential to  give  her  a  name,  or  to  define  the  hetero- 
clite  condition  in  which  she  has  placed  herself; 
though  he  saw  no  difficulty  in  saying  she  was 
yet  a  Territory,  in  her  transit  towards  the  con- 
dition of  one  of  the  United  States,  and  none  in 
providing  by  law  (especially  with  a  kindly  con- 
currence on  the  part  of  that  people)  for  an 
adaptation  of  the  present  form  of  her  govern- 
ment to  her  territorial  condition,  until  that 
should  be  changed. 

The  honorable  gentleman  from  South  Caro- 
lina had  asserted,  with  great  confidence,  that 
several  States  had  been  admitted  into  the 
Union  without  any  evidence  to  be  found  on 
record  of  an  examination  into  the  provisions  of 
their  constitution,  "Several  of  those  States 
were  without  constitutions ;"  and  "  why,"  ex- 
claimed the  gentleman  triumphantly,  "  do  you 
not  issue  a  quo  warranto  against  Ehode  Island 
and  other  States?"  To  this,  said  Mr.  O.,  the 
answer  is  most  obvious.  Ehode  Island,  Ver- 
mont, and  North  Carolina,  had  the  option,  at 
the  time  of  the  formation  of  the  Federal  Gov- 
ernment, of  becoming  parties  to  it  at  pleasure. 
They  were  independent  States,  acting  as  such, 
and  their  constitutions  or  forms  of  government 
were  subjects  of  notoriety  to  the  other  States 
with  whom  they  had  united  under  the  Old  Con- 
federation. They  did  not  adopt  the  Constitu- 
tion of  the  United  States  at  the  same  epoch 
with  the  other  States,  but  there  was  a  perfect 
understanding  of  their  being  at  liberty  to  send 
in  their  adhesion ;  and,  when  they  did  so,  noth- 
ing was  wanting  but  laws  extending  to  them 
the  jurisdiction  of  the  Union.  In  respect  to 
every  other  State,  it  was  manifest  that  their 
several  constitutions  had  been  submitted  to  the 
inspection  of  Congress,  as  would  be  demon- 
strated by  a  recurrence  to  its  acts,  and  although 
the  form  of  resolutions  adopted  of  late  years 
had  not  been  originally  observed.  The  State  of 
Virginia,  by  an  act  of  December,  1789,  author- 
ized Kentucky  to  become  a  State  at  some  period 
subsequent  to  1791,  at  a  time  to  be  fixed  by  the 
people.  They  accordingly  formed  a  constitu- 
tion, and  determined  that  the  era  of  its  active 
supremacy  should  be  in  June,  1792.  Meanwhile 
Congress  convened,  and  determined  on  the 
same  time  for  its  admission  into  the  Union,  and, 
by  necessary  intendment,  must  have  had  before 
them  the  constitution  as  it  had  been  adopted. 
In  the  act  extending  to  Ohio  the  benefit  of  cer- 
tain laws  of  the  Union,  there  is  an  express 
recognition  of  her  having  framed  a  republican 
form  of  government.  In  the  instance  of  Tennes- 
see, there  was  a  debate  upon  a  clause  in  her 
constitution,  which  shows  that  the  instrument 
was  before  Congress;  and,  since  the  time  of 
her  admission,  a  more  precise  formality  has 
been  observed  in  every  instance.  Nothing, 
therefore,  he  contended,  was  to  be  gained  by 
the  gentleman's  reliance  upon  precedents,  which 
were  all  against  him.  Having  thus  (continued 
Mr.  0.)  established  it  to  be  the  right  and  duty  of 
Congress  to  examine  this  instrument,  ho  should 


684 


ABRIDGMENT  OF  THE 


SENATE.] 


Admission  of  Missouri — Citizenship  of  Free  Colored  Per/ons. 


3ER,    1820. 


proceed  to  state  and  to  support  his  objection  aris- 
ing upon  the  face  of  it,  and  it  was,  shortly,  to  the 
clause  which  made  it  the  duty  of  the  legislature 
of  the  new  State  to  prevent  the  ingress  and  set- 
tlement of  free  people  of  color,  under  any  pre- 
text whatsoever,  Within  its  boundaries.  This 
requisition  being,  at  first  blush,  in  palpable  col- 
lision with  the  clause  of  the  United  States  Con- 
stitution, which  provides  for  a  community  of 
rights  for  the  citizens  of  one  State  with  those  of 
any  other  State  into  which  we  may  go,  there  is 
no  refuge  from  the  objection  but  in  a  bold  de- 
nial of  the  fact,  that  free  persons  of  color  may 
be  citizens  of  some  one  State.  And,  to  do  jus- 
tice to  the  candor  of  gentlemen,  it  must  be  al- 
lowed they  enter  the  lists  with  manly  frankness, 
and,  in  so  many  words,  deny  to  people  of  color 
this  capacity  of  citizenship  ;  and  it  follows  as  a 
corollary,  that  they  deny  also  the  right  of  any 
one  State  to  confer  that  capacity  upon  them, 
They  call  upon  us  to  show  what  constitutes  a 
citizen,  and  especially  to  prove  that  persons  of 
color  were  at  all  considered  as  coming  under 
that  denomination,  in  any  compact  made  with 
each  other  by  the  people  of  the  United  States. 
It  would  require  more  time  than  could  be  fairly 
claimed  by  any  individual  to  do  justice  to  this 
subject  under  all  its  aspects,  but  he  trusted  a 
very  few  remarks  would  be  sufficient  for  a  satis- 
factory confutation  of  this  novel  theory.  For 
his  greater  security,  however,  he  would  confine 
himself  to  the  circumstances  which  would  give  to 
a  man  the  right  of  citizenship  in  Massachusetts; 
for  if  a  man  of  color  could  be  a  citizen  there,  he 
would  carry  his  privilege  elsewhere.  In  that 
State,  he  said,  at  the  time  of  the  Revolution, 
the  people  were  considered  as  retaining  all  such 
portions  of  the  common  law  of  England  as  were 
applicable  to  their  circumstances.  By  that  law. 
the  people  of  England  were  distinguished  into 
citizens,  denizens,  and  aliens.  In  Massachusetts, 
they  were  also  either  citizens  or  aliens ;  and  he 
had  no  doubt  he  might  safely  contend  that 
in  all  the  States  they  were  either  citizens, 
aliens,  or  slaves.  All  persons  born  within  the 
realm  of  England  were  citizens.  All  persons 
born  in  Massachusetts,  of  free  parents,-  were 
citizens ;  and  all  persons  in  that  State,  not  aliens 
or  slaves,  (and  there  could  be  none  of  the 
latter,  though,  perhaps,  a  fugitive  slave  might 
have  been  considered  as  an  alien  prior  to  the 
federal  stipulations  on  that  point,)  were  of  con- 
sequence free  citizens. 

To  this  relationship  of  a  free  citizen  to  his 
State,  protection  and  allegiance  were  the  neces- 
sary incidents,  and  these  imply,  of  necessity,  a 
right  to  reside  within  the  jurisdiction,  and  to 
be  secure  of  life,  liberty,  and  property,  under 
the  guardianship  of  the  laws.  Every  citizen  is 
held  to  serve  the  State  in  time  of  public  danger 
and  of  war,  and  to  contribute  to  the  public 
burdens.  He  is  entitled  to  redress  when  injured 
by  a  foreign  power ;  to  be  reclaimed  when  un- 
justly captured  or  detained  ;  and  when  he 
brings  an  action  for  land,  alienage  cannot  be 
pleaded  in  bar  to  his  demand.  If  he  possesses 


these  rights,  and  stands  in  this  relation  to  the 
State,  he  is  a  citizen.  In  Massachusetts,  many 
persons  of  color  existed  in  this  relation  to  the 
State,  and  he  should  believe,  until  the  contrary 
was  shown,  that  the  same  was  true  in  every 
State  in  the  nation.  To  strengthen  this  con- 
struction, he  quoted  the  4th  article  of  the  first 
Confederation,  which  ordains  that  the  "  free 
inhabitants  of  each  of  these  States,  paupers, 
vagabonds,  and  fugitives  from  justice  excepted, 
shall  be  entitled  to  all  privileges  and  immunities 
of  free  citizens  in  the  several  States,"  and  "  shall 
have  free  ingress  and  regress,"  &c.  He  also 
quoted,  from  the  Journals  of  the  Old  Congress, 
the  resolve  which  formed  the  basis  of  the  new 
constitution,  and  which  recommends  the  appor- 
tionment of  taxes  upon  the  numbers  of  "  white 
and  other  free  citizens,"  and  made  comments 
upon  them,  which  he  considered  as  conclusive 
in  favor  of  his  construction.  Pursuant  to  these 
principles,  it  was  familiar  to  all  that  persons  of 
this  description  had  received  grants  of  land  for 
serving  in  your  army,  and  had  been  reclaimed 
among  your  impressed  seamen. 

Now,  against  these  facts  and  plain  reasoning, 
he  was  aware  of  but  one  objection  adduced  by 
gentlemen  who  had  preceded  bun.  These  men 
were  not  citizens,  it  is  said,  in  every  State,  be- 
cause in  nearly  all,  if  not  in  every  State,  they 
are,  or  have  been,  made  liable  to  certain  disa- 
bilities not  common  to  the  free  white  citizens. 
All  the  arguments  of  gentlemen  upon  this  point, 
however  diversified,  and  the  immensely  volu- 
minous citations  from  the  statute  books  of  the 
different  States,  terminated  in  this  one  objec- 
tion. It  was,  therefore,  the  soundness  of  this 
single  foundation  stone,  and  that  alone,  which 
he  was  called  upon  to  examine.  To  this,  then, 
his  first  answer  was,  that  a  class  of  citizens 
may,  under  certain  circumstances,  be  subjected 
to  particular  disqualifications,  without  being 
thereby  disfranchised.*  In  every  country  wo- 
men and  minors  are  subject  to  disqualifications 
— the  former  are  such  as  are  perpetual.  In 
some,  large  classes  are  debarred  from  the  power 
of  electing,  or  being  elected,  to  office.  An  un- 
just government  may  create  many  odious  dis- 
tinctions between  its  privileged  orders  and  other 
citizens ;  and  a  just  government,  from  motives 
of  sound  policy,  may  exclude  a  minor  class  of 
the  community  from  certain  civil  and  political 
rights,  enjoyed  by  the  rest,  and  yet  leave  the 
excluded  or  restricted  class  in  the  condition  of 
citizens.  The  right  of  protection  in  life,  liberty, 
and  property ;  of  residence,  and  of  inheritable 
blood ;  of  taking  and  transmitting,  by  descent, 


*  An  act  of  Parliament,  In  the  time  of  William  III.,  pro- 
vides, in  substance,  that  "  no  person,  born  out  of  the  king- 
dom of  England,  Scotland,  or  Ireland,  or  the  dominions 
thereto  belonging,  although  he  be  naturalized  and  made  a 
denizen,  (except  such  as  ore  born  of  English  parents.)  shall 
be  capable  to  be  of  the  privy  council,  or  a  member  of  either 
House  of  Parliament,  or  to  enjoy  any  office  or  place  of  trust, 
either  civil  or  military,  or  to  have  any  grant  of  lands,  tene- 
ments, or  hereditaments,  fro  m  the  Crown,  to  himself,  or 
others  in  trust  for  him."  Each  State,  prior  to  the  Confeder- 
ation, and  subsequent  to  the  Kevolution,  had  the  same 
powers,  in  regard  to  this  subject,  as  the  British  Parliament 


DEBATES  OF  CONGRESS. 


685 


DECEMBER,  1820.]  Admission  of  Missouri— Citizenship  of  Free  Colored  Persons. 


[SENATE. 


lands,  and  chattels,  may  all  be  unimpaired,  and, 
while  they  remain  so,  it  is  impossible  to  say 
that  a  man  ceases  to  be  a  citizen.  Certainly, 
Republics  formed  upon  the  model  of  the  United 
States  will  abstain  from  all  permanent  distinc- 
tions among  their  citizens,  not  founded  in  una- 
voidable necessity,  or  the  all-controlling  force 
of  public  opinion ;  and  perhaps  the  case  in  con- 
templation is  the  only  one  that  can  ever  arise 
to  authorize  or  induce  the  annexation  of  per- 
petual disqualifications  for  political  or  civil 
trusts  to  qualities  which  are  in  themselves  inno- 
cent and  personal.  But  it  might  be  otherwise ; 
and  if  a  State,  by  its  constitution,  were  em- 
powered to  restrain  its  citizens  from  wearing 
arms  or  killing  game,  or  discharging  certain 
political  or  civil  functions,  laws  made  pursuant 
to  such  authority  would  not  operate  an  extin- 
guishment of  the  rights  of  the  citizen,  hateful 
and  oppressive  as  they  would  be  in  themselves. 
Again,  cases  may  be  supposed  to  exist  in  which 
one  description  of  citizens  may  have  assented, 
either  expressly  or  by  implication,  to  enjoy  the 
rights  of  citizenship  under  some  limitations. 
And,  perhaps,  the  consent  of  the  colored  free 
people  who  remained  in  our  country  at  the 
epoch  of  our  Independence,  or  who,  being  born 
within  the  United  States,  have  since  become 
the  voluntary  inhabitants  of  any  State,  in  which 
such  limitations  have  prevailed  from  time  im- 
memorial, may  fairly  be  presumed  to  have  ac- 
quiesced in  the  legality  of  such  limitations,  and 
to  be  concluded  by  their  own  consent.  Still 
they  may  be  citizens.  Modifications  of  the 
rights  of  citizenship  were  familiar  to  the  laws 
of  Home  prior  to  the  time  of  Justinian ;  and, 
in  fact,  most  of  the  distinctions  of  the  privileged 
orders  in  modern  governments,  when  fairly  ex- 
amined, may  be  referred  to  the  same  principles, 
and  are  neither  more  nor  less  than  rights  of 
citizenship  differently  graduated.  Believing, 
therefore,  in  the  correctness  of  this  exposition, 
lie  considered  all  arguments  drawn  from  the 
laws  of  the  several  States,  respecting  free  peo- 
ple of  color,  to  be  entirely  irrelevant  to  the 
subject,  unless  it  could  be  made  manifest  that 
these  laws  had  not  merely  been  confined  to  a 
limitation  of  their  political  or  civil  privileges, 
but  had  entirely  annulled  all  that  portion  of 
them  which  were  essential  to  constitute  the  re- 
lation of  citizen.  In  no  State,  he  contended, 
had  they  yet  been  carried  to  this  extreme ;  and, 
while  any  one  of  them  could  be  found,  in  whose 
jurisdiction  these  persons  were  citizens,  it 
would  follow  that  they  could  not  be  disentitled 
to  become  citizens  in  any  other  State.  The 
honorable  gentleman  from  South  Carolina  had 
occupied  an  entire  day,  principally  in  reading 
and  commenting  upon  the  laws  of  the  respec- 
tive States,  from  North  to  South,  discriminating 
between  the  white  and  colored  people,  in  sup- 
port of  his  broad  denial  of  the  capacity  of 
citizenship  to  the  latter.  However  amusing 
and  enlivening  those  researches  might  have  been 
in  the  hands  of  that  gentleman,  Mr.  O.  was  con- 
vinced they  would  lose  their  charm  in  his  hands, 


and  should  therefore  abstain  from  following 
them  in  detail.  He  persuaded  himself,  how- 
ever, that  all  the  inferences  from  these  laws 
might  be  reduced  to  a  few  points,  and  disposed 
of  in  a  few  general  remarks.  As  to  one,  and 
that  by  far  the  greater  portion  of  the  statutes 
cited  by  the  honorable  gentleman,  they  applied 
exclusively  to  paupers,  vagabonds,  and  fugitives. 
Either  the  purview  of  each  statute,  or  other 
statutes  found  in  the  same  code,  and  constitut- 
ing a  part  of  one  system,  proved  these  to  be 
the  only  objects  of  those  laws,  and  as,  in  many 
instances,  they  applied  to  white  persons  equally 
with  others,  the  argument  built  upon  them 
proved  too  much. 

Another  portion  of  these  statutes  affected 
merely  qualifications  for  electing,  or  being  elect- 
ed, to  office.  These  also  might  be  laid  aside. 
By  the  constitution  or  laws  of  several  States, 
the  political  rights  of  the  white  citizen  are 
abridged.  It  is  so  in  Massachusetts ;  in  Virgi- 
nia, where  freeholders  only  vote ;  in  Mississippi, 
where  a  creed  (or  the  want  of  it)  disqualifies  a 
man  for  office,  and  where  clergymen  are  not 
eligible  to  the  Legislature.  This  species  of  ex- 
clusion is,  therefore,  no  test  of  the  character  of 
citizen.  Indeed,  some  of  the  instances  mentioned 
by  the  honorable  gentleman  might  be  regarded 
as  exemptions  from  burdensome  duties  with 
more  propriety  than  as  restrictions  of  civic  privi- 
leges ;  and  persons  who  are  dispensed  from  obliga- 
tions to  serve  in  the  militia,  and  on  juries,  by  law, 
do  not  generally  complain  of  their  condition. 

When  the  laws  and  quotations,  introduced 
with  such  profusion  by  the  honorable  gentle- 
man, were  arranged  with  reference  to  these  two 
general  heads,  they  would  leave  but  a  small 
remnant  for  any  other.  He  did  not  recollect 
but  one  case  which  would  not  fall  under  them, 
and  that  was  the  statute  of  Massachusetts  pro- 
hibiting intermarriages  between  white  and  co- 
lored people.  With  respect  to  that  law,  it  was 
proper  to  remark,  that  marriage  was  a  civil 
contract  regulated  by  the  policy  of  every  State, 
according  to  its  own  views  of  public  utility,  and 
subject  to  greater  or  less  ceremonials  and  re- 
straints by  the  sovereign  authority.  It  would 
not  be  pretended  that  laws  creating  temporary 
disabilities  for  matrimonial  alliances,  requiring 
age,  consent  of  parents,  or  forms  of  marrying, 
would  impair  the  quality  of  citizenship.  And 
if  the  policy  of  a  State  might  justify  one  denom- 
ination of  restrictions  upon  the  marriage  con- 
tract which  did  not  disfranchise  those  who  be- 
came subject  to  them,  why  could  not  the  same 
policy  interpose  other  impediments  to  marriage 
without  drawing  after  them  disfranchisement  as 
a  necessary  consequence?  Why  was  a  black 
person  disqualified  as  a  citizen  by  being  inhibit- 
ed from  marrying  a  white  person,  more  than 
a  white  person  was  so  under  a  reverse  of  the 
rule  ?  There  was  no  necessary  connection  be- 
tween an  incapacity  created  by  law,  in  one  de- 
scription of  persons,  to  contract  marriage  with 
those  of  another  description,  and  an  incapacity 
of  all  the  rights  of  a  citizen.  It  was  difficult 


686 


ABRIDGMENT  OF  THE 


SENATE.] 


Admission  of  Missouri — Citizenship  of  Free  Colored  Persons.          [DECEMBER,  1820. 


to  illustrate  this  position  by  supposing  examples, 
without  seeming  to  disparage  the  unfortunate 
persons  who  were  the  objects  of  the  exclusion. 
Hardly  any  other  probable  case  could  be  imag- 
ined, that  would  call  for  the  establishment  of 
permanent  legal  distinctions  between  classes  of 
citizens,  in  the  exercise  of  the  right  to  form 
matrimonial  connections,  and  yet  the  policy  of 
such  a  distinction  in  the  state  of  our  society,  in 
this  one  instance,  may  be  very  unquestionable. 
The  free  people  of  color  being  everywhere  a 
very  small  minority  of  individuals,  under  par- 
ticular circumstances,  are  not  entitled  to  com- 
plain of  special  restrictions  and  exclusions, 
which  the  vast  majority,  by  high  considerations 
connected  with  their  ideas  of  sound  policy,  and 
invincible  predilections  for  their  own  race,  and 
the  desire  of  transmitting  to  posterity  its  blood 
pure  and  unmixed,  and  for  no  other  reason, 
may  have  seen  fit  to  impose.  If  leprosy,  or  any 
other  disease  attended  with  a  decidedly  heredi- 
tary and  incurable  taint,  were  known  to  prevail 
in  a  State,  laws  might  be  passed  to  prevent 
marriage  with  the  infected  persons  without 
touching  any  other  rights.  He  meant,  how- 
ever, only  to  exemplify,  and  not  to  assimilate 
the  cases — this,  he  repeated,  being  a  peculiar 
case,  and  entire  sui  generis.  He  had  thus  far 
proceeded  upon  the  supposition  that  all  the 
statutes  of  the  several  States  adduced  upon  the 
occasion,  were  in  themselves  constitutional. 
But,  his  second  answer  to  this  objection  from 
the  State  laws  was,  that  if  any  of  them  went 
so  far  as  to  disfranchise  all  free  persons  of  color, 
such  laws  were  void  in  themselves.  He  had 
heard  of  none  that  did  go  that  length.  Let 
us  next,  said  he,  advert  for  a  moment  to  the 
suggestion  of  gentlemen,  that  if  the  clause  of 
the  constitution  of  Missouri  should  be  found 
in  discordance  with  that  of  the  United  States, 
a  remedy  would  be  found  in  the  judicial 
department.  It  was,  however,  the  first  time 
he  had  ever  heard  it  urged  as  a  sound  or 
safe  principle  that  the  rights,  or  even  the  claims 
of  any  portion  of  the  people  might  be  abandon- 
ed by  the  Legislature,  because  the  courts  could 
do  them  justice.  It  was,  indeed,  curious  to  ob- 
serve the  fluctuations  of  opinion  relative  to  the 
judicial  power  occasioned  by  the  different  cir- 
cumstances under  which  it  was  called  forth. 
There  was  now  upon  the  table  a  resolution  de- 
claring null  and  void  the  sedition  act,  which 
had  received  the  sanction  of  two  Congresses  and 
many  judicial  decisions.  In  this  case  of  Mis- 
souri, however,  he  insisted  that  the  judiciary 
could  give  no  adequate  relief.  The  justice  here 
sought  was  not  remedial  but  preventive — not 
to  restore  to  an  individual  violated  rights,  but 
to  place  numbers  beforehand  in  a  condition  to 
exercise  them.  It  was  to  retain  (so  far  as  the 
expression  of  the  opinion  of  Congress  could  do 
it)  to  all  free  colored  citizens  the  right  of  going 
to  Missouri,  if  they  thought  fit,  and  settling 
therein,  and  not  to  redress  the  injury  of  one  or 
more  individuals  who  might  be  driven  from  its 
limits.  Congress  was  to  settle  a  principle,  not 


to  try  a  cause — and  if  the  principle  was  aban- 
doned, no  cause  would  ever  be  tried.  What  in- 
dividual would  ever  be  found  to  journey  through 
the  immeasurable  wilderness,  "with  lingering 
steps  and  slow,"  and  set  his  foot  in  Missouri  with 
a  certainty  of  being  driven  back,  for  the  privi- 
lege of  having  recourse  to  the  courts  of  the 
United  States,  at  an  expense  entirely  beyond 
his  compass,  and  beyond  the  value  of  the  ob- 
ject of  his  journey  ?  And  if  such  a  person  could 
be  found,  what  is  the  situation  of  others  who 
might  wish  to  settle  there  while  the  cause  is 
pending?  It  had,  indeed,  been  often  urged, 
that  the  Legislature  of  Missouri  might  enact 
laws  to  the  end  provided  for  in  their  constitu- 
tion, even  if  that  instrument  had  been  silent. 
Certainly  they  might  do  so,  but  it  was  equally 
certain  they  might  forbear  thus  to  legislate. 
But,  by  passing  this  resolution,  and  thus  giving 
efficacy  to  their  constitution,  you  communicate 
to  the  State  and  to  its  constitution  the  whole 
power  of  the  Union  for  giving  effect  to  this  pol- 
icy, and  compel  their  Legislature  to  pass  laws 
which  they  might  otherwise  omit,  or  which,  if 
enacted,  they  might  afterwards  repeal.  The  hon- 
orable gentleman  from  Maine  had  favored  the 
Senate  with  an  exposition  of  his  ideas  of  the 
term  citizen,  as  fouud  in  the  constitution,  which 
Mr.  O.  said  he  was  not  able  to  comprehend,  but 
which,  if  he  did  understand  it,  would  enable  a 
State  to  disfranchise  all  her  citizens  of  all  colors 
and  complexions. 

He  would  not  pause  to  consider  that  doctrine, 
nor,  indeed,  to  notice  all  the  suggestions  of  that 
gentleman.  There  was,  however,  one  topic  un- 
folded by  him  to  which  he  would  for  a  moment 
advert.  The  gentleman  contended  that  our  op- 
position to  the  power  of  the  States  to  exclude 
persons  of  color  from  settlement  in  their  juris- 
dictions, would  operate  in  favor  of  the  slave- 
holding  States  sending  away  their  freed  blacks 
into  other  States,  and  that  the  Northern  States 
would  be  thus  overrun  with  their  swarms.  He 
could  not  believe,  however,  that  the  North 
would  realize  their  obligation  to  the  gentleman 
for  wishing  to  prevent  that  quarter  of  the  coun- 
try from  this  inconvenience,  by  shutting  up 
Missouri,  which  would  leave  them  no  other  re- 
sort but  the  white  peopled  States.  But  further, 
if  a  colored  man  may  become  a  free  citizen,  he 
cannot  be  sent  away ;  and,  if  not  a  citizen,  other 
States  are  not  bound  to  receive  him  when  he  is 
sent  away.  Mr.  O.,  however,  did  not  admit 
that  the  mere  manumission  of  a  slave  would 
make  him  a  citizen.  This  was  a  very  different 
question  from  any  which  he  had  considered,  and 
it  might  be  far  from  true  that  manumission 
would  produce  any  such  effect,  and  yet  every 
principle  advanced  by  him  remains  impregnable. 

On  the  whole,  he  said,  he  had  no  ambition  to 
be  distinguished  as  a  zealot  in  the  cause  of  eman- 
cipation, or  an  advocate  for  a  sudden  change  of 
condition  in  that  unfortunate  class  of  persons 
who  were  held  in  servitude.  Much  less  was  he 
inclined  to  adopt  any  language  or  measures 
tending  to  excite  among  them  a  spirit  of  discon- 


DEBATES  OF  CONGRESS. 


687 


DECEMBER,  1820.]  Admission  of  Missouri— Citizenship  of  Free  Colored  Persons. 


[SENATE. 


tent,  or  to  wound  the  feelings  or  rouse  the  irri- 
tation or  resentment  of  their  owners.  The  evil 
of  slavery  was  too  profoundly  rooted  for  him  to 
indicate  or  even  imagine  its  cure. 

No  circumstances  led  him  to  regret  discussions 
affecting  the  people  of  color  in  the  United  States 
more  than  their  unavoidable  tendency  to  elicit 
observations  which  might  be  misunderstood, 
nnd  aggravate  the  troubles  of  slavery  by  adding 
discontent  and  vain  hopes  of  freedom  to  the 
number.  The  actual  condition  of  slaves  in  the 
old  States  was  not  a  subject  for  the  cognizance 
of  Congress.  And  until  those  whom  it  imme- 
diately concerned  could  make  some  discovery 
whereby  the  abolition  of  slavery  could  be  effect- 
ed, he  feared  that  the  efforts  of  others,  however 
well  intended,  would  be  worse  than  nugatory. 
So  far  was  he  from  wishing  it  to  be  understood 
by  the  slaves  that  the  people  of  the  North 
would  hold  them  justified  in  any  violent  meas- 
ures to  attempt  the  attainment  of  freedom,  he 
was  desirous  of  their  realizing,  what  he  believ- 
ed to  be  true,  that  all  considerate  persons  in 
every  section  of  the  Union  would  unite  with  one 
accord  with  their  masters  in  putting  down  every 
species  of  revolt  and  insurrection,  as  pregnant 
with  dreadful  calamities  to  the  whole  nation. 
This  had  ever  been  his  feeling  and  his  language. 
But,  with  these  convictions,  he  would  strenu- 
ously and  forever  oppose  the  extension  of 
slavery,  and  all  measures  which  should  subject 
a  freeman,  of  whatever  color,  to  the  degradation 
of  a  slave.  Believing,  therefore,  that  every  free 
citizen  of  color  in  the  Union  was  joint  tenant 
with  himself  in  the  public  lands  of  Missouri, 
and  of  the  jurisdiction  possessed  by  the  United 
States  in  that  Territory  until  it  should  be  else- 
where vested  ;  and  that,  however  humble  and 
disadvantageous  might  be  his  sphere,  he  was 
entitled  to  his  protection  equally  with  those 
born  to  a  happier  destiny,  he  could  not  consent 
to  an  act  which  should  divest  him  of  his  prop- 
erty and  rights,  and  interdict  him  from  even 
passing  into  a  country  of  which  he  was  a  legit- 
imate co-proprietor  with  himself. 

When  Mr.  OTIS  had  concluded — 

Mr.  BAKBOCR,  of  Virginia,  presuming  that 
some  other  gentleman  might  desire  to  deliver 
his  sentiments  on  the  question,  moved  an  ad- 
journment; and  the  Senate  adjourned. 


MONDAY,  December  11. 
Admission  of  Missouri. 

The  Senate  then  resumed  the  consideration^ 
the  resolution  declaring  the  assent  of  Congress 
to  the  admission  of  the  State  of  Missouri  into 
the  Union. 

Mr.  EATON,  of  Tennessee,  said,  before  the 
Senate  proceeded  to  a  final  vote  upon  the  reso- 
lution, he  would  ask  permission  again  to  offer 
the  amendment  which  had  heretofore  been  sub- 
mitted, and  rejected.  This,  he  believed,  was 
strictly  in  order.  The  rejection  of  the  proviso 
being  before  the  Senate,  in  Committee  of  the 
"Whole,  did  not  prevent  it  from  being  consider- 


ed, now  that  the  resolution  was  reported  to 
the  Senate.  Mr.  E.  then  offered  the  following 
amendment  to  the  resolution : 

"  Provided,  That  nothing  herein  contained  shall  be 
so  construed  as  to  give  the  assent  of  Congress  to  any 
provision  in  the  constitution  of  Missouri,  if  any  such 
there  be,  which  contravenes  that  clause  in  the  Con- 
stitution of  the  United  States  which  declares  that 
"the  citizens  of  each  State  shall  be  entitled  to  all 
privileges  and  immunities  of  citizens  in  the  several 
States." 

Mr.  Kmo,  of  New  York,  said,  as  the  amend- 
ment had  already  been  considered,  and  rejected 
by  the  Senate,  he  regretted  that  it  had  been 
deemed  expedient  to  offer  it  again.  I  object 
now,  said  Mr.  K.,  as  I  have  done  before,  to  this 
amendment,  because  it  declares  that,  in  the  ad- 
mission of  Missouri,  the  Senate  have  not  con- 
sidered, and  do  not  pronounce  any  opinion,  con- 
cerning the  clause  of  the  Missoure  constitution 
which  makes  it  the  duty  of  the  Lesislature 
thereof  to  pass  laws  to  exclude  free  negroes  and 
mulattoes  from  coming  to,  and  settling  in,  Mis- 
souri. This  declaration  ought  not  to  be  made, 
because  it  would  exhibit  the  Senate  in  this  sin- 
gular situation,  (if  his  construction  of  the  con- 
stitution of  Missouri  was  correct,)  that,  in  pass- 
ing the  act  of  admission,  the  Senate  omits  to 
consider  and  to  allow  its  due  weight  to  the  only 
provision  in  that  constitution  upon  which  the 
obligation  to  admit,  or  not  admit,  Missouri  de- 
pends. Mr.  K.  said  he  considered  this  proposi- 
tion of  much  more  importance  than  the  mover 
of  it  appeared  to  do  ;  and  he  was  not  willing  to 
decide  on  it  instanter  at  any  rate. 

Mr.  EATON  replied  at  some  length.  He  said 
he  certainly  would  be  as  unwilling  as  any  one 
to  press  the  consideration  of  what  he  had  sub- 
mitted, before  gentlemen  had  fully  made  up 
their  minds,  and  were  prepared  to  vote.  He 
doubted  not,  however,  but  that  upon  this  sub- 
ject all  were  prepared.  It  would  be  borne  in 
mind  by  the  Senate  that  this  was  not  now  an 
original  proposition,  but  one  that  had  before 
been  considered  and  voted  upon.  When  he 
had  first  the  honor  of  submitting  it,  the  gentle- 
man from  New  York  (Mr.  KING)  had  urged  his 
want  of  preparation,  and  on  an  application  for  ' 
postponement  by  himself,  the  postponement 
had  been  granted.  Under  this  state  of  things, 
Mr.  E.  could  not  perceive  any  necessity  for 
further  procrastination,  more  especially  when 
it  seemed  to  be  the  wish  of  all  to  put  an  end, 
in  some  way,  to  this  unpleasant  question.  Mr. 
E.  said  as  to  the  constitutionality  of  the  sub- 
ject, however  other  gentlemen  might  be  fully 
satisfied,  yet  with  him,  and  with  others  he  be- 
lieved, the  fact  was  otherwise.  He  was  not 
willing  either  to  affirm  or  to  deny,  that  the 
constitution  of  Missouri  was  in  strict  conformi- 
ty to  the  Constitution  of  the  United  States ;  he 
should  have  doubts  were  he  to  be  required  af- 
firmatively to  vote  either  way.  But  of  this  he 
did  not  pretend  to  doubt  that,  thus  situated,  thus 
doubting,  it  was  his  duty  to  lean  to  the  side  of  the 
constitution,  and  by  his  vote  to  support  that  in- 


688 


ABRIDGMENT  OF  THE 


SENATE.] 


Admission  of  Missouri — Citizenship  of  Free  Colored  Persons.  [DECEMBER,  1820. 


strument  which  he  and  every  member  had  sworn 
to  maintain  inviolate.  The  proviso  ventured  an 
opinion  neither  way ;  it  was  a  protestando  in 
the  true  signification  of  the  terra — the  exclusion 
of  a  conclusion— a  waiver  on  the  part  of  Con- 
gress to  give  an  opinion  either  one  way  or  the 
other.  This  being  the  object  which  he  wished 
to  attain,  he  trusted  the  Senate  would  excuse 
his  again  pressing  on  their  consideration  that 
•which  had  been  before  acted  and  voted  upon. 
Encouraged  by  the  information  that  some  gen- 
tlemen who  had  before  voted  against  the  pro- 
viso had  changed  their  opinions,  and  were  now 
disposed  to  vote  for  it,  was  with  him  the  in- 
ducement for  again  venturing  to  offer  it. 
Time  had  been  afforded  to  think  fully  on  it,  and 
further  delay  he  thought  ought  not  to  be  re- 
quested. 

Mr.  BABBOUB  declined  engaging  in  the  de- 
bate, not,  he  said,  that  he  was  unwilling  to  meet 
the  question,  but  with  a  hope  and  under  the 
expectation  that  the  question  would  be  imme- 
diately taken. 

The  Senate  then  divided  on  the  amendment, 
and  there  rose  in  its  favor  twenty-three  mem- 
bers, and  it  was  agreed  to. 

The  question  then  being  on  ordering  the  res- 
olution to  a  third  reading,  as  amended — 

Mr  MOEEILL,  of  New  Hampshire,  arose  and 
thus  addressed  the  Senate : 

Mr.  President  :  It  cannot  be  said  by  the 
honorable  Senate  that  I  am  in  the  practice  of 
consuming  much  of  their  time  in  debate,  or  of 
frequently  asking  their  attention  to  my  remarks. 
"When  the  honorable  gentleman  from  Virginia, 
(Mr.  BARBOUK,)  immediately  after  this  resolu- 
tion was  reported  by  your  committee,  intimated 
a  wish  that  the  question  might  be  taken  sub 
vilentio,  I  was  gratified  with  the  hope  that  the 
unpleasant  subject  would  pass  off  in  that  way. 
But  as  several  gentlemen  have  occupied  your 
attention,  and  have  presented  an  unexpected 
view  of  the  subject,  I  am  inclined  to  offer  my 
opinion  also.  In  doing  this,  I  am  not  influenced 
from  an  anxiety  to  make  a  speech  before  the 
Senate,  nor  from  the  pride  of  having  the  event 
announced  in  the  public  papers  simply  for  the 
perusal  of  my  constituents.  I  would  assure 
the  Senate  I  am  not  stimulated  either  by  pleas- 
ure or  ambition  on  this  occasion ;  neither  will 
my  remarks  arise  from  any  peculiar  hostility  to 
the  admission  of  Missouri  into  this  Union,  on 
such  principles,  and  with  such  a  constitution, 
as  coincide  with  the  provisions  of  the  Consti- 
tution of  the  United  States.  I  disclaim  sinister 
motives  and  sectional  partialities  on  this  sub- 
ject, and  declare  myself  actuated  by  more  no- 
ble and  important  views;  and,  solemnly  im- 
pelled by  a  sense  of  duty  I  owe  to  my  constit- 
uents and  my  country,  I  will  endeavor  to  di- 
vest myself  of  preconceived  opinions  on  the 
subject  of  slavery,  and  avoid  any  expression 
which  may  tend  to  revive  those  unpleasant 
sensations  which  so  evidently  prevailed  in  this 
body  during  the  last  session,  and  through  the 
country,  and  examine  the  subject  as  involving 


a  great  constitutional  question.  The  inquiry  is 
not,  in  this  case,  whether  slavery  shall  exist  or 
be  tolerated  in  Missouri.  I  am  ready  to  admit, 
for  the  moment,  that  this  has  been  so  far  set- 
tled by  the  vote  of  the  last  session  as  not  to 
come  into  the  present  debate  ;  but  the  passing 
of  the  resolution  recognizes  a  principle  mate- 
rially affecting  the  rights  of  other  States  and 
the  privileges  of  their  citizens.  This  principle, 
and  the  consequences  of  admitting  it,  will  be 
the  subject  of  my  remarks. 

Sir,  I  must  be  permitted  to  state  that  this  de- 
bate is  not  courted  by  Congress ;  it  is  from  im- 
perious necessity  that  any  are  compelled  to 
protest  against  the  adoption  of  the  resolution ; 
to  save  the  constitution  of  the  nation  inviolate, 
and  preserve  harmony  and  union. 

To  present  my  view  more  fully  on  this  sub- 
ject, it  may  be  useful  to  recur  to  the  objects  of 
the  confederation.  These  I  discover,  in  part, 
in  the  preamble  of  the  constitution : 

"  We,  the  people  of  the  United  States,  in  order  to 
form  a  more  perfect  union,  establish  justice,  insure 
domestic  tranquillity,  provide  for  the  common  defence, 
promote  the  general  welfare,  and  secure  the  blessings 
of  liberty  to  ourselves  and  our  posterity,  do  ordain 
and  establish  this  Constitution  for  the  United  States 
of  America." 

"  Union,  justice,  domestic  tranquillity,  com- 
mon defence,  general  welfare,  and  the  blessings 
of  liberty  secured  to  posterity,"  were  the  grand 
and  primary  objects  in  establishing  this  consti- 
tution, under  which,  and  for  these  purposes, 
the  Government  was  organized.  The  guardian- 
ship and  protection  of  this,  the  charter  of  our 
rights,  is  now  committed  to  the  people  and 
their  representatives  in  Congress.  It  is,  then, 
our  duty,  with  vigilance  and  a  watchful  eye, 
to  mark  the  progress  of  events,  and  arrest,  at 
the  threshold,  the  unhallowed  hand  which  may 
be  raised  to  pervert  its  meaning,  misuse  its 
provisions,  or  tarnish  its  glory.  After  reflect- 
ing upon  the  solemn  obligations  which  devolve 
upon  the  members  of  this  body,  to  examine 
with  solicitude  the  principles  and  provisions  of 
the  constitution,  and  faithfully  and  impartially 
apply  them  to  the  existing  circumstances  of  the 
country,  it  would  not  seem  strange  if  a  peculiar 
anxiety  were  manifest  on  their  application  to 
a  case  pregnant  with  doubts  and  fearful  ap- 
prehensions. 

Sir,  the  first  thing  when  I  entered  this  cham- 
ber, to  become  a  member  of  the  Senate,  was, 
;o  approach  your  chair,  and  take  a  solemn  oath 
to  support  the  constitution.  This  I  consider 
more  than  a  mere  formality — an  obligation  by 
which  I  am  bound,  in  my  own  conscience,  to 
;uard  with  vigilance  the  general  and  particular 
rights  guaranteed  by  that  instrument  to  this 
privileged  nation.  It  is  not  necessary  to  refer 
you  to  the  toils  and  privations  of  past  periods 
to  show  their  value.  A  moment's  reflection 
upon  the  time  that  Sir  Walter  Raleigh  visited 
the  banks  of  the  Koanoke ;  Captain  Smith  ex- 
plored the  Eastern  shore  from  Penobscot  to 


DEBATES  OF  CONGRESS. 


DECEMBER,  1820.]  Admission  of  Missouri— Citizenship  of  Free  Colored  Persons. 


[SEXATE. 


Cape  Cod,  or  our  ancesters  landed  upon  the 
rock  of  Plymouth,  with  some  of  the  succeeding 
events,  will  furnish  the  mind  with  evidence  of 
the  estimate  we  ought  to  put  upon  the  constitu- 
tion, and  the  blessings  it  secures  to  our  country. 
Forty  years  successful  experience  of  the  enjoy- 
ment of  equal  rights,  under  a  free  Government, 
demonstrate  the  advantages  of  republican  in- 
stitutions. But,  sir,  I  waive  all  other  consid- 
eration?, and  proceed  to  examine  one  point 
which  attracts  our  attention  and  merits  partic- 
ular notice. 

Is  there  any  paragraph  in  the  constitution  of 
Missouri  which  contravenes  any  provision  in  the 
Constitution  of  the  United  States  1  This  will 
be  a  subject  of  inquiry. 

"We  find  in  the  constitution  of  Missouri  that, 
"  it  shall  be  the  duty  of  the  General  Assembly, 
as  soon  as  may  be,  to  pass  such  laws  as  may  be 
necessary  to  prevent  negroes  and  mulattoes 
from  coming  to,  and  settling  in  this  State,  un- 
der any  pretext  whatsoever."  No  comment 
upon  this  can  be  necessary  to  render  its  mean- 
ing perfectly  intelligible. 

This  will  lead  ine  to  inquire  into  the  duty  and 
power  of  Congress,  and  then  recur  to  this  pro- 
vision again. 

"  The  United  States,  in  Congress  assembled, 
shall  guarantee  to  every  State  in  this  Union  a 
republican  form  of  government,  and  protect 
each  of  them  against  invasion."  This  is  ne- 
cessary, to  "  insure  domestic  tranquillity,  pro- 
mote the  general  welfare,  and  secure  the  bless- 
ings of  liberty  to  ourselves  and  our  posterity." 

It  is  the  duty  of  Congress  to  see  "that  full 
faith  and  credit  are  given  in  each  State  to  the 
public  acts,  records,  and  judicial  proceedings  of 
every  other  State."  This  is  essential  "  to  per- 
fect the  Union,  establish  justice,"  cement  the 
bonds  of  harmony,  and  secure  the  rights  and 
privileges  of  the  existing  States. 

By  this,  a  mutual  friendship  would  be  encour- 
aged, a  unity  of  sentiment  extended,  and  a  con- 
fidence in  the  whole  concentrated. 

Congress  have  power  to  receive  new  States 
into  the  Confederacy.  "  New  States  may  be 
admitted  by  the  Congress  into  this  Union."  In 
doing  this,  they  are  bound  to  see  that  the 
rights  and  privileges  of  the  individual  States 
are  not  infringed.  They  are  not  only  expected 
to  secure  inviolate  the  rights  of  States,  but  "the 
privileges  and  immunities "  of  their  citizens. 
Among  these  the  following  is  a  very  essential 
one.  "  The  citizens  of  each  State  shall  be  en- 
titled to  all  the  privileges  and  immunities  of 
citizens  in  the  several  States." 

Sir,  by  this  I  understand  that  a  citizen  in  any 
State  in  the  Union  may  pass  into  any  other 
State  in  the  Union,  and  there  enjoy  "  all  the 
privileges  and  immunities  of  citizens "  in  the 
State  to  which  he  removes. 

The  same  principle  I  find  engrafted  in  the 
Articles  of  Confederation ;  by  having  recourse 
to  that  I  find  my  exposition  confirmed,  and  the 
same  sentiment  more  fully  and  particularly  ex- 
pressed. 

VOL.  VI.— 44 


"  The  better  to  secure  and  perpetuate  mutual  friend- 
ship and  intercourse  among  the  people  of  the  differ- 
ent States  in  this  Union,  the  free  inhabitants  of  each 
of  these  States  shall  be  entitled  to  all  the  privileges 
and  immunities  of  free  citizens  in  the  several  States ; 
and  the  people  of  each  State  shall  have  free  ingress 
and  regress  to  and  from  any  other  State,  and  shall 
enjoy  therein  all  the  privileges  of  trade  and  com- 
merce, subject  to  the  same  duties,  impositions,  and 
restrictions,  as  the  inhabitants  thereof  respectively." 

The  express  language  of  this  section  so  per- 
fectly coincides  with  the  opinion  I  have  ven- 
tured to  advance,  that  a  comment  could  add 
nothing  to  its  perspicuity.  Could  the  term  cit- 
izen need  exposition,  I  would  offer  one,  which, 
however,  I  could  scarcely  have  imagined,  had 
it  not  been  for  the  novel  and  fallacious  remarks 
of  the  honorable  gentleman  from  Maine  (Mr. 
HOLMES).  In  the  foregoing  extract  we  find  the 
terms  "  inhabitants,  citizens,  and  people,"  used 
as  synonymous. 

These  are  perfectly  well  understood  in  our 
community,  and,  I  will  only  add,  take  from  the 
inhabitants  slaves  and  aliens,  and  the  remainder 
are  citizens. 

Color  does  not  come  into  the  consideration, 
and  it  has  no  share  in  characterizing  an  inhab- 
itant or  a  citizen.  On  this  exposition  I  shall 
rest  my  argument. 

I  will  now  pass  to  inquire  what  are  the  pro- 
visions of  the  Constitution  of  the  United  States 
respecting  the  powers  of  the  several  States. 
These  are  all  uniform  and  equal.  They  have 
certain  powers,  and  are  prohibited  certain  acts. 

"  The  times,  places,  and  manner  of  holding 
elections  for  Senators  and  Representative?,  shall 
be  prescribed  in  each  State  by  the  Legislature 
thereof;  "  and,  when  vacancies  occur,  the  State 
authority  may  fill  them.  But  "  no  State  shall 
enter  into  any  treaty,  alliance,  or  confederation ; 
coin  money,  or  make  any  thing  but  gold  and 
silver  coin  a  tender  in  payment  of  debts ;  or 
grant  any  title  of  nobility ;  or  keep  troops  or 
ships  of  war  in  time  of  peace." 

The  reason  is,  by  agreement,  it  is  prohibited 
in  the  constitution,  and  in  the  same  manner  by 
agreement,  it  is  provided,  that  "  the  citizens  of 
each  State  shall  be  entitled  to  all  the  privileges 
and  immunities  of  citizens  in  the  several  > 
and  they  "  shall  have  free  ingress  and  regress  to 
and  from  any  other  State,  and  shall  enjoy  therein 
all  the  privileges  of  the  inhabitants  thereof, 
subject  to  no  other  restriction  than  they  re- 
spectively "  endure. 

As  I  before  observed,  I  must  now,  for  the 
purpose  of  comparison,  recur  to  the  provision 
of  the  constitution  of  Missouri,  which  makes  it 
the  duty  of  "  the  General  Assembly  to  pass  laws 
to  prevent  free  negroes  and  mulattoes  from 
coming  to,  and  settling  in,  this  State,  under  any 
pretext  whatsoever." 

Believing  it  fully  demonstrated,  that  free 
persons  of- color  are' citizens,  and  conceiving  it 
equally  clear  that  some  States  in  the  Union 
have  citizens  of  this  description,  and  that  the 
Constitution  of  the  United  States  secures  to  all 


690 


ABRIDGMENT  OF  THE 


SENATE.  " 


Admission  of  Missouri — Citizenship  of  Free  Colored  Persons.  [DECEMBER,  1820. 


the  citizens  in  all  the  States  the  unmolested  lib- 
erty of  migrating  to  any  State  in  the  Union, 
and  there  to  enjoy  unrestrained,  the  "  privi- 
leges and  immunities"  of  the  citizens  of  that 
State,  I  ask,  is  this  restrictive  clause  in  the 
constitution  of  Missouri  compatible  with  the 
express  provisions  of  the  Constitution  of  the 
United  States? 

I  distinctly  answer  the  question.  Sir,  it  is 
not.  But,  say  gentlemen,  "  we  must  not  ex- 
amine this  subject ;  "  there  may  be  difficulties, 
and  there  may  not  be.  If  there  should  be  any, 
submit  them  to  the  Judiciary. 

Sir,  I  do  not  accede  to  this  doctrine.  Con- 
gress have  the  power  to  examine,  and  I  shall 
venture  to  exercise  it.  "New  States  maybe 
admitted  by  the  Congress  into  this  Union." 
How  ?  By  guess,  or  by  lot,  without  knowledge 
or  reflection;  or  by  examination  and  legisla- 
tion ?  "  The  United  States  shall  guarantee  to 
every  State  in  this  Union  a  republican  form  of 
government?"  How  are  the  republican  fea- 
tures of  the  constitution  to  be  ascertained  but 
by  examination  ?  It  can  be  done  neither  by 
weight  nor  by  measure. 

I  would  seriously  ask,  for  what  purpose  was 
the  constitution  of  Missouri  presented  to  Con- 
gress ?  We  are  led  to  presume,  for  examina- 
tion and  approbation,  as  this  has  been  the  gen- 
eral practice  from  the  organization  of  the  Gov- 
ernment to  the  present  time. 

If  this  were  not  the  case,  why  did  not  the 
(convention  of  Missouri  inform  Congress  by  let- 
vter,  or  its  delegate,  they  had  made  a  constitu- 
tion, and  must  now  be  admitted  into  the  Union? 
:Surely  this  would  have  been  a  very  summary 
,and  novel  course,  but  no  more  exceptionable 
than  to  offer  a  constitution  without  admitting 
the  liberty  of  examining  it. 

The  condition  of  Vermont  was  materially 
different  from  that  of  any  other  State.  In  con- 
sequence of  difficulties  subsisting  between  her 
and  New  York,  respecting  territorial  limits,  her 
constitution  was  formed,  and  her  government 
organized,  some  years  previous  to  her  admission 
into  the  Union,  But  on  her  application  by 
commissioners,  she  was  admitted  by  an  act  of 
Congress,  approved  February  18,  1791.  "The 
State  of  Vermont  having  petitioned  the  Con- 
gress to  be  admitted  a  member  of  the  United 
States,  Be  it  enacted,  &c.,  That,  on  the  4th  day 
of  March,  1791,  the  said  State,  by  the  name 
and  style  of  '  the  State  of  Vermont,'  shall  be 
received  and  admitted  into  this  Union,  as  a  new 
and  entire  member  of  the  United  States  of 
America." 

The  district  of  Kentucky,  being  originally  a 
part  of  Virginia,  applied  to  that  Commonwealth 
for  permission  to  form  herself  into  a  new  State, 
and  petitioned  Congress  for  admission  into  the 
Union  ;  whereupon  an  act  passed  for  that  pur- 
pose. "  Whereas  the  Legislature  of  the  Com- 
monwealth of  Virginia,  by  an  act  entitled,  &c., 
have  consented  that  the  district  of  Kentucky, 
&c.,  should  be  formed  into  a  new  State ;  and 
whereas  a  convention  of  delegates,  &c.,  have 


petitioned  Congress  to  consent,  &c.,  that  the 
said  district  should  be  formed  into  a  new  State, 
and  be  received  into  the  Union,  by  the  name 
of  '  the  State  of  Kentucky ' — Be  it  enacted, 
&c.,  That  the  Congress  doth  consent  that  the 
said  district  of  Kentucky,  &c.,  shall,  upon  the 
first  day  of  June,  1792,  be  formed  into  a  new 
State  ;  and,  upon  the  aforesaid  first  day  of  June, 
1792,  the  said  new  State,  by  the  name  and  style 
of  the  State  of  Kentucky,  shall  be  received 
and  admitted  into  this  Union,  as  a  new  and 
entire  member  of  the  United  States  of  Amer- 
ica." 

Thus  we  see  the  formality  which  has  been 
observed  in  admitting  new  States  into  the 
Union.  In  no  instance  has  this  diminished,  but 
in  all  instances  it  has  increased.  We  will  pass 
the  admission  of  all  intermediate  States,  and 
come  to  that  of  Louisiana,  which  is  directly  in 
point.  The  Territory  of  Orleans  applied  for 
admission  into  the  Union,  and  Congress  passed 
an  act  authorizing  them  to  call  a  convention 
and  form  a  constitution,  enumerating  certain 
conditions  upon  which  she  should  be  received  ; 
among  which  were  the  following:  "That  in 
case  the  convention  shall  declare  its  assent,  in 
behalf  of  the  people  of  the  said  territory,  to  the 
adoption  of  the  Constitution  of  the  United 
States,  and  shall  form  a  constitution  and  State 
government  for  the  people  of  the  said  territory, 
the  said  convention  is  hereby  required  to  cause 
to  be  transmitted  to  Congress  the  instrument 
by  which  its  assent  to  the  Constitution  of  the 
United  States  is  thus  given  and  declared  ;  and 
also  a  true  and  attested  copy  of  such  constitu- 
tion as  shall  be  formed  by  said  convention; 
and,  if  the  same  shall  not  be  disapproved  by 
Congress  at  their  next  session,  the  said  State 
shall  be  admitted  into  the  Union  upon  the  same 
footing  with  the  original  States." 

Here  we  distinctly  see  that  Congress  required, 
previous  to  her  admission,  and  as  pre-requi- 
sites,  that  the  convention  should  declare  its  as- 
sent to  the  adoption  of  the  Constitution  of  the 
United  States,  and  transmit  the  instrument  of 
their  assent  to  them ;  and,  also,  an  attested  copy 
of  their  constitution,  "  and,  if  the  same  should 
not  be  disapproved  by  Congress,"  they  should 
be  admitted. 

With  respect  to  Missouri  the  law  says,  Sec- 
tion 7 :  "  And  be  it  further  enacted,  That,  in 
case  a  constitution  and  State  government  shall 
be  formed  for  the  people  of  the  said  Territory 
of  Missouri,  the  said  convention,  or  representa- 
tives, as  soon  as  may  be,  shall  cause  a  true  and 
attested  copy  of  such  constitution  or  frame  of 
State  government,  as  shall  be  formed  or  pro- 
vided, to  be  transmitted  to  Congress." 

Here,  then,  we  learn  Congress  prescribed 
conditions ;  required  the  constitution  to  be  pre- 
sented ;  reserved  the  privilege  of  examination, 
and  the  power  of  approving  or  disapproving. 
For  this  I  contend;  and  these  remarks  are 
made  to  show  the  propriety  and  reasonableness 
of  my  claim.  This  privilege  has  been  claimed, 
aud  this  power  has  been  exercised  by  an  au- 


DEBATES  OF  CONGRESS. 


DECEMBER,  1820.]  Admission  of  Missouri— Citizenship  of  Free  Colored  Persons. 


[SENATE, 


thority  no  more  competent  than  that  of  the 
present  Congress. 

But,  say  gentlemen,  you  must  not  examine 
into  this  subject,  but  turn  it  over  to  the  judi- 
ciary. 

Sir,  I  choose  to  examine  for  myself.  This 
being  my  right,  I  conceive  a  different  course 
needless  and  improper.  Needless,  because  Con- 
gress have  the  power  and  ability.  This  is  dele- 
gated to  this  department  of  the  Government ; 
in  the  first  instance,  by  the  constitution ;  and 
Congress  have  no  right  to  surrender  it.  "New 
States  may  be  admitted  by  the  Congress,"  and 
no  other  body. 

It  is  improper,  because  it  would  perplex  a 
certain  class  of  proprietors.  Apply  this  to  the 
poor  yellow  man  who  owns  land  in  Missouri. 
They  pass  a  law  prohibiting  free  negroes  and 
mulattoes  from  settling  "in  the  State,  under 
any  pretext  whatsoever."  This  is  in  force  till 
nullified  by  the  judiciary,  which  cannot  be  ef- 
fected without  an  action  at  law.  Is  he  able  to 
endure  this  excessive  burden?  "Who  would 
undertake  it  to  get  into  Missouri?  The  barrier 
is  equal  to  an  armed  force,  extending  around 
the  whole  territory  of  the  State.  It  would 
keep  any  citizen  in  the  Union  out,  and  this  was 
the  design  of  it.  Surely,  if  they  were  to  say, 
(which  they  could  with  equal  propriety,)  that 
no  citizen  with  a  gray  head  should  settle  in 
Missouri,  I  would  never  make  the  attempt. 
Hence,  then,  this  provision  in  the  constitution 
of  Missouri  is  in  direct  hostility  to  the  Consti- 
tution of  the  United  States. 

This,  sir,  is  distinctly  admitted  hi  the  report 
of  the  committee  of  the  House,  to  whom  the 
constitution  was  referred.  They  say,  "the 
committee  are  not  unaware  that  a  part  of  the 
26th  section  of  the  3d  article  of  the  constitu- 
tion of  Missouri,  by  which  the  legislature  of 
that  State  has  been  directed  to  pass  laws  '  to 
prevent  free  negroes  and  mulattoes  from  com- 
ing to,  and  settling  in,  the  State,'  has  been  con- 
strued to  apply  to  such  of  that  class  as  are  citi- 
zens of  the  United  States ;  and  that  their  ex- 
clusion has  been  deemed  repugnant  to  the  Fed- 
eral Constitution."  Here  the  fact  for  which  we 
contend  is  conceded ;  and,  also,  that  there  are 
some  "  of  that  class  who  are  citizens  of  the 
United  States."  If  this  is  not  the  case,  why 
your  provisos  ?  Why  submit  nothing  to  the  ju- 
diciary ?  Why  must  there  be  a  protestando  in- 
troduced ? 

Mr.  President,  I  proceed  to  show  the  conse- 
quences of  this  provision. 

Some  States  have  free  citizens  of  color.  This 
is  the  case  in  Vermont,  New  Hampshire,  and 
Massachusetts.  In  Vermont,  there  is  a  mulatto 
man  by  the  name  of  Haines,  who  is  a  regular 
ordained  minister  in  Rutland.  He  is  pastor  of 
a  church  and  society  of  white  people;  has  fre- 
quently been  moderator  of  the  Theological  As- 
sociation to  which  he  belongs,  and  also  of  ec- 
clesiastical councils  convened  for  the  ordination 
of  ministers.  In  fact,  his  abilities,  education, 
moral  character,  and  standing  in  society,  are 


such  that  he  has  received  an  honorary  degree 
of  Master  of  Arts  from  the  University.  But 
this  man  and  his  family,  although  of  high  stand- 
ing in  community,  and  possessing  all  the  facul- 
ties of  citizens,  are  proscribed,  and,  by  the  con- 
stitution of  Missouri,  are  prohibited  settling  in 
the  State. 

In  New  Hampshire,  there  was  a  yellow  man 
by  the  name  of  Cheswell,  who,  with  his  fami- 
ly, were  respectable  in  point  of  abilities,  prop- 
erty, and  character.  He  held  some  of  the  first 
offices  in  the  town  in  which  he  resided,  was 
appointed  justice  of  the  peace  for  that  county, 
and  was  perfectly  competent  to  perform  with 
ability  all  the  duties  of  his  various  offices  in  the 
most  prompt,  accurate,  and  acceptable  manner. 
But,  this  family  are  forbidden  to  enter  and  live 
in  Missouri. 

In  Boston,  is  a  mulatto  man  by  the  name  of 
Thomas  Paul,  a  regularly  ordained  Baptist  min- 
ister, pastor  of  a  church  of  people  of  color,  at 
whose  meeting  many  white  people  attend,  and 
who  preaches  by  exchange  or  otherwise  with 
all  the  neighboring  ministers  of  his  denomina- 
tion. 

Sir,  you  not  only  exclude  these  citizens  from 
their  constitutional  "privileges  and  immuni- 
ties," but  also  your  soldiers  of  color,  to  whom 
you  have  given  patents  for  land.  You  had  a 
company  of  this  description.  They  have  fought 
your  battles ;  they  have  defended  your  coun- 
try ;  they  have  preserved  your  privileges,  but 
have  lost  their  own.  What  did  you  say  to 
them  on  their  enlistment  ?  We  will  give  you 
a  monthly  compensation,  and  at  the  close  of 
the  war,  160  acres  of  good  land,  on  which  you 
may  settle,  and,  by  cultivating  the  soil,  spend 
your  declining  years  in  peace,  and  in  the  enjoy- 
ment of  those  immunities  for  which  you  have 
fought  and  bled.  Now,  sir,  you  restrict  them, 
and  will  not  suffer  them  to  enjoy  the  fruit  of 
their  labor.  Where  is  the  public  faith  in  this 
case  ?  Did  they  suppose,  with  a  patent  in  their 
hand,  declaring  their  title  to  land  in  Missouri, 
with  the  seal  of  the  nation  and  the  President's 
signature  affixed  thereto,  it  would  be  said  to 
them,  by  any  authority,  you  shall  not  possess 
the  premises?  This  could  never  have  been 
anticipated. 

But,  says  the  honorable  gentleman  from 
Maine,  (Mr.  HOLMES,)  "  they  are  perfectly  se- 
cured by  a  saving  clause  in  the  constitution  of 
Missouri,"  which  must  be  taken  in  connection 
with  that  part  which  prohibits  their  settling 
in  the  State.  It  must,  therefore,  be  read  :  "  it 
shall  be  the  duty  of  the  General  Assembly  to 
pass  laws,  to  prevent  free  negroes  and  mulat- 
toes from  coming  to  and  settling  in  this  State, 
under  any  pretext  whatsoever :  Protided,  how- 
ever, The  General  Assembly  shall  never  inter- 
fere with  the  primary  disposal  of  the  soil  by  the 
United  States,  nor  with  any  regulation  Con- 
gress may  find  necessary  for  securing  the  title 
in  such  soil  to  the  bona  fide  purchasers."  My 
humble  opinion  is,  this  does  not  reach  the  case. 
Were  it  to  protect  patentees  of  the  Govern- 


692 


ABRIDGMENT  OF  THE 


SENATE.] 


Admission  of  Missouri — Citizenship  of  Free  Colored  Persons. 


[DECEMBER,  1820. 


merit,  this  would  be  only  a  part  of  that  class  of 
citizens  who  are  liable  to  suffer.  But  the  fact 
is,  it  will  not  do  that.  The  law  says,  a  mulatto 
man  shall  not  settle  in  Missouri  "  under  any 
pretext  whatsoever."  This  provision  says,  "  the 
Assembly  shall  never  interfere  with  the  primary 
disposal  of  the  soil."  What  has  this  to  do 
with  his  settling  in  that  State  ?  It  will  afford 
him  no  relief.  But  "  the  Assembly  shall  not 
interfere  with  any  regulation  Congress  may 
find  it  necessary  for  securing  the  title  in  such 
soil  to  the  bona  fide  purchasers."  What  secu- 
rity will  this  afford  to  the  yellow  man  desirous 
of  settling  in  Missouri  ?  They  will  not  de- 
stroy his  title,  but  they  will  not  permit  him  to 
come  into  the  State.  The  gentleman's  argu- 
ment goes  upon  the  ground,  that  a  title  and 
possession  are  the  same.  This  I  do  not  admit. 
It  is  a  principle  laid  down  in  the  books,  that 
one  person  may  hold  the  title  and  another  the 
possession ;  and  this  is  proved  from  daily  expe- 
rience. If  this  were  not  the  case,  what  gives 
origin  to  a  writ  of  ejectment  ?  It  grows  out  of 
the  very  circumstance  that  one  person  may 
hold  the  title  and  another  the  possession  ;  and 
the  title  may  be  good,  but  possession  cannot  be 
obtained  without  an  action  at  law.  The  quali- 
ty of  the  title  in  this  case  may  be  inferred  from 
the  fact,  that,  although  the  yellow  man  may 
not  enter  and  possess  the  premises,  he  can 
transfer  his  title  to  a  white  citizen,  who  may, 
without  molestation,  enter  and  enjoy  the  prem- 
ises. 

Then,  on  a  critical  examination  of  the  con- 
stitution, we  find  no  relief,  but  are  compelled 
to  yield  to  the  fact,  that  free  citizens  of  some 
States  are  precluded  the  privilege  of  settling  in 
Missouri ;  by  which  their  rights  are  abridged, 
contrary  to  the  provisions  of  the  Constitution 
of  the  United  States. 

Mr.  President,  can  we  suffer  one,  even  the 
meanest  of  our  citizens,  to  be  unconstitutionally 
deprived  of  his  privileges  ?  No.  We  are  the 
guardians  of  his  rights,  and,  in  the  performance 
of  our  duty,  we  cannot  permit  them  to  be  in- 
fringed. 

How  was  it  with  Mr.  Meade,  who  was  un- 
justly retained  in  prison  in  Spain  ?  He  was 
deprived  of  his  liberties  and  immunities.  Con- 
gress took  notice  of  the  circumstance,  and  that 
very  justly.  Executive  interference  was  exer- 
cised, and  his  liberty  was  regained.  This  mani- 
fested a  suitable  regard  to  the  rights  of  our  cit- 
izens. When  our  citizens  are  taken  and  re- 
tained by  the  Algerines,  you  retake  or  nego- 
tiate and  redeem  them.  In  this  case  you  make 
no  distinction  between  the  white  man  and  ne- 
gro— they  are  both  redeemed  with  your  money. 
When  Commodore  O'Brien  was  consul  at  Al- 
giers, there  were  six  negroes  redeemed  at  the 
same  price  as  white  men  ;  and  one  slave,  who 
was  restored  to  his  owner,  but  not  made  free. 
When  your  soldiers  are  captured,  black  or 
white,  you  redeem  them.  It  is  proper  that  you 
should.  These  are  only  the  infringement  of 
other  rights,  than  those  abridged  by  the  consti- 


tution of  Missouri.  The  question  is  not  what 
privileges  may  be  violated,  nor  how  many,  nor 
to  what  degree,  nor  whether  the  citizen  be 
black  or  white  ;  but  can  we  tamely  suffer  one 
State  to  deprive  any  citizen  of  any  of  his  con- 
stitutional rights  and  privileges  ? 

If  Missouri  can  do  this,  why  not  keep  a 
standing  army,  enter  into  a  treaty,  coin  money, 
and  grant  titles  of  nobility  ?  She  is  a  frontier 
State  —  the  Indians  are  near  ;  it  may  be  very 
convenient  to  keep  an  army  or  make  a  treaty. 
The  reason  is,  the  Constitution  of  the  United 
States  distinctly  says  she  shall  not.  And  in  the 
other  case  it  expressly  declares,  "  the  citizens 
of  each  State  shall  be  entitled  to  all  the  privi- 
leges and  immunities  of  the  citizens  of  Missou- 
ri ;  and  they  shall  have  as  free  ingress  and  re- 
gress as  her  own  citizens  now  have."  This  is 
the  only  consistent  construction  that  can  be 
given  to  the  Constitution  of  the  United  States, 
and  the  only  safe  principle  which  can  be  adopt- 
ed to  secure  the  provisions  of  the  constitution 
from  infraction,  and  the  rights  and  privileges 
of  the  citizens  of  the  several  States  from  the 
most  destructive  violation.  Admit  the  con- 
trary principle,  and  each  State  becomes  a  mon- 
archy, or  is  transformed  to  despotism.  Our 
dearest  privileges  are  wrested  from  our  hands  ; 
and  those  very  rights  by  which  our  national 
union,  domestic  tranquillity,  and  general  wel- 
fare are  secured,  are  forever  annihilated.  If 
you  can  proscribe  one  class  of  citizens,  you 
may  another.  Color  no  more  comes  into  con- 
sideration to  decide  who  is  a  citizen  than  size 
or  profession.  You  may  as  well  say  a  tall  citi- 
zen shall  not  settle  in  Missouri,  as  a  yellow  citi- 
zen shall  not.  If  one  State  can  dp  this,  all  may. 
The  consequence  will  be,  that  size,  profession, 
age,  shape,  color,  or  any  disgusting  quality  in  a 
eason  why  he 


citizen,  would  be  a  sufficient  reas 

should  be    precluded    settling  in    any  State, 


which,  from  its  pride,  caprice,  or  vanity,  are 
disposed  to  keep  him  out.  Sir,  under  such  a 
state  of  things,  where  are  our  liberties  and 
privileges  ?  They  are  fled.  They  are  absorbed 
in  the  caprice  of  a  State.  Where  is  your  free 
ingress  and  regress  from  State  to  State  ?  Your 
national  existence  is  lost;  the  Union  is  de- 
stroyed ;  the  objects  of  confederation  annihi- 
lated, and  your  political  fabric  demolished. 

Sir,  I  have  endeavored  to  point  out  the  ob- 
jects of  the  American  confederacy  ;  the  duty 
and  power  of  Congress  ;  the  duty,  power,  and 
privileges  of  States  ;  who  are  citizens  of  some 
States,  and  the  rights  of  our  citizens,  and  the 
provisions  of  the  Constitution  of  the  United 
States,  by  which  those  rights  arc  secured,  and 
the  provisions  of  the  constitution  of  Missouri  ; 
and  have  come  to  this  irresistible  conclusion, 
that  the  Constitution  of  the  United  States  se- 
cures to  the  citizens  of  all  the  States  in  the 
Union,  "  the  privileges  and  immunities  of  the 
citizens  "  of  each  State  in  the  Union  ;  but  Mis- 
souri, in  her  constitution,  precludes  certain  citi- 
zens, in  certain  States,  the  "  privileges  and  im- 
munities "  of  her  own  citizens  ;  therefore,  the 


DEBATES  OF  CONGRESS. 


693 


DECEMBER,  1820.]  Admission  of  Missouri — Citizenship  of  Free  Colored  Persons. 


[SENATE. 


constitution  of  Missouri  contravenes  the  express 
provisions  of  the  Constitution  of  the  United 
States.  For  these  reasons  I  vote  against  the 
resolution. 

Sir,  a  few  more  words,  and  I  close  my  argu- 
ment. I  regret  that  I  feel  compelled  to  offer 
an  opinion  of  the  complexion  of  this  business. 
I  lament  that  it  has  the  appearance  of  defiance. 
I  have  endeavored  to  put  the  most  favorable 
construction  possible  upon  it,  and  it  amounts  to 
a  challenge.  Oppose  us  if  you  dare!  I  am 
driven  to  this  result  from  knowledge  and  re- 
flection. On  examining  this  constitution,  I  am 
sure  it  was  not  penned  by  uninformed  men. 
Aside  from  a  few  exceptionable  parts,  it  is  one 
of  the  best  constitutions  I  have  ever  seen.  The 
Convention  were  not  unapprised  of  the  feel- 
ings excited  last  session.  The  particular  excep- 
tionable clause  was  not  in  the  original  draught. 
They  were  informed  by  their  honorable  Dele- 
gate, and  one  of  the  gentlemen  who  appears 
here  as  a  Senator,  that  this  paragraph  would 
be  objectionable.  But  it  is  here,  not  inadver- 
tently nor  from  necessity.  If  they  had  in- 
tended to  pass  a  law  similar  to  that  directed  by 
this  paragraph  in  the  constitution,  they  could 
have  done  it  without  this  provision. 

Mr.  President  :  Before  I  take  my  seat,  I 
must  be  permitted  to  make  a  few  strictures 
upon  some  remarks  which  fell  from  the  hon- 
orable gentleman  from  South  Carolina,  (Mr. 
SMITH.)  He  observed  that  "  negroes  and  mu- 
lattoes  are  not  citizens  of  the  United  States." 
It  is  not  my  intention  to  consume  your  time  to 
demonstrate  the  contrary  of  this;  because  it 
would  not,  in  the  least  degree,  vary  the  subject. 
Our  inquiry  is,  and  it  is  the  point  which  settles 
the  question,  are  they  citizens  of  any  particu- 
lar State?  This  point  I  have  proved,  and  on 
the  other  hand  it  is  admitted  ;  and  if  they  are 
citizens  of  any  one  State  in  the  Union,  this  is 
enough  for  our  purpose.  I  would  ask  my  friend, 
what  is  the  man  in  his  country  who  is  neither 
a  slave  nor  an  alien  f  In  mine  he  is  a  citizen. 
The  gentleman  argued  largely  to  show  "  that 
slavery  was  tolerated  in  Republics."  He  need 
not  have  gone  to  Rome,  Greece,  nor  Sparta,  to 
have  proved  this ;  it  is  evident  from  our  daily 
observation,  and,  of  course,  admitted.  But 
what  is  this  to  the  point  in  debate  ?  What  has 
this  to  do  with  the  question  whether  Missouri 
has  a  constitutional  right  to  prohibit  free  citi- 
zens from  settling  in  her  territory?  Does  it 
follow,  because  slavery  is  tolerated  in  Repub- 
lics, therefore  Missouri  may  proscribe  free  citi- 
zens ?  This  reasoning  is  neither  conclusive  nor 
convincing. 

The  gentleman  says:  "Missouri  is  now  a 
State  to  all  intents  and  purposes."  This  is  not 
admitted.  What  has  made  her  a  State  ?  What 
is  the  language  of  your  resolution  ?  Not  that 
she  now  is,  but  that  she  shall  ft«,  a  State,  when 
this  resolution  is  passed  by  both  Houses,  and 
approved  by  the  President. 

"  Be  it  resolved,  &c.,  that  the  State  of  Mis- 
souri shall  5e,  and  is  hereby  declared  to  be,  one 


of  the  United  States  of  America."  But,  were 
it  true  that  she  is  a  State,  there  is  nothing 
gained  by  it.  Vermont  was  a  State  a  long 
time  before  she  was  received  into  the  Union. 
The  question  is.  shall  Missouri  be  admitted  with 
a  constitution  which  conflicts  with  the  Consti- 
tution of  the  United  States? 

My  friend  argues,  "  we  are  bound  by  the 
Treaty  of  Cession  to  receive  her."  Admit  this. 
But  in  that  treaty  there  are  terms  and  condi- 
tions. "  The  inhabitants  of  the  ceded  territory 
shall  be  incorporated  in  the  Union  of  the  Unit- 
ed States,  and  admitted  as  soon  as  possible,  ac- 
cording to  the  principles  of  the  Federal  Con- 
stitution." Hence,  in  her  admission,  the  prin- 
ciples of  the  Federal  Constitution  must  be  ob- 
served and  maintained  inviolate.  This  was 
the  ground  on  which  Louisiana  was  received, 
and  Missouri  being  a  part  of  the  same  purchase, 
she  must  be  admitted  on  the  same  principles, 
and  in  the  same  way,  and  no  other. 

But  the  gentleman  says,  "  States  were  admit- 
ted without  presenting  their  constitution."  This 
may  have  been  the  case.  Circumstances  have 
been  different,  especially  with  Vermont ;  and  the 
manner  of  this  transaction  less  formal  and  cor- 
rect than  at  the  present  time.  Because  another 
State  has  been  received,  which  did  not  present 
her  constitution,  does  it  follow  that  Congress 
must  not  examine  the  constitution  of  Missouri  ? 
It  matters  not  in  this  case  what  has  been  done ; 
the  constitution  is  here  presented  to  Congress. 
"  But  you  have  no  power  to  control  a  constitu- 
tion." For  what  purpose,  then,  is  it  sent  here  ? 
To  lie  on  our  table  ?  Congress  had  power  to 
control  the  constitution  of  Louisiana.  Have 
they  less  power  than  they  then  had  ?  In  this 
case  they  said  to  the  Convention,  send  a  true 
and  attested  copy  of  your  constitution  here, 
and  if  the  same  shall  not  be  disapproved  by 
Congress  at  their  next  session,  the  said  State 
shall  be  admitted  into  the  Union.  This  is  all 
the  power  for  which  we  contend ;  and  this  is  a 
privilege  which  Congress  has  had,  and  still  has, 
a  right  to  exercise. 

"Louisiana,  Ohio,  and  other  States,  declare 
how  persons  coming  into  them  shall  obtain  a 
residence."  This  we  readily  admit ;  and  against 
such  regulation  have  no  objection.  But  does 
it  follow,  because  certain  States  prescribe  con- 
ditions on  which  emigrants  shall  gain  a  resi- 
dence, therefore  Missouri  has  a  constitutional 
right  to  prohibit  the  citizens  of  other  States 
from  settling  in  her  territory  ?  Really  I  do  not 
see  the  force  of  the  argument. 

"States  have  made  a  distinction  between 
white  people  and  blacks."  This  is  very  true ; 
so  they  have  between  white  people.  South 
Carolina  has  distinguished  that  gentleman  in 
giving  him  a  seat  here,  and  that  very  j  ustly ; 
and  he  has  nobly  distinguished  himself.  And 
what  is  this  to  the  point  ?  "  But  in  the  Eastern 
States,  they  whip  black  people — not  only  once 
and  twice,  but  ten  times,  and  every  ten  days." 
This  may  be  true ;  and  equally  true,  that  they 
whip  white  people  when  they  violate  their 


694 


ABRIDGMENT  OF  THE 


SENATE.] 


Admission  of  Missouri — Citizenship  of  Free  Colored  Persons. 


[DECEMBER,  1820. 


laws  j  and  continue  to  whip,  black  or  white,  as 
long  as  they  continue  to  violate  wholesome 
laws ;  and  I  suspect  will  persevere  in  the  prac- 
tice until  they  reform  or  emigrate  to  South 
Carolina,  where  they  may  receive  better  treat- 
ment. Does  this  prove  any  thing  with  respect 
to  the  constitutional  power  of  Missouri  ? 

But,  says  the  gentleman,  "  New  Hampshire 
excludes  negroes  from  training."  This  is  very 
true ;  and  so  they  excuse  many  white  people. 
This  only  places  them  among  the  exempts ; 
generally,  the  first  class  in  society.  And  from 
this  very  circumstance,  they  have  the  privilege 
of  walking  about  with  the  other  gentlemen  and 
seeing  the  soldiers  train.  It  neither  deprives 
them  or  any  other  person  of  citizenship  or  any 
other  privilege. 

Blacks,  then,  are  not  degraded  in  New  Hamp- 
shire. Custom  has  made  a  distinction  between 
them  and  other  men ;  but  the  constitution  and 
laws  make  none. 

Mr.  President,  a  few  words  in  reply  to  what 
has  fallen  from  the  gentleman  from  Maine,  (Mr. 
HOLMES,)  and  I  shall  have  done.  He  observed, 
purchasers  under  the  United  States  are  not  re- 
stricted. To  maintain  this  position,  he  took 
occasion  to  explain  the  Constitution  of  the 
United  States,  and  that  of  Missouri,  the  incor- 
rectness of  which  will  more  fully  appear  in  his 
after  remarks,  in  the  application  of  the  princi- 
ple. As  my  former  argument  had  a  particular 
allusion  to  these  opinions,  any  further  refuta- 
tion is  unnecessary. 

This  gentleman  says,  "  the  doctrine  that  free 
blacks  have  a  right  to  enter  free  States,  is  dan- 
gerous." I  am  a  little  surprised  to  hear  a  gen- 
tleman of  so  much  aouteness  in  disquisition  upon 
constitutional  law,  calculating  upon  conse- 
quences which  have  no  immediate  connection 
with  the  subject.  He  might  as  well  argue,  that 
a  commercial  enterprise  to  the  Euxine  sea, 
would  be  detrimental  to  Massachusetts,  and 
therefore  Missouri  must  keep  all  free  citizens  of 
color  out  of  her  territory,  as  to  argue  that  if 
free  blacks  may  enter  any  free  State,  Maine 
will  be  infested  with  them;  and  therefore, 
Missouri  must  prohibit  their  settling  in  that 
State. 

"  A  State  may  exclude  any  person."  Here 
we  are  at  issue.  I  by  no  means  admit  the  doc- 
trine. Any  State  may  regulate  the  terms  upon 
which  emigrants  shall  become  residents;  but 
no  State  has  any  right  to  exclude  them.  To 
utterly  prohibit,  and  regulate  by  law  the  terms 
of  inhabitancy,  are  materially  and  essentially 
different ;  and  one  within  the  municipal  power 
of  every  State,  the  other  expressly  prohibited 
by  the  Constitution  of  the  United  States. 

But,  says  the  gentleman,  "  the  Constitution 
means,  when  they  get  in,  they  shall  have  privi- 
leges, but  they  u.ay  be  kept  out.'1'1  This  is  a  lit- 
tle curious,  for  a  gentleman  learned  in  the  law. 
Then,  if  a  person  were  to  ascend  in  an  air  bal- 
loon, at  a  small  distance  from  the  line  of  Mis- 
souri, and  safely  land  within  her  territory,  the 
constitution  secures  to  him  "  privileges  and 


immunities ;  "  but  it  makes  no  provision  for  his 
crossing  the  line  by  land.  Under  this  exposi- 
tion, where  is  the  "free  ingress  and  regress" 
of  the  citizens  of  each  State  guaranteed  by  the 
constitution  ?  Sir,  your  constitution  is  like  a 
nose  of  wax.  Your  liberties  and  privileges  are 
a  bubble.  Your  union,  domestic  tranquillity, 
and  prospect  of  common  defence,  are  prostrated 
to  the  ground.  But,  says  the  gentleman,  this 
doctrine  is  certainly  correct,  and  to  test  his 
principle,  he  adds,  "  send  a  mulatto  man  here, 
should  we  not  feel  our  rights  invaded  ? "  This 
has  no  connection  with  the  question.  It  is 
possible  some  gentleman  might  feel  his  rights 
invaded.  But  I  would  inquire,  in  my  turn, 
w?tat  rights  are  invaded?  And  I  would  se- 
riously ask  the  Senate,  if  any  State  in  the 
Union  were  duly  to  elect  a  yellow  man  consti- 
tutionally qualified,  commission  and  send  him 
here  with  his  credentials,  you  can  exclude  him 
a  seat?  You  have  a  right  to  decide  on  the 
qualifications  of  your  members ;  but  color  is 
no  more  a  qualification  than  height,  profession, 
or  nation.  The  gentleman  observes,  "  a  mulat- 
to, though  a  citizen  in  one  State,  going  into 
Missouri,  has  no  other  rights  than  a  mulatto 
has  in  Missouri."  Here  we  are  at  issue  again. 
This  doctrine  I  flatly  deny.  The  salubrious  air 
and  fertile  soil  of  Missouri  can  never  metamor- 
phose a  free  citizen  into  a  slave ;  neither  can 
the  constitution  and  law  of  Missouri  do  it. 
Were  the  proposition  true,  then  a  black  or  yel- 
low free  citizen  of  Maine,  going  into  Virginia, 
would  be  a  slave.  As  I  before  intimated,  it  is 
citizen  only,  and  not  color,  that  comes  into  con- 
sideration, in  deciding  this  question. 

But  the  gentleman,  in  a  very  affecting  tone, 
enlists  all  our  sympathies,  in  view  of  the  con- 
sequences of  rejecting  this  unconstitutional  in- 
strument from  Missouri.  For  these,  sir,  I  con- 
ceive Congress  is  not  accountable  ;  and,  there- 
fore, such  imaginary  phantoms  are  not  proper 
subjects  of  discussion,  nor  suitable  beacons  to 
direct  our  course.  Missouri  was  permitted, 
under  a  law  of  Congress,  to  form  a  constitu- 
tion, "  republican,  and  not  repugnant  to  the 
Constitution  of  the  United  States,"  and  "trans- 
mit an  attested  copy  of  such  constitution  to 
Congress."  It  was  expected  she  would  per- 
form this  in  good  faith.  If  she  has  utterly 
failed — formed  and  presented  a  constitution  re- 
pugnant to  the  Constitution  of  the  United 
States,  and  unpleasant  consequences  result,  the 
fault  is  her  own.  There  can  be  no  provision  in 
the  constitution  of  Missouri  inadvertently  in- 
troduced ;  of  course,  all  the  consequences  rest 
upon  Missouri.  These,  however,  are  not  to 
come  into  our  consideration  ;  the  Constitution 
of  the  United  States  alone  is  to  direct  our 
course. 

But  the  gentleman  discovers  another  diffi- 
culty, in  case  this  constitution  is  rejected :  he 
is  unable  to  determine  in  what  condition  Mis- 
souri wiU  be,  whether  Territory,  or  State,  or 
neither.  With  respect  to  this,  sir,  I  have  only 
to  observe,  if  that  gentleman  cannot  divine,  I 


DEBATES  OF  CONGRESS. 


DECEMBER,  1820.] 


Electoral  Votes. 


[SENATE. 


presume  it  is  within  the  scope  of  Congress,  and 
merely  that  circumstance  would  not  convince 
me  the  object  is  unattainable. 

I  would  also  add,  that  every  difficulty  of  this 
kind  which  could  possibly  have  arisen  might 
have  been  avoided  by  precautions  similar  to 
those  observed  by  Maine.  She,  in  the  first 
place,  petitioned  the  Legislature  of  Massachu- 
setts for  leave  to  form  a  constitution  and  inde- 
pendent State.  This  was  granted.  She  then 
formed  her  constitution,  and  fixed  her  election 
for  State  officers  after  the  probable  time  of  the 
adjournment  of  the  then  next  session  of  Con- 
gress. She  presented  her  constitution  for  the 
approbation  of  Congress  and  admission  into  the 
Union.  This  was  done.  After  she  became,  by 
an  act  of  Congress,  a  State  in  the  Union,  she 
elected  her  officers,  and  organized  her  govern- 
ment. If  Missouri  had  pursued  the  same  mod- 
erate and  consistent  course,  there  could  have 
been  no  possible  difficulty  with  respect  to  her 
character  or  condition. 

Mr.  President,  these  being  my  views  of  the 
subject,  I  close  my  remarks,  after  presenting 
my  thanks  to  the  honorable  Senate  for  the 
great  candor  and  attention  with  which  they 
have  indulged  me  while  I  have  occupied  their 
time. 

Mr.  MACON  followed  the  above  speech  with  a 
motion  to  recommit  the  resolution  to  the  select 
committee  which  reported  it,  with  instructions 
to  strike  out  the  proviso  adopted  to-day  on  the 
motion  of  Mr.  EATON.  Mr.  M.  had  no  doubt 
whatever  of  the  propriety  of  the  naked  resolu- 
tion as  reported,  and  was  opposed  to  the  pro- 
viso ;  he  therefore  proposed  this  mode  of  get- 
ting rid  of  it. 

The  question  on  recommitting  the  resolution 
was  decided  in  the  negative,  by  yeas  and  nays, 
as  follows : 

YEAS. — Messrs.  Burrill,  Dickerson,  King  of  New- 
York,  Lanman,  Lowrie,  Macon,  Mills,  Morrill,  Noble, 
Palmer,  Roberts,  Rnggles,  Sanford,  Smith,  Tichenor, 
Williams  of  Tennessee,  and  Wilson — 17. 

NAYS. — Messrs.  Barbour,  Brown,  Chandler,  Dana, 
Eaton,  Edwards,  Elliott,  Gaillard,  Holmes  of  Maine, 
Holmes  of  Mississippi,  Horsey,  Hunter,  Johnson  of 
Kentucky,  Johnson  of  Louisiana,  King  of  Alabama, 
Lloyd,  Parrott,  Pinkney,  Pleasants,  Talbot,  Taylor, 
Thomas,  Trimble,  Van  Dyke,  Walker  of  Alabama, 
Walker  of  Georgia,  and  Williams  of  Mississippi — 27. 

The  question  was  then  taken  on  ordering  the 
resolution,  as  amended,  to  be  engrossed  and 
read  a  third  time,  and  was  decided  in  the  af- 
firmative, by  yeas  and  nays,  as  follows : 

YEAS. — Messrs.  Barbour,  Brown,  Chandler,  Eaton, 
Edwards,  Elliott,  Gaillard,  Holmes  of  Maine,  Holmes 
of  Mississippi,  Horsey,  Johnson  of  Kentucky,  John- 
son of  Louisiana,  King  of  Alabama,  Lloyd,  Parrott, 
Pinkney,  Pleasants,  Smith,  Talbot,  Taylor,  Thomas, 
Van  Dyke,  Walker  of  Alabama,  Walker  of  Georgia, 
Williams  of  Mississippi,  and  Williams  of  Tennessee 
—26. 

NAYS. — Messrs.  Burrill,  Dana.  Dickerson,  Hunter, 
King  of  New  York,  Lanman,  Lowrie,  Macon,  Mills, 
Morrill,  Noble,  Palmer,  Roberts,  Ruggles,  Sanford, 
Tichenor,  Trimble,  and  Wilson— 18. 


TUESDAY,  December  12. 

Electoral  Votes. 

Mr.  WILSON,  of  New  Jersey,  submitted  the 
following  resolution : 

Resolved,  That  the  Committee  on  the  Judiciary  be 
instructed  to  inquire  whether  any,  and  if  any,  what 
provisions  are  necessary  or  proper  to  be  made  by  law 
to  meet  contingencies  which  may  arise  from  unlaw- 
ful, disputed,  or  doubtful  votes  under  that  part  of  the 
12th  article  of  amendments  to  the  Constitution  of  the 
United  States,  which  relates  to  counting  the  votes  of 
the  Electors  for  the  President  and  Vice  President  of 
the  United  States. 

Mr.  WILSON  said,  it  would  be  found,  on  re- 
ferring to  the  article  in  the  constitution  alluded 
to  in  this  resolution,  that  the  provision  in  rela- 
tion to  counting  the  votes  for  President  and 
Vice  President  is  very  general.  The  words 
are,  "the  President  of  the  Senate  shall,  in 
presence  of  the  Senate  and  House  of  Repre- 
sentatives, open  all  the  certificates,  and  the 
votes  shall  then  be  counted."  It  is  not  said 
who  shall  count  the  votes,  nor  who  shall  decide 
what  votes  shall  be  counted.  In  consequence 
of  this  defect,  as  the  Senate  would  well  remem- 
ber, some  difficulty  occurred  four  years  ago,  in 
relation  to  the  votes  from  Indiana.  Objections 
were  made  to  receiving  these  votes ;  the  count- 
ing was  interrupted ;  the  two  Houses  separat- 
ed ;  and  although  on  that  occasion  they  again 
came  together,  and  proceeded  on,  and  com- 
pleted the  business  before  them,  so  happy  a  re- 
sult might  not  always  be  produced.  Cases 
might  occur  where  stronger  doubts  might  exist, 
or  more  excitement  prevail ;  debates  be  pro- 
tracted, and  decisions  deferred,  and  serious  in- 
conveniences or  evils  follow.  Was  it  not  prob- 
able such  a  case  would  occur  during  the  present 
session  ?  Would  it  not  at  least  be  prudent  to 
guard  against  danger  from  such  a  contingency  ? 
Congress  has  unquestionably  the  power,  under 
the  last  clause  of  the  8th  "section  of  the  first 
article  of  the  constitution,  and  he  thought  they 
ought  to  exercise  it,  by  vesting  the  authority 
to  decide  upon  doubtful,  disputed,  or  unlawful 
votes,  either  in  the  President  of  the  Senate,  the 
Senate  itself,  the  House  of  Representatives,  or 
in  the  two  Houses,  conjointly  or  separately. 
At  least,  Mr.  W.  deemed  the  subject  of  suffi- 
cient importance  to  justify  the  inquiry  proposed 
in  the  resolution  which  he  had  submitted. 

Mr.  WILSON  submitted  also  the  following  res- 
olution : 

Resolved,  That  the  Committee  on  the  Judiciary  bo 
instructed  to  inquire  whether  any,  and  if  any,  what 
amendments  are  necessary  and  proper  to  be  made  to 
the  act,  entitled  "  An  act  relative  to  the  election  of  a 
President  and  Vice  President  of  the  United  States, 
and  declaring  the  officer  who  shall  act  as  President, 
in  case  of  vacancies  in  the  offices  both  of  the  Presi- 
dent and  Vice  President,"  passed  March  1,  1792. 

Both  resolutions  lie  on  the  table  one  day  of 
course. 


ABRIDGMENT  OF  THE 


SENATE.] 


Dealti  of  the  Representative,  John  Linn,  Esq. 


[JANUARY,  1821. 


Admission  of  Missouri. 

The  resolution  declaring  tbe  consent  of  Con- 
gress to  the  admission  of  the  State  of  Missouri 
into  the  Union  was  read  a  third  time,  and  the 
question  stated  "Shall  the  resolution  pass? " 

Mr.  TRIMBLE  observed,  in  reference  to  some 
remarks  between  himself  and  Mr.  SMITH  yes- 
terday, that  he  had  not  voted  for  the  admission 
of  Alabama,  because  he  could  not  reconcile  the 
provision  in  relation  to  banks,  (with  all  the 
checks  and  guards  which  had  been  introduced 
into  the  constitution  of  Alabama  on  that  sub- 
ject,) with  the  Federal  Constitution.  In  rela- 
tion to  that  provision  he  had  entertained  doubts 
which  were  at  the  time  expressed  to  some  of 
his  friends.  Mr.  T.  said  it  was  true  that  he 
had  not  made  a  formal  opposition  to  the  ad- 
mission of  Alabama,  because  he  had  just  taken 
his  seat  in  the  Senate,  and  was  unaccustomed 
to  legislative  proceedings ;  nor  did  he  then 
suppose  that  it  was  so  important  that  he  should 
record  his  name  in  opposition  to  the  measures 
which  he  thought  violated  the  spirit  and  true 
meaning  of  the  Federal  Constitution.  But, 
had  the  gentleman,  said  Mr.  T.,  no  other  de- 
fence to  set  up  for  that  article  of  the  constitu- 
tion of  Missouri?  If,  said  he,  the  Federal 
Constitution  has  been  violated,  in  one  instance, 
is  that  any  reason  that  it  should  be  violated  in 
another?  Can  precedent  sanctify  a  violation 
of  the  constitution  which  we  are  sworn  to  sup- 
port? 

The  question  being  then  put,  the  resolution 
was  passed  and  sent  to  the  House  of  Represent- 
atives  for  concurrence. 

MONDAY,  December  18. 

Death  of  the  Representative,  Nathaniel  Hazard. 
A  message  from  the  House  of  Representa- 
tives announced  to  the  Senate  the  death  of  NA- 
THANIEL HAZAED,  late  a  member  of  the  House 
of  Representatives  from  the  State  of  Rhode 
Island  and  Providence  Plantations,  and  that 
his  funeral  will  take  place  this  day  at  two 
o'clock. 

On  motion  of  Mr.  HUNTER,  it  was 
Resolved,  unanimously,  That  the  Senate  will  attend 
the  funeral  of  Nathaniel  Hazard,  late  a  member 
of  the  House  of  Representatives  from  the  State  of 
Rhode  Island  and  Providence  Plantations,  this  day  at 
two  o'clock ;  and  as  a  testimony  of  respect  for  the 
memory  of  the  deceased,  they  will  go  into  mourning, 
and  wear  a  black  crape  round  the  left  arm  for  thirty 
days. 

THURSDAY,  December  21. 
MONTFOBT  STOKES,  from  the  State  of  North 
Carolina,  attended. 

TUESDAY,  December  26. 
Death  of  Senator  BurrilL 
The  Journal  of  Saturday  having  been  read — 
Mr.   HUNTER,   of  Rhode   Island,  rose,  and, 
with  much  emotion,  said,  he  had  to  perform  a 
melancholy,  and,  to  him,  truly  distressing  duty. 


His  friend  and  worthy  colleague,  the  Honorable 
JAMES  BURRILL,  Jr.,  had  departed  this  life  about 
ten  o'clock  last  night,  and  it  devolved  upon 
him  to  announce  the  painful  event  to  the  Senate. 

Mr.  DANA,  of  Connecticut,  said,  the  serious 
loss  which  had  just  been  announced  must  be 
extremely  felt  by  the  Senate,  and  he  could  not 
doubt  its  disposition  to  manifest  every  regard 
for  the  memory  of  the  deceased,  and  every  re- 
spect towards  his  remains.  He  therefore  of- 
fered the  following  resolution : 

Resolved,  That  a  committee  be  appointed  to  take 
order  for  superintending  the  funeral  of  the  Honorable 
James  Burrill,  Jr.,  and  that  the  Senate  will  attend 
the  same  ;  and  that  notice  of  the  event  be  given  to 
the  House  of  Representatives. 

The  resolution  was  unanimously  adopted, 
and  Messrs.  MAOON,  DANA,  CIIANDLER,  HOLMES, 
of  Maine,  and  PARROTT,  were  appointed  the 
committee  accordingly. 

On  the  further  motion  of  Mr.  DANA,  it  was — 

Resolved,  unanimously,  That  the  members  of  the 
Senate,  from  a  sincere  desire  of  showing  every  mark 
of  respect  due  to  the  memory  of  the  Honorable  James 
Burrill,  Jr.,  deceased,  late  a  member  thereof,  will  go 
into  mourning  for  him  one  month,  by  the  usual  mode 
of  wearing  crape  round  the  left  arm. 

On  motion  of  Mr.  DANA,  it  was — 

Resolved,  unanimously,  That,  as  an  additional  mark 
of  respect  for  the  memory  of  the  Hon.  James  Bur- 
rill, Jr.,  the  Senate  do  now  adjourn. 

And  the  Senate  adjourned  accordingly,  to 
one  o'clock  to-morrow. 


MONDAY,  January  8,  1821. 
Death  of  the  Representative,  John  Linn,  Esq. 

The  PRESIDENT  communicated  a  letter  from 
the  Clerk  of  the  House  of  Representatives, 
transmitting  a  resolution  of  that  House,  an- 
nouncing to  the  Senate  the  death  of  JOHN*  LINN, 
late  a  member  of  the  House  of  Representatives 
from  the  State  of  New  Jersey,  and  the  letter 
and  resolution  were  read. 

On  motion  by  Mr.  DICKERSON, 

Ordered,  That  the  said  letter  and  resolution 
be  entered  at  large  on  the  journal  of  the  Sen- 
ate, which  is  done  accordingly  in  the  following 
words  : 

CLERK'S  OFFICE,  HOUSE  OF  REP'S,  U.  S., 

January  6yl821. 

SIR  :  The  House  of  Representatives  of  the  United 
States  having  received  intelligence  of  the  death  of 
John  Linn,  late  a  member  of  that  House  from  the 
State  of  New  Jersey,  and  having  taken  order  for  su- 
perintending and  attending  his  funeral,  have  also  di- 
rected me  to  communicate  the  same  to  the  Senate. 
The  recess  in  that  body  to-day  rendering  it  impossi- 
ble to  make  such  communication  in  the  ordinary  way, 
I  have,  therefore,  the  honor  to  transmit  you,  enclosed, 
the  resolution  adopted  by  the  House  on  that  subject. 
I  have  the  honor  to  be,  &c., 

THOMAS  DOUGHERTY, 

Clerk  of  the  House  of  Rep's. 
Hon  JOHN  GAILLARD, 

President  of  the  Senate. 


DEBATES  OF  CONGRESS. 


697 


JANUARY,  1821.] 


Case  of  Matthew  Lyon. 


[SENATK. 


Lf  THE  HOUSE  OF  REP'S  OF  THE  U.  S. 

January  6,  1821. 

Rtsohed,  That  a  message  be  sent  to  the  Senate  to 
notify  them  of  the  death  of  John  Linn,  late  a  mem- 
ber of  this  House  from  the  State  of  New  Jersey,  and 
that  his  funeral  will  take  place  this  day  at  three 
o'clock  from  the  Hall  of  the  House  of  Representa- 

Attest,  TH.  DOUGHERTY,  C.  H.  R, 

On  motion  by  Mr.  DICKEBSON, 

Resolved,  unanimously,  That  the  Senate,  as  a  testi- 
mony of  respect  for  the  memory  of  the  Honorable 
John  Linn,  late  a  member  of  the  House  of  Represent- 
atives from  the  State  of  New  Jersey,  will  go  into 
mourning  and  wear  a  black  crape  round  the  left  arm 
for  thirty  days. 

WEDNESDAY,  January  10. 
National  Vaccine  Institution. 

The  Senate  proceeded  to  the  consideration  of 
the  bill  from  the  House  of  Representatives  to 
incorporate  the  National  Vaccine  Institution, 

On  this  bill  there  arose  a  short  debate. 

Messrs.  ROBEBTS  and  TALBOT  opposed  the 
bill  on  the  ground  that  it  was  not  necessary  to 
the  object  avowed,  which  could  be  easily  ac- 
complished without  it ;  that,  if  necessary,  an 
act  of  incorporation  could  be  obtained  from  the 
State  of  Maryland  sufficient  for  all  useful  pur- 
poses ;  that  the  bill  proposed  to  incorporate  an 
institution  without  limiting  it  to  the  District ; 
that  there  were  within  the  District  so  many 
corporations  that  the  number  ought  not  to  be 
increased,  unless  under  an  urgent  necessity,  &c. 

Messrs.  HOBSET  and  LLOYD  supported  the 
bill,  on  the  ground  of  its  importance  to  the 
proper  accomplishment  of  an  object  of  great  in- 
terest to  humanity,  which  could  not  be  in  any 
other  way  so  well  accomplished.  The  same 
explanation  of  the  bill  was  substantially  given 
as  was  given  of  its  merits  when  pending  in  the 
House  of  Representatives. 

Mr.  ROBERTS  had  moved  a  general  postpone- 
ment of  the  bill;  but,  with  a  view  to  allow 
gentlemen  favorable  to  the  bill  to  amend  it,  if 
they  desired,  he  withdrew  his  motion ;  and,  on 
motion  of  Mr.  LLOYD,  the  bill  was  postponed 
to  Monday  next. 


MONDAY,  January  15. 
Matthew  Lyon. 

The  Senate  then  proceeded  to  consider  the 
report  of  the  select  committee  on  the  petition 
of  Matthew  Lyon,  who  prays  to  be  indemnified 
for  the  damages  which  were  inflicted  on  him 
tinder  the  former  Sedition  law.  The  report 
concludes  with  the  following  resolutions  : 

Resolved,  That  so  much  of  the  act,  entitled  "  An 
act  for  the  punishment  of  certain  crimes  against  the 
United  States,"  approved  the  14th  July,  1798,  as 
pretends  to  prescribe  and  punish  libels,  is  unconstitu- 
tional. 

Rrgolvea,  That  the  fines  collected  under  that  act 
ought  to  be  restored  to  those  from  whom  they  were 


exacted ;  and  that  these  resolutions  be  recommitted 
to  the  committee  who  brought  them  in,  with  instruc- 
tions to  report  a  bill  to  that  effect 

The  resolutions  having  been  read,  Mr.  BAB- 
BOUB  rose  in  support  of  them,  and  spoke  about 
two  hours ;  when  (not  having  finished  his  ar- 
gument) he  gave  way  for  a  motion  to  postpone 
the  subject  until  to-morrow ;  which  prevailed. 


TUESDAY,  January  16. 
Matthew  Lyon. 

The  Senate  then  resumed  the  consideration 
of  the  report  of  the  select  committee  on  the 
case  of  Matthew  Lyon. 

Mr.  BABBOCB  concluded  the  argument  which 
he  left  unfinished  yesterday,  in  support  of  the 
resolutions. 

Mr.  WALKEB,  of  Georgia,  next  rose  and  spoke 
some  time  against  the  resolutions. 

Mr.  JOHNSON,  of  Kentucky,  replied  to  Mr. 
W.,  and  advocated  the  resolutions. 


THTJBSDAY,  January  18. 
Matthew  Lyon. 

The  Senate  then  again  proceeded  to  the,  con- 
sideration of  the  report  of  the  select  committee 
in  the  case  of  Matthew  Lyon. 

Mr.  OTIS  rose,  and,  in  a  speech  of  considera- 
ble length,  delivered  his  views  in  opposition  to 
the  report. 

Mr.  MACON  followed,  in  a  speech  which  oc- 
cupied some .  time  in  the  delivery,  in  favor  of 
the  report. 

Mr.  DAUA  then  spoke  against  it,  and  the  Sen- 
ate adjourned. 

FBIDAY,  January  19. 
Matthew  Lyon. 

The  Senate  resumed  the  consideration  of  the 
report  of  the  select  committee  on  the  petition 
of  Matthew  Lyon,  together  with  the  motion  to 
postpone  the  same  indefinitely. 

Mr.  DICKEBSOX,  of  New  Jersey,  rose,  and  ex- 
pressed himself  as  follows : 

I  regret  that  the  merits  or  demerits  of  Mat- 
thew Lyon  should  be  called  up  in  deciding  a 
principle,  involving  consequences  much  more 
important  than  the  character  or  sufferings  of 
any  individual.  I  am  aware  that  Matthew 
Lyon  is  unpopular  in  Congress,  but  that  want 
of  popularity  should  have  no  unfavorable  effect 
in  fixing  a  principle  in  which  the  citizens  of  the 
United  States  are  deeply  interested.  We  are 
not  to  try  the  man ;  we  are  to  decide  his  cause, 
which  is  one  of  general  interest.  Why,  we  are 
triumphantly  asked  by  the  honorable  gentle- 
man from  Georgia  (Mr.  WALKEB)  has  this  ques- 
tion been  suffered  to  sleep  for  twenty  years? 
Why  are  its  slumbers  now  disturbed?  Fre- 
quent attempts  have  been  made  to  disturb  its 
slumbers,  but  in  vain ;  an  attempt  is  now  made, 
but  that  gentleman  seems  resolved  to  perpetu- 
ate those  slumbers,  by  this  motion  for  indefi- 


ABRIDGMENT  OF  THE 


SENATE.] 


Case  of  Matthew  Lyon. 


[JANUAHY,  1821. 


nite  postponement.  Perhaps  there  have  been 
in  Congress  too  many  who  believe,  with  that 
gentleman,  that  no  injury  has  been  done  to 
Matthew  Lyon ;  who  think  that  the  eulogiums 
which  have  been  bestowed  upon  him,  have 
been  a  sufficient  compensation  for  his  suffer- 
ings ;  for  eulogiums  have  been  poured  out  upon 
him  in  great  profusion,  from  the  time  he  be- 
came an  object  of  persecution.  If  he  could  be 
paid  for  his  sufferings  in  this  way,  he  might  be 
overpaid ;  and  it  may  be  thought  that,  upon  a 
fair  reckoning,  there  may  be  found  a  balance 
against  Mr.  Lyon,  and  that  it  would  be  but 
fair  that  lie  should  suffer  a  little  more ;  but, 
trust  me,  that  honorable  gentleman,  who  seems 
to  envy  the  happy  estate  of  Mr.  Lyon,  would 
not  suffer  what  he  did  for  all  the  eulogiums 
which  fame  herself,  with  her  hundred  trum- 
pets, could  pour  out  upon  him  for  the  rest  of 
his  life. 

But  why,  says  the  honorable  gentleman,  is 
this  time,  when  our  Treasury  is  empty,  selected 
for  voting  money  to  Mr.  Lyon — why  was  not 
this  done  in  the  time  of  Mr.  Jefferson's  Admin- 
istration, when  we  had  an  overflowing  Treas- 
ury— and  we  were  at  a  loss  for  the  means  of 
disposing  of  the  public  money  ?  In  the  first 
place,  there  was  really  not  so  much  difficulty 
in  disposing  of  the  public  money  as  seems  to 
be  imagined — emptying  the  treasury  was  a 
very  simple  business  then,  as  we  have  found  it 
to  be  in  later  days.  In  the  next  place,  a  full 
treasury  was  no  good  reason  for  paying  Mr. 
Lyon  a  thousand  dollars  then,  any  more  than  a 
bare  treasury  is,  for  withholding  it  now.  The 
merits  of  the  case  do  not  depend  on  the  state 
of  the  treasury;  if  they  did,  those  merits 
would  sometimes  be  very  great,  at  other  times 
very  small,  but  generally  rather  small.  I  trust, 
however,  in  voting  on  this  resolution,  we  shall 
not  stop  to  inquire  how  much  money  there  may 
be  in  the  treasury;  if  we  do,  sure  I  am,  the 
gentleman's  motion,  the  indefinite  postpone- 
ment, must  prevail. 

If  the  friends  of  the  liberty  of  the  press 
have  heretofore  neglected  to  urge  this  subject 
upon  the  consideration  of  Congress,  let  the  re- 
proach rest  with  them ;  their  apathy  affords  no 
apology  to  us  for  refusing  to  act.  If  we  have 
been  negligent,  let  us  now  redeem  our  charac- 
ter. Those  who  consider  the  sedition  act  con- 
stitutional, and  called  for  by  the  circumstances 
of  the  times,  must  consider  this  inquiry  as  al- 
together unnecessary  and  improper — and  those 
who  believe  that  the  act  was  unconstitutional 
and  oppressive,  I  fear,  feel  satisfied  that  much 
good  has  resulted  to  themselves  from  the  suf- 
ferings of  those  who  were  fined  and  imprisoned 
under  that  act — and  that  the  party  with  whom 
it  originated,  not  only  failed  to  accomplish  the 
object  they  had  in  view,  but  in  fact  by  this 
very  measure  lost  the  power  which  it  was  in- 
tended to  perpetuate.  Under  such  comfortable, 
but  selfish  reflections,  I  fear  we  are  disposed  to 
forget  the  victims  of  the  law. 

"We  cannot  but  feel  some  reluctance  at  enter- 


ing upon  the  investigation  of  a  question,  which, 
by  many,  has  long  been  considered  at  rest; 
more  especially  when  that  question  is  calculated 
to  call  up  feelings  that  once  painfully  agitated 
the  public  mind.  Under  such  circumstances,  a 
love  of  ease  will  prevail,  where  a  strong  sense 
of  duty  does  not  impel  to  action. 

The  present  case,  however,  comes  before  us 
in  a  way  that  demands,  and  must  receive  a  se- 
rious consideration.  One  of  our  citizens  has 
brought  his  claim  before  us  in  the  usual  form 
of  petition.  The  constitution,  laws,  and  usage*, 
by  which  this  body  is  governed,  make  it  im- 
perative upon  us  to  decide  for  or  against  the 
petitioner;  and  whatever  gentlemen  may  think, 
as  to  the  merits  of  the  individual,  his  case  in- 
volves consequences  of  the  highest  importance, 
such  as  cannot  be  decided  but  with  great  re- 
sponsibility, a  responsibility  which  I  trust  will 
insure  a  correct  decision. 

Some  who  think  the  sedition  act  unconstitu- 
tional may  be  of  opinion  that  it  is  not  necessa- 
ry, nor  even  consistent  with  the  dictates  of 
sound  policy,  after  a  lapse  of  twenty  years,  to 
relieve  the  sufferers  under  that  law.  With 
such  it  will  remain  to  devise  a  better  mode  of 
restoring  and  reviving,  as  far  as  it  can  be  done 
by  Congress,  the  first  article  of  the  amend- 
ments to  the  constitution,  which  was  practically 
suspended  by  the  sedition  act,  and  which  may 
be  considered  as  null  and  void  if  the  constitu- 
tionality of  the  act  shall  now  receive  the  sanc- 
tion of  Congress. 

If  it  were  known  with  absolute  certainty 
that  a  result,  similar  to  that  which  attended 
the  passing  of  the  sedition  act,  would  inevita- 
bly attend  every  similar  attempt — that  part  of 
our  constitution  which  respects  the  liberty  of 
the  press  would  remain  secure  from  further 
violation.  But,  such  a  result  is  by  no  means 
certain — and  we  deceive  ourselves  if  we  sup- 
pose that  the  rage  and  fury  of  party  are  no 
more  to  prevail  in  this  country. 

Should  an  attempt  hereafter  be  made  to  re- 
vive the  sedition  law,  constitutional  objections 
would  have  but  little  avail,  as  coming  too  late. 
It  would  be  said  the  sedition  act  of  ninety- 
eight  was  not  repealed,  although  every  effort 
was  made  to  procure  its  repeal,  expressly  on 
constitutional  grounds.  It  was  suffered  to  ex- 
pire by  its  own  limitation.  Its  constitutional- 
ity was  sanctioned  by  two  decisions  of  Con- 
gress ;  and  those  decisions  corroborated  by  all 
the  force  which  the  judiciary  could  give  them. 

If  those  who  raised  their  voice  from  one  ex- 
tremity of  the  Union  to  the  other  against  the 
constitutionality  of  this  act,  when  it  was  passed, 
and  when  an  attempt  was  made  to  repeal  it, 
will  not  now,  when  they  have  the  power,  make 
an  effort  to  repair  the  breach  in  the  constitu- 
tion, it  will  be  yielding  the  point,  and  acknowl- 
edging that  all  their  clamor  Avas  raised  to  gain 
power,  which  they  did  gain ;  not  to  preserve 
the  constitution,  which  is  left  mutilated,  with- 
out an  effort  at  reparation.  And  this  prece- 
dent, thus  sanctioned  by  one  party  and  acqui- 


DEBATES  OF  CONGRESS. 


JANUARY,  1821.] 


Case  of  Matthew  Lyon. 


[SENATE. 


csced  in  by  the  other,  will  be  considered  as  the 
legislative  and  judicial  construction  of  the  con- 
stitution ;  and,  by  this  process,  the  constitution 
will  practically  be  altered,  and  the  liberty  of 
the  press  be  as  completely  within  the  control 
of  Congress  and  the  Judiciary  of  the  United 
States,  as  if  the  first  amendment  to  the  consti- 
tution had  declared  Congress  shall  have  power 
to  abridge  the  liberty  of  the  press. 

For  my  part,  I  have  never  doubted  that  the 
sedition  act,  so  far  as  it  respects  the  printing 
and  publishing  of  libels,  was  a  direct,  open,  and 
unequivocal  breach  of  the  constitution.  And, 
although  I  do  not  hold  the  United  States  re- 
sponsible for  all  the  losses  sustained  under  that 
act,  I  would  not  willingly  retain  in  our  treasury 
a  single  dollar  of  the  money  iniquitously  ac- 
quired under  it.  The  whole  forms  but  a  small 
sum,  but  if  it  were  large,  it  should  be  returned 
to  those  from  whom  it  was  tat  en.  I  should 
not  stop  to  inquire  whether  it  was  a  thousand 
or  a  hundred  thousand  dollars. 

To  ascertain  how  far  this  act  was  an  abridg- 
ment of  the  liberty  of  the  press,  let  us  examine 
a  little  further  into  its  practical  operation.  It 
is  unnecessary  to  add  any  thing  to  what  has  al- 
ready been  said  upon  the  trial  of  Matthew  Lyon. 
The  trial  of  Thomas  Cooper,  in  1800,  in  the 
Circuit  Court  of  the  United  States,  for  the 
Pennsylvania  District,  will  furnish  a  complete 
illustration  of  the  views  of  those  who  made, 
and  of  those  who  administered  this  law. 

I  select  this  case  because  I  was  a  witness  of 
the  whole  trial:  a  trial  which,  at  the  time, 
filled  my  mind  with  horror  and  indignation.  I 
saw  a  man  whom  it  was  my  pride  then,  as  it  is 
now,  to  call  my  friend ;  a  man  of  the  most  hon- 
orable feelings ;  a  man  whose  name  is  identified 
with  science  and  literature  ;  the  constant  study 
of  whose  life  it  has  been  to  render  himself  use- 
ful to  his  fellow  beings  ;  I  saw  this  man  dragged 
before  a  criminal  court,  arraigned,  tried,  and 
punished,  for  publishing  words  which  nothing 
but  the  violence  and  blindness  of  party  rage 
could  have  construed  into  crime.  In  the  year 
'97  Mr.  Cooper  had  asked  of  the  President,  Mr. 
Adams,  to  be  appointed  an  agent  for  American 
claims;  the  request  was  made  through  Dr. 
Priestley  directly  to  Mr.  Adams,  with  a  frank- 
ness warranted  on  the  part  of  the  Doctor  by  the 
intimacy  which  had  long  existed  between  them. 
As  the  application  was  thus  personal,  it  was 
supposed  to  be  confidential.  It  was  unsuccess- 
ful, and  there  it  should  have  rested.  But,  by 
some  means  never  explained,  two  years  after- 
wards this  application  was  made  public,  and 
afforded  the  editor  of  a  paper  in  Reading,  an 
opportunity  of  inserting  a  scurrilous  paragraph 
against  Mr.  Cooper.  Irritated  at  being  thus 
held  up  as  a  subject  of  ridicule,  Mr.  Cooper,  in 
justification  of  his  own  conduct,  published  the 
address  for  which  ho  was  indicted.  The  words 
contained  in  the  indictment,  stripped  of  the  in- 
uendoes,  are  the  following : 

"  Nor  do  I  see  any  impropriety  in  making  this  re- 


quest of  Mr.  Adams ;  at  that  time  he  had  just  en- 
tered into  office ;  he  was  hardly  in  the  infancy  of 
political  mistake  ;  even  those  who  doubted  of  his 
capacity,  thought  well  of  his  intentions.  Nor  were 
we  yet  saddled  with  the  expense  of  a  permanent 
navy,  or  threatened,  under  his  auspices,  with  the  ex- 
istence of  a  standing  army.  Our  credit  was  not  yet 
reduced  quite  so  low  as  to  borrow  money  at  eight  per 
cent,  in  time  of  peace,  while  the  unnecessary  violence 
of  official  expressions  might  justly  have  provoked  a 
war.  Mr.  Adams  had  not  yet  projected  his  embassies 
to  Prussia,  Russia,  and  the  Sublime  Porte  ;  nor  had 
he  yet  interfered,  as  President  of  the  United  States, 
to  influence  the  decisions  of  a  court  of  justice ;  a 
stretch  of  authority  which  the  monarch  of  Great 
Britain  would  have  shrunk  from ;  an  interference 
without  precedent,  against  law,  and  against  mercy ! 
The  melancholy  case  of  Jonathan  Robbins,  a  native 
citizen  of  America,  forcibly  impressed  by  the  British, 
and  delivered  up,  with  the  advice  of  Mr.  Adams,  to 
the  mock  trial  of  a  British  court-martial,  had  not  yet 
astonished  the  republican  citizens  of  this  free  coun- 
try ;  a  case  too  little  known,  but  which  the  people 
ought  to  be  fully  apprised  of  before  the  election,  and 
they  shall  be." 

I  have  the  highest  veneration  for  the  exalted 
statesman  and  revolutionary  patriot  against 
whom  this  censure  was  levelled ;  but  he  was 
not  infallible — much  less  so  were  those  around 
him,  by  whose  advice,  at  this  particular  period, 
he  Avas  too  much  influenced.  But,  however  ex- 
alted his  station,  he  had  accepted  it  with  a  full 
knowledge  that  it  was  the  disposition  and  prac- 
tice, and  a  salutary  one  too,  in  this  country,  to 
examine  and  censure,  with  great  freedom,  the 
conduct  of  those  in  power.  To  be  censured 
freely,  and  sometimes  unjustly,  is  a  tax  which 
every  one  must  pay  who  holds  the  highest 
station  in  our  Government.  Laws  which  should 
completely  prevent  this,  would  as  completely 
prostrate  the  liberties  of  the  people. 

However  much  Mr.  Adams  might  have  been 
hurt  at  the  asperity  of  the  language  applied  to 
him,  I  am  confident  he  never  intimated  a  wish 
in  favor  of  a  prosecution.  Most  probably  this 
took  place  in  consequence  of  the  advice  of  those 
who  advised  that  Robbins  should  be  given  up. 
About  this  time  Mr.  Adams  thought  proper  to 
repress  the  zeal  of  his  political  friends  by  par- 
doning Fries,  who  had  been  guilty  of  a  misde- 
meanor, but  was  convicted  of  treason,  and  by 
other  acts  evincing  a  disposition  to  pursue  a 
more  moderate  system  than  that  which  had 
prevailed  for  two  preceding  years.  It  will  also 
be  remembered,  that,  not  long  after  this  period, 
he  dismissed  some  of  his  advisers,  in  whom  he 
had  probably  placed  too  much  confidence. 

At  the  present  time  of  good  feelings  it  seems 
incredible,  that  what  Mr.  Cooper  said  of  the  ex- 
penses of  a  permanent  navy — of  the  standing 
army — the  eight  per  cent,  loan,  and  the  pro- 
jected embassies  to  Prussia,  Russia,  and  the 
Sublime  Porte,  should  have  been  considered  as 
the  subject  of  indictment.  What  was  said  as  to 
the  case  of  Jonathan  Robbins,  otherwise  called 
Thomas  Nash,  was  of  a  more  serious  character, 
and  should  have  been  answered,  if  it  could  have 


700 


ABRIDGMENT  OF  THE 


SENATE.] 


Case  of  Matthew  Lyon. 


[JANUARY,  1821. 


been  answered,  by  a  true  history  of  that  trans- 
action— not  by  punishing  Mr.  Cooper ;  for,  if 
this  interference  on  the  part  of  the  President, 
was  without  precedent  against  law  and  against 
mercy,  fining  and  imprisoning  Mr.  Cooper  could 
not  make  it  otherwise. 

The  friends  of  the  sedition  act  say  that  Con- 
gress were  authorized  to  pass  it,  as  a  law  neces- 
sary and  proper  for  carrying  into  effect  the 
powers  vested  by  the  constitution  in  the  Gov- 
ernment, under  the  8th  section  of  the  1st  arti- 
cle of  the  constitution. 

This  part  of  the  constitution  is  very  elastic, 
and  some  gentleman  discovered  that  under  it 
Congress  may  do  what  they  please,  by  simply 
making  the  word  necessary  mean  convenient. 
But  I  cannot  imagine  what  power  vested  by  the 
constitution  in  the  Government  it  was  necessary 
to  carry  into  effect  by  the  sedition  act.  That 
no  such  necessity  as  is  alleged  did  exist  is  evi- 
dent from  this  circumstance,  that  the  Govern- 
ment went  on  very  well  before  that  act  passed, 
and  quite  as  well  since  it  has  expired.  How- 
ever convenient,  therefore,  the  law  might  have 
been,  it  certainly  was  not  necessary.  If  it  was 
necessary  in  the  meaning  of  the  constitution,  it 
•was  indispensably  necessary — not  partly  neces- 
sary. If  necessary  then,  it  must  be  necessary 
now,  and  Congress  must  of  course  be  neglecting 
their  duty  in  not  reviving  that  law. 

We  are  now  in  effect  to  declare  this  act  to 
have  been  constitutional  or  unconstitutional. 
If  we  do  the  latter,  we  correct  not  the  errors  of 
the  court,  but  of  Congress.  If  the  law  was  not 
constitutional  when  passed,  the  decisions  of  the 
court  could  not  make  it  so.  Probably  the  court 
did  not  think  that  a  question  for  them  to  decide. 
The  act  was  a  legislative  construction  of  the 
constitution  expressly.  It  was  opposed  and 
supported  on  constitutional  grounds,  and  is  a 
declaration  of  the  three  branches  of  the  Legis- 
lature of  the  meaning  of  the  constitution  in  this 
particular.  And  it  is  not  yet  ascertained  that, 
in  construing  the  constitution,  Congress  is  sub- 
ordinate to  the  Judiciary.  Probably  the  first 
decisive  experiment  upon  this  subject  will  prove 
the  contrary. 

I  do  not  think  it  necessary  to  search  for  pre- 
cedents to  justify  us  in  the  measure  now  pro- 
posed. If  we  have  no  precedent  let  us  make 
one  that  may  be  a  memento  to  dominant  par- 
ties not  to  abuse  their  power.  But  if  prece- 
dents were  necessary,  we  may  find  enough  in 
the  history  of  England,  not  in  that  of  our  own 
country ;  for,  fortunately  for  us,  our  history  af- 
fords but  a  few  instances  of  the  abuse  of  power. 
For  such  precedents  we  need  not  go  back  to  the 
heavy  time  of  York  and  Lancaster,  when  the 
triumphant  party  constantly  reversed  all  that 
had  been  done  by  the  party  subdued.  We  may 
look  into  a  later  period,  when  the  Stuarts  and 
their  immediate  successors  were  upon  the 
throne,  when  the  principles  of  liberty  were 
much  better  understood  than  practised. 

The  attainder  of  the  Earl  of  Stafford,  who 
had  been  treacherously  given  up  by  a  cowardly 


King  to  the  indignation  of  Parliament,  was  re- 
versed. 

The  attainders  against  Algernon  Sidney  and 
against  Lord  Russell  were  reversed. 

The  attainder  against  Alderman  Cornish  was 
reversed,  as  also  that  against  Lady  Lisle,  and 
many  others.  In  these  cases,  it  is  true,  the 
Parliament  only  reversed  their  own  proceed- 
ings. But  they  sometimes  reversed  the  pro- 
ceedings of  other  courts,  as  in  the  case  of  Bast- 
wick,  Burton,  and  Prynne,  who  were  tried  in 
the  court  of  Star  Chamber,  for  libels,  and  sen- 
tenced to  lose  their  ears,  to  pay  a  fine  of  five 
thousand  pounds  each,  and  to  be  imprisoned  for 
life.  This  is  a  very  strong  case,  and  in  point ; 
for  the  Parliament  not  only  reversed  the  sen- 
tence, but  remitted  the  fine,  and  ordered  satis- 
faction for  damages  to  the  parties  injured. 

I  must  ask  the  indulgence  of  the  Senate  while 
I  read  a  few  passages  from  the  proceedings  in 
this  extraordinary  case.  I  shall  read  them  for 
the  edification  of  those  who  are,  who  have 
been,  or  who  hereafter  may  be,  in  favor  of  a 
sedition  act. 

Dr.  Bastwick,  Mr.  Burton,  and  Mr.  Prynne, 
had  written  some  religious  books,  in  which 
were  contained  some  reflections  on  the  Bish- 
ops, which  were  deemed  libellous.  Mr.  Prynne, 
three  years  before  this  time,  had  written  a  book 
in  which  he  censured  stage  plays,  music,  and 
dancing,  for  which  he  was  punished  by  the  loss 
of  his  ears.  "  Between  eight  and  nine  o'clock 
in  the  morning,  the  fourteenth  of  June,  [1637,] 
the  Lords  being  set  in  their  places,  in  the  said 
court  of  Star  Chamber,  and  casting  their  eyes 
at  the  prisoners,  then  at  the  bar,  Sir  John 
Finch,  Chief  Justice  of  the  Common  Plea?,  be- 
gan to  speak  after  this  manner.* 

"  I  bad  thought  Mr.  Prynne  had  no  ears,  but  me- 
tbinks  be  hath  ears;  which  caused  many  of  the 
Lords  to  take  a  stricter  view  of  him  ;  and,  for  tbeir 
better  satisfaction,  the  usher  of  the  court  was  com- 
manded to  turn  up  his  hair  and  show  his  ears ;  upon 
the  sight  whereof,  the  Lords  were  displeased  tbat 
they  had  been  formerly  no  more  cut  off,  and  cast  out 
some  disgraceful  words  of  him. 

"  To  which  Mr.  Prynne  replied,  My  Lords,  there 
is  never  a  one  of  your  honors  but  would  be  sorry  to 
have  your  ears  as  mine  are. 

"  The  Lord  Keeper  replied  again,  In  good  faith,  he 
is  somewhat  saucy. 

"I  hope,  said  Mr.  Prynne,  your  honors  will  not  be 
offended ;  I  pray  God  to  give  you  ears  to  hear. 

"  The  business  of  the  day,  said  the  Lord  Keeper,  is 
to  proceed  on  the  prisoner  at  the  bar. 

"Mr.  Prynne  then  bumbly  desired  the  court  to 
give  him  leave  to  make  a  motion  or  two;  which 
being  granted,  he  moves : 

"  First,  that  their  honors  would  be  pleased  to  ac- 
cept of  a  cross  bill  against  the  prelates,  signed  with 
their  own  hands,  being  that  which  stands  with  the 
justice  of  the  court,  which  be  bumbly  craved,  and  so 
tendered  it. 

"  Lord  Keeper.  As  for  your  cross  bill,  it  is  not  the 
business  of  the  day ;  hereafter,  if  the  court  should  see 


»  Harleian  Miscellany,  vol.  4,  p.  220. 


DEBATES  OF  CONGRESS. 


701 


JANCARY,  1821.] 


Sedition  Law— Matthew  Lyon. 


[SENATE. 


just  cause,  and  that  it  savors  not  of  libelling,  we  may 
accept  of  it ;  for  my  part,  I  have  not  seen  it,  but  have 
heard  somewhat  of  it. 

"  Mr.  Prynne.  I  hope  your  honors  will  not  refuse 
it,  being,  as  it  is,  on  His  Majesty's  behalf.  "We  are 
His  Majesty's  subjects,  and  therefore  require  the  jus- 
tice of  the  court. 

"  Lord  JKeeper.  But  this  is  not  the  business  of  the 
day. 

"J/r.  Prynne.  Why  then,  my  Lords,  I  have  a 
second  motion,  which  I  humbly  pray  your  honors  to 
grant,  which  is,  that  your  Lordships  will  please  to 
dismiss  the  prelates,  here  now  sitting,  from  having 
any  voice  in  the  censure  of  this  cause,  being  general- 
ly known  to  be  adversaries,  as  being  no  way  agree- 
able with  equity  or  reason,  that  they  who  are  our  ad- 
versaries should  be  our  judges ;  therefore  I  humbly 
crave  they  may  be  expunged  out  of  the  court. 

"  Lord  Keeper.  In  good  faith  it  is  a  sweet  motion  ; 
is  it  not?  Herein  you  are  become  libellous  ;  and  if 
you  should  thus  libel  all  the  Lords  and  reverend 
judges  as  you  do  the  reverend  prelates,  by  this  your 
plea,  you  would  have  none  to  pass  sentence  upon  you 
for  your  libelling,  because  they  are  parties." 

The  -whole  trial  is  very  interesting.  I  pro- 
ceed to  the  sentence. 

"  Thus  the  prisoners,  desiring  to  speak  a  little  more 
for  themselves,  were  commanded  to  silence.  And  so 
the  Lords  proceed  to  censure. 

"  The  Lord  Cettington's  censure  : — I  condemn 
these  three  men  to  lose  their  ears,  in  the  palace  yard 
at  Westminster,  to  be  fined  five  thousand  pounds  a 
man  to  His  Majesty,  and  to  perpetual  imprisonment, 
in  three  remote  places  in  the  kingdom,  namely,  the 
castles  of  Caernarvon,  Cornwall,  and  Lancaster. 

"  The  Lord  Finch  addeth  to  this  censure : 

"  Mr.  Prynne  to  be  stigmatized  in  the  cheeks  with 
two  letters,  S.  and  L,  for  seditious  libeller.  To 
which  all  the  Lords  agreed." 

I  omit  what  is  said  of  the  punishment  of  Dr. 
Bast  wick  and  Mr.  Burton,  which  was  inflicted 
with  great  cruelty,  but  that  of  Mr.  Prynne  de- 
serves a  particular  notice  : 

"  Now  the  executioner  being  come  to  sear  him  and 
cut  off  his  ears,  Mr.  Prynne  said  these  words  to  him : 
Come,  friend,  come  burn  me,  cut  me ;  I  fear  not ;  I 
have  learned  to  fear  the  fire  of  hell,  and  not  what 
man  can  do  unto  me.  Come,  sear  me,  sear  me  ;  I 
shall  bear  in  my  body  the  marks  of  the  Lord  Jesus  ; 
which  the  bloody  executioner  performed  with  extra- 
ordinary cruelty,  heating  his  iron  twice  to  burn  one 
cheek,  and  cut  one  of  his  ears  so  close  that  he  cut  off 
a  piece  of  his  cheek.  At  which  exquisite  torture  he 
never  moved  with  his  body,  or  as  much  as  changed 
his  countenance,  but  still  looked  up  as  well  as  he 
could  towards  Heaven,  with  a  smiling  countenance, 
even  to  the  astonishment  of  all  the  beholders,  and  ut- 
tering, as  soon  as  the  executioner  had  done,  this  heav- 
enly sentence  :  The  more  I  am  beaten  down,  the  more 
I  am  lift  up." 

"What  protection  was  afforded  to  these 
•wretched  men  by  the  common  law,  the  law  in 
which  they  lived,  and  moved,  and  had  their 
being  ? 

The  honorable  gentleman  from  Georgia  ad- 
monishes us  not  to  destroy  the  independence  of 
the  judiciary,  the  bulwark  of  the  liberties  of  the 


people.  We  shall  not,  in  the  measure  now  pro- 
posed, in  the  slightest  degree,  interfere  with 
the  independence  of  the  judiciary.  It  must  be 
a  matter  of  indifference  to  them  what  we  do 
with  the  sedition  act ;  it  cannot  affect  their 
emoluments.  I  have  understood  that  the  inde- 
pendency of  the  judiciary  was  regulated  by  the 
greater  or  less  permanency  in  the  tenure  of 
their  office,  and  the  greater  or  less  certainty  in 
the  payment  of  their  fixed  salaries. 

But  I  must  beg  leave  to  differ  from  the  hon- 
orable gentleman  when  he  informs  us  that  our 
independent  judiciary  is  the  bulwark  of  the 
liberties  of  the  people.  By  which  he  must 
mean,  defenders  of  the  people  against  the  op- 
pressions of  the  Government.  From  what  I 
witnessed  in  the  years  1798,  1799,  and  1800,  I 
never  shall,  I  never  can,  consider  our  judiciary 
as  the  bulwark  of  the  liberties  of  the  people. 
The  people  must  look  out  for  other  bulwarks 
for  their  liberties.  I  have  the  most  profound 
respect  for  the  learning,  talents,  and  integrity 
of  the  honorable  judges  who  fill  our  Federal 
bench.  But,  if  those  who  carried  into  effect 
the  sedition  act  are  to  be  called  the  people's  de- 
fenders, it  must  be  for  nearly  the  same  reason 
that  the  Fates  were  called  Parcce — quia  non 
parcebant.  It  would  be  a  subject  of  curious 
investigation,  how  far  the  judiciary,  from  the 
earliest  times  to  the  present,  have  been  the  de- 
fenders of  the  people's  liberties  against  the  op- 
pressions of  Government ;  how  much  their  zeal 
has  been  increased  or  diminished  by  the  cer- 
tainty or  uncertainty  in  the  tenure  of  office ; 
how  far  by  an  increase  or  diminution  of  salary ; 
how  much  it  has  been  affected  by  a  fear  of  loss 
of  office  or  salary  on  one  side,  or  the  hope  of 
further  promotion  or  increase  of  salary  on  the 
other.  But  such  speculations  at  present  are 
unnecessary. 

Mr.  MORE  ILL  spoke  at  length  against  the  reso- 
lutions. 

Mr.  ROBERTS  spoke  in  favor  of  the  resolutions. 

Mr.  DANA  replied  to  Mr.  R.  and  others,  and 
the  Senate  adjourned. 

SATUEDAY,  January  20. 
The  PRESIDENT  communicated  a  letter  from 
the  Secretary  of  the  Navy,  transmitting,  for  the 
use  of  the  members  of  the  Senate,  sixty  copies 
of  the  Naval  Register  for  the  year  1821 ;  and 
the  letter  was  read. 

Sedition  Law — Matthew  Lyon. 

The  Senate  then  resumed  the  consideration 
of  the  resolutions  declaring  the  late  sedition  law 
unconstitutional,  and  to  indemnify  those  who 
suffered  damages  under  it — the  motion  of  Mr. 
WALKER,  of  Georgia,  made  some  days  ago,  to 
postpone  the  resolutions  indefinitely,  being  still 
under  consideration. 

.Mr.  BARBOUR  again  addressed  the  Senate  in 
support  of  the  resolutions,  and  in  reply  to  their 
opponents. 

Mr.  SMITH  also  again  spoke  in  reply  to  Mr. 


702 


ABRIDGMENT  OF  THE 


SENATE.] 


Virginia  Military  Lands. 


[JANUARY,  1821. 


BAKBOUK  and  others  who  advocated  the  resolu- 
tions. 

Mr.  MACON  likewise  spoke  again  in  support 
of  the  resolutions,  and  in  defence  of  the  opin- 
ions he  had  previously  advanced. 

Mr.  HOLMES,  of  Maine,  spoke  at  length  against 
postponing  the  resolutions,  though  he  preferred 
legislating  for  the  particular  case  of  Matthew 
Lyon. 

Mr.  WALKKE,  of  Georgia,  spoke  again  to  vin- 
dicate his  opposition  to  these  resolutions. 

The  question  was  then  taken  on  the  indefinite 
postponement  of  the  resolutions,  and  was  de- 
cided in  the  affirmative,  as  follows  : 

YEAS.— Messrs.  Chandler,  Dana,  Eaton,  Elliott, 
Gaillard,  Horsey,  Hunter,  Johnson  of  Louisiana,  King 
of  New  York,  Lanman,  Lloyd,  Mills,  Morrill,  Noble, 
Otis,  Palmer,  Parrott,  Pinkney,  Smith,  Taylor,  Tich- 
enor,  Van  Dyke,  Walker  of  Georgia,  and  Williams  of 
Tennessee— 24. 

NATS. Messrs.  Barbour,  Brown,  Dickerson, 

Holmes  of  Maine,  Holmes  of  Mississippi,  Johnson  of 
Kentucky,  King  of  Alabama,  Lowrie,  Macon,  Pleas- 
ants,  Roberts,  Ruggles,  Sanford,  Stokes,  Talbot, 
Thomas,  Trimble,  Walker  of  Alabama,  and  Williams 
of  Mississippi — 19. 

So  the  report  and  resolutions  were  rejected. 

Mr.  BAEBOUB  then  gave  notice  that  he  should 
on  Monday  ask  leave  to  bring  in  a  bill  for  the 
relief  of  Matthew  Lyon. 

THURSDAY,  January  25. 
National  Vaccine  Institution. 

The  Senate  next  took  up  the  bill  from  the 
other  House  to  incorporate  the  Managers  of  the 
National  Vaccine  Institution. 

Mr.  LLOYD  moved  so  to  amend  the  bill  as  to 
reserve  to  Congress  the  power  at  any  time  to 
repeal  the  act,  and  to  give  it  duration  until 
Congress  should  so  repeal  it — instead  of  incor- 
porating it  unconditionally  and  positively  for 
the  term  of  thirty  years,  as  the  bill  stood.  Mr. 
L.  also  adverted  to  the  anticipated  utility  of  the 
institution,  and  to  some  of  the  reasons  in  its 
support. 

After  some  debate  between  Mr.  ROBERTS 
(who  was  opposed  to  the  bill  altogether,  and 
not  satisfied  with  the  proposed  amendment) 
and  Mr.  LLOYD,  the  amendment  was  adopted. 

On  the  motion  also  of  Mr.  LLOYD,  the  bill 
was  further  so  amended  as  to  require  from  the 
President  of  the  Institution  on  oath  an  annual 
report  of  their  property,  funds,  receipts,  expen- 
ditures, &c.,  to  the  Secretary  of  the  Treasury, 
and  by  him  to  be  kid  before  Congress. 

On  motion  of  Mr.  LLOYD,  several  other 
amendments  were  made  to  the  details  of  the 
bill — amongst  them,  an  obligation  on  the  man- 
agers to  provide  for  the  vaccination  of  indigent 
persons,  free  of  any  charge.  Mr.  L.  having 
gone  through  the  bill, 

Mr.  ROBERTS  entered  into  a  very  general  re- 
view of  the  provisions  of  the  bill,  to  show  their 
inadequacy  to  the  objects  contemplated  by  the 
friends  of  the  measure,  as  well  as  their  objec- 


tionable character  in  some  respects ;  and  having 
some  doubts  of  the  constitutionality  of  the  bill 
in  its  present  shape,  which  question,  however, 
he  did  not  discuss. 

Mr.  LLOYD  rose  to  reply  to  Mr.  R.,  when,  on 
motion  of  Mr.  TALBOT,  the  bill  was  laid  on  the 
table. 

FEIDAY,  January  26. 
Virginia  Military  Lands. 

The  bill  from  the  other  House  for  extending 
the  time  for  locating  Virginia  military  land 
warrants  (for  two  years  longer)  was  taken  up 
in  Committee  of  the  Whole. 

This  subject  gave  rise,  as  usual  when  under 
consideration  heretofore,  to  a  good  deal  of  dis- 
cussion. 

Mr.  THOMAS  briefly  explained  to  the  Senate 
the  considerations  in  favor  of  extending  the  in- 
dulgence proposed  by  the  bill. 

Mr.  KING,  of  New  York,  thought  it  was  time 
that  something  explicit  was  done,  as  to  the  time 
when  this  subject  should  be  closed,  and  some 
report  made  of  the  lands  located,  and  those 
which  remained  for  the  disposal  of  the  United 
States,  &c.  He  gave  a  brief  narrative  of  the 
circumstances  which  produced  the  reservation 
by  Virginia,  of  the  country  between  the  Sciota 
and  Little  Miami,  for  satisfying  her  military 
land  warrants.  The  body  of  land  in  Ohio,  re- 
served by  Virginia  for  this  purpose,  was  of 
great  extent,  and  the  surplus  belonged  as  much 
to  the  United  States  as  any  other  land  in  that 
State ;  and  it  was  time,  he  thought,  that  some- 
thing was  done  to  show  what  quantity  was  left 
— how  this  matter  stood — and  to  begin  to  think 
of  some  termination  to  this  long-standing  sub- 
ject. Instead  of  passing  this  bill  with  an  ex- 
tension of  two  or  three  years,  he  would  give 
but  one  year,  with  an  understanding  that  it 
would  not  be  extended  longer,  unless  some  ex- 
planation should  be  given  to  justify  it. 

Mr.  BARBOUR  entered  into  a  history  of  the 
subject,  to  show  the  difficulties  which  had  im- 
peded a  final  adjustment  of  this  whole  subject. 
He  adverted  to  the  cession  made  by  Virginia  to 
the  Union,  of  all  her  immense  northwestern 
possessions,  presumed  then  to  extend  to  the 
Pacific  Ocean,  out  of  which  territory  she  had 
reserved  a  tract  for  satisfying  the  pledge  she 
had  given  to  her  Revolutionary  officers  and 
soldiers.  This  pledge  was  made  as  well  to 
those  of  the  State  line  as  of  the  Continental 
line,  but  in  the  contract  of  cession  and  reserva- 
tion, by  some  unknown  means,  the  word  State 
was  omitted,  and  the  Congress  of  the  United 
States  had  taken  advantage  of  this  omission,  in 
the  face  of  the  most  conclusive  circumstances, 
even  its  recognition  of  the  principle,  in  one  of 
the  articles,  to  reject  all  applications  to  satisfy 
warrants  of  the  State  line.  Mr.  B.  animadvert- 
ed on  this  conduct,  which  he  would  not  charac- 
terize by  the  epithet  which  would  be  applied  to 
j  it  in  private  life.  Leaving  this  part  of  tlie  sub- 
j  ject  Mr.  B.  argued  to  show  that  most  of  the 


DEBATES  OF  CONGRESS. 


703 


FEBRUARY, 


Commodore  Tucker, 


[SENATE. 


persons  originally  possessing  these  unlocated 
titles,  being  scattered  far  and  wide,  were  either 
ignorant,  or  their  descendants  or  heirs  were  ig- 
norant, of  their  title ;  many  of  these  were  or- 
phans, who  would  sooner  or  later  learn  their 
right  and  claim  it;  that  it  would  be  cruel  and 
unjust  to  foreclose  them,  &c.,  and  he  defended 
the  bill  as  it  stood. 

Mr.  RUGGLES,  of  Ohio,  moved  to  strike  out 
t ico  years,  and  insert  one  year  as  the  time  of 
extension.  He  argued  that  those  lands  which 
were  not  taken  up  by  the  warrants  remained 
unsettled,  and  that  the  further  extension  of  in- 
dulgence operated  to  prevent  the  populating  of 
the  country  in  question  ;  that  there  ought  to  be 
some  limit  established  to  this  indulgence,  and 
he  thought  one  year  more  would  enable  Con- 
gress to  judge  when  this  limit  could  be  fixed, 
and  a  termination  be  put  to  this  drawback  on 
the  settlement  of  the  country. 

The  motion  was  opposed  by  Messrs.  BARBOTJR, 
TALBOT,  and  THIMBLE  ;  and  it  was  negatived 
without  a  division. 

The  bill  was  then  reported  to  the  Senate,  and 
ordered  to  a  third  reading. 


WEDNESDAY,  February  6. 
Commodore  Tucker. 

The  Senate  then  again  took  up  the  bill  for 
the  relief  of  Commodore  Samuel  Tucker,  au- 
thorizing him  to  be  placed  on  the  list  of  invalid 
pensioners,  at  $50  a  month ;  on  which  bill  a 
long  and  wide  debate  took  place. 

Mr.  SMITH  opposed  this  bill  on  principle ;  ad- 
mitting the  merits  of  Captain  T.,  but  arguing 
that,  if  really  an  invalid  and  unable  to  maintain 
himself,  there  was  already  provision  made  by 
law  to  embrace  his  case  and  afford  relief ;  that, 
if  not  an  invalid,  this  bill  ought  not  to  pass,  the 
system  of  pensioning  for  public  services  merely 
being  bad  in  itself,  and  still  worse  in  its  tenden- 
cy. Mr.  S.  also  went  into  an  examination  of 
the  circumstances  alleged  in  the  case  of  the  ap- 
plicant, to  show  that  they  did  not  justify  the 
passage  of  the  bill ;  that  the  applicant  had  been 
already,  long  since,  uncommonly  well  provided 
for  by  the  public,  to  support  which  he  referred 
to  resolves  of  Congress,  &c. ;  that,  affording 
this  gratuitous  relief  to  the  applicant,  would  be 
treading  on  the  rights  of  thousands  of  other 
citizens  equally  meritorious,  &c. 

Mr.  HOLMES,  of  Maine,  replied  to  Mr.  S.,  and 
submitted  a  number  of  arguments,  in  addition 
to  those  which  he  used  when  the  bill  was  be- 
fore under  consideration,  in  support  of  it ;  re- 
ferring to  the  long  and  singularly  successful 
services,  and  the  highly  gallant  conduct  of  Com- 
modore T.  during  the  Revolutionary  war,  and 
his  present  reduced  circumstances  and  great 
age,  to  establish  the  justice  of  granting  him  a 
maintenance  out  of  the  navy  pension  fund ;  that 
fund  being  expressly  pledged  to  afford  relief  in 
such  cases  as  the  present. 

Mr.  SMITH  replied,  and  contended  that  this 
very  pension  fund  was  intended  to  provide  for 


disabled  seamen,  and  not  for  those  who  were 
not  disabled ;  that  Commodore  T.  did  not  come 
within  the  description,  and  therefore  was  not 
entitled  to  be  distinguished  from  all  the  other 
honorable  and  brave  men  who  have  grown  old 
since  they  signalized  themselves  in  the  Revolu- 
tion. He  argued  also,  (in  reply  to  a  remark  of 
Mr.  WALKEB,  of  Georgia,  the  other  day,)  that 
the  statute  of  limitations  was  a  just  law,  as  well 
as  a  wise  and  prudent  one. 

Mr.  CHAXDLEB  made  a  remark  or  two  in  re- 
ply to  Mr.  SMITH. 

Mr.  KIXG,  of  New  York,  placed  this  case  on 
a  footing  with  a  few  others  of  the  Revolutionary 
class,  particularly  that  of  General  Stark,  for 
whom  a  bill  passed  at  a  recent  session.  He 
adverted  to  some  of  the  prominent  features  of 
Commodore  T.'s  Revolutionary  services,  and 
contended  that  it  was  not  just  or  equitable  that 
a  veteran  of  the  Revolution  such  as  he,  in  want 
now  of  the  means  of  support,  should  ask  relief 
in  vain.  There  was  no  danger,  he  argued,  from 
such  a  course ;  for,  however  natural  the  preju- 
dices in  this  country  which  existed  against  the 
pension  system,  they  arose  from  the  abuses 
practised  in  Great  Britain,  where  pensions  were 
lavished  by  the  Crown  upon  favorites  of  every 
kind,  often  without  regard  to  public  services  or 
private  virtues.  There  was  no  danger  of  such 
an  abuse  in  this  country.  The  justice  of  mili- 
tary pensions  had  been  settled  in  this  country; 
it  was  a  power  delegated  to  the  Government  by 
the  constitution ;  and  there  was  no  risk  of  its 
abuse  in  a  Government  constituted  as  ours,  as 
the  people,  holding  the  corrective,  would  always 
apply  a  remedy  if  the  practice  was  ever  carried 
beyond  its  just  and  proper  limits. 

Mr.  SMITH,  after  subjoining  a  few  remarks, 
moved  to  postpone  the  bill  indefinitely. 

Mr.  MACOX  observed,  that  nothing  would  be 
more  curious  than  a  history  of  the  pensions  of 
this  country ;  the  practice  was  constantly  get- 
ting wider  and  wider;  but  it  had  been  well 
said,  the  history  of  the  country  was  lost.  He 
referred  to  the  circumstances  of  the  first  pen- 
sions and  those  granted  since,  to  show  the  regu- 
lar extension  of  the  principle  beyond  the  limits 
at  first  deemed  right,  A  rule  was  always  found 
for  a  new  case,  and  the  case  gave  rise  to  a  new 
rule,  so  that  the  principle  was  constantly  stretch- 
ing. He  was  opposed  to  this  course,  and  ar- 
gued briefly  against  it. 

Mr.  DANA  spoke  to  show  that  there  was  no 
principle  opposed  to  the  case  of  Commodore  Tn 
and  that  the  relief  ought  to  be  granted,  as  it  might 
be  done  without  danger  of  exceeding  the  just 
limits  to  which  Congress  were  authorized  to  go 
by  the  spirit  and  principles  of  our  Government. 

Mr.  ROBERTS  opposed  this  pension  on  princi- 
ple, for  the  same  reasons  that  he  opposed  the 
pension  of  General  Stark.  He  observed,  that 
if  pensions  were  granted  for  military  services, 
without  disability,  it  was  not  far  removed,  and 
would  not  long  be  distinguished  from  civil  pen- 
sions, which  would  probably  follow;  and  ar- 
gued to  show  the  evil  tendency  of  authorizing 


704 


ABRIDGMENT  OF  THE 


SENATE.] 


Election  of  President. 


[FKBRUAEY.  1821. 


pensions  in  cases  like  the  present,  which  could 
not  justly  be  distinguished  from  a  civil  pension. 

Mr.  PLEAS  ANTS  stated  the  ground  on  which 
the  Naval  Committee  reported  the  bill,  which 
was  intended  to  give  Commodore  T.  the  amount 
of  half-pay  for  a  certain  period,  to  which  he 
was  strictly  entitled ;  to  show  which  Mr.  P. 
adduced  the  facts  of  the  case. 

Mr.  OTIS  maintained  that  the  case  of  Commo- 
dore T.  entitled  him,  strictly,  to  avail  himself 
of  the  benefits  of  the  navy  pension  fund ;  that 
the  bill  called  for  no  new  grant  of  money  out 
of  the  Treasury ;  that  it  violated  no  principle ; 
and  that  it  did  not  become  a  magnanimous 
legislature  to  withhold  this  boon  from  him,  to 
which  he  was  so  signally  entitled  injustice  and 
gratitude. 

Messrs.  SMITH  and  MAOOUT  added  a  few  re- 
marks, and  Mr.  WALKER,  of  Georgia,  also  a  few, 
in  addition  to  what  he  had  said  the  other  day 
in  support  of  the  claim,  declining  to  go  again 
at  large  into  the  case,  as  it  had  been  so  ably 
supported. 

The  motion  to  postpone  the  bill  indefinitely 
was  negatived — yeas  13,  nays  24. 

After  an  unsuccessful  attempt  of  Mr.  ROBERTS 
to  reduce  the  proposed  allowance  to  $20  a 
month,  the  bill  was  ordered  to  be  engrossed  for 
a  third  reading. 

TUESDAY,  February  6. 

Mr.  BARBOUR  submitted  the  following  motion 
for  consideration : 

Resolved,  That  a  committee  be  appointed,  to  join 
such  committee  as  may  be  appointed  by  the  House 
of  Representatives,  to  ascertain  and  report  a  mode  of 
examining  the  votes  for  President  and  Vice  Presi- 
dent of  the  United  States,  and  of  notifying  the  per- 
sons elected  of  their  election. 


FRIDAY,  February  9. 
Punishment  of  Piracy. 
Mr.  SMITH,  from  the  Committee  on  the  Judi- 
ciary, to  whom  was  referred  the  resolution  of 
the  4th  of  December,  "  to  inquire  into  the  pro- 
priety of  so  modifying  the  law  punishing  piracy 
as  to  authorize  the  President  of  the  United 
States,  in  such  cases  as  he  may  deem  expedient, 
to  commute  capital  punishments  for  confinement 
in  penitentiary  houses,"  reported  that  it  is  inex- 
pedient to  make  the  modification  suggested ;  and 
the  report  was  read.  It  is  as  follows : 

The  object  of  the  resolution  is  to  alter  the  criminal 
code  of  the  United  States  so  far  as  to  place  within 
the  power  of  the  President  of  the  United  States  the 
complete  control  over  the  punishment  now  affixed  by 
law  to  the  crime  of  piracy,  and  to  soften  it  down 
from  death  to  the  less  rigorous  punishment  of  con- 
finement in  penitentiary  houses. 

In  the  catalogue  of  human  offences,  if  there  is  any 
one  supremely  distinguished  for  its  enormity  over 
others,  it  is  piracy.  It  can  only  be  committed  by 
those  whose  hearts  have  become  base  by  hal.-itual  de 
pravity.  It  is  called  by  jurists  an  offence  against  the 


universal  laws  of  society.  A  pirate  is  hostis  hwnam 
generis.  He  is  at  war  with  his  species,  and  has  re- 
nounced the  protection  of  all  civilized  Governments, 
and  abandoned  himself  again  to  the  savage  state  of 
nature.  His  flag  consists  of  a  "black  field,  with  a 
death's  head,  a  battle-axe,  and  an  hour-glass."  Theee 
are  the  ensigns  of  his  profession.  He  does  not  select 
the  enemies  of  his  native  country  as  the  only  objects 
of  his  conquest,  but  attacks  indiscriminately  the  de- 
fenceless of  every  nation;  prowls  every  ocean  in 
quest  of  plunder ;  and  murders  or  jeopardizes  the 
lives  of  all  who  fall  within  his  power,  without  regard 
to  nation,  to  agt>,  or  to  sex.  With  such  a  blood- 
stained front,  a  pirate  can  have  no  claim  to  the  clem- 
ency of  a  Government,  the  protection  of  which  he  has 
voluntarily  renounced,  and  against  which  he  has  so 
highly  offended. 

The  Executive  clemency  has  more  than  sufficient 
range  for  its  exercise,  without  the  aid  sought  for  by 
this  resolution.  Whatever  may  be  the  public  feeling 
against  a  pirate  previous  to  his  trial  and  conviction, 
as  soon  as  that  takes  place  that  feeling  subsides  and 
becomes  enlisted  on  the  part  of  the  criminal.  There 
is  not  a  favorable  trait  in  his  case  but  what  is  brought 
up  and  mingled  with  as  many  circumstances  of  pity 
and  compassion  as  his  counsel  can  condense  in  a  pe- 
tition, which  everybody  subscribes  without  any  knowl- 
edge of  the  facts  ;  and  this  is  presented  to  the  Execu- 
tive, upon  which  alone  he  is  to  judge  the  case.  All 
the  atrocious  circumstances  are  kept  out  of  view. 
There  is  no  one  hardy  enough  to  tell  that  this  crimi- 
nal and  his  associates  had  boarded  a  defenceless  ship, 
and,  after  plundering  all  that  was  valuable,  had,  with 
the  most  unrelenting  cruelty,  butchered  the  whole 
crew  and  passengers ;  or  crowded  them  into  a  small 
boat,  in  the  midst  of  the  sea,  without  provisions  or 
clothing,  and  set  them  adrift,  where  their  destruction 
was  inevitable ;  or,  the  better  to  secure  their  pur- 
pose, had  shut  all,  both  male  and  female,  under  deck, 
and  sunk  the  ship,  to  elude  detection,  or  to  indulge 
an  insatiable  thirst  for  cruelty. 

The  object  of  capital  punishment  is  to  prevent  the 
offender  from  committing  further  offences,  or  to  de- 
ter others  from  doing  so  by  the  example.  If  it  be 
commuted  for  temporary  confinement,  it  can  effect 
neither  to  any  valuable  purpose.  The  temptation  is 
so  strong,  and  detection  so  difficult  and  so  rare,  that 
but  few,  it  is  feared,  can  be  deterred.  The  punish- 
ment of  death  is  inflicted  upon  pirates  by  all  civilized 
nations,  notwithstanding  which  it  is  a  growing  evil ; 
every  sea  is  now  crowded  with  them,  which,  instead 
of  diminishing,  ought  to  increase  the  reasons  for  in- 
flicting capital  punishment 

The  committee  are  of  opinion  that  capital  punish- 
ment is  the  appropriate  punishment  for  piracy,  and 
that  it  would  be  inexpedient  to  commute  it  for  con- 
finement in  penitentiary  houses. 

Election  of  President. 

Mr.  BARBOTTR  then,  from  the  joint  select  com- 
mittee appointed  on  the  subject,  reported  the 
following  resolutions: 

Resolved,  That  the  two  Houses  shall  assemble  in 
the  Chamber  of  the  House  of  Representatives  on 
Wednesday  next,  at  12  o'clock,  and  the  President  of 
the  Senate  shall  be  the  presiding  officer ;  that  one 
person  be  appointed  a  Teller  on  the  part  of  the  Sen- 
,te,  to  make  a  list  of  the  votes  as  they  shall  be  de- 
.lared ;  that  the  result  shall  be  delivered  to  the  Pres- 
ident of  the  Senate,  who  shall  announce  the  state  of 


DEBATES  OF  CONGRESS. 


705 


FEBRUARY,  1821.] 


Electoral  Votes  for  President. 


[SENATE. 


the  vote,  and  the  person  elected,  to  the  two  Houses 
assembled  as  aforesaid ;  which  shall  be  deemed  a 
declaration  of  the  persons  elected  President  and  Vice 
President  of  the  United  States,  and,  together  with  the 
list  of  the  votes,  be  entered  on  the  Journals  of  the  two 
Houses. 

Resolved,  That  if  any  objection  be  made  to  the 
vote  of  Missouri,  and  the  counting  or  omitting  to 
count  which  shall  not  essentially  change  the  result 
of  the  election ;  in  that  case  they  shall  be  reported  by 
the  President  of  the  Senate  in  the  following  manner : 
Were  the  votes  of  Missouri  to  be  counted,  the  result 
would  be  for  A.  B.,  President  of  the  United  States, 

votes ;  if  not  counted,  for  A.  B.,  as  President  of 

the  United  States, votes ;  but,  in  either  event, 

A.  B.  is  elected  President  of  the  United  States ;  and 
in  the  same  manner  for  Vice  President. 

Mr.  BARBOTTR  explained,  in  detail,  the  reasons 
which  influenced  the  committee  in  adopting  the 
resolutions  which  it  recommended. 

Mr.  KING,  of  New  York,  spoke  in  particular 
reference  to  what  he  deemed  the  correct  course 
of  proceeding  in  joint  meetings ;  thinking  it 
consistent  with  the  constitution,  and  with  pro- 
priety, that  the  House  should  come  to  the  Sen- 
ate, if  the  apartment  had  not  rendered  it  incon- 
venient ;  and  that,  when  a  convenient  plan 
should  he  completed  for  joint  meetings,  he 
hoped  the  practice  heretofore  prevailing  would 
not  be  considered  in  the  light  of  a  precedent, 
but  that  they  should  repair  thither,  and  the 
President  of  the  Senate  preside  in  the  joint 
meeting,  &c. 

Mr.  MACON  offered  some  remarks,  explanatory 
of  the  views  of  the  committee  on  the  points  be- 
fore them — some  thinking  the  votes  of  Missouri 
ought  to  be  received  and  counted,  and  others 
that  they  ought  to  be  rejected ;  that  they  had 
agreed  on  the  second  resolution  as  the  most 
likely  course  to  reconcile  any  difficulty.  As  to 
the  place  of  meeting,  the  Chamber  of  the  Sen- 
ate would  have  been  recommended,  (he  was 
understood  to  say,)  but  for  the  reason  that  it 
could  not  accommodate  comfortably  the  two 
Houses. 

The  question  being  put  on  the  first  resolution, 
it  was  agreed  to,  nem.  con. 

On  the  second  resolution  a  long  debate  took 
place.  It  was  opposed  by  Messrs.  SMITH,  TAL- 
BOT,  WILLIAMS,  of  Tennessee,  and  LANMAN,  on 
various  grounds;  principally,  for  the  reasons 
that  it  was  not  competent  in  the  Senate  to  de- 
cide such  a  question  in  anticipation  ;  that  the 
proper  time  to  consider  and  settle  it  was  the 
day  appointed  by  the  constitution ;  that  the 
two  Houses  would  not  be  bound  to-morrow  by 
this  report ;  that  it  was  useless  to  touch  the 
question  now,  whether  Missouri  was  a  State  or 
not,  or  had  a  right  to  vote ;  that  her  votes  could 
not  be  legally  known  now,  &c. 

The  resolution  was  defended  by  Messrs.  BAR- 
BOUB,  OTIS,  and  JOHNSON,  of  Kentucky,  on  the 
grounds  that,  as  the  question  would  certainly 
vise  to-morrow  in  joint  meeting,  it  was  much 
better  to  adjust  it  now,  and  prevent  all  difficulty 
or  trouble  ;  that  was  wrong  to  allow  the  pleas- 
Vou  VI.— 45 


ure  and  good  feelings  growing  out  of  the  event  of 
to-morrow,  a  great  and  pleasing  incident  illus- 
trative of  our  free  institutions,  to  be  disturbed 
by  a  question  which  could  be  so  well  settled 
previously,  &c. 

Mr.  KING,  of  New  York,  in  accordance  with 
the  opinions  he  had  submitted,  wished  some 
amendment  introduced  to  prevent  the  mode  of 
proceeding  from  being  quoted  as  a  precedent 
hereafter — an  amendment  declaring  that,  if  any 
question  should  arise  relative  to  any  votes,  in 
joint  meeting,  that  the  two  Houses  would 
separate  to  consider  the  case,  and  not  decide  it 
jointly. 

Mr.  BARBOTJR  said  that,  on  the  present  occa- 
sion, as  the  election  could  not  be  affected  by  the 
votes  of  any  one  State,  no  difficulty  could  arise ; 
and  that  it  was  his  intention  hereafter  to  bring 
the  subject  up,  to  remedy  what  he  considered  a 
casus  omissus  in  the  constitution,  either  by  an 
act  of  Congress,  if  that  should  appear  sufficient, 
or,  if  not,  by  proposing  an  amendment  to  the 
constitution  itself. 

The  second  resolution  was  then  also  agreed 
to;  and  the  Senate  adjourned. 

WEDNESDAY,  February  14. 
The  Senate  proceeded  to  the  appointment  of 
a  Teller  on  their  part,  in  pursuance  of  the  re- 
port of  the  joint  committee  appointed  to  con- 
sider and  report  a  mode  of  examining  the  votes 
for  President  and  Vice  President  of  the  United 
States ;  and  Mr.  B ARBOUR  was  appointed. 

Electoral  Votes  for  President. 

A  message  from  the  House  of  Representatives 
informed  the  Senate  that  the  House  of  Repre- 
sentatives have  rejected  the  resolution  of  the 
Senate  declaring  the  admission  of  the  State  of 
Missouri  into  the  Union.  The  House  of  Repre- 
sentatives concur  in  the  report  of  the  joint  com- 
mittee appointed  to  make  arrangements  upon 
the  subject  of  counting  the  votes  for  PRESIDENT 
and  VICE  PRESIDENT  of  the  UNITED  STATKS,  and 
have  appointed  tellers  on  their  part,  and  are 
now  ready  to  receive  the  Senate  to  perform  that 
ceremony. 

Whereupon,  the  two  Houses  of  Congress, 
agreeably  to  the  joint  resolution,  assembled  in 
the  Representatives'  Chamber,  and  the  certi- 
ficates of  the  Electors  of  the  several  States,  be- 
ginning with  the  State  of  New  Hampshire,  were, 
by  the  President  of  the  Senate,  opened  and  de- 
livered to  tellers  appointed  for  the  purpose,  by 
whom  they  were  road,  except  the  State  of  Mis- 
souri ;  and,  when  the  certificate  of  the  Electors 
of  that  State  was  opened,  an  objection  was  made 
by  Mr.  LIVERMORE,  a  member  of  the  House  of 
Representatives  from  the  State  of  New  Hamp- 
shire, to  counting  said  votes.  Whereupon,  on 
motion,  by  Mr.  WILLIAMS,  of  Tennessee,  the 
Senate  returned  to  their  own  Chamber. 

A  message  from  the  House  of  Representatives 
informed  the  Senate  that  the  House  of  Repre- 
sentatives is  now  readv  to  receive  the  Senate  in 


706 


ABRIDGMENT  OF  THE 


SENATE.] 


Missouri  State  Constitution — Citizenship  of  Free  Persons  of  Color.         [FEBRUARY,  1821. 


the  Chamber  of  the  House  of  Representatives 
for  the  purpose  of  continuing  the  enumeration 
of  the  votes  of  the  Electors  for  President  and 
Vice  President,  according  to  the  joint  resolu- 
tions agreed  upon  between  the  two  Houses. 
On  motion,  by  Mr.  BARBOUR,  it  was 
fiesohed,  That  the  Senate  proceed  to  meet  the 
House  of  Representatives,  in  order  to  conclude 
the  counting  of  the  votes  for  President  and  Vice 
President  of  the  United  States,  according  to  the 
last  of  the  joint  resolutions  adopted  for  that 
purpose. 

Whereupon,  the  two  Houses  having  again  as- 
sembled in  the  Representatives'  Chamber,  the 
certificate  of  the  Electors  of  the  State  of  Mis- 
souri was,  by  the  President  of  the  Senate,  de- 
livered to  the  tellers,  who  read  the  same,  and 
who,  having  examined  and  ascertained  the 
whole  number  of  votes,  presented  a  list  thereof 
to  the  President  of  the  Senate,  by  whom  it  was 
read,  as  follows : 


s 

* 

Preside't.  Vice  President. 

^ 

rS 

ii 

-y 

4 

h 

J 

1 

BJ 

1 

\ 

5 

| 

1 

1 

•i 

STATES. 

P 

IM 

«T 

«T 

* 

0 

^ 

1 

1  49 

o 

nS 

cL 

5 

S^ 

0 

1 

1 

g. 

H 

1 

^ 

_r 
"7 

f 

1 
a 

o 

*3 
O" 
a 

C 

•s 

TL 

6 
« 

| 

O 

M 

s 

-g 

^ 

^C 

'o 

^ 

3 

? 

'£ 

2 

Q 

8 
15 

New  Hampshire     - 
Massachusetts 

7 
15 

1 

7 
7 

8 

- 

1 

4 

Rhode  Island 

4 

- 

4 

9 

Connecticut 

9 

_ 

9 

8 

Vermont 

8 

_ 

8 

29 

New  York 

28 

_ 

2!) 

8 

New  Jersey 

8 

- 

8 

25 

Pennsylvania 

24 

- 

24 

4 

Delaware 

4 



— 

— 

— 

— 

4 

11 

Maryland 

11 

_ 

10 

_ 

1 

25 

Virginia 

28 

_ 

25 

15 

North  Carolina      - 

15 

15 

11 

South  Carolina 

11 

_ 

11 

8 

Georgia 

8 

_ 

8 

12 

Kentucky 

12 

- 

12 

8 

Tennessee 

7 

_ 

7 

8 

Ohio 

8 

_ 

8 

3 

Louisiana 

8 

_ 

3 

3 

Indiana 

8 

_ 

3 

3 

Mississippi 

2 

_ 

2 

3 

Illinois 

( 

_ 

3 

3 

Alabama 

I 

_ 

9 

Maine 

'. 

_ 

9 

3 

Missouri 

8 

- 

.'5 

228 

1 

215 

111 

"^ 

4 

I 

The  whole  number  of  the  Electors  appointed 

being  235,  including  those  of  Missouri,  of  which 
118  make  a  majority,  or,  excluding  the  Electors 
of  Missouri,  the  whole  number  would  be  232, 
of  which  117  make  a  majority  ;  but,  in  either 
event,  JAMES  MONROE,  of  Virginia,  is  elected 
PRESIDENT,  and  DANIEL  D.  TOMPKINS,  of  New 
York,  is  elected  VICE  PRESIDENT  of  the  United 
States. 

Whereupon, 

The  President  of  the  Senate  declared  JAMES 
MONROE,  of  Virginia,  duly  elected  President  of 
the  United  States,  commencing  with  the  fourth 
day  of  March  next ;  and  DANIEL  D.  TOMPKINS 
Vice  President  of  the  United  States,  commencing 
with  the  fourth  day  of  March  next. 

The  votes  of  the  Electors  were  then  delivered 
to  the  Secretary  of  the  Senate  ;  the  two  Houses 
separated,  and  the  Senate  returned  to  their  own 
Chamber,  and  then  adjourned. 

FRIDAY,  February  16. 

Missouri  State  Constitution —  Citizenship  of  Free 
Persons  of  Color. 

Mr.  ROBERTS  asked  and  obtained  leave  to  bring 
in  a  resolution  declaring  the  admission  of  the 
State  of  Missouri  into  the  Union. 

The  resolution  is  as  follows : 

"  Resolved,  by  the  Senate  and  House  of  Representa- 
ives  of  the  United  States  of  America,  in  Congress  as- 
sembled, That  the  State  of  Missouri  rhall  be,  and  is 
hereby  declared,  one  of  the  United  States  of  America, 
and  is  admitted  into  the  Union  on  an  equal  footing 
with  the  original  States  in  all  respects  whatever: 
Provided,  That  the  following  be  taken  as  fundamental 
conditions  and  terms  upon  which  the  said  State  is  ad- 

itted  into  the  Union,  namely :  that  the  fourth  clause 
of  the  twenty-sixth  section  of  the  third  article  of  the 
onstitution,  submitted  by  the  people  of  Missouri  to 
the  consideration  of  Congress,  shall,  as  soon  as  the 
provisions  of  said  constitution  will  admit,  be  so  amend- 
ed, that  it  shall  not  be  applicable  to  citizens  of  any 
State  in  this  Union  ;  and  that,  until  so  amended,  no 
law,  passed  in  conformity  thereto,  shall  be  construed 
to  extend  to  any  citizen  of  either  State  in  this  Union." 

Mr.  VAN  DYKE,  of  Delaware,  said  he  hoped 
the  gentleman  would  not  understand  him,  in 
making  the  motion  which  he  was  about  to  make, 
as  offering  any  disrespect  towards  him  or  his 
proposition  ;  but,  Mr.  VAN  DYKE  said,  he  should 
consider  it  unfortunate  for  the  Senate  now  to 
take  any  step  in  this  business.  The  Senate  ought 
to  recollect  the  course  this  subject  had  taken  ; 
they  had  at  an  early  period  sent  to  the  other 
House  a  resolution  for  the  admission  of  the  State 
into  the  Union,  containing  a  proviso  which  it 
was  hoped  would  obviate  all  objection  to  it. 
That  resolution,  however,  had  been  rejected  by 
the  House  of  Representatives.  They  have  in- 
formed us,  by  message,  of  its  rejection,  without 
any  indication  of  what  would  be  acceptable  to 
them ;  and  that  message  is  scarcely  cold  before 
we  have  a  proposition  to  bring  forward  another 
resolution.  He  thought  the  Senate  had  better 
not  stir  in  the  subject  again  so  soon;  but^that 
it  would  be  more  expedient  to  wait  a  while  at 


DEBATES  OF  CONGRESS. 


707 


FEBRUARY,  1821.]         Missouri  State  Constitution — Citizenship  of  Free  Persons  of  Color. 


[SENATE. 


least,  and  see  what  the  other  House  should  do, 
if  it  did  any  thing.  He  had  no  objection  to 
make  another  effort  to  get  the  State  admitted, 
but  to  make  it  so  soon  after  the  fate  of  the  first 
proposition  had  been  announced  from  the  other 
House,  would  be  premature,  he  thought,  and 
unwise.  If  the  Senate  had  not  moved  first  in 
this  business,  but  had  now  its  resolution  to  send 
to  the  other  House  as  an  original  proposition,  he 
thought  it  highly  probable  it  would  prevail 
there.  With  the  best  intentions,  that  resolution 
had  been  sent  there ;  it  had  been  rejected ;  and 
the  Senate  was  as  yet  ignorant  of  the  form  of 
admission  which  would  be  acceptable  to  that 
body.  He  hoped  the  Senate  would  keep  back, 
a  little  longer  at  least,  any  new  proposition ; 
and  therefore  moved  that  the  motion  to  grant 
the  leave  asked  for,  be  postponed  until  Monday 
next. 

Mr.  ROBERTS  was  of  opinion  that  the  Senate 
might,  without  the  slightest  departure  from  pro- 
priety or  dignity,  receive  the  resolution;  and 
then  he  should  have  no  objection  to  laying  it  on 
the  table  for  some  days  ;  it  would  then  be  before 
the  Senate,  and  gentlemen  could  give  it  due  re- 
flection. Mr.  E.  said  he  offered  this  resolution 
from  a  strong  and  serious  conviction  of  duty ; 
and,  as  the  session  was  near  its  end,  he  trusted 
that  the  Senate  would  not  allow  any  punctilio 
to  interfere  with  an  object  so  important.  He 
was  one  who  had  been  unable  to  vote  for  the 
former  resolution  which  passed  the  Senate  ;  that 
having  failed  in  the  other  branch,  he  now  offered 
euch  a  one  as  he  could  support.  He  earnestly 
desired  the  admission  of  the  State  into  the 
Union ;  it  was  an  object  all  important  to  the 
nation  and  to  its  public  councils,  and  he  hoped 
the  Senate  would  so  far  indulge  him  at  least  as 
to  entertain  his  proposition,  and  then,  if  it  saw 
fit,  lay  it  by  for  future  decision. 

Mr.  WALKER,  of  Georgia,  viewed  this  propo- 
sition as  a  kind  of  peace  offering  on  the  part  of 
those  gentlemen  of  the  Senate  who  had  opposed 
the  former  resolution.  He  was  extremely  anx- 
ious that  the  question  should  be  settled  and  that 
nothing  should  be  left  undone  to  effect  a  settle- 
ment of  it.  He  therefore  acknowledged  him- 
self much  obliged  to  the  gentleman  from  Penn- 
sylvania for  bringing  this  proposition  forward. 
Whatever  may  be  the  decisions  of  the  other 
branch,  said  Mr.  W.,  let  us  do  all  we  can  to 
preserve  the  peace  and  harmony  of  the  Union. 
Ho  hoped  no  point  of  etiquette  would  interfere 
with  the  motion,  but  that  the  leave  would  be 
granted;  that  the  proposition  would  be  ulti- 
mately adopted,  and  the  tranquillity  of  the  nation 
be  restored  by  the  admission  of  the  State  without 
more  delay. 

Mr.  MOERILL,  of  New  Hampshire,  adverted  to 
the  unpleasant  feelings  and  effects  of  this  long 
agitated  Missouri  question ;  the  great  portion 
of  time  which  it  consumed  of  the  last  and  of  the 

K  resent  session ;  the  embarrassment  it  produced 
i  the  public  business.     It  pursues  us,  said  he, 
everywhere  in  the  House,  and  from  one  House- 
to  the  other,  into  the  committee  rooms  and  out 


of  doors.  He  sincerely  hoped  that  it  might  be 
terminated  at  the  present  session,  and  was  a 
little  surprised  that  his  friend  from  Delaware 
should  make  an  objection  to  receiving  a  propo- 
sition which  might  bring  the  subject  to  a  favor- 
able issue.  The  act  of  the  last  session  concern- 
ing Missouri,  Mr.  M.  said,  passed  both  Houses 
of  Congress,  and  received  the  Executive  sanc- 
tion. Had  that  act  been  properly  met  by  Mis- 
souri, there  would  have  been  no  difficulty  in 
her  admission ;  the  former  question  was  con- 
sidered as  settled,  and,  but  for  the  clause  now 
objected  to,  her  admission  would  have  met  with 
no  serious  opposition.  He  thought  every  effort 
ought  to  be  made  to  bring  the  subject  to  an 
amicable  issue,  and  hoped  it  would  be  ended  by 
the  passage  of  this  resolution.  There  was  noth- 
ing, among  the  numerous  subjects  before  Con-  • 
gress,  of  more  importance,  and  he  thought  the 
Senate  ought  to  receive,  without  postponement, 
the  proposition  now  offered. 

Mr.  JOHNSON,  of  Kentucky,  could  not  see, 
because  the  Senate  had  done  its  duty  once, 
that  it  was  to  do  nothing  more.  He,  for  one, 
was  ready  to  embrace  every  opportunity  of 
performing  it.  How,  he  asked,  were  the  Sen- 
ate to  ascertain  the  sentiments  of  the  other 
House,  or  of  each  other,  but  by  proceeding  in 
this  way  ?  Caucussing  was  no  longer  fashiona- 
ble here,  and  the  distance  over  which  members 
were  scattered,  completely  prevented  an  inter- 
change of  opinions  in  private.  It  was  the  best 
course  to  do  what  they  could  when  the  oppor- 
tunity offered.  This  subject  was  of  more  im- 
portance than  any  other  before  Congress ;  it 
distracted  the  legislative  councils,  and  impeded 
all  other  business.  An  immense  quantity  of 
business  of  the  deepest  concern  to  the  nation 
continued  before  them,  to  be  done  during  the 
short  remainder  of  the  session — more  than  he 
had  ever  known,  even  at  the  commencement 
of  some  sessions;  yet  none  of  this  would  or 
could  be  done  until  this  all-devouring  subject 
of  Missouri  was  settled.  Every  other  subject 
was  put  in  jeopardy  by  it.  The  relief  of  our 
land  debtors  is  endangered — the  army  is  endan- 
gered— the  Union  itself  is  endangered — those 
ties  which  have  bound  us  together  as  a  nation 
of  brothers,  have  been  weakened  by  this  all- 
distracting  question.  lie  would  therefore  meet 
it,  and  continue  to  meet  it,  until  the  4th  of 
March;  he  would  discard  all  other  subjects  to 
make  an  effort  to  terminate  and  adjust  it.  We 
see,  said  he,  that  nothing  else  can  be  done ;  we 
send  to  the  other  House  bill  after  bill,  but  in 
vain  ;  we  hear  of  nothing  there  but  Missouri! 
Missouri!!  Missouri!!!  and  thus  will  it  con- 
tinue until  we  can  end  it.  Mr.  J.  avowed  that 
he  felt  under  obligations  to  the  gentleman  from 
Pennsylvania,  for  bringing  this  proposition  for- 
ward; and,  unless  some  member  would  get 
up  and  say  he  was  not  ready  to  vote  on  grant- 
ing the  leave,  ho  should  oppose  the  postpone- 
ment. 

Mr.  BABBOUB,  of  Virginia,  said  he  would 
vote  against  the  postponement,  because  it  was 


708 


ABRIDGMENT  OF  THE 


SENATE.] 


Missouri  State  Constitution — Citizenship  of  Free  Persons  of  Color.         [FEBRUARY,  1821. 


an  unusual  course,  and  he  was  inclined  to  ad- 
vance, under  the  hope  that  this  resolution 
would  receive  the  sanction  of  the  Senate  and 
of  the  House  of  Kepresentatives,  and  put  an 
end  to  this  painful  contest.  This  proposition 
would  either  obtain  with  the  other  House,  or 
it  would  not,  and  though  there  might  be  some- 
thing in  its  passage  now,  like  a  surrender  of 
etiquette  on  the  part  of  the  Senate,  yet  he 
would  not  consider  a  little  matter  of  form  as 
more  important  than  the  adjustment  of  this  all- 
important  question.  If  it  should  finally  fail,  a 
great  responsibility  would  rest  somewhere. 
Gentlemen  might  smile,  he  said,  but  they  who 
treated  the  subject  lightly  were  far  removed 
from  the  scene  of  real  excitement.  Could  they 
witness  the  sensations  which  it  produced  in 
that  part  of  the  Union  where  its  effects  were 
most  to  be  dreaded,  they  would  think  more 
gravely  of  it.  When  the  Senate,  said  Mr.  B., 
shall  have  manifested  a  desire,  an  anxious  de- 
sire, to  settle  the  question  by  one  more  effort, 
and  shall  still  fail,  our  skirts  will  be  clear ;  and 
let  what  consequences  ensue  that  may,  our  re- 
cords will  show  that  we  have  done  what  we 
could  to  prevent  them.  If  nothing  serious 
ensue,  still  we  shall  have  nothing  to  regret. 
Mr.  B.  hoped  the  proposition  would  at  least  be 
received,  if  then  laid  on  the  table. 

Mr.  HOLMES,  of  Maine,  was  willing  to  grant 
the  leave  requested,  but  merely  as  a  matter  of 
courtesy — not  from  a  hope  of  its  doing  any 
good.  The  Senate  had  passed  a  resolution  to 
admit  the  State;  it  was  sent  to  the  other 
House,  where  it  was  amended,  and  then  re- 
jected. "Was  it  for  the  Senate  immediately  to 
shape  another  and  send  to  them,  or  to  wait  and 
see  if  that  House  would  agree  on  any  proposi- 
tion of  its  own  ?  If  they  send  us  none,  it  will 
be  evidence  that  they  are  not  disposed  to  do 
any  thing.  The  public  mind,  Mr.  H.  said,  had 
been  much  excited  on  this  subject,  but  a  change 
was  taking  place,  and  the  people  were  begin- 
ning to  say,  let  Missouri  into  the  Union — if  you 
do  not,  let  the  responsibility  rest  where  it  be- 
longs. 

Mr.  YAK  DYKE  disclaimed  being  influenced 
in  his  motion,  by  motives  of  etiquette.  He 
acted  from  a  conviction  of  its  expediency  in 
regard  to  the  object  in  view — the  admission  of 
the  State.  He  believed  Missouri  would  be  ad- 
mitted into  the  Union  before  the  4th  of  March, 
on  a  footing  with  the  other  States;  but  he 
thought  it  impolitic  for  the  Senate  again  to 
take  up  ibe  subject  so  hastily,  and  that  he  was 
walking  in  the  plain  path  of  his  duty  towards 
Missouri,  "in  regard  to  her  admission,  in  making 
his  motion  to  postpone  the  introduction  of  this 
resolution.  The  proposition  was  the  same  in 
substance  as  the  former  resolution,  and  if  there 
was  no  difficulty  apprehended  here,  on  it,  why 
should  it  be  pressed  again  so  soon ;  why  not 
allow  the  other  House  some  time  to  act  on  a 
plan  of  its  own,  or  at  least  wait  a  short  time  and 
observe  the  indications  there  ?  The  strength  of 
Missouri  was  increasing  in  this  House  at  least, 


and  it  was  prudent  to  rest  awhile,  and  discover 
what  course  the  other  House  was  likely  to  take. 
The  proposition  could  sustain  no  injury  by  the 
delay ;  it  was  before  the  Senate,  in  fact,  though 
not  in  form,  for  it  had  been  printed  and  was  on 
the  table  of  each  member.  All  he  asked  was, 
that  the  Senate  would  Tiold  its  hand  until 
Monday  next,  before  it  entertained  the  propo- 
sition. 

Mr.  WALKEK,  of  Alabama,  concurred  in  the 
opinions  of  the  gentleman  from  Delaware. 
The  Senate  had  evinced,  at  all  times,  a  dispo- 
sition to  admit  Missouri.  It  had  at  an  early 
period  of  the  session,  passed  a  resolution  de- 
claring her  admission,  and  sent  it  to  the  other 
House,  where  it  was  finally  rejected.  The  Senate 
knew  that  many  propositions  had  been  before 
that  House  on  this  subject ;  none  of  them  had 
succeeded,  and  there  was,  consequently,  no  evi- 
dence of  a  disposition  there  to  admit  the  State. 
Nothing  would  be  gained  by  this  resolution, 
but  affording  to  the  House  of  Representatives 
another  opportunity  of  having  the  subject  be- 
fore them  at  large ;  for  this  identical  proposi- 
tion, with  the  exception  of  perhaps  a  single 
word,  had  already  been  considered  in  that 
House,  and  been  rejected  by  it.  He  was  of 
opinion  that  it  would  be  much  better  for  the 
Senate  now  to  wait  until  the  other  House  took 
some  step  of  its  own  in  the  business,  as  it  had 
rejected  the  resolution  sent  down  by  the  Sen- 
ate. He  could  perceive  no  probable  good  likely 
to  result  from  the  Senate's  again  acting  on  the 
subject ;  its  disposition  was  undoubted  ;  it  had 
done  its  duty ;  and  he  was  for  giving  the  House 
an  opportunity  of  adopting  its  own  plan,  if  it 
had  any. 

Mr.  CHANDLER,  of  Maine,  conceived  that  the 
Senate  had  done  every  thing,  so  far,  that  was 
proper  on  the  subject.  If  it  entertained  this 
proposition,  it  might  prevent  the  other  House 
from  proceeding  in  its  endeavors  to  agree  on 
some  plan  of  its  own ;  and  he  was  in  favor, 
therefore,  of  deferring  any  other  step  on  the 
part  of  the  Senate  for  some  time  at  least. 

The  question  being  then  taken  on  postponing 
the  motion  for  leave,  it  was  decided  in  the 
negative — 18  rising  in  favor  of  the  postpone- 
ment, and  20  against  it. 

The  question  then  being  on  granting  the 
leave, 

Mr.  SMITH,  of  South  Carolina,  made  a  point 
of  order.  The  13th  of  the  joint  rules  of  the 
two  Houses  inhibited  the  re-introduction,  in 
either  House,  without  a  notice  of  ten  days,  of 
any  bill  or  resolution  which  should  have  been 
passed  by  one  House  and  sent  to  the  other,  and 
there  rejected.  Mr.  S.  conceived  that  this  rule 
would  oppose  the  introduction  of  this  resolu- 
tion at  this  time,  ten  days'  notice  not  having 
been  given  by  the  mover;  and  Mr.  S.  was  pro- 
ceeding to  support  his  objection  with  some  ar- 
guments; when 

The  PRESIDENT  overruled  the  objection  taken, 
referring  to  the  practice  of  the  Senate  in  former 


DEBATES  OF  CONGRESS. 


709 


FEBRUARY,  1821.]          Missouri  State  Constitution — Citizenship  of  Free  Persons  of  Color. 


[SENATE. 


The  question  being  then  put  on  granting  the 
leave,  it  was  carried  without  a  division,  and  the 
resolution  received  its  first  reading. 

Death  of  the  Representative  William  A.  Bur- 
well,  Esq. 

A.  message  having  been  received  from  the 
House  of  Representatives,  announcing  the 
death  of  the  Hon.  WILLIAM  A.  BUBWELL,  a 
member  of  that  House  from  the  State  of  Vir- 
ginia— 

On  motion  of  Mr.  PLEASAXTS,  it  was 

Resolved,  unanimously,  That  the  members  of  the 
Senate  will  attend  the  funeral  of  the  Hon.  William 
A.  Burwell,  late  a  member  of  the  House  of  Repre- 
sentatives from  the  State  of  Virginia,  to-morrow,  at 
ten  o'clock,  A.  M. ;  and,  as  a  testimony  of  respect 
for  the  memory  of  the  deceased,  will  go  into  mourn- 
ing, and  wear  crape  for  thirty  days. 

The  Senate  then  adjourned. 


WEDNESDAY,  February  21. 
Missouri. 

The  Senate  resumed,  as  in  Committee  of  the 
Whole,  the  consideration  of  the  resolution 
offered  by  Mr.  ROBEETS. 

Much  debate  took  place  on  the  merits  of  the 
resolution,  as  well  as  on  the  expediency  of  now 
acting  on  it,  in  the  course  of  which  Mr.  BAB- 
BOTTE  moved  to  strike  out  the  proviso,  but  sub- 
sequently withdrew  the  motion.  The  resolu- 
tion was  advocated  by  Messrs.  ROBEBTS,  Low- 
EIE,  and  BABBOUB,  and  was  opposed  by  Messrs. 
SMITH  and  VAN  DYKE. 

Mr.  LOWBIE,  after  observing  that  the  resolu- 
tion had  been  brought  forward  by  those  who 
had  opposed  the  former  resolution  of  the  Sen- 
ate, from  a  sincere  desire  to  see  the  State  ad- 
mitted, and  with  the  view  of  meeting  gentle- 
men on  the  other  side,  as  far  as  they  could ; 
but,  as  the  proposition  appeared  not  to  be  ac- 
ceptable to  them,  he,  for  one,  would  not  press 
it  on  them,  and  therefore  moved  its  indefinite 
postponement. 

This  motion  was  negatived — yeas  18,  nays 
24,  as  follows : 

YF.AS.— Messrs.  Brown,  Chandler,  Dickerson, 
Eaton,  Horsey,  King  of  New  York,  Lanman,  Low- 
rie,  Macon,  Mills,  Noble,  Otis,  Sanford,  Smith, 
Southard,  Tichenor,  Van  Dyke,  and  Williams  of 
Mississippi. 

NAYS.— Messrs.  Barbour,  Dana,  Edwards,  Elliott, 
Gaillard,  Holmes  of  Maine,  Holmes  of  Mississippi, 
Johnson  of  Kentucky,  Johnson  of  Louisiana,  King  of 
Alabama,  Knight,  MorrilL  Palmer,  Parrott,  Pleas- 
ants,  Roberts,  Stokes,  Talbot,  Taylor,  Thomas,  Trim- 
ble, Walker  of  Alabama,  Walker  of  Georgia,  and 
Williams  of  Tennessee. 

Mr.  WILLIAMS,  of  Tennessee,  made  an  nn- 
successful  motion  to  lay  the  resolution  on  the 
table,  with  the  view  of  taking  up  the  Army 
Bill. 

Mr.  KINO,  of  New  York,  renewed  the  motion 
previously  made  and  withdrawn  by  Mr.  BAB- 


BOUB,  to  strike  from  the  resolution  all  the  pro- 
viso, as  follows : 

"  Provided,  That  the  following  be  taken  as  funda- 
mental conditions  and  terms  upon  which  the  said 
State  is  admitted  into  the  Union,  namely :  that  the 
fourth  clause  of  the  twenty-sixth  section  of  the  third 
article  of  the  constitution,  submitted  by  the  people  of 
Missouri  to  the  consideration  of  Congress,  shall,  as 
soon  as  the  provisions  of  said  constitution  will  admit, 
be  so  modified,  that  it  shall  not  impair  the  privileges 
or  immunities  of  any  description  of  persons  who  may 
now  be,  or  hereafter  shall  become,  citizens  of  any 
State  in  this  Union ;  and  that,  until  so  modified,  no 
law,  passed  in  conformity  thereto,  shall  be  construed 
to  exclude  any  citizen  of  either  State  in  this  Union, 
from  the  enjoyment  of  any  of  the  privileges  and  im- 
munities to  which  such  citizen  is  entitled  under  the 
Constitution  of  the  United  States." 

The  motion  was  decided,  without  debate, 
in  the  negative,  by  yeas  and  nays,  as  follows : 

YEAS. — Messrs.  Brown,  Gaillard,  Holmes  of  Mis- 
sissippi, King  of  Alabama,  King  of  New  York,  Ma- 
con,  Mills,  Otis,  Sanford,  Smith,  Tichenor,  Van 
Dyke,  Walker  of  Alabama,  Williams  of  Mississippi, 
and  Williams  of  Tennessee — 15. 

NAYS. — Messrs.  Barbour,  Chandler,  Dana,  Dick- 
erson, Eaton,  Edwards,  Elliott,  Holmes  of  Maine, 
Horsey,  Johnson  of  Kentucky,  Johnson  of  Louisiana, 
Knight,  Lanman,  Lowrie,  Morrill,  Noble,  Palmer, 
Parrott,  Pleasants,  Roberts,  Southard,  Stokes,  Tal- 
bot, Taylor,  Thomas,  Trimble,  and  Walker  of  Geor- 
gia—27. 

Mr.  BBOWN  moved  to  amend  the  proviso  so 
as  to  deprive  it  of  its  injunction  on  the  State 
of  Missouri,  to  amend  its  constitution  in  the 
clause  referred  to,  and  leave  it  to  read,  that 
the  clause  "  should  not  be  so  construed  as  to  im- 
pair the  privileges  of  citizens  of  other  States," 
&c. 

Mr.  ROBEETS  objected  to  this  amendment, 
as  it  would  change  the  whole  principle  of  the 
proviso,  and  give  the  resolution  such  a  shape 
as  would  compel  him  to  oppose  it 

Mr.  BEOWN  maintained  his  motion  at  some 
length.  Had  the  resolution  come  from  the 
other  House  in  the  shape  it  now  was,  he 
should  perhaps  vote  for  it,  for  the  sake  of  clos- 
ing this  long-standing  and  disagreeable  ques- 
tion, to  accomplish  which,  he  was  willing  to 
make  great  sacrifices ;  but  he  was  not  ready 
to  play  so  bold  a  game  as  to  volunteer  to  the 
other  House  a  surrender  of  the  whole  principle 
for  which  they  contended;  especially  as  the 
Senate  had  already  tendered  to  it  one  propo- 
sition, which  had  been  there  rejected.  A  com- 
promise to  the  extent  the  proviso  went,  would 
be  time  enough  when  it  came  from  the  other 
House. 

Mr.  TALBOT  conceived  that  the  amendment 
proposed  by  Mr.  BBOWK  would  be  mischievous, 
and  produce  no  good.  On  so  great  a  subject, 
and  to  settle  a  question  so  momentous,  he  was 
willing  to  give  up  something,  and  hold  out  to 
the  other  side  the  hand  of  compromise  ;  but  it 
was  certainly  a  question  which  every  one  was 
to  settle  with  his  own  conscience. 


710 


ABRIDGMENT  OF  THE 


SENATE.] 


Admission  of  Missouri — Message  from  the  House  of  Representatives.      [FEBRUARY,   1821. 


The  question  being  taken  on  Mr.  BROWN'S 
motion,  it  was  negatived  without  a  division. 

Mr.  TRIMBLE  moved  to  amend  the  proviso, 
by  adding  thereto  the  following  clause : 

And  provided,  also,  That  the  8th  article  of  the 
said  constitution  [the  article  authorizing  the  estab- 
lishment of  banks]  shall  be  annulled  as  soon  as  said 
constitution,  in  conformity  with  the  provisions  there- 
of, is  subject  to  amendment. 

This  amendment  was  rejected  without  de- 
bate, and  without  division. 

The  question  was  then  put  on  ordering  the 
resolution  to  be  engrossed  and  read  the  third 
time ;  and  was  decided  by  yeas  and  nays  as 
follows : 

YEAS.— Messrs.  Barbour,  Edwards,  Elliott,  Holmes 
of  Maine,  Horsey,  Johnson  of  Kentucky,  Johnson 
of  Louisiana,  Lowrie,  Morrill,  Parrott,  Pleasants, 
Roberts,  Southard,  Stokes,  Talbot,  Taylor,  Thomas, 
Walker  of  Georgia,  and  Williams  of  Tennessee — 19. 

NAYS. — Messrs.  Brown,  Chandler,  Dana,  Dicker- 
son,  Eaton,  Gaillard,  Holmes  of  Mississippi,  King  of 
Alabama,  King  of  New  York,  Knight,  Lanman,  Ma- 
con,  Mills,  Noble,  Otis,  Palmer,  Ruggles,  Sanford, 
Smith,  Tichenor,  Trimble,  Van  Dyke,  Walker  of 
Alabama,  and  Williams  of  Mississippi — 24. 

So  the  resolution  was  rejected. 


FRIDAY,  February  28. 

Florida  Treaty  Ratified,  and  Legislative  Meas- 
ures required  for  talcing  Possession  of  the 
Territory,  and  its  temporary  Government. 

The  following  Message  was  received  from  the 
PRESIDENT  OF  THE  UNITED  STATES  : 
To  the  Senate  and  House,  of 

Representatives  of  the  United  States: 

The  Treaty  of  Amity,  Settlement,  and  Limits,  be- 
tween the  United  States  and  Spain,  signed  on  the 
22d  of  February,  1819,  having  been  ratified  by  the 
contracting  parties,  and  the  ratifications  having  been 
exchanged,  it  is  herewith  communicated  to  Congress, 
that  such  legislative  measures  may  be  taken  as  they 
shaF  judge  proper  for  carrying  the  same  into  execu- 
tion. 

JAMES  MONROE, 

WASHINGTON,  Feb.  22,  1821. 

The  message  and  treaty  were  read,  and  re- 
ferred to  the  Committee  on  Foreign  Relations. 


SATURDAY,  February  24. 

Admission    of  Missouri  —  Message  from    the 
House  of  Representatives. 

On  motion  of  Mr.  HOLMES,  of  Maine,  the 
Senate  proceeded  to  consider  the  message  from 
the  House,  announcing  their  appointment  of  a 
committee  to  meet  such  committee  as  may  be 
appointed  by  the  Senate,  on  the  subject  of  the 
admission  of  Missouri  into  the  Union ;  and  the 
question  was  on  concurring  with  the  other 
House  iu  the  course  proposed. 

Mr.  SMITH,  of  South  Carolina,  observed,  that, 
from  the  hasty  glance  he  could  give  the  subject, 


he  saw  no  good  reason  for  such  a  proceeding  on 
the  part  of  the  Senate.  There  was  no  doubt  or 
difficulty  here  on  the  subject  of  Missouri.  If 
there  was  any  in  the  other  House,  he  had  no 
objection  to  give  them  the  advice  of  the  Senate, 
if  necessary,  but  it  could  be  no  reason  for  the 
appointment  of  a  committee  on  the  part  of  this 
body  to  consult  with  them.  Not  being  able  to 
see  the  expediency  of  the  course  proposed,  Mr. 
S.  moved  that  the  message  lie  on  the  table. 

Mr.  BARBOUR,  of  Virginia,  remarked  that 
the  time  left  to  act  on  this  matter  was  so  short 
that  a  little  delay  might  defeat  the  object. 
The  subject  was  one  of  great  importance,  Mr. 
B.  said,  and  he  hoped  the  Senate  would  act  on 
it  immediately.  The  course  proposed  by  the 
other  House,  was  not  a  novelty  in  the  proceed- 
ings of  Congress,  or  of  the  English  Parliament, 
whence  most  of  our  rules  were  drawn.  Com- 
mittees of  conference  were  frequently  appointed 
on  subjects  of  much  less  importance  than  the 
present ;  and  it  was  proper  that,  when  the  two 
Houses  do  not  agree  on  the  principles  of  a  pub- 
lic act,  there  should  be  a  joint  committee  to  see 
if  they  can  devise  any  course  in  which  the  two 
branches  would  probably  meet.  This  was  a 
mere  proposition  for  such  an  inquiry,  and  he 
hoped  the  Senate  would  accede  to  it. 

Mr.  SMITH  said  he  had  no  opportunity  to  see 
what  the  proposition  from  the  other  House  act- 
ually was,  as  it  had  just  been  received,  and 
once  read.  If  the  Senate  were  straitened  for 
time,  it  was  a  reason  for  not  acting  precipi- 
tately, and  the  importance  of  the  subject,  which 
had  been  urged  in  favor  of  an  immediate  deci- 
sion, was  a  reason  for  acting  with  caution.  As 
to  the  mode  of  proceeding  in  Parliament,  it  did 
not  apply  to  this  case.  If  the  other  House  had 
sent  back  the  resolution  of  the  Senate  for  the 
admission  of  Missouri,  with  an  amendment,  on 
which  the  two  Houses  could  not  agree,  a  com- 
mittee of  conference  would  be  proper  on  the 
disagreeing  votes;  but  a  committee  of  confer- 
ence to  settle  original  principles  was  a  novelty. 
He  hoped,  at  any  rale,  that  the  Senate  would 
allow  a  little  time — even  half  an  hour — to 
think  of  this  proposition. 

Mr.  HOLMES,  of  Maine,  hoped  that  the  mes- 
sage would  not  be  laid  on  the  table.  The  sub- 
ject involved  in  it  was  sufficiently  embarrassed 
and  difficult  already,  and  he  should  be  sorry  to 
see  any  additional  impediments  thrown  in  the 
way.  It  was  simply  a  proposition  from  the 
other  House  for  a  committee  of  inquiry  into  an 
all-important  matter ;  and  would  it,  he  asked, 
be  proper  for  the  Senate  to  refuse  it? 

The  motion  to  lay  the  message  on  the  table 
was  negatived. 

The  Senate  then  concurred  in  the  proposi- 
tion— yeas  29,  nays  7,  as  follows : 


YEAS.— Messrs.  Barbour,  Chandler,  Eaton,  Elliott, 
Gaillard,  Holmes  of  Maine,  Holmes  of  Mississippi, 
Horsey,  Hunter,  Johnson  of  Kentucky,  Johnson  of 
Louisiana,  King  of  Alabama,  Knight,  Lanman,  Low- 
rie, Morrill,  Palmer,  Parrott,  Pleasants,  Roberts, 
Southard,  Stokes,  Talbot,  Taylor,  Trimble,  Van 


DEBATES  OF  CONGRESS. 


711 


MARCH,  1821.] 


Proceedings. 


Dyke,  Walker  of  Alabama,  Walker  of  Georgia,  and 
Williams  of  Mississippi. 

NAYS.— Messrs.  Dana,  King  of  New  York,  Mills, 
Otis,  Haggles,  Sanford,  and  Smith. 

Messrs.  HOLMES,  of  Maine,  BARBOUR,  ROB- 
ERTS, MOBEILL,  SOUTHARD,  JOHNSON,  of  Ken- 
tucky, and  KING,  of  New  York,  were  appoint- 
ed the  committee  on  the  part  of  the  Senate. 

MONDAY,  February  26. 

Admission  of  Missouri — Report  of  Joint  Com- 
mittee. 

Mr.  HOLMES,  of  Maine,  from  the  Joint  Com- 
mittee of  the  two  Houses  of  Congress,  appoint- 
ed on  the  subject,  reported  a  resolution  provid- 
ing for  the  admission  of  Missouri  into  the  Union 
on  a  certain  condition ;  which  was  read,  and 
laid  on  the  table. 


TUESDAY,  February  27. 

Admission  of  Missouri — Message  from  the  House 
of  Representatives. 

A  Message  from  the  House  of  Representa- 
tives informed  the  Senate  that  the  House  have 
passed  a  resolution  providing  for  the  admission 
of  the  State  of  Missouri  into  the  Union  on  a 
certain  condition,  in  which  they  request  the 
concurrence  of  the  Senate.* 

The  Senate  then  proceeded  to  consider  the 
said  resolution. 

After  an  unsuccessful  attempt  by  Mr.  MACOX 
to  strike  out  the  condition  and  proviso,  which 
was  negatived  by  a  large  majority,  and  a  few 
remarks  by  Mr.  BABBOUR  in  support  of  the  ex- 
pediency of  harmony  and  concession  on  this 
momentous  subject, 

The  question  was  taken  on  ordering  the  reso- 
lution to  be  read  a  third  time,  and  was  decided 
in  the  affirmative,  by  the  following  vote : 

YEAS. — Messrs.  Barbour,  Chandler,  Eaton,  Elliott, 
Gaillard,  Holmes  of  Maine,  Holmes  of  Mississippi, 
Horsey,  Hunter,  Johnson  of  Kentucky,  Johnson  of 
Louisiana,  King  of  Alabama,  Lowrie,  Morrill,  Par- 
rott,  Pleasants,  Roberts,  Southard,  Stokes,  Talbot, 
Taylor,  Thomas,  Van  Dyke,  Walker  of  Alabama, 
Williams  of  Mississippi,  and  Williams  of  Tennessee — 
26. 

NAYS. — Messrs.  Dana,  Dickerson,  King  of  New 
York,  Knight,  Lanman,  Macon,  Mills,  Noble,  Otis, 
Palmer,  Ruggles,  Sanford,  Smith,  Tichenor,  and 
Trimble — 15. 

A  motion  was  made  to  read  the  resolution  a 
third  time  forthwith,  but  it  was  objected  to, 
and,  under  the  rule  of  the  Senate,  of  course  it 
could  not  be  done. 

[  The  next  day  the  resolution  was  read  the  th  ird 
time,  and  passed,  with  a  diminution  of  one  tote, 
and  a  gain  of  two — as  follows :] 

The  resolution  from  the  House  of  Representa- 


*  This  was  the  resolution  reported  in  the  House  by  the 
grand  committee  raised  upon  the  proportion  of  Mr.  Clay, 
and  of  which  he  was  Chairman. 


tives  for  the  admission  of  the  State  of  Missouri 
into  the  Union,  on  a  certain  condition,  was  read 
the  third  time. 

On  the  question,  "  Shall  this  resolution  pass?  " 
it  was  determined  in  the  affirmative — yeas  28, 
nays  14,  as  follows : 

YEAS.— Messrs.  Barbour,  Chandler,  Eaton,  Ed- 
wards, Gaillard,  Holmes  of  Maine,  Holmes  of  Missis- 
sippi, Horsey,  Hunter,  Johnson  of  Kentucky,  Johnson 
of  Louisiana,  King  of  Alabama,  Lowrie,  Morrill,  Par- 
rott,  Pinkney,  Pleasants,  Roberts,  Southard,  Stokes, 
Talbot,  Taylor,  Thomas,  Van  Dyke,  Walker  of  Ala- 
bama, Walker  of  Georgia,  Williams  of  Mississippi, 
and  Williams  of  Tennessee. 

NAYS.— Messrs.  Dana,  Dickerson,  King  of  New 
York,  Knight,  Lanmau,  Macon,  Mills,  Noble,  Otia, 
Ruggles,  Sanford,  Smith,  Tichenor,  and  Trimble. 


THURSDAY,  March  1. 

The  credentials  of  JOHN  HOLMES,  appointed 
a  Senator  by  the  Legislature  of  the  State  of 
Maine  for  six  years,  commencing  on  the  fourth 
instant,  were  read,  and  laid  on  file. 

East  and  West  Florida— Bill  to  take  Possession 
of  the  Territory,  and  for  its  Temporary 
Government. 

The  Senate  proceeded  to  consider,  as  in  Com- 
mittee of  the  Whole,  the  bill  to  authorize  the 
President  of  the  United  States  to  take  posses- 
sion of  East  and  West  Florida,  and  to  establish 
a  temporary  government  therein;  and,  no 
amendment  having  been  proposed,  it  was  re- 
ported to  the  House,  and  ordered  to  be  en- 
grossed and  read  a  third  time.* 


SATURDAY,  March  3. 

The  credentials  of  BENJAMIN  RUGGLES,  ap- 
pointed a  Senator  by  the  Legislature  of  the 
State  of  Ohio,  for  the  term  of  six  years,  cora- 


*  The  bill,  thus  so  expeditious!/  passed,  and  without  di- 
vision or  amendment,  was  the  same  which  had  been  passed 
seventeen  years  before,  at  the  time  of  the  acquisition  of 
Louisiana,  and  was  a  continuation  of  the  despotic  govern- 
ment of  Spain.  The  whole  governing  part  was  in  the  second 
section,  and  in  these  words : 

u  That,  until  the  end  of  the  first  session  of  the  nest  Con- 
gress, unless  provision  for  the  temporary  government  of  said 
territories  be  sooner  made  by  Congress,  all  the  military, 
civil,  and  judicial  powers  exercised  by  the  officers  of  the  ex- 
isting Government  of  the  same  territories,  shall  bo  vested  in 
such  person  or  persons,  and  shall  be  exercised  in  such  man- 
ner, as  the  President  of  the  United  States  shall  direct,  for 
the  maintaining  the  inhabitants  of  said  territories  in  the  fre« 
enjoyment  of  their  liberty,  property,  and  religion ;  and  the 
laws  of  the  United  States  relating  to  the  revenue  and  its  col- 
lection,  subject  to  the  modification  stipulated  by  the  15th 
article  of  the  said  treaty,  in  favor  of  Spanish  vessels  and  their 
cargoes,  and  the  laws  relating  to  the  Importation  of  persona 
of  color,  shall  be  extended  to  the  said  territories.  And  the 
President  of  the  United  States  shall  be,  and  he  hereby  is, 
authorized  within  the  term  aforesaid,  to  establish  such  dis- 
tricts for  the  collection  of  the  revenue,  and  during  the  recett 


712 


ABRIDGMENT  OF  THE  DEBATES  OF  CONGRESS. 


SENATE.] 


Adjournment. 


[MARCH,  1821. 


mencing  on  the  fourth  instant,  were  read,  and 
laid  on  file. 

The  Senate  adjourned  to  seven  o'clock,  P.  M. 

Seven  o'clock,  P.  M. 
On  motion,  by  Mr.  BARBOTJB, 
Resolved,  unanimously,  That  the  thanks  of 


the  Senate  be  presented  to  JOHN  GAILLARD,  for 
the  impartial,  able,  and  dignified  manner  in 
which  he  has  discharged  the  duties  of  President 
of  the  Senate  during  the  present  session.  Where- 
upon, 

Mr.  GAILLARD  made  his  acknowledgments, 
and  the  Senate  adjourned  without  day. 


of  Congress,  to  appoint  such  officers,  whose  commissions 
•hall  expire  at  the  end  of  the  next  session  of  Congress,  to 
enforce  the  said  laws,  as  to  him  shall  seem  expedient" 

This  act,  now  held  by  many  to  be  unconstitutional  and 
void,  was  reported  by  a  committee,  passed  by  a  Congress, 
and  approved  by  an  Administration,  which  were  all  believed 
in  their  day  to  know  something  about  the  constitution,  and 
also  to  care  for  it  The  committee  were :  Messrs.  James 
Barbour  of  Yirginia,  Nathaniel  Macon  of  North  Carolina, 
James  Brown  of  Louisiana,  William  Hunter  of  Ehode  Island, 
and  Rufus  King  of  New  York— all  of  them  familiar  with  the 
formation  and  adoption  of  the  constitution,  and  one  of  them 
(Mr.  Rufus  King)  a  member  of  the  Federal  Convention 
which  framed  it  The  Congress  was  that  of  1S20-'21,  the 
first  under  the  second  administration  of  Mr.  Monroe,  him- 
self the  last  of  the  revolutionary  Presidents,  and  in  the  last 
term  of  his  public  life— both  the  Senate  and  the  House  im- 
pressive and  venerable  from  the  presence  of  many  survivors 
of  the  first  generation,  and  brilliant  with  the  apparition  of 
the  young  luminaries  of  the  second  generation,  then  just  ap- 
pearing above  the  political  horizon,  soon  to  light  up  the 
whole  political  firmament  with  the  splendors  of  their  genius, 
and  to  continue  shining  in  it,  like  fixed  stars,  until  gathered, 
in  the  fulness  of  time,  to  rest  with  their  fathers.  To  name 
some,  would  be  to  wrong  others,  equally  worthy,  less  bril- 
liant To  name  all  who  shone  in  this  firmament  would  be 
to  repeat,  almost  the  whole  list  of  the  members  of  the  two 
Houses ;  for,  either  brilliant  or  useful,  talent  pervaded  the 
whole  list — even  the  plainest  members  respectable  for  the 
honesty  of  their  votes,  and  close  attention  to  the  business  of 
the  House.  I  entered  the  Senate  at  that  time,  and  felt  my- 
self to  be  among  masters  whose  scholar  I  must  long  remain 
before  I  could  become  a  teacher — whose  example  I  must 
emulate,  without  the  hope  of  successful  imitation.  There 
they  were,  day  in  and  day  out,  at  their  places,  punctual  to 
every  duty,  ripe  in  wisdom,  rich  in  knowledge,  modest,  vir- 
tuous, decorous,  deferential,  and  wholly  intent  upon  the 
public  good.  There  I  made  my  first  acquaintance  with  the 
federal  gentlemen  of  the  old  school,  and  while  differing  from 


them  on  systems  of  policy,  soon  came  to  appreciate  their 
high  personal  character,  to  admire  their  finished  manners, 
to  recognize  their  solid  patriotism,  (according  to  their  views 
of  government,)  and  to  feel  grateful  to  them  as  the  principal 
founders  of  our  Government;  and  in  all  this  I  only  divided 
sentiments  with  the  old  republicans,  all  living  on  terms  of 
personal  kindness  with  their  political  adversaries,  and  with 
perfect  respect  for  each  other's  motives  and  opinions.  They 
are  all  gone — their  bodies  buried  in  the  earth,  their  works 
buried  under  rubbish,  and  their  names  beginning  to  fade 
from  the  memory  of  man — and  I,  (who  stood  so  far  behind 
them  in  their  great  day  that  praise  from  me  would  have 
seemed  impertinence,)  I  have  become,  in  some  sort,  their 
historiographer  and  introducer  to  the  world.  I  abridge  the 
debates  of  Congress  I  those  debates  in  which  their  wisdom, 
virtue,  modesty,  patriotism  lie  buried.  I  resurrect  the 
whole  1  put  them  in  scene  again  on  the  living  stage,  every 
one  with  the  best  of  his  works  In  his  hand :  a  labor  of  love 
and  pride  to  mo,  of  justice  to  them,  and,  I  hope,  of  utility 
to  many  generations.  Such  were  the  two  Houses  of  Con- 
gress which  re-enacted  the  Florida  Territorial  Bill  in  1321, 
which  had  been  first  enacted  (by  predecessors  not  less  illus- 
trious) in  the  Orleans  Territorial  Bill  of  1804,  and  approved 
by  Mr.  Monroe's  cabinet— a  cabinet  unsurpassed  by  any  one 
before  or  since :  John  Quincy  Adams,  Secretary  of  State ; 
William  H.  Crawford,  Secretary  of  the  Treasury ;  John  C. 
Calhoun,  Secretary  at  War ;  Smith  Thompson,  Secretary  of 
the  Navy;  Return  Jonathan  Meigs,  Postmaster-General; 
William  Wirt,  Attorney-General ;  and  which  acts,  so  made, 
and  so  approved,  are  now  to  be  called  unconstitutional  and 
void.  But  they  had  a  farther  approval  to  undergo — one  of 
practice !  and  received  it  1  received  it  from  both  Houses  of 
Congress,  and  from  the  Monroe  Administration :  and  that 
after  it  was  put  into  operation  by  the  first  Governor  of  East 
and  West  Florida,  commissioned  with  the  powers  of  Captain- 
General  and  Intendant  of  Cuba,  uniting  in  his  own  hands 
the  supreme  military,  civil,  and  judicial  functions,  and  ex- 
ercising them  when  he  believed  the  public  good  required  it 
But  of  this  hereafter. 


INDEX   TO  VOL.   VI. 


ABBOTT,  JOEL,  Kepresentative  from  Georgia,  59,  209,  464. 

ADAMS,  BENJAMIN,  Kepresentative  from  Massachusetts,  58, 
200,  463 ;  on  fugitives  from  justice  and  service,  110.  See 
Index,  vol.  5. 

ADAMS,  J.  Q.,  letter  as  Secretary  of  State  relative  to  com- 
pensation of  Commissioners  to  Spanish  American  pro- 
vinces, 134, 187;  letter  relative  to  arrests  of  foreign  mer- 
chant seamen  in  ports  of  Europe,  216;  votes  for  as  Pres- 
ident in  1820,  706.  See  Index,  vols.  2,  3,  4. 

Addresses  of  the  Senate  and  House,  in  answer  to  Presi- 
dent's Messages.  See  Index,  vols.  1,  2. 

Admirals  in  the  Jfavy.—See  Index,  vol.  2. 

African  Slaves  and  Slavery.— Set  Index,  vols.  1, 2,  and  In- 
dex, vol.  6.  Slavery. 

Alabama. — Bill  to  authorize  the  people  to  form  a  State  gov- 
ernment, passed  the  House,  225;  State  government  bill 
reported  in  Senate,  864,  865;  State  constitution  referred 
in  the  Senate,  875 ;  vote  for  President  in  1820,  706. 

ALEXANDER,  MARK,  Kepresentative  from  Virginia,  464 ;  on 
a  revision  of  the  Tariff,  626. 

Algerine  War. — Seo  Index,  vol.  1. 

Allegiance,  Foreign.— See  Index,  voL  1 ;  also  Expatriation, 
Tols.  2,  5. 

ALLEN,  HEMAN,  Kepresentative  from  Vermont,  58,  200. 

ALLEN,  NATHANIEL,  Kepresentative  from  New  York,  464. 

ALLEN,  KOBERT,  Representative  from  Tennessee,  464. 

ALLEN,  SAMUEL  C..  Kepresentative  from  Massachusetts,  58, 
207,  463 ,  moves  aa  amendment  to  the  Missouri  bill,  561. 

Amelia  Inland,  message  relative  to,  19. 

In  the  House.— Resolution  for  a  call  for  information 
relative  to  certain  persons  who  took  possession  of  Ame- 
lia Island,  and  also  Galveston,  considered,  63 ;  much  at- 
tention already  attracted  to  these  establishments,  63; 
object  to  obtain  such  information  as  would  satisfy  the 
American  people,  63 ;  amendment  moved,  63 ;  docu- 
ments will  show  that  the  Government,  in  suppressing 
these  establishments,  had  given  due  respect  to  the  rights 
of  tlie  Spanish  provinces,  68 ;  accounts  show  them  to  be 
a  horde  of  buccaneers,  63 ;  the  patriots  would  not  coun- 
tenance these  establishments,  63 ;  resolution  passed,  64; 
message  from  the  President,  65. 

Amendment  to  the  Constitution.— See  Index,  vols.  1,  2,  8,  5. 

American  Colonization  Society,  memorial  of,  498. 

ANDEP.RON,  JOHN,  letter  to  Lewis  Williams,  88;  brought  to 
the  bar  of  the  House,  90;  letters,  99;  examination  at 
the  bar  of  the  House,  101 ;  address  to  the  House,  102 ; 
reprimanded,  103;  suit  against  Thomas  Dunn,  224;  case 
of,  see  bribery. 


ANDERSON,  RICUABD  C.,  Jr.,  Representative  from  Kentucky, 
69,  201,  464;  on  the  case  of  John  Anderson,  91;  on  fugi- 
tives from  justice  and  service,  110 ;  on  the  admission  of 
Illinois,  202  ;  on  slavery  in  Illinois,  206 ;  on  a  monument 
to  De  Kalb,  262 ;  on  the  SemLuole  war,  296 ;  on  a  com- 
promise line  on  slavery,  867;  on  printing  the  secret 
journal  of  the  old  Congress,  495;  on  the  Spanish  treaty, 
594. 

ANDERSON,  WILLIAM,  Representative  from  Pennsylvania, 
59,  200.  See  Index,  vols.  4,  5. 

Appointments,  Executive.— See  Index,  voL  5. 

Appropriations,  estimate  of,  for  1818,  67. 

Appropriations. — See  Index,  vols.  1,  2,  8,  5. 

ABCHEB, ,  Representative  from  Virginia,  585;  on  the 

Spanish  treaty,  585;  on  a  revision  of  the  tariff,  629. 

Army.— See  Index,  vols.  1,  2,  4,  5. 

Arkansas  Territory.— See  Territories. 

ASHMTTN,  ELI  P.,  Senator  from  Massachusetts,  7.  See  Index, 
vol.  5. 

AUSTIN,  AECHIBALD,  Representative  from  Virginia,  63,  200. 


BAKER,  CALEB,  Representative  from  New  York,  464. 

BALDWIN,  HENBY,  Representative  frpm  Pennsylvania,  60, 
200,  464 ;  on  fugitives  from  justice  and  service,  109 ;  on 
the  claim  of  Beaumarchais,  214;  on  the  Semlnole  war, 
821;  on  printing  the  secret  journal  of  the  old  Congress, 
494;  on  a  revision  of  the  tariff,  60S,  620. 

BALL,  WILLIAM  LEE,  Representative  from  Virginia,  69,  209, 
464 ;  on  the  case  of  John  Anderson,  89. 

Bank  of  the  United  States.— In  the  House,  memorial  of,  65; 
a  resolution  of  inquiry  into  certain  proceedings  ot;  con- 
sidered, 207 ;  loud  complaints  through  the  country  rela- 
tive to  the  conduct  of  the  officers,  208;  it  was  due  to  the 
nation  and  the  bank  that  a  fair  inquiry  should  bo  made, 
208 ;  a  report  expected  shortly  from  the  Secretary  of  the 
Treasury,  208 ;  resolution  laid  over,  208. 

Resolution  contemplates  a  wider  scope  of  inquiry  than 
is  in  the  power  of  Congress,  209 ;  moved  to  strike  out 
certain  points  of  inquiry,  210 ;  the  language  of  the  reso- 
lution is  that  of  the  charter,  210;  if  the  power  is  given 
to  inquire  if  the  charter  of  the  bank  has  been  violated, 
power  is  also  given  to  report  the  facts  upon  which  that 
violation  is  founded,  210;  object  of  the  resolution  to  in- 
quire whether  or  not  the  charter  had  been  violated,  and 
whether  improper  discounts  had  been  made  or  not,  to 


714 


INDEX. 


stockholders,  210;  the  resolution  not  intended  to  convey 
charges  against  the  bank,  but  to  embrace  nil  the  topics 
respecting  which  the  public  mind  had  been  agitated, 
210. 

No  doubt  of  the  power  of  tho  House  on  the  subject, 
211;  if  certain  specifications  are  not  stricken  out,  th 
inference  would  be,  if  reported  true,  that  the  censure  o 
Congress  or  the  penalty  of  violation  of  the  charter  would 
follow,  211 ;  proceedings  of  the  bank  referred  to,  211 ; 
public  opinion  of  its  conduct,  212;  amended  resolution 
passed,  212;  report  of  the  committee,  227;  memorial 
from  the  President,  823 ;  report  of  committee  consid- 
ered, 868 ;  bill  to  repeal  charter  of,  ordered  to  bo  reported, 
868 ;  resolutions  of  committee  rejected,  868.  See  Index, 
vols.  1,  8,  4,  5. 

Bankrupt  Bill,  indefinitely  postponed  in  the  Ilouse,  115. 

Bankrupt  Act. — See  Index,  vols.  2,  8. 

BARBER,  LEVI,  Representative  from  Ohio,  50,  201. 

BARBOUR,  JAMES,  Senator  from  Virginia,  8, 179,  874,  CM;  on 
the  African  slave  trade,  10 ;  on  providing  for  the  officers 
and  soldiers  of  the  Ee volution,  20;  reports  on  the  case 
of  E.  W.  Meade,  44;  offers  a  resolution  of  honor  to  Col. 
B.  M.  Johnson,  45;  on  tho  British  West  India  trade,  48; 
moves  to  suspend  the  third  rale  of  the  Senate,  55;  on 
the  petition  of  Matthew  Lyon,  185;  on  the  motion  rela- 
tive to  duelling,  192;  President  pro  tern,  of  the  Senate, 
874 ;  on  the  bill  relative  to  the  admission  of  the  State  of 
Maine,  881 ;  on  the  admission  of  Maine  separately  from 
•  Missouri,  386 ;  on  the  restriction  of  slavery  in  Missouri, 
425 ;  moves  to  strike  out  the  restriction  from  the  Missouri 
bill,  452 ;  on  considering  the  resolution  to  admit  Missouri, 
659;  reports  on  the  position  of  Matthew  Lyon,  660;  rel- 
ative to  the  Virginia  military  lands,  702;  on  the  plan  of 
proceeding  in  joint  meeting,  705;  on  the  Missouri  con- 
stitution, 707 ;  on  a  Committee  of  Conference  relative  to 
Missouri,  710.  See  Index,  vol.  5. 

BAEBOUR,  PHILIP  P.,  Representative  from  Virginia,  59,  200, 
464;  on  the  case  of  John  Anderson,  93;  remarks  on  vote 
of  thanks  in  the  Senate,  199 ;  on  the  Seminole  war, 
266;  on  the  Missouri  State  government,  841;  on  a 
compromise  line  on  slavery,  867;  on  the  restriction  of 
slavery  in  Missouri,  521 ;  on  a  revision  of  the  tariff,  634. 
See  Index,  vol.  5. 

BARON  DE  KALB,  resolutions  relative  to,  119. 

BASSETT,  BURWELL,  Representative  from  Virginia,  59,  201 ; 
on  the  claim  of  Beaumarchais,  209.  See  Index,  vols.'  3, 
4,5. 

BATEMAN,  EPHRAIM,  Eepresentative  from  New  Jersey,  69, 
200,464.  See  Index,  vol.  5. 

BATES,  JAMES  W.,  Delegate  from  Arkansas,  567. 

Batture  at  Saint  Louis,  resolutions  relative  to,  182. 

Batture  at  New  Orleans.    See  Index,  vol.  4. 

BAYLEY,  THOMAS,  Representative  from  Maryland,  61,  200, 
468.  See  Index,  vol.  5. 

Beaumarchais,  claim  of. — In  the  Ilouse,  a  bill  for  the  relief 
of  the  heirs  of  Baron  de  Beaumarchais  considered, 
208 ;  particulars  respecting  the  claim,  208 ;  the  impor- 
tant services  rendered,  209 ;  debate  on  the  bill,  209 ;  bill 
lost,  214.  See  Index,  vol.  8,  5. 

BEECHER,  PHILEMON,  Representative,  from  Ohio,  59,  201, 464 ; 
on  the  case  of  John  Anderson,  84,  100;  on  the  restriction 
of  slavery  in  Missouri,  560,  561 ;  moves  to  print  the  re- 
port of  the  Committee  of  Conference  of  Ilouse  and  Sen- 
ate, 568. 

BELLINGER,  JOSEPH,  Representative  from  South  Carolina, 
59,  200. 

BENNETT,  BENJAMIN,  Representative  fro»  New  Jersey,  59, 
200.  See  Index,  vol.  5. 

Bills,  Money.— See  Index,  vol.  1. 

Blank  Ballots,  shall  they  be  counted  r—See  Index,  vol.  4. 

BLOOMFIELD,  JOSEPH,  Representative  from  New  Jersey,  59, 


200,  464 ;  reports  a  bill  relative  to  Revolutionary  sur- 
vivors, 65 ;  remarks,  6S. 

BLOUNT,  WILLIAM  G.,  Representative  from  Tennessee,  59, 

201.  See  Index,  vol.  r>. 

Blue  lights,  as  signal*  to  the  enemy.— See  Index,  vol.  5. 

BODEJT,  ANDREW,  Representative  from  Pennsylvania,  59, 
200,  464. 

Boss,  JOHN  L.,  Jr.,  Representative  from  Rhode  Island,  53, 
200.  See  Index,  vol.  5. 

Breach  of  privilege. — See  Index,  vols.  2,  4 

BRKVARD,  JOSEPH,  Representative  from  South  Carolina,  464. 

Bribery.— In  the  Ilouse,  letter  of  Anderson  to  a  member, 
presented,  83;  the  Mter,  83;  statement  of  facts,  83; 
motion  that  the  Speaker  issue  his  warrant  for  tho  arrest 
of  Anderson,  83 ;  can  a  warrant  be  issued  according  to 
the  forms  of  proceeding  of  the  Ilouse,  and  constitutional 
provisions  f  84 ;  no  doubt  of  the  power  of  the  Ilouse  to 
issue  a  warrant  when  an  offence  is  committed  against  its 
privileges  and  its  dignity,  84;  no  oath  required  to  the 
statement,  84;  warrant  ordered  unanimously,  84;  reso- 
lution for  the  appointment  of  a  committee  to  report  a 
mode  of  proceedings,  84;  no  question  of  tho  offence  of 
this  man,  but  is  the  Ilouse  justified  in  the  course  it  pro- 
poses to  pursue  ?  84 ;  bribery  could  be  punished  only  in 
a  court  of  justice,  84;  does  the  House  possess  authority 
to  act  on  the  case  ?  84;  does  the  House  possess  any  com- 
mon law  power?  84;  we  have  no  power  to  confine  and 
punish  individuals  for  acts  done  elsewhere,  85;  if  thes» 
positions  are  correct,  the  Ilouse  has  already  violated  the 
constitution,  85;  if  the  committee  which  it  is  proposed 
to  appoint,  concur  with  these  views,  the  gentleman  will 
be  released  from  arrest,  85 ;  the  investigation  should  go 
on,  unless  it  is  convincingly  shown  tho  House  has  not 
the  power,  85;  Anderson  should  be  discharged,  first  on 
account  of  the  irregularity  of  the  proceedings  in  the  first 
instance,  85;  tho  constitution  declares  no  warrant  shall 
issue  except  sustained  by  oath,  85;  fourtli  article  of  the 
amendment,  85;  no  statute  of  the  United  States  declar- 
ing bribery  an  offence,  85;  a  precedent  on  record  which 
has  been  deprecated  by  the  most  eminent  men  of  the 
United  States,  85;  was  it  not  the  duty  of  the  House 
upon  every  occasion  to  deliberate  in  that  manner  which 
afforded  the  best  lights  on  any  subject?  86;  was  this  an 
occasion  to  depart  from  that  course  ?  86 ;  the  constitu- 
tion is  a  dead  letter  if  we  have  no  power  to  protect  our- 
selves from  violence  of  this  description,  86;  the  charac- 
ter of  the  precedent  established,  86;  the  manner  in 
which  it  was  determined,  86;  when  the  constitution 
gave  being  to  this  body,  it  gave  to  it  every  attribute  ne- 
cessary for  its  purity  and  security,  86;  precedents  found 
in  the  Journal  of  1795,  87;  has  this  House  power  to 
punish  contempt  in  its  galleries?  87;  cases  which  havo 
occurred  subsequently,  88;  what  answer  is  given  to  the 
clause  of  the  constitution  relative  to  the  issue  of  a  war- 
rant? 88;  the  question  is  this,  will  or  will  not  tho  House 
inquire  what  authority  it  had  to  punish  those  offending 
in  this  respect?  88;  if  we  have  the  authority,  we  ar» 
bound  to  use  it  in  the  present  case,  89;  two  offences 
committed,  one  a  crime  for  which  an  individual  might 
be  handed  over  to  the  courts;  the  other  an  offence 
against  this  House,  89 ;  this  inquiry  should  have  been 
had  before  the  warrant  issued,  89;  does  the  party  ar- 
rested object  to  the  warrant?  89;  resolution  agreed  to, 
90. 

Report  of  the  committee,  90 ;  address  of  the  Speaker 
to  the  prisoner,  90;  reply  of  the  prisoner,  90;  resolu- 
tions relative  to  the  case  of  Anderson,  and  to  inquire 
into  the  expediency  of  a  law  for  punishing  contempts, 
submitted,  90;  object  to  procure  a  division  of  this  Ilouse 
on  the  abstract  question  of  its  right  to  proceed  in  tho 
case  of  Anderson,  90;  in  deciding  this  question  we  act  as 


INDEX. 


715 


judges,  and  must  demand  the  letter  of  tho  law  to  au- 
thorize our  decision,  91 ;  examination  of  the  case,  91 ; 
no  doubt  the  prisoner  should  be  immediately  discharged, 
91 ;  there  is  no  law  declaring  this  act  an  offence  of  any 
kind,  91 ;  even  If  It  was  an  offence,  unless  a  punishment 
has  been  affixed  by  law  we  are  still  powerless,  92 ;  It  is 
admitted  that  you  have  power  to  remove  a  citizen  from 
your  gallery,  and  is  not  this  a  punishment  for  a  crime  or 
contempt?  92;  If  not  justified  by  law,  is  it  not  an  as- 
sault, a  false  imprisonment?  92;  will  gentlemen  point 
to  the  clause  of  the  constitution  which  confers  the  pow- 
er? 92;  further  instances  supposed,  92;  it  is  said  this 
man  is  called  here  to  answer  some  unknown  law,  92 ; 
the  force  of  precedent,  93;  the  attempt  imputed  to  tho 
prisoner  at  the  bar  presents  itself  in  two  points  ;  first 
as  a  crime  to  be  punished  because  of  its  own  enormity ; 
second,  as  a  breach  of  the  privileges  of  this  House,  93 ; 
the  act  caanot  be  punished  by  this  House  as  a  crime 
within  itself,  98;  was  the  attempt  complained  of,  a 
breach  of  the  privileges  of  a  member  of  this  House  ? 
93;  constitution  our  guide,  93;  the  matter  of  privilege 
was  not  left  to  construction  in  tho  constitution,  93; 
third  section  of  Jefferson's  Manual,  93;  if  this  is  not  a 
breach  of  privilege,  then  there  is  no  principle  upon 
which  this  House  can  take  cognizance  of  it,  94 ;  argu- 
ments of  tho  opposite  side  considered,  94;  the  exercise 
of  the  power  of  committing  for  contempt  is  of  so  em- 
barrassing a  character,  and  so  little  consonant  with  gen- 
eral principles,  that  some  other  mode  should  be  adopted, 
94;  this  House  possesses  a  power  to  punish  for  contempt, 
94;  and  should  not  decline  the  exercise  of  it,  94;  enu- 
merated and  incidental  or  accessory  powers  granted  by 
the  constitution,  95 ;  that  a  legislative  body  should  ex- 
ist without  any  power  to  punish  the  offence  of  bribing 
its  members,  96;  three  distinct  propositions  involved  in 
the  decision  of  this  question  :  Has  this  House  power  to 
punish  for  contempt?  Is  the  act  charged  a  contempt? 
Have  the  proceedings  been  such  as  to  warrant  a  further 
Prosecution  ?  96 ;  origin  of  the  power  examined,  97  ;  the 
House  possesses  an  inherent  power  of  self-defence,  93; 
this  point  proven,  98;  for  want  of  legal  provision,  no 
power  to  punish  a  violation  of  our  privileges,  98;  letter 
of  Anderson  to  the  Speaker,  99 ;  moved  to  lay  the  reso- 
lutions on  the  table,  99. 

The  dignity  of  the  House  demands  that  the  investiga- 
tion should  proceed,  99;  the  House  should  determine 
the  abstract  principle,  without  reference  to  this  case, 
100 ;  further  debate,  100 ;  motion  to  lay  resolutions  on 
the  table  lost,  100;  amendment  moved,  101;  indefinite 
postponement  carried,  101;  Anderson  ordered  before 
the  bar  of  the  House,  101 ;  interrogatories  to  Anderson, 
and  his  replies,  101 ;  testimony  of  witnesses,  102;  speech 
of  the  prisoner  in  defence,  102 ;  moved  to  strike  out  the 
words  "  the  privileges  of,"  in  the  charge  against  Ander- 
son, 103;  motion  lost,  108;  will  of  the  House  expressed, 
103;  reprimand  of  the  Speaker,  103;  Anderson  dis- 
charged, 103.  See  Index,  vol.  1. 

British  Aggression*  on  our  Commerce.— See  Index,  vol.  8. 

British  Colonial  Trade,  report  on,  197. 

British  Intrigues — See  Index,  vol.  4. 

British  Minister,  conduct  of.— See  Index,  vol.  4. 

British  We.it  India  Trade.— la  the  Senate,  bill  in  relation 
to,  considered,  43;  object  of  the  bill  is  to  relievo  from 
the  effects  of  measures  adopted  by  Great  Britain  in  re- 
lation to  our  commercial  intercourse  with  her  North 
American  and  West  India  Colonies,  48 ;  she  has  shut  her 
.  ports  in  these  possessions  against  American  vessels  and 
American  property,  48 ;  but  she  insists  upon  bringing 
every  thing  she  pleases  from  these  possessions  to  the 
United  States,  and  to  purchase,  and  exclusively  carry 
tho  products  of  tho  United  States  in  return,  4S; 


the  evil  of  long  standing,  48 ;  her  conduct  after  the 
Revolutionary  war,  48;  resulted  in  the  Constitution  of 
the  United  States,  48;  action  of  the  new  Government, 
48;  effects  of  tho  state  of  things  in  Europe,  49;  conduct 
of  Great  Britain  subsequently,  49 ;  Madison's  Message, 
49 ;  tho  vicious  theory  upon  which  the  colonial  system 
is  founded,  49 ;  the  English  Navigation  Act  of  the  four- 
teenth century,  49 ;  it  is  the  new  principle  which  in  mod- 
ern times  has  been  incorporated  in  the  Navigation  Act, 
to  which  objection  is  made,  50 ;  this  principle  explained, 
BO ;  the  late  trade  between  the  United  States  and  the 
British  West  Indies,  51 ;  why  has  a  measure  of  this  im- 
portance been  so  long  deferred,  51 ;  history  of  our  com- 
munications with  England  since  the  peace  of  1783,  51, 
62 ;  American  policy — that  of  peace  and  freedom  of 
trade,  53;  failure  of  all  overtures  for  a  reciprocal  treaty 
with  England,  54;  Jay's  mission  to  England,  54 ;  char- 
acter of  his  treaty,  54;  the  decision  of  England  relative 
to  a  more  favorable  treaty,  55 ;  passage  of  the  bill,  55 ; 
note,  55. 

BBOWN,  JAMES,  Senator  from  Louisiana,  874,  654  See  In- 
dex, vols.  4,  5. 

BEOWN,  WILLIAM,  Representative  from  Kentucky,  464 ;  on 
the  Senate's  amendments  to  the  Maine  bill,  555. 

BEtrsn,  HENKY,  Representative  from  Ohio,  464. 

BRYAN,  HEXBY  II.,  Representative  from  Tennessee,  464. 

BBYAN,  JOSEPH  II.,  Representative  from  North  Carolina,  67. 
See  Index.,  vol.  6. 

BUFFUM,  JOSEPH,  Jr.,  Representative  from  New  Hampshire, 
463. 

Burning  of  the  Library  of  Congress. — See  Index,  vol.  5. 

BUBEILL,  JAMES,  Senator  from  Rhode  Island,  3, 179, 874,  654; 
on  the  African  slave-trade,  11-18;  on  the  petition  of 
Matthew  Lyon,  1S5;  on  the  admission  of  Maine  sep- 
arately from  Missouri,  8S5;  on  the  restriction  of  slavery 
in  Missouri,  409 ;  on  postponing  the  consideration  of  the 
proviso  relative  to  citizenship  of  free  colored  persons  in 
Missouri,  662  ;  on  the  citizenship  of  free  colored  persons 
in  Missouri,  663. 

BUEWELL,  WILLIAM  A.,  Representative  from  Virginia,  59, 
200,  464 ;  decease  of,  709.  See  Index,  vols.  8,  4,  5. 

BDTLEB,  JOSIAII,  Representative  from  New  Hampshire,  58, 
200,  463 ;  on  a  pension  to  Gen.  Stark,  214. 

BUTLEB,  THOMAS,  Representative  from  Louisiana,  200. 

BCBTON,  IIuTcniNS  G.,  Representative  from  North  Carolina, 
464. 


CALHOUN,  JOHN  C.,  reports,  as  Secretary  of  War,  on  the 

civilization  of  tho  Indians,  476.    See  Index,  vols.  4,  5. 
CAMPBELL,  GEORGE  W.,  Senator  from  Tennessee,  7;  on  the 

African  slave-trade,  11, 12.    See  Index,  vols.  8,  4, 5. 
CAMPBELL,  JOHN  W.,  Representative  from  Ohio,  59, 200, 464 
Canadian  Refugees. — See  Index,  vols.  2,  5. 
CANNON,  NEWTON,  Representative  from  Tennessee,  464 
Caraccas,  relief  of.— See  Index,  vol.  4 
CABBOLL,  MAJOB-GENEBAL  WILLIAM,  resolution  of  honor 

to,  171. 

CASE,  WALTEB,  Representative  from  Now  York,  464. 
Caucus  Cong  resiional.— See  Index,  vol.  5. 
Census  of  the  Union.— See  Index,  vol.  1. 
CHANDLER,  JOHN,  Senator  from  Maine,  654 ;  on  the  Missouri 

Constitution,  708. 

Charitable  objects.— See  Index,  vol.  1. 
CHASE,  JUDGE,  official  conduct  and  trial  of. — See  Index, 

vol.  8.  . 

Chesapeake  f riff  ate,  attack  on.— See  Index,  vol.  a 
CLAGETT,  CI.IFTON,  Representative  from  New  Hampshire, 

63,  200,  463 ;  on  tho  bill  relating  to  fugitives  from  justice, 

107. 


716 


INDEX. 


CLAIBORNE,  THOMAS,  Representative  from  Tennessee,  59,200; 
on  presenting  a  sword  to  Col.  R.  M.  Johnson,  170 ;  on 
presenting  medals  to  certain  officers,  171, 172. 

CLAEK,  ROBERT,  Representative  from  New  York,  464. 

CLAXTON,  THOMAS,  appointed  doorkeeper  of  the  House,  59. 
See  Index,  vols.  2,  4,  5. 

CLAY,  HENRY,  Representative  from  Kentucky,  59,  464; 
chosen  Speaker  of  the  House,  59 ;  remarks,  59  ;  on  refer- 
ence of  the  President's  Message,  60 ;  as  Speaker  repri- 
mands John  Anderson,  108;  on  fugitives  from  justice 
and  service,  109;  on  the  neutrality  bill,  128,  124,  12S; 
on  Spanish  American  Provinces,  134,  185, 188 ;  on  ad- 
mitting the  Representatives  from  Illinois,  201 ;  relative 
to  foreign  merchant  seamen,  216  ;  on  the  Seminole  war, 
287 ;  remarks  upon  vote  of  thanks  of  the  House,  878 ; 
chosen  Speaker,  464 ;  remarks,  464 ;  on  the  admission  of 
the  State  of  Maine,  471,  472,  473 ;  on  the  Missouri  bill, 
his  speeches  not  reported,  note,  562 ;  on  the  Spanish 
Treaty,  574 ;  on  a  revision  of  the  Tariff,  626 ;  remarks 
upon  vote  of  thanks  of  the  House,  652.  See  Index, 
vols.  8,  4,  5. 

Coast  Survey. — See  Index,  voL  8. 

COBB,  THOMAS  W.,  Representative  from  Georgia,  59,  201, 
464 ;  on  Georgia  militia  claims,  73 ;  on  fugitives  from 
justice  and  service,  109 ;  on  a  pension  to  General  Stark, 
218 ;  on  the  report  relative  to  the  Seminole  war,  226 ;  on 
the  Seminole  war,  228 ;  against  the  adherence  of  the 
House  to  its  refusal  to  strike  the  slavery  restriction 
clause  in  the  Missouri  State  Government  bill,  871. 

COCKE,  JOHN,  Representative  from  Tennessee,  464. 

Cod  Fisheries.— See  Index,  vols.  1,  2,  and  Duties  on  Im- 
ports, vol.  5. 

COFFEK,  GENERAL  JOHN,  resolution  of  honor  to,  171. 

Coin*,  Domestic,  report  on  the  exportation  of,  190. 

COLSTON,  EDWARD,  Representative  from  Virginia,  59,  201 ; 
on  pensions  to  Revolutionary  soldiers,  68 ;  on  presenting 
medals  to  certain  officers,  172;  on  the  migration  of 
slaves,  218;  on  the  Seminole  war,  278. 

Commerce  of  Vie,  United-  States. — See  Index,  vol.  1. 

Commutation  Sill,  considered  in  the  House,  72. 

Compensation  of  Members— bill  passed,  84.— See  Index, 
vol.  5,  Pay  of  Members. 

Compensation  of  President  and  Vice  President.— See  In- 
dex, vols.  1,  2. 

Compromise,  Missouri,  first  suggestion  of  the  policy  of,  859. 

COMSTOCK,  OLIVER  C.,  Representative  from  New  York,  59, 
200 ;  on  pensions  to  wounded  officers,  76 ;  on  the  case  of 
John  Anderson,  89.  See  Index,  vol.  5. 

Congress,  1st  session  of  15th,  8 ;  history  of,  proposal  to  pub- 
lish, 128 ;  history  of,  report  on  the,  169 ;  history  of, 
amendments  to  the  bill  relative  to,  174 ;  2d  session  of 
15th  convenes,  179 ;  1st  session  of  16th  convenes,  874 ; 
16th,  2d  session  commences,  654;  meeting  of  the  two 
Houses  to  count  the  Electoral  vote,  705. 

History  of,  in  the  House.— Bill  reported  to  authorize 
a  subscription  to  the  History  of  Congress,  169 ;  report, 
169;  House  refuse  to  concur  with  the  committee  in 
striking  out  the  first  section,  174;  amendment  offered, 
174;  moved  to  subscribe  for  two  hundred  and  fifty 
copies,  174 ;  this  amount  would  defeat  the  bill,  174 ;  ex- 
pense of  the  work,  174 ;  motion  carried,  174 ;  bill  laid 
on  the  table,  174. 

Connecticut,  vote  for  President  in  1S20,  706.  See  Index, 
vols.  1,  2,  8,  4,  5. 

Contested  Election,  report  on  the  case  of  Herrick,  76 ;  con- 
tested election,  Ohio,  debate  on,  181. 

Contested  Elections.— See  Index,  vols.  1,  3. 

Contingent  Expenses. — See  Index,  vols.  2,  8. 

Contracts,  Government. — See  Index,  vol.  8. 

Controversies  between  State*. — See  Index,  voL  5. 

Convoy  System. — See  Index,  vol.  4. 


COOK,  DANIEL  P.,  Representative  from  Illinois,  464;  on 
printing  the  secret  journal  of  the  Old  Congress,  496. 

COOK,  ZADOCK,  Representative  from  Georgia,  59,  200.  Stt 
Index,  vol.  5. 

Cotton  Goods.— See  Index,  vol.  5,  Duties  on  Imports. 

CROWELL,  JOHN,  Delegate  from  Alabama,  200 ;  Represent- 
ative from  do.,  4&S. 

CBANCH,  W.,  letter  transmitting  to  Congress  a  code  of  juris- 
prudence for  the  District  of  Columbia,  202. 

CRAFTS,  SAMUEL  C.,  Representative  from  Vermont,  58,  200, 
464 

CRAWFORD,  JOEL,  Representative  from  Georgia,  59, 200, 464. 

CRAWFORD,  WILLIAM  II.,  letter  as  Secretary  of  the  Treasury, 
on  authorizing  some  person  to  sign  notes  of  I'nited 
States  Bank,  55 ;  reports  on  estimate  of  appropriations, 
67 ;  report  and  estimates  for  1819,  204 ;  reports  as  Secre- 
tary of  the  Treasury,  465.  See  Index,  vols.  8,  4,  5. 

CEITTENDEN,  JOHN  J.,  Senator  from  Kentucky,  8, 183;  rela- 
tive to  the  sale  of  the  public  lands,  196. 

CRUGER,  DANIEL,  Representative  from  New  York,  59,  202. 

Cuba,  emigrants  from.— See  Index,  voL  4. 

CULBRETH,  THOMAS,  Representative  from  Maryland,  59,  200, 
464. 

CULPEPPER,  JOHN,  Representative  from  North  Carolina, 
464;  on  the  Senate's  amendments  to  the  Maine  bill, 
558.  See  Index,  vols.  8,  4,  5. 

Cumberland  Road,  bill  making  appropriations  passed,  170. 
See  Index,  vols.  8,  4,  5. 

CUSHMAN,  JOHN  P.,  Representative  from  New  York,  59, 
200. 

CUSHMAN,  JOSHUA,  Representative  from  Massachusetts,  468. 

CUTHBEET,  JOHN  A^  Representative  from  Georgia,  465. 


DAGOETT,  DAVID,  Senator  from  Connecticut,  8,  179. 
Index,  vol.  5. 

DANA,  SAMUEL  W.,  Senator  from  Connecticut,  8,  197,  874, 
654;  on  the  admission  of  Maine  separately  from  Mis- 
souri, 388 ;  on  the  bill  for  the  relief  of  Commodore 
Tucker,  708.  See  Index,  vols.  2,  8,  4,  5. 

DARLINGTON,  ISAAC,  Representative  from  Pennsylvania,  59, 
200,  464 ;  on  restricting  slavery  in  Missouri,  547.  Set 
Index,  vol.  5. 

DAVIDSON,  WILLIAM,  Representative  from  North  Carolina, 
214,  464. 

Deaf  and  Dumb  Asylum  of  Connecticut,  petition  of,  867. 

Debates,  reporting  of. — See  Index,  vol.  2. 

Defensive  measures  against  Great  Britain  under  John 
Adams. — See  Index,  vol.  2. 

Delaware,  resolutions  relative  to  slavery  in  new  States,  42'1 ; 
vote  for  President  in  1820,  706.  See  Index,  vols.  1,  2,  3, 
4,5. 

Delegates  from  Territories. — See  Index,  vol.  1. 

DENNIBON,  GEORGE,  Representative  from  Pennsylvania, 
464. 

Deserters,  bounty  to.— See  Index,  vol.  5. 

DESHA,  JOSEPH,  Representative  from  Kentucky,  59,  200;  on 
the  compensation  of  members,  82;  on  the  case  of  John 
Anderson,  100 ;  resolution  of  honor  to,  171 ;  on  the  re- 
port relative  to  the  Seminole  war,  227.  See  Index,  vols. 
3,  4,  5: 

DEWITT,  JACOB  H.,  Representative  from  New  York,  464. 

DICKERSON,  MAHLON,  Senator  from  New  Jersey,  8, 179,  874, 
654 ;  on  the  petition  of  Matthew  Lyon,  697.  See  Index, 
vol.  5. 

DICKINSON,  JOHN  D.,  Representative  from  New  York,  464. 

Diplomatic.  Intercourse.— See  Index,  vol.  2. 

District  of  Coluntbia.—ln.  the  Senate,  letter  on  code  of 


INDEX. 


717 


jurisprudence  of,  202;  a  resolution  to  inquire  into  the  ex- 
pediency of  giving  the  District  of  Columbia  a  delegate 
in  Congress,  considered,  458;  an  inquiry  which  should 
be  left  to  the  other  House,  458 ;  the  people  have  not 
asked  it,  458;  resolution  agreed  to,  459.  See  Index, 
vols.  2,  3. 

Divorces  in,  the  District  of  Columbia.— See  Index,  vols. 
8,4 

Domestic  Manufactures. — See  Index,  voL  5. 

DOUGHERTY,  THOMAS,  elected  Clerk  of  the  House,  59;  chosen 
Clerk  of  the  House,  464.  See  Index,  vol.  5. 

DOWSE,  EDWARD,  jr.,  Representative  from  Massachusetts, 
463. 

DOYLE,  EDWARD,  letter  to  General  Jackson,  818. 

DRAKE,  JOHX  E.,  Representative  from  New  York,  59,  201. 

Drawback*.— See  Index,  vol.  1,  Duties  on  Imports. 

Duelling. — In  the  Senate,  a  motion  to  request  the  President 
to  dismiss  certain  officers,  considered,  192  ;  the  practice 
of  duelling  is  inhuman,  192;  it  is  unjust  and  wicked, 
192 ;  what  apology  is  offered  to  mitigate  the  crime  of 
the  death  of  Mason?  193;  character  of  Mason,  193; 
affliction  of  the  family,  193 ;  let  us  not  multiply  the  re- 
grets already  attending  this  melancholy  event,  193;  the 
offenders  are  subject  to  a  civil  tribunal  if  a  crime  has 
been  committed,  194 ;  reason  why  the  resolution  should 
not  be  adopted,  considered,  194 ;  resolutions  relative  to 
the  practice  of,  considered,  459  ;  occurrences  of  the  kind, 
459 ;  occasion  of  the  resolutions,  459,  460,  461 ;  laid  on 
the  table,  462. 

DTTFOTTR,  J.  J.,  petition  for  extension  of  time  to  pay  for  land, 
223. 

DITHX,  THOMAS,  appointed  Sergeant-at-arms  of  the  House, 
59 ;  chosen  doorkeeper  of  the  House,  464. 

Duties  on  Imports — Specific  and  ad  valorem  duties. — In 
the  Senate,  motion  to  direct  the  Committee  on  Finance  to 
make  inquiry  relative  to  the  collection  of  ad  valorem 
duties,  7 ;  two  classes  of  duties  under  present  laws,  7 ; 
specific  and  ad  valorem,  7 ;  these  explained,  7 ;  the  for- 
eign cost  is  the  basis  of  the  ad  valorem  duty,  8;  the 
quantity  that  of  the  specific,  8 ;  manner  of  ascertaining, 
8;  the  method  of  obtaining  the  value  exceedingly 
liable  to  evasion,  by  untrue  statements,  8 ;  of  all  temp- 
tations to  undervalue  merchandise,  it  is  not  possible  to 
devise  one  more  direct  and  dangerous,  8  ;  the  provision 
of  appraisement  seems  to  promise  security,  but  falls  far 
short  of  adequate  remedy,  8 ;  hence,  an  invoice  of  the 
foreign  cost  is  no  security  to  the  revenue— this  cost  ia 
determined  by  the  oath  of  the  person  who  makes  the 
entry,  in  all  cases  except  of  appraisement — the  appraise- 
ment is  subject  to  abuses  greatly  injurUfcs  to  the  reve- 
nue, 8 ;  half  the  imports  subject  to  duty  on  the  valno 
are  manufactures  of  cotton  and  wool,  8 ;  the  fraud  of 
false  statements  is  facilitated  by  the  difference  of  fabrics, 
and  is  practised  to  a  great  extent,  8 ;  history  of  many 
great  Importations  made  within  the  last  three  years,  S ; 
instances  of  consignments,  8;  appraisement  increases 
the  value  stated  in  the  invoice  but  little,  9 ;  the  foreign 
owner  beyond  the  reach  of  our  laws,  9. 

Impossible  to  ascertain  with  exactness  the  extent  to 
which  the  revenue  suffers  by  false  invoices  and  appraise- 
ments subject  to  ad  valorem  duties,  9 ;  the  records  only 
show  differences  in  cases  of  appraisement,  9 ;  of  the  total 
net  revenue  now  received  from  merchandise,  about 
two-thirds  arise  from  the  ad  valorem  duties,  and  one- 
third  arises  from  the  specific  duties,  9 ;  the  amount  of 
loss  through  fraud  is  estimated  between  one-sixth  and 
one-fifteenth  of  the  total  amount  of  ad  valorem  duties, 
9 ;  say  ten  per  cent  of  the  amount  of  the  revenue,  9 ; 
thus  during  the  years  1815,  1816,  and  1817,  the  loss  has 
exceeded  five  millions  of  dollars,  9 ;  the  system  of  de- 
termining the  value  for  ad  valorem  duties  commenced 


with  the  establishment  of  the  Government,  and  might 
have  been  tolerably  successful  while  the  duties  were 
low,  10;  subsequent  increase  in  the  rate  of  duties,  10. 

If  these  evils  result  from  the  present  system,  a  reme- 
dy must  be  found  in  some  alteration  of  the  system 
itself,  10 ;  one-fifth  of  the  articles  now  imported  may, 
with  entire  convenience,  be  subjected  to  specific  duties, 
10 ;  advantage  of  specific  duties  in  point  of  security  and 
fair  and  equal  operation,  10;  the  provisions  of  forfeiture 
and  appraisement  would  operate  with  efficiency,  10 ;  or 
the  British  system  might  be  adopted,  10;  features  of 
that  system,  10 ;  snccessfulness  of  it,  10. 

In  the  House.— Bill  relative  to,  considered,  601 ;  table 
of  the  old  and  the  proposed  rates  of  duty,  602. 

Revision  of  the  Tariff,  Protection.— Explanation  of 
the  views  of  the  Committee  of  Manufactures,  603 ;  this 
nation  can  never  be  flourishing  or  independent  unless  it 
can  supply  from  its  own  resources  its  food,  its  clothing, 
and  the  means  of  defence,  603 ;  to  be  dependent  on  for- 
eign nations  for  essential  articles  is  inconsistent  with 
true  policy,  603;  the  system  must  be  radically  changed, 
603 ;  other  committees  have  declined  or  refused  to  act, 
604 ;  in  a  time  of  profound  peace  a  loan  is  necessary  for 
the  present  year,  and  a  larger  one  will  be  required  for 
the  next,  604;  you  must  either  make  perpetual  loans,  or 
open  new  sources  of  revenue,  604 ;  those  who  now  com- 
plain that  the  committee  recommend  too  much,  will, 
when  the  day  arrives,  regret  the  rejection  of  this  bill, 
which  proposes  a  change  gradual  but  necessary,  604 ;  the 
consumption  of  foreign  produce,  not  its  importation,  is 
the  source  of  revenue,  605 ;  past  policy  of  the  Govern- 
ment, 605 ;  the  present  tariff  was  reported  more  to  aid 
the  Treasury  than  to  protect  the  industry  of  the  conn- 
try,  605;  the  protection  afforded  by  the  present  bill  ex- 
ceeds in  a  small  degree  that  of  1816,  605;  what  the  bill 
proposes,  605;  there  is  no  evidence  that  our  duties  have 
ever  been  so  high  that  there  has  been  smuggling  to  any 
great  extent,  606 ;  the]  nation  must  command  its  own 
consumption,  its  own  means  of  defence,  606;  we  are 
now  to  decide  on  the  course  of  internal  policy  which 
shall  best  develop  the  resources,  promote  the  industry, 
and  secure  the  independence  of  the  country,  607 ;  agree- 
ment entered  into  by  the  Congress  of  1774,  607;  tariff 
of  France,  608;  all  that  is  asked  is  to  meet  regulation  by 
regulation,  and  thus  make  competition  fair  and  just, 
603;  the  additional  duty  on  cotton,  609;  the  duty  on 
silks,  610 ;  the  mode  of  ascertaining  the  value  of  goods, 
610 ;  if  these  principles  do  not  meet  the  approbation  of 
the  House,  we  had  better  say  to  those  who  want  pro- 
tection, "let  things  regulate  themselves,"  611;  the  duty 
on  hemp,  611;  iron  and  glass,  612,  613;  rum,  614;  draw- 
back on  tin  and  copper  when  made  up  and  exported, 
614 ;  the  late  war  totally  destroyed  the  impost,  you  were 
left  without  revenue,  615;  it  is  said,  this  bill  will  destroy 
commerce,  616. 

This  is  said  to  be  an  experiment,  and  we  should  be  ex- 
ceedingly cautious  how  we  adopt  experiments  of  a  vague 
and  uncertain  character,  616 ;  to  support  national  indus- 
try is  the  inevitable  consequence  of  the  bill  on  your  ta- 
ble, 616 ;  are  the  present  manufacturers  of  the  country 
really  entitled  to  this  aid  ?  616 ;  if  gentlemen  imagine  by 
this  bill  to  secure  the  permanent  interest  of  the  manufac- 
tures they  are  greatly  deceived,  617 ;  what  will  be  tho 
effect  of  this  measure?  61 7;  we  are  [promised  a  home 
market  for  our  products,  617. 

What  remedy  is  proposed  for  the  evils  that  afflict  us  ? 
618 ;  it  is  said,  manufacturers  are  no  more  depressed  than 
other  classes  of  the  community,  619 ;  an  excise  duty  ia 
foreseen  if  we  pass  this  bill,  619;  motion  to  strike  out 
the  first  section  lost,  620. 

Mode  of  Payment  of  Dutiet.—Eil].  regulating  the 


718 


INDEX. 


payment  of  dnties  considered,  620 ;  credit  heretofore  al- 
lowed at  the  custom  house,  620 ;  its  terms,  620 ;  good 
reason  for  allowing  liberal  credits  while  our  commerce 
was  (struggling  to  compete  with  other  nations,  621 ;  these 
credits  should  have  been  gradually  diminished,  but  the 
reverse  has  been  our  policy,  621 ;  the  practical  applica- 
tion of  the  maxim  "let  trade  regulate  itself,"  is  devel- 
oped by  this  custom-house  system,  621 ;  the  continuance 
and  enlargement  of  these  credits  objected  to,  621 ;  the 
cries  of  distress  which  assail  us  from  commercial  cities 
accounted  for,  622. 

It  is  generally  admitted  that  every  interest  of  the 
country  is  depressed,  622 ;  this  bill  proposes  the  abolition 
of  the  present  system  of  credits  on  revenue  bonds  and 
the  adoption  of  an  entire  new  system,  622 ;  credits  under 
the  act  of  1T92,  623 ;  the  system  which  the  bill  proposes, 
623 ;  merchants  now  under  bonds  to  the  amount  of 
twenty  millions,  623 ;  this  bill  will  add  ten  or  fifteen 
millions  more,  623 ;  credits  allowed  by  the  commercial 
nations  of  Europe,  624 ;  this  bill  discourages  importa- 
tions generally,  624 ;  losses  to  Government,  624 ;  the  aid 
to  manufactures  ought  to  be  sought  in  some  other  way, 
625 ;  moved  to  strike  out  the  first  section,  626 ;  nations 
like  individuals  should  be  permitted  to  seek  their  own  in- 
terests in  their  own  way,  626 ;  statesmen  were  never  more 
uselessly  employed  than  in  attempting  to  direct  the  ave- 
nues of  trade,  626 ;  England  has  not  found  it  to  her  ad- 
vantage entirely  to  exclude  foreign  articles,  627  ;  the 
situation  of  our  country  with  regard  to  England  in  a 
contest  of  this  kind,  627 ;  agriculture  our  most  impor- 
tant branch  of  industry,  and  should  it  be  made  to  suffer 
for  the  benefit  of  any  other  branches?  62S;  if  the  fixed 
capital  of  the  existing  manufactures  be  sufficient  to  sus- 
tain them,  they  require  no  further  support,  628;  to  raise 
up  new  manufactures  by  a  diversion  of  capital  must  op- 
erate as  a  tax  upon  the  consumption  of  the  country, 
628;  the  first  objection  to  the  bill  related  to  its  apparent 
Inefficacy  in  reference  to  its  avowed  object,  629;  not  di- 
rected to  the  attainment  of  any  object  of  public  policy 
at  all,  629 ;  a  project  for  the  relief  of  the  private  adver- 
sity of  the  manufacturers,  629;  the  impairment  of  man- 
ufacturing capital  furnishes  no  sufficient  reason  for  this 
bill,  680 ;  tendency  of  capital  to  seek  the  best  invest- 
ment, 630 ;  no  direction  of  capital  relatively  useful  can 
require  adventitious  encouragement,  680;  an  employ- 
ment which  requires  such  encouragement  must  be  a 
losing  one,  631;  the  advantages  anticipated  from  the 
success  of  the  proposed  system  were  referable  to  two 
general  heads— the  establishment  of  domestic  sources  of 
supply  of  manufactured  articles,  and  the  establishment 
or  extension  of  a  domestic  market  for  the  surplus  of  ag- 
ricultural productions,  631 ;  a  home  market  the  principal 
argument  for  a  protective  system,  682 ;  further  debate, 
633,  634 ;  the  avowed  object  of  the  bill  is  by  increased 
dnties  on  imports  to  encourage  domestic  manufactures, 
634;  advantage  of  the  impost  system  for  revenue,  635; 
less  loss  to  the  government,  635 ;  it  is  said  we  cannot 
much  longer  get  on  without  the  aid  of  internal  taxation, 
636;  it  will  diminish  importations,  636;  in  violation  of 
the  general  principles  of  political  economy,  636;  the 
strength  of  every  country  consists  in  the  number,  char- 
acter and  wealth  of  its  population,  637 ;  advantage  of  the 
agricultural  system  over  the  manufacturing,  637,  638 ; 
the  profits  of  manufacturing  had  been  such  during  the 
war  as  to  allure  many  into  it  without  sufficient  capital, 
639 ;  it  is  said  England  has  derived  her  immense  wealth 
from  manufacturing,  640;  the  emblem  of  England  is  a 
painted  sepulchre,  640;  nations  of  Europe  have  pursued 
the  system  of  prohibition  towards  us,  it  is  said,  640. 

Whatever  contrariety  of  opinion  may  prevail  with 
regard  to  the  mass  of  theories  on  this  subject,  there  is  a 


common  foundation  for  them  all;  and  that  is  that  the 
source  of  individual  and  national  wealth  is  labor,  and 
the  degree  of  the  former  will  be  in  proportion  to  tho 
activity  of  the  latter,  643 ;  first  duties  of  a  nation  to 
make  the  labor  of  its  citizens  active,  and  direct  it  to  the 
most  profitable  results,  6-13;  if  a  nation  expects  to  be- 
come wealthy  and  powerful,  it  must  exert  itself  to  sup- 
ply its  wants  by  its  own  labor,  rather  than  depend  upon 
foreign  labor  for  the  articles  of  the  first  necessity,  643; 
the  system  is  not  a  new  one  in  the  United  States,  644; 
•we  relied  upon  England  before  our  independence,  644 ; 
the  demand  exceeded  our  means  of  supply,  644 ;  the  de- 
gree of  encouragement  is  tho  only  remaining  question, 
645. 

Illusory  to  suppose  a  bounty  can  be  given  to  any 
branch  of  industry,  without  at  least  a  temporary  sacri- 
fice to  some  others,  646 ;  between  tho  results  of  com- 
mercial and  manufacturing  industry  the  difference  is  not 
as  great  as  has  been  represented,  646 ;  the  industry  em- 
ployed in  commerce  is  American  industry,  and  tho  ac- 
quisition even  of  foreign  fabrics  is  the  result  of  Ameri- 
can industry  and  its  encouragement,  646;  by  this  bill 
then  you  promote  one  branch  of  industry  at  the  expense 
of  another,  646;  the  encouragement  of  manufactures  in 
the  mode  proposed  must  produce  two  effects — one  that 
of  withdrawing  labor  and  capital  from  commerce  or  ag- 
riculture, and  thus  enlarging  the  whole  amount  em- 
ployed in  manufactures — the  other  that  of  effecting  the 
distribution  of  labor  and  capital  among  the  different 
branches  of  manufactures  themselves,  647 ;  view  upon 
•which  peculiar  reliance  is  placed  for  the  defence  of  this 
bill,  647;  how  far  is  the  propriety  "  of  leaving  things  to 
themselves  "  affected  by  the  opposite  system  pursued  by 
foreign  powers?  648;  further  debate,  649,  650;  various 
amendments  proposed  and  lost,  651 ;  bill  passed,  651. 
See  Index,  vols,  1,  2,  8,  4,  5. 
Duties  on  Tonnage. — See  Index,  voL  1. 


EAKLE,  ELIAB,  Representative  from  South  Carolina,  64,  202, 
464.  See  Index,  vols.  4,  5. 

EATON,  JOHN  HENRY,  Senator  from  Tennessee,  179,  374, 
654 ;  relative  to  the  committee  on  the  Seminole  war, 
195;  on  the  admission  of  Missouri,  659;  on  the  constitu- 
tion of  Missouri,  661,  662 ;  offers  a  proviso  relative  to 
citizenship  of  free  colored  persons  in  Missouri,  661, 687 ; 
on  the  admission  of  Missouri,  687. 

EDDY,  SAMUEL,  Representative  from  Rhode  Island,  463. 

EDWARDS,  HENRY  "W.,  Representative  from  Connecticut, 
463. 

EDWARDS,  NINIAN,  Senator  from  Illinois,  184,  874,  654 ;  on 
the  restriction  of  slavery  in  Missouri,  401 ;  relative  to 
the  sale  of  the  public  lands,  455. 

EDWARDS,  SAMUEL,  Representative  from  Pennsylvania,  464. 

EDWARDS,  WELDON  N,.  Representative  from  North  Carolina, 
69,  200,  465 ;  offers  a  resolution  on  titles  of  nobility,  76 ; 
on  reference  of  the  petition  of  Matthew  Lyon,  201 ;  on 
the  government  of  Florida,  228.  See  Indese,  vol.  5. 

Electors  of  President. — See  Index,  vol.  1. 

ELLICOTT,  BENJAMIN,  Representative  from  New  York,  59, 
201. 

ELLIOTT,  JOHN,  Senator  from  Georgia,  374,  658;  on  the  re- 
striction of  slavery  in  Missouri,  892. 

Embargo.-See  Index,  vols.  8,  4,  5,  &  Index,  vol.  1.  Great 
Britain. 

Enlistments,  encouragement  of.— See  Index,  vol.  5. 

EPPES,  JOHN  W.,  Senator  from  Virginia,  8, 179.  See  Index, 
vols.  8,  4,  5. 

EBVIN,  JAMES,  Representative  from  South  Carolina,  76, 202, 


INDEX. 


719 


46S;  on  the  case  of  John  Anderson,  98;  on  bill  for  re- 
lief of  Gen.  St  Clair,  112;  on  the  Scminole  war,  329;  on 
a  mausoleum  to  Gen.  Washington,  ?>'.>•*. 

Excite,  resolutions  of  Pennsylvania  in  1791,  relative  to, 
420. 

Excise  on  Liquors.— Set  Index,  vols.  1,  5. 

Executive  Department*.— See  Index,  vol.  1. 

Expatriation. — In  the  House,  a  resolution  to  provide  by 
law  for  the  exercise  of  the  right  of,  considered,  65  ;  the 
question  which  had  arisen  during  the  late  war  made  a 
decision  of  it  necessary,  65 ;  American  soldiers  natives 
of  Great  Britain  taken  prisoners  during  the  last  war 
were  treated  as  traitors,  65;  how  could  the  United  States 
take  the  ground  of  retaliation,  when  they  had  never 
recognized  in  regard  to  our  own  citizens  what  we  re- 
garded of  Great  Britain  ?  66;  reason  to  believe  the  right 
has  been  denied  to  our  citizens,  66;  ease  of  Isaac  Wil- 
liams as  decided  in  our  courts,  66;  a  decision  more  im- 
portant now,  from  considerations  growing  out  of  the 
present  relations  between  the  United  States  and  foreign 
nations,  66;  case  under  the  treaty  with  Spain,  66;  to 
hold  a  commission  under  a  government  at  war  with 
S[>ain  makes  any  of  our  citizens  a  pirate,  66;  motion 
adopted,  66;  bill  reported,  63. 

Motion  to  strike  out  the  first  section  of  the  bill  consid- 
ered, 115;  Congress  have  not  the  constitutional  power  to 
pass  such  a  law,  115;  origin  and  principles  of  the  right, 
115;  if  it  exist  at  all  it  is  a  civil  right,  commensurate 
with  civil  society  and  civil  institutions,  115;  the  exer- 
cise of  the  right  should  be  regulated  by  rules  resulting 
from  the  nature  and  force  of  civil  obligations,  116 ;  the 
Government  of  the  United  States  has  not  the  power  to 
proscribe  rules  on  this  subject,  116;  its  powers  are  lim- 
ited, 116;  its  powers  are  federal,  not  national,  116 ;  can 
Congress  then  destroy  the  relation  of  citizenship  be- 
tween a  citizen  and  the  State?  117;  personal  rights  of 
the  citizen  in  his  relation  to  the  individual  state  are  not 
under  the  control  of  Congress.  117 ;  a  citizen  of  one  State 
would  be  a  foreigner  in  another  without  some  provision 
to  the  contrary,  117 ;  this  is  the  old  feudal  doctrine,  11T ; 
it  is  contended  that  allegiance  is  a  contract  requiring  the 
consent  of  the  person  and  the  Government  to  cancel  it, 
117 ;  it  is  said,  that  our  citizens  will  avail  themselves  of  this 
law  in  case  of  another  war,  118;  what  is  the  true  ques- 
tion to  be  decided?  113;  this  question  stated,  118;  ob- 
ject of  the  bill  is  to  declare  that  the  principle  of  perpet- 
ual allegiance,  known  to  the  common  law  of  England, 
has  no  existence  in  this  country,  118;  meaning  of  alle- 
giance, 118;  absurdity  of  perpetual  allegiance  manifest 
even  in  England,  119 ;  motion  to  strike  out  carried  in 
committee  and  in  the  House,  119.  See  Index,  vols.  2,  5. 

Exports,  for  the  year  1818,  225. 

Expunging  the  Journal  of  the  Senate.— See  Index,  vol.  3. 


FAT,  JOHJT,  Representative  from  New  York,  464. 

Federal  Judges.— See  Index,  vols.  2,  8.    Amendments  to 

the  Constitution,  «fc  Index,  vols.  4,  5. 
FISHER,  CHARLES,  Representative  from  North  Carolina,  833, 

464. 
FISK,  JAMES,  Senator  from  Vermont,  8.    See  Index,  vols. 

8,4,5. 
Flag  of  the  U.  £— In  the  House,  motion  to  inquire  into  the 

expediency  of  altering  the  national  flag  considered,  67; 

the  flag  has  been  altered  before,  67;  incongruity  of  flags 

in  use,  67;  motion  to  inquire  carried,  67;  report  of  the 

committee,  81. 
Bill  to  alter  the.  national  flag  considered,  182 ;  our  flag 


was  founded  on  a  representative  principle  and  made  ap- 
plicable to  the  number  of  States,  182 ;  alterations  that 
have  been  made  in  the  flag,  133 ;  alterations  proposed, 
188.  See  Index,  vol.  1. 

Florida,  Government  of. — In  the  House,  resolution  to  in 
quire  relative  to  taking  possession  of  East  Florida  un- 
der the  law  of  1811  offered,  227;  subject  already  before 
the  Committee  of  Foreign  Relations,  and  will  soon  be  re- 
ported, 228;  information  already  before  the  House,  228 ; 
a  message  communicating  a  treaty  for  the  acquisition  ot. 
869 ;  bill  for  the  occupation  of,  passed  in  the  House,  370; 
treaty  ratification  of,  710;  bill  to  take  possession  of,  or- 
dered to  a  third  reading,  711 ;  note  relative  to,  711.  See 
Spanish  Treaty. 

Florida,  purchase  of. — See  Index,  voL  8. 

Florida  Went,  occupation  of.— See  Index,  vol.  4. 

FLOYD,  JOHN,  Representative  from  Virginia,  63,  200,  464 ; 
on  the  Spanish  American  Provinces,  153 ;  on  the  report 
relative  to  the  Seminole  war,  226;  on  the  Seminole  war, 
823. 

FOLGER,  WALTER,  Jr.,  Representative  from  Massachusetts, 

58,  201,  463. 

FOOT,  SAMUEL  A.,  Representative  from  Connecticut,  463 ;  on 
the  admission  of  Maine,  474;  on  slavery  in  territories, 
515 ;  opposes  the  remission  of  forfeiture  in  a  case  of  the 
importation  of  slaves,  573;  on  a  revision  of  the  tariff, 
650. 

FORD,  WILLIAM  D.,  Representative  from  New  York,  464 

Foreign  Ministers,  abuse  of  privileges.— See  Index,  voL  8. 

Foreign  Relations. — See  Index,  vols.  4,  5. 

FORNEY,  DANIEL  M.,  Representative  from  North  Carolina, 

59.  See  Index,  vol.  5. 

FOREEST,  THOMAS,  Representative  from  Pennsylvania,  464 ; 
on  the  restriction  of  slavery  in  Missouri,  563. 

FOBSYTH,  JOHN,  Representative  from  Georgia,  59, 200 ;  on  the 
Spanish  American  Provinces,  62;  on  representative 
qualification,  64 ;  offers  a  resolution  for  the  arrest  of  John 
Anderson,  83,  84 ;  on  the  case  of  John  Anderson,  85,  87, 
92,  99;  on  neutral  relations,  123,  124,  125, 180;  on  the 
Spanish  American  Provinces,  185,  145;  Senator  from 
Georgia,  188;  resigns  his  seat  in  the  Senate,  195.  See 
Index,  voL  5. 

France,  relations  with.— See  Index,  vols.  2,  5. 

Franking  Privilege. — See  Index,  vols.  1,  2. 

Free  Colored  persons,  citizenship  of,  in  Missouri.  See  Mis- 
souri. 

Freedom  of  Conscience. — See  Index,  voL  1. 

French  Decrees.— See  Index,  voL  5. 

French  Refugees. — See  Index,  voL  1. 

French  Spoliations. — See  Index,  vols.  2,  8. 

FROMENTIW,  ELEGITJS,  Senator  from  Louisiana,  18, 179 ;  on 
the  pension  to  Gen.  Stark,  189.  See  Index,  vol.  5. 

Frontiers,  Protection  of.— See  Index,  voL  L 

Fugitives  from  Justice.— See  Index,  vol.  I. 

Fugitive  Slaves.— Set  Slaves,  Fugitite,  voL  6,  and  Indea^ 
vol.  5,  Slaves. 

FULLER,  TIMOTHY,  Representative  from  Massachusetts,  76, 
214,  465;  on  fugitives  from  justice,  109;  on  the  Missouri 
State  Government,  339. 

FULLEBTOX,  DAVID,  Representative  from  Pennsylvania, 
464 


GADSDEK,  JAM n,  letter  to  Gen.  Jackson,  814 
GAOK,  JOSHCA,  Representative  from  Massachusetts,  59,  200, 
GAILLARD,  JAMES,  Senator  from  South  Carolina,  8, 179,  874, 
654;  elected  Prcsidi-nt/wo  tern,  of  the  Senate,  8;  Presi- 
dent pro  tern,  of  the  Senate,  179 ;  elected  President  pro 


720 


INDEX. 


tern,  of  the  Senate,  416;  President  pro  tern,  of  the  Sen- 
ate, 684.  See  Index,  vols.  8,  4,  5. 

GWM  &  Seaton,  elected  printers  to  the  House,  872. 

GARNETT,  ROBEKT  S.,  Representative  from  Virginia,  59,  200, 
464. 

General  Welfare  clause  examined. — See  Index,  vol.  1. 

Georgia  Militia  Claims.— In  the  House,  bill  for  the  pay- 
ment of  certain  detachments  of  Georgia  militia  for  ser- 
vices In  1793  and  1794,  in  defence  of  that  State  consid- 
ered, 73 ;  the  Indian  outbreaks  of  those  years  along  the 
entire  northwestern  frontier,  73;  formidable  tribes  on 
the  borders  of  Georgia,  73 ;  tne  Executive  of  Georgia 
was  alive  to  the  horrors  commencing  on  the  frontiers, 
78 ;  representations  made  to  the  war  department,  73 ; 
correspondence  on  the  subject,  74 ;  pay-rolls  destroyed 
by  the  British  in  1814,  at  the  burning  of  the  public  build- 
ings, 74 ;  amount  of  force  in  service,  74 ;  power  of  the 
Governor  suspended  by  the  Secretary  of  "War,  75;  fur- 
ther correspondence  and  facts,  75.  See  Index,  voL  3. 

Georgia,  vote  for  President  In  1820,  706.  Se«  Index,  vols. 
1,  2,  8,  4,  5. 

Georgia  Land  Claim. — Se*  Index,  vol.  3 

German  Language,  Laws  in. — See  Index,  vol.  2. 

GILBERT,  SYLVESTER,  Representative  from  Connecticut, 
200. 

GOLDBBOBOUGII,  ROBERT  H.,  Senator  from  Maryland,  7, 179; 
on  providing  for  the  officers  and  soldiers  of  the  Revolu- 
tion, 30.  Set  Index,  vol.  5. 

GOODWYN,  PETERSON,  Representative  from  Virginia,  60 ;  de- 
cease of,  114.  See  Index,  vols.  8,  4,  5. 

GROSS,  EZRA  C.,  Representative  from  New  York,  464. 

GROSS,  SAMUEL,  Representative  from  Pennsylvania,  464 ;  on 
the  Senate's  amendments  to  the  Maine  bill,  554;  on  a  re- 
vision of  the  tariff,  618. 

Great  Britain,  Russia,  and  France  interpose  to  prevent  a 
rupture  between  the  United  States  and  Spain,  573. 

Great  Britain,  retaliatory  measures  on. — See  Index,  vol.  1. 

Gunboats.— See  Index,  voL  2. 


Habeas  Corpus,  Suspension  of. — See  Index,  voL  8. 

HACKLEY,  AARON,  Jr.,  Representative  from  New  York,  464. 

HALE,  SAMUEL,  Representative  from  New  Hampshire,  58, 
200. 

HALL,  GEORGE,  Representative  from  New  York,  464. 

HALL,  THOMAS  H.,  Representative  from  North  Carolina,  59, 
200,  464. 

HALL,  WILLARD,  Representative  from  Delaware,  68,  222, 
469. 

HAMBLY,  WILLIAM,  letter  to  Gen.  Jackson,  313. 

HAMILTON,  ALEXANDER,  Report  as  Secretary  of  the  Treas- 
ury.— See  Index,  vol.  1.  Treasury. 

HANSON,  ALEXANDER  C.,  Senator  from  Maryland,  179;  de- 
cease of,  875.  See  Index,  voL  5. 

HAKDIN,  BENJAMIN,  Representative  from  Kentucky,  468; 
on  restricting  slavery  in  Missouri,  499.  See  Index,  voL  5. 

Harmony  in  Indiana,  Society  of,— See  Index,  voL  8. 

HARPER,  ROBERT  G.,  Senator  from  Maryland ;  votes  for  as 
.  Vice  President  in  1820,  706.  See  Index,  vols.  1,  2, 5. 

HARRISON,  WILLIAM  II.,  Representative  from  Ohio,  59,  200, 
on  pensions  to  sufferers  in  war,  66 ;  relative  to  pensions 
to  Revolutionary  soldiers,  68;  on  the  resolution  to  arrest 
John  Anderson,  83;  on  the  case  of  John  Anderson,  100 ; 
on  the  resolution  of  respect  to  Gen.  Kosciusko,  104 ;  on 
presenting  medals  to  certain  officers,  171,  173;  on  ad- 
mitting the  Representatives  from  Illinois,  201 ;  on  slave- 
ry in  Illinois,  206;  on  a  pension  to  Gen.  Stark,  218;  on 
a  pension  to  widows  and  orphans,  218;  on  the  admission 


of  Cadets  at  West  Point,  221 ;  on  a  compromise  line  on 
slavery,  367     See  Index,  vols.  2,  5. 

HASBROUCK,  JOSIAH,  Representative  from  New  York,  59, 200. 

HAWLEY,  WILLIAM,  elected  chaplain  of  the  Senate,  7. 

HAZARD,  NATHANIEL,  Representative  from  Rhode  Island, 
463;  on  relief  to  the  family  of  Com.  Perry,  556. 

HEISTER,  JOSEPH,  Representative  from  Pennsylvania,  59, 
214,  464.  See  Index,  vols.  2,  8,  5. 

HEMPHILL,  JOSEPH,  Representative  from  Pennsylvania, 
464;  on  restricting  slavery  in  Missouri,  502. 

HENDRICK,  WILLIAM,  Representative  from  Indiana,  59,  200, 
464 ;  on  restricting  slavery  in  Missouri,  541.  See  Index, 
vol.  5. 

HERBERT,  JOHN  C.,  Representative  from  Maryland,  59,  200. 
See  Index,  voL  5. 

HERKIMEB,  JOHN,  Representative  from  New  York,  59,  200. 

HEBRICK,  SAMUEL,  Representative  from  Ohio,  59,  208,  464. 

HIBSHMAN,  JACOB,  Representative  from  Pennsylvania,  464. 

HILL,  MARK  Z.,  Representative  from  Massachusetts,  463;  on 
printing  the  journal  of  the  Old  Congress,  494. 

HITCHCOCK,  PETER,  Representative  from  Ohio,  63,  214. 

HOGG,  THOMAS,  Representative  from  Tennessee,  59,  20L 

HOLMES,  DAVID,  Senator  from  Missouri,  654. 

HOLMES,  JOHN,  Representative  from  Massachusetts,  58,  200; 
463 ;  on  the  government  of  certain  towns  in  Florida, 
228;  on  the  Seminole  war,  230;  on  appointing  a  com- 
mittee to  report  a  bill  restricting  slavery,  470 ;  on  the 
admission  of  Maine,  472, 475 ;  on  restricting  slavery  in 
Missouri,  483;  on  the  Senate's  amendments  to  the 
Maine  bill,  553;  Senator  from  Maine,  C54;  on  the  con- 
stitution of  Missouri,  677 ;  on  the  bill  for  the  relief  of 
Com.  Tucker,  703;  on  the  Missouri  constitution,  707 ;  on 
'•  a  Committee  of  Conference  relative  to  Missouri,  710. 

HOLMES,  URIEL,  Representative  from  Connecticut,  58 ;  on 
fugitives  from  justice  and  service,  109, 110. 

Home  Department.— See  Index,  vol.  1.  Executive  Depart- 
ments &  Index,  voL  5. 

Home  Manufactures  worn  in  the  House.— See  Index,  vol.  8. 

Honors  to  Vie  Brave.— In  the  House,  resolutions  to  award 
gold  medals  to  Gens.  Carroll,  Coffee,  and  Desha,  171 ; 
services  of  Gen.  Desha,  171 ;  moved  to  insert  the  name 
of  Gen.  Henry,  171 ;  reason  for  proposing  medals,  171 ; 
if  the  resolutions  were  passed,  would  it  not  be  proper  to 
seek  out  meritorious  officers  of  the  Revolution,  172; 
not  customary  to  go  below  the  commander  of  an  army 
in  awarding  medals,  172;  medals  generally  given  to 
commanders,  and  swords  to  officers,  172;  services  of 
Carroll  and  Coffee,  172 ;  this  House  has  no  wealth  to  be- 
stow, 172 ;  moved  to  lay  the  resolutions  on  the  table, 
173;  It  would  be  invidious  and  unjust  to  reject  the  cases 
now  before  the  House,  173 ;  resolutions  laid  on  the  ta- 
ble, 178. 

HOOKS,  CHARLES,  Representative  from  North  Carolina,  464. 
See  Index,  vol.  5. 

HOPKISSON,  JOSEPH,  Representative  from  Pennsylvania,  59, 
200;  on  the  case  of  John  Anderson,  86,100;  on  fugi- 
tives from  justice  and  service,  109;  on  Spanish  Ameri- 
can Provinces,  136;  on  presenting  medals  to  certain 
officers,  172;  on  the  Seminole  war,  290.  See  Index, 
vol.  5. 

HORSEY,  OUTERBRIDGE,  Senator  from  Delaware,  7,  374,  654 ; 
on  a  National  vaccine  institution,  697.  See  Index,  vola. 
4,5. 

HOSTETTEE,  JACOB,  Representative  from  Pennsylvania,  200, 
464. 

House  convenes  1st  session  of  15th  Congress,  58 ;  adjourns  at 
close  of  1st  session  of  15th  Congress,  178 ;  commences 
at  2d  session  of  15th  Congress,  200 ;  convenes  1st  session 
of  16th  Congress,  463 ;  report  of  Committee  of  Confer- 
ence on  the  Missouri  bill,  567;  adjourns  at  close  of  1st 
session  of  16th  Congress,  653. 


INDEX. 


721 


UUBBAKD,  THOMAS  IL,  Representative  from  New  York,  69, 

.200. 

HCNTEB,  WILLIAM,  Representative  from  Vermont,  59,  200. 
UUNTER,  WILLIAM,  Senator  from  Rhode  Island,  13, 184,  874, 

658.    See  Index,  vols.  4,  5. 
HCNTINGTON,  EBENBZEB,  Representative  from  Connecticut, 

58,200. 


Illinois,  State  of.— In  the  House,  a  bill  to  enable  the  people 
of  Illinois  to  form  a  State  Government,  considered,  178 ; 
amendment  moved  relative  to  the  boundary,  178 ;  the 
object  is  to  gain  for  the  State  a  coast  on  Lake  Michigan, 
173;  this  will  secure  a  canal  from  Lake  Michigan  to  the 
Illinois  river,  173 ;  motion  agreed  to,  178 ;  amendment 
moved  to  appropriate  a  portion  of  the  fund  for  roads  to 
purposes  of  education,  173 ;  amendment  agreed  to,  174 ; 
bill  passed,  174 ;  question  of  swearing  in  the  Represent- 
ative, as  Congress  had  not  concluded  the  act  of  admis- 
sion, 201 ;  the  State  constitution  should  first  be  exam- 
ined, 201 ;  precedent  to  the  contrary,  201 ;  House  refuse 
to  allow  the  oath  to  be  administered,  201 ;  constitution 
referred,  201 ;  committee  report,  202. 

The  resolution  to  admit  the  State  of  Illinois  consider- 
ed, 204;  there  should  be  before  the  House  some  docu- 
ment to  show  that  the  territory  had  the  required  popu- 
lation, 204;  the  principle  of  slavery  is  not  sufficiently 
prohibited,  204 ;  sixth  article  of  the  ordinance  relating 
to  the  Northwest  Territory,  204;  the  sixth  article  of  the 
constitution  of  the  State  of  Illinois,  205;  it  embraces  a 
complete  recognition  of  slavery,  205;  constitution  of 
Indiana  scrupulous  on  this  point,  205;  has  the  Stat^of 
Illinois  virtually  complied  with  her  contract,  and  fol- 
lowed the  example  of  two  other  States  already  erected 
from  the  same  territory?  205;  all  that  was  necessary 
•with  respect  to  population  was  that  Congress  should  be 
reasonably  satisfied,  206;  nothing  unconstitutional  in 
any  view  in  Congress  accepting  what  the  people  of  Illi- 
nois have  done  if  they  thought  proper,  206 ;  Congress 
bound  by  a  tie  not  to  be  broken,  206;  to  accept  it  would 
be  to  violate  a  pledge  solemnly  given,  206 ;  the  people 
of  Illinois  will  never  come  to  this  House  for  permission 
to  after  their  constitution  to  admit  slavery,  207 ;  resolu- 
tion carried,  207. 

Illinois,  vote  for  President  in  1820,  706. 

Impeachment. — See  Index,  vol.  8. 

Importation  of  Slaves.— See  Index,  voL  S.  Duties  on  Im- 
ports. 

Imports. — See  Duties  on  -Imports. 

Imprisonment  for  Debt.— See  Index,  vol.  2. 

Indemnity  for  Spoliations.— See  Index,  voL  1.  Great  Sri- 
tain. 

Indian  Affairs,  report  on,  106. 

Indian  Affairs.— See  Index,  voL  4. 

Indian  Lands  within  a  State,  rights  over.— See  Index, 
vol.  1. 

Indian  Trading  Houses.— See  Index,  vol.  1. 

Indian  title,  petition  of  Assembly  of  Tennessee,  128. 

Indians,  report  on  the  civilization  of,  476. 

Indiana,  vote  for  President  in  1820,  706.    See  Index,  voL  5. 

Indiana,  admission  of.— See  Index,  voL  fc 

IKGHAX,  SAMCKL  D.,  Representative  from  Pennsylvania, 
59. 

Intercourse,  Commercial,  do.  foreign,  do.  Non. — See  In- 
dex, vol.  4. 

Internal  Improvements.— In  the  Senate,  report  of  a  com- 
mittee, 67. 

In  the  House.— Resolution  relative  to  the  powefrof 
Congress  respecting  internal  improvements  considered, 
120 ;  moved  to  amend,  121 ;  lost,  121 ;  moved  to  postpone 
You  VI.— 46 


indefinitely,  121 ;  lost,  121 ;  resolution  declaring  the  gen- 
eral power  of  Congress  carried,  121 ;  resolution  relating 
to  post  and  military  roads  lost,  121 ;  other  resolution, 
voted  upon,  122 ;  note,  122.  See  Index,  voL  5. 

Invalid  Corps.— See  Index,  vol.  5. 

Irish  Emigrant  Association,  memorial  of,  82. 

IBVING,  WILLIAM,  Representative  from  New  York,  59,  200 
See  Index,  voL  5. 


JACKSON,  ANDREW,  remonstrance  of,  107.  See  Index,  vols. 
2,3. 

Jails  of  States.— See  Index,  vol.  L 

JEEVAIS,  SAMUEL,  deposition  of,  811. 

JOHNSON,  HENRY,  Senator  from  Louisiana,  84, 179,  881,  654; 
relative  to  the  sale  of  the  public  lands,  457. 

JOHNSON,  JAMES,  Representative  from  Virginia,  61, 207,  464 ; 
on  the  expatriation  bill,  117;  on  the  Seminole  war,  235; 
on  restricting  slavery  in  Missouri,  544;  on  a  revision  of 
the  tariff,  626.  See  Index,  vol.  5. 

JOHNSON,  RICHABD  M.,  Representative  from  Kentucky,  59. 
200 ;  on  the  case  of  John  Anderson,  84;  makes  a  report 
relative  to  surviving  revolutionary  officers,  214;  on  the 
admission  of  cadets  at  West  Point,  221 ;  on  the  report 
relative  to  the  Seminole  war,  227;  on  the  Seminole  war, 
247;  Senator  from  Kentucky,  881,  654;  on  the  Missouri 
constitution,  707. 

Honors  to. — In  the  Senate,  a  resolution  to  present  Col. 
Johnson  with  a  sword,  considered,  45 ;  can  be  no  ques- 
tion about  the  merit,  only  objections  may  relate  to  tho 
time  when  the  resolution  was  presented,  or  possibly  to 
the  grade  of  CoL  Johnson  in  the  army,  45 ;  reasons  of 
the  delay,  45 ;  his  grade  considered,  46 ;  merit  of  CoL 
Johnson,  46 ;  sketch  of  his  sen-ices  on  the  Northern 
frontier,  47 ;  slaughter  of  Tecumseh,  47. 

In  the  House. — A  resolution  considered,  to  present  a 
sword  to  Col.  R.  M.  Johnson  for  bravery  at  the  battle, 
170;  moved  to  insert  the  names  of  Major  General  Car- 
roll and  Brigadier  General  Coffee,  170 ;  reasons  for  the 
amendment,  171;  amendment  withdrawn,  171;  reso- 
lution passed,  171.  See  Index,  vols.  8,  4,  6. 

JONES,  FEANCIS,  Representative  from  Tennessee,  59,  200 
464 ;  on  the  Seminole  war,  257. 

JONES,  JAMES,  Representative  from  Virginia,  464. 

JONES,  WILLIAM,  memorial  on  the  Bank  of  the  United  States, 
828. 

Journal  of  the  Old  Congress.— In  the  House,  a  resolution 
for  the  publication  of  the  Secret  Journal  of  Congress, 
from  the  Treaty  of  Peace  to  the  formation  of  the  con- 
stitution, 492 ;  ordered  to  be  engrossed  for  a  third  read- 
ing, 493;  object  of  the  proposed  publication,  498;  it  is 
said  to  contain  matters  interesting  to  the  people  to  know, 
494 ;  occurrences  of  that  period,  494 ;  it  had  been  thought 
inadvisable  to  dissolve  the  correspondence  of  the  Secret 
Journal,  which  was  the  reason  it  had  not  been  ordered 
to  be  published,  494 ;  reports  and  papers  connected  with 
it  should  be  published,  495 ;  a  proposition  to  expose  our 
family  bickerings,  495;  further  debate,  496;  referred, 
497;  moved  to  take  up  the  resolution  previously  offered, 
572 ;  difficult  to  see  what  reasons  can  exist  against  the 
publication,  572  ;  comprises  only  sixty  or  eighty  pages, 
572;  resolution  passed,  572. 

Judges,  Federal,  removal  of.— See  Index,  vols.  2,  4 

Judiciary  System.— See  Index,  vol.  2. 


KENDALL,  JOHAB,  Representative  from  Massachusetts,  463. 


INDEX. 


KENT,  JOSEPH,  Kepresentative  from  Maryland,  464.  See 
Index,  vols.  4,  5. 

Kentucky,  vote  fpr  President  in  1820,  706.  See  Index,  vols. 
4,5. 

Kidnapping,  bill  relative  to,  462. 

KING,  EUFUS,  Senator  from  New  York,  3, 179,  416,  654;  on 
the  African  slave-trade,  11, 12, 17 ;  relative  to  the  officers 
and  soldiers  of  the  Revolution,  20;  on  the  British  West 
India  trade,  49 ;  on  the  pension  to  General  Stark,  189 ; 
on  the  restriction  of  slavery  in  Missouri,  435,  458 ;  on 
the  bill  for  the  sale  of  the  public  lands,  456 ;  on  giving 
the  District  of  Columbia  a  delegate  on  the  floor  of  Con- 
gress, 458;  on  considering  the  citizenship  of  free  colored 
persons  in  Missouri,  661,  662,  687 ;  relative  to  the  Vir- 
ginia Military  Lands,  702;  on  the  bill  for  the  relief  of 
Commodore  Tucker,  708 ;  on  the  proceedings  in  joint 
meeting,  705.  See  Index,  vols.  1,  4,  5. 

KCRG,  WILLIAM  E.,  Senator  from  Alabama,  880,  654;  draws 
lots  relative  to  class  of  Senators,  3SO.  See  Index,  vols. 
4,5. 

KINSEY,  CHARLES,  Representative  from  New  Jersey,  59, 200 ; 
on  the  Missouri  Compromise,  568. 

KINSLEY,  MAETIN,  Representative  from  Massachusetts,  463. 

KIETLAND,  DOEBANCE,  Representative  from  New  York,  59, 
200. 

KOSCIUSKO,  GENEEAX. — In  the  House,  resolution  to  in- 
quire what  measures  should  be  adopted  to  express 
proper  respect  to  General  Kosclusko,  103 ;  his  decease 
announced,  104 ;  sketch  of  his  life,  104 ;  his  views  in  re- 
lation to  Poland,  104;  his  efforts  there,  104;  his  subse- 
quent career,  105 ;  a  substitute  moved  for  the  resolution, 
106 ;  do.  withdrawn,  106 ;  the  usual  practice  not  in  ac- 
cordance with  the  measure  proposed,  106. 


LACOCK,  ABNER.  Senator  from  Pennsylvania,  8, 179 ;  on  the 
African  slave-trade,  18.  See  Index,  vols.  4,  5. 

Lake  Superior  Copper  Lands.— See  Index,  vol.  2. 

LAMBERT,  WILLIAM,  memorial  of,  202. 

Lands,  Western.— See  Index,  vols.  1,  8,  4,  Public  Lands. 

LANMAN,  JAMES,  Senator  from  Connecticut,  374,  658. 

LATHBOP,  SAMUEL,  Representative  from  Massachusetts,  468. 

LAWYER,  THOMAS,  Representative  from  New  York,  59,  200. 

LEAKE,  WALTER,  Senator  from  Mississippi,  7,179,374;  on 
the  restriction  of  slavery  in  Missouri,  404 

LEWIS,  WILLIAM  J.,  Representative  from  Virginia,  59,  200. 

Library  of  Congress. — See  Index,  vol.  2. 

Library  of  Mr.  Jefferson. — See  Index,  voL  5. 

Lieutenant-General. — See  Index,  voL  5. 

Light  House  Duties.— See  Index,  voL  3. 

Limitation,  statutes  of.— See  Index,  vols.  2, 4. 

LINCOLN,  ENOCH,  Representative  from  Massachusetts,  200, 
463 ;  on  encouragement  to  vine  cultivation,  223. 

Lara,  JOHN,  Representative  from  New  Jersey,  59,  200,  464 ; 
on  the  migration  of  slaves,  213. 

LITTLE,  PETER,  Representative  from  Maryland,  59,  200,  464. 
See  Index,  vols.  4,  5. 

LrvERMORE,  ARTHUR,  Representative  from  New  Hampshire, 
58,  200,  463 ;  relative  to  the  warrant  for  the  arrest  of 
John  Anderson,  84;  on  the  case  of  John  Anderson,  85, 
88 ;  on  fugitives  from  justice  and  service,  110 ;  on  a  pen- 
sion to  General  Stark,  213,  214 ;  on  th«  Missouri  State 
Government,  845 ;  on  fixing  a  line  for  the  limitation  of 
slavery,  366,  367 ;  on  the  admission  of  Maine,  472 ;  on 
the  Senate's  amendment  to  the  Maine  bill,  554. 

LLOYD,  EDWARD,  Senator  from  Maryland,  381,  658 ;  on  the 
admission  of  Maine  separately  from  Missouri,  3S4 ;  on  a 
National  Vaccine  Institution,  697,  702. 

Loan  BiU.—See  Index,  voL  5. 


LOGAN,  WILLIAM,  Senator  from  Kentucky,  874 ;  on  the  ad- 
mission of  Maine  separately  from  Missouri,  888. 

Louisiana  and  Missouri  Land  Tittea.—See  Indetr,  vol.  5. 

Louisiana,  purchase  of,  see  Index,  vols.  2,  3 ;  Treaty,  s<* 
Index,  vol.  8 ;  Territory,  see  Index,  vols.  8,  4 ;  State, 
see  Index,  vol.  4. 

Louisiana,  vote  for  President  in  1820,  706.  See  Index, 
vols.  4,  5. 

LOWNDEB,  WILLIAM,  Representative  from  South  Carolina, 
59,  207,  464;  on  the  repeal  of  internal  duties,  64;  makes 
a  report  on  salt  duties,  120;  on  the  Neutrality  bill,  127, 
180 ;  on  the  Spanish  American  Provinces,  134 ;  on  the 
Bank  of  the  United  States,  211 ;  reports  on  the  regu- 
lation of  coins,  272 ;  on  the  Seminole  war,  298 ;  on  the 
bill  for  the  Missouri  Convention,  469 ;  on  appointing  a 
committee  to  report  a  bill  for  the  restriction  of  slavery, 
470 ;  on  accountability  for  public  money,  498 ;  offers  a 
resolution  to  provide  for  the  family  of  Commodore 
Perry,  554,  555 ;  on  the  Missouri  Compromise,  568;  on 
the  Spanish  treaty,  581 ;  on  a  revision  of  the  Tariff,  625, 
645.  See  Index,  vols.  2,  8,  4,  5. 

LOWRIE,  WALTER,  Senator  from  Pennsylvania,  874,  654;  on 
the  restriction  of  slavery  in  Missouri,  405. 

LYMAN,  JOSEPH  8.,  Representative  from  New  York,  464. 

LYON,  MATTHEW,  memorial  of,  465 ;  report  on  the  petition 
of,  660.  See  Index,  vols.  2,  3,  4,  and  Sedition,  voL  6. 


MACLAY,  WILLIAM,  Representative  from  Pennsylvania,  59, 
61,201.  See  Index,  voL  5. 

MACLAY,  WILLIAM  P.,  Representative  from  Pennsylvania, 
59,  200,  464;  on  fugitives  from  justice  and  service,  109; 
on  a  pension  to  General  Stark,  213.  See  Index,  vol.  5. 

MACON,  NATHANIEL,  Senator  from  North  Carolina,  8,  179, 
874,  654 ;  on  providing  for  the  officers  and  soldiers  of  the 
Revolution,  26;  on  the  petition  of  Matthew  Lyon,  187 ; 
Reports  on  the  British  Colonial  Trade,  197 ;  on  the  ad- 
mission of  Maine  separately  from  Missouri,  885 ;  on  the 
restriction  of  slavery  in  Missouri,  411 ;  on  the  bill  for 
the  relief  of  Commodore  Tucker,  703 ;  on  the  plan  of 
proceeding  in  joint  meeting,  705.  See  Index,  vols.  1,  2, 
8,4,5. 

MADISON,  JAMES,  letter  to  Robert  Walsh,  333.  See  Index, 
vols.  1,  2,  4,  5. 

Maine.— In  the  Senate,  a  bill  for  the  admission  of,  consider- 
ed, 381 ;  moved  to  refer  it  to  the  Judiciary  Committee 
to  amend  by  providing  for  the  admission  of  Missouri, 
881 ;  postponed,  and  House  bill  with  same  amendment 
taken  up,  382 ;  report  in  the  Senate,  454. 

In  the  House.— A  bill  for  the  admission  of  Maine  con- 
sidered, 471;  no  objection  in  relation  to  Maine  itself 
with  regard  to  admission,  but  certain  new  doctrines 
have  sprung  up  relative  to  States  west  of  the  Mississippi, 
which  should  be  determined  before  this  State  was  ad- 
mitted, 471 ;  case  of  Kentucky  and  Vermont,  471 ;  the 
application  of  Maine  was  a  distinct  question,  472 ;  the 
precedent  with  regard  to  representation,  472 ;  it  is  said 
if  restrictions  were  to  be  imposed  on  Missouri,  then 
Maine  and  Missouri  ought  to  go  hand  hi  hand,  but  the 
territory  acquired  from  France  stands  on  a  distinct  foot- 
ing, 472 ;  if  we  have  no  right  to  impose  conditions  on 
Maine,  then  none  should  be  imposed  on  Missouri,  472 ; 
the  argument  untenable,  that  because  the  Territory  of 
Missouri  was  purchased,  she  was  therefore  our  vassal, 
472 ;  the  doctrine  is  an  alarming  one,  472 ;  it  is  a  dis- 
tinction which  neither  exists  in  reason,  nor  can  bo  car- 
ried into  effect  in  practice,  478;  no  similarity  in  the 
cases  of  Maine  and  Missouri,  473 ;  a  majority  of  the 
House  believe  in  the  right  of  annexing  conditions  to 


INDEX. 


723 


Missouri,  but  not  one  believes  so  with  regard  to  Maine, 
473 ;  does  Maine  stand  in  the  way  of  Missouri,  or  does 
something  else  ?  478 ;  it  is  said  equality  is  equality,  then 
apply  the  principle  to  the  present  case,  473 ;  what  say 
the  friends  of  Maine  with  regard  to  the  admission  of 
Missouri?  474;  why  should  you  give  privileges  to  Maine 
which  you  deny  to  Missouri?  474;  some  provision 
should  be  incorporated  in  the  bill  relative  to  the  repre- 
sentation from  Maine,  474 ;  the  compact  between  Maine 
and  Massachusetts,  474;  Congress  can  legalize  it,  475; 
further  debate,  475;  bill  reported  to  the  House,  475; 
various  amendments  made,  475 ;  bill  ordered  to  third 
reading,  476. 

Amendments  of  the  Senate  to  the  bill  for  the  admis- 
sion of  Maine,  considered,  authorizing  the  people  of 
Missouri  to  form  a  State  Government,  and-  prohibiting 
slavery  north  of  86'  80",  except  in  Missouri,  558 ;  moved 
to  disagree,  and  moved  to  refer  to  the  Committee  of  %e 
Whole,  553 ;  immediate  action  opposed,  553 ;  connection 
of  the  bills  disapproved,  554 ;  the  Senate  a  right  to  an- 
nex any  amendments  to  a  bill  from  this  House,  554 ; 
commitment  lost,  555;  bill  postponed,  555;  taken  up, 
556 ;  motion  to  disagree  to  the  amendment  adding  Mis- 
souri to  the  bill,  carried,  557 ;  all  amendments  disagreed 
to  except  that  containing  the  compromise,  557. 

Message  that  the  Senate  insist,  560;  moved  to  post- 
pone, 560 ;  lost,  560 ;  moved  to  disagree  to  the  sections 
adding  the  Missouri  bill,  560 ;  other  amendments  dis- 
agreed to,  561 ;  message  from  the  Senate  asking  a  con- 
ference, 561 ;  assented  to,  562. 

Maine,  vote  for  President  in  1820,  706. 

MARCHAND,  DAVID,  Representative  from  Pennsylvania,  59, 
200,464. 

MAKE,  GEOEGE  W.  L.,  Representative  from  Tennessee,  59, 
228. 

MARTIN,  LCTHER,  extract  from  report  of,  to  the  Legislature 
of  Maryland,  4S5. 

Maryland,  vote  for  President  in  1820, 706.  See  Index,  vols. 
1,  2,  8,  4,  5. 

Maryland  Memorial  on  the  state  of  National  Affairs. — See 
Index,  voL  5. 

MABON,  JONATHAN,  Representative  from  Massachusetts,  68, 
200,  463 ;  on  fugitives  from  justice  and  service,  110. 

MASON,  JAMBS  B.,  Representative  from  Rhode  Island,  90, 209. 

Massachusetts,  vote  for  President  in  1820,  706.  See  Index, 
vols.  1,  2,  8,  4,  5. 

Massachusetts  Memorial  on  the  War  of  1812.  See  Index, 
voL5. 

McCor,  "WILLIAM,  Representative  from  Virginia,  59,  200, 
464.  See  Index,  vols.  4,  5. 

McCKEAKY,  JOHN,  Representative  from  South  Carolina,  464. 

McLxxE,  Louis,  Representative 'from  Delaware,  59,  201, 
464 ;  on  the  expatriation  bill,  115 ;  on  the  Bank  of  the 
United  States,  208, 209;  first  suggests  a  compromise  line 
for  the  limitation  of  slavery,  859;  on  the  prohibition  of 
slavery  in  Arkansas  Territory,  859 ;  on  restricting  slavery 
in  Missouri,  507;  on  the  Senate  amendments  to  the 
Maine  bill,  555;  on  a  revision  of  the  Tariff,  641, 

MCLEAN,  ALKEY,  Representative  from  Kentucky,  464  See 
Index,  voL  5. 

MCLEAN,  JOHN,  Representative  from  Illinois,  214  See  In- 
dex, voL  5. 

MKADE,  R.  W.— In  the  Senate,  report  on  the  case  of,  44 

In  the  House. — A  resolution  calling  for  information 
relative  to  the  impressment  of  Mcade,  considered,  70 ; 
explanation  of  the  case,  70 ;  no  violation  has  been  done, 
of  either  the  letter  or  spirit  of  any  part  of  the  Spanish 
criminal  code,  70;  there  was  no  cause  for  complaint 
against  him,  70;  a  public  order  was  issued  commanding 
his  release,  and  a  private  order  at  the  same  time  was 
sent  commanding  his  detention,  70;  further  remarks, 


71 ;  motion  agreed  to,  Tl ;  a  resolution  requiring  the 
President  to  make  a  demand  on  the  King  of  Spain  for 
the  liberation  of  Meade,  considered,  174;  this  resolution 
preferred,  because  the  resolution  of  the  committee  is 
not  strong  enough,  175;  the  facts  as  reported,  175 ;  report 
of  the  committee  goes  as  far  as  the  duty  of  the  HOUSA 
ought  to  go,  176;  substitute  lost,  177. 

Mediterranean  Trade.— See  Index,  voL  2. 

MEBCH,  EZRA,  Representative  from  Vermont,  469. 

MEIGS,  HENRY,  Representative  from  New  York,  464;  offers 
resolutions  to  provide  a  remedy  for  slavery,  502. 

MELLEN,  PRESTOS,  Senator  from  Massachusetts,  179,  374 ; 
on  the  admission  of  Maine  separately  from  Missouri, 
884;  on  the  restriction  of  slavery  in  Missouri,  400. 

MERCER,  CHARLES  F.,  Representative  from  Virginia,  59, 200, 
464;  on  the  case  of  John  Anderson,  96;  on  the  resolu- 
tions relative  to  the  slave-trade,  225 ;  on  the  report  rela- 
tive to  the  Seminole  war,  226;  on  a  monument  to  DC 
Kalb,  262;  on  the  Seminole  war,  278;  on  postponing 
the  bill  to  authorize  the  Missouri  Convention,  469 ;  on 
appointing  a  committee  to  report  a  bill  restricting  sla- 
,  very,  470 ;  on  printing  the  Secret  Journal  of  the  Old 
Congress,  494 ;  on  the  Senate's  amendments  to  the  Maine 
bill,  554 

MERRILL,  ORSAMUS  C.,  Representative  from  Vermont,  59, 
200,464 

Message  to  1st  session  of  15th  Congress,  4;  relative  to 
Amelia  Island,  19 ;  relative  to  return  duties  by  Great 
Britain,  84;  relative  to  the  Seminole  Indians,  44;  on  re- 
lations with  Spain,  122 ;  on  Spanish  American  Provinces, 
136 ;  on  the  Seminole  war,  137 ;  at  2d  session  of  15th  Con- 
gress, 179;  relative  to  deported  slaves,  184 ;  relative  to 
the  act  for  the  gradual  increase  of  the  Navy,  224 ;  com- 
municating a  treaty  for  thS  acquisition  of  Florida,  869; 
at  1st  session  of  16th  Congress,  875 ;  relative  to  the 
Sierra  Leone  Colony,  879 ;  on  our  relations  with  Spain, 
458 ;  from  Senate  to  the  House  annexing  the  passage 
of  the  Missouri  bill  with  an  amendment,  567 ;  relative 
to  the  Florida  cession,  573 ;  at  2d  session  of  16th  Con- 
gress, 655 ;  stating  the  ratification  of  (he  Florida  Treaty, 
710. 

METCALFB,  THOMAS,  Representative  from  Kentucky,  464 

MIDDLETOX,  HENRY,  Representative  from  South  Carolina, 
59,  200.  See  Index,  vol.  5. 

Military  Academy  and  Academiea.-'See  Index,  vols.  2,  5. 

•MILLER,  STEPHEN  D.,  Representative  from  South  Carolina, 
59,223.  See  Index,  voL  5. 

MILLS,  ELIJAH  II.,  Representative  from  Massachusetts,  114, 
218;  Senator  from  Massachusetts,  653.  See  Index,  voL  8. 

Mint,  establishment  of.— See  Index,  vols.  1,  2. 

Miranda's  Expedition.— See  Index,  vol.  4 

Mississippi,  committee  appointed  in  the  Senate  to  inquire 
if  any  legislation  necessary  for  admission  of,  4 

Mississippi,  vote  for  President  in  1820,  706. 

Mississippi  River,  free  navigation  of.— See  Index,  vol.  2. 

Mississippi  Territory.— See  Index,  voL  4,  Territories, 
State,  see  Index,  vol.  5. 

Missouri.— In  the  House,  petition  of  inhabitants  for  ad- 
mission  as  a  State,  123. 

In  the  Senate.— A.  bill  from  the  House  to  authorize 
the  people  of  Missouri  Territory  to  form  a  State  Gov- 
ernment, and  another  for  admission,  referred  to  a  com- 
mittee, 195;  moved  to  postpone,  198;  lost,  198;  moved 
to  strikeout  the  restriction  clause,  198;  carried,  198; 
House  refuse  to  concur,  198;  Senate  resolve  to  adhere, 
193;  House  adhere,  199;  note,  199. 

In  the  Ifouse.— Bill  to  enable  the  people  of  the  terri- 
tories of  Missouri  and  Alabama  to  form  State  Govern- 


Restriction  moved.— Moved  to  restrict  the  existence 
of  slavery  in  Missouri,  833;  note  on  the  distinction  be- 


724 


INDEX. 


tween  restriction  and  compromise,  888 ;  the  restrictive 
proviso,  834 ;  questions  of  right  and  expediency  involved, 
884;  free  governments  beyond  the  Mississippi  all  in- 
volved in  this  question,  884 ;  has  Congress  the  power  to 
require  of  Missouri  a  constitutional  prohibition  against 
the  further  introduction  of  slavery,  as  a  condition  of  her 
admission  into  the  Union,  884 ;  Congress  has  Jio  power 
except  expressly  delegated  or  necessary  to  the  execution 
of  some  delegated  power,  834;  what  are  the  grants  in 
relation  to  territories,  834 ;  practice  of  Congress,  884 ; 
the  exercise  of  this  power  never  questioned  until  now, 
835 ;  it  is  said  that  by  the  treaty  of  1808  with  the  French 
Eepublic,  Congress  is  restrained  from  imposing  this  con- 
dition, 885;  terms  of  the  treaty,  385;  object  of  the  arti- 
cle, 835 ;  President  and  Senate  no  power  to  bind  Con- 
gress to  admit  new  States,  385 ;  the  treaty  no  operation 
on  the  question  in  debate,  885 ;  how  the  treaty  has  been 
complied  with,  885;  it  is  said  the  amendment  violates 
the  treaty,  because  it  impairs  the  property  of  the  master 
in  the  slave,  885;  is  it  wise  to  exercise  this  power?  886 ; 
history  will  record  the  decision  of  this  day,  836 ;  advan- 
tages to  the  negro  by  dispersion  over  the  country,  836 ; 
effect  of  the  amendment  in  reducing  the  value  of  slave 
property,  considered,  837 ;  amendment  calculated  to 
disfranchise  our  brethren  of  the  South  by  discouraging 
their  emigration  wesu  of  the  Mississippi,  887 ;  its  ad- 
mission will  have  the  same  effect  in  regard  to  the  North, 
887 ;  how  are  laboring  men  regarded  by  slaveholders  ?  837; 
by  this  prohibition,  it  is  said  we  shall  reduce  the  price 
and  diminish  the  sales  of  land,  $88 ;  the  relative  value 
of  lands  in  adjoining  States,  888;  results  of  experience, 
888 ;  Congress  has  a  discretionary  power  in  the  admis- 
sion of  new  States,  339 ;  our  duty  requires  we  should 
examine  the  actual  state  of  things  in  the  proposed 
state,  389 ;  the  prohibition  of  slavery  implies  nothing 
more  than  that  its  constitution  shall  be  republican,  839 ; 
the  republican  character  of  slaveholding  States  not  to  be 
questioned,  889 ;  provisions  of  the  constitution  recog- 
nizing the  right  in  the  States  holding  slaves  at  its  adop- 
tion to  continue  to  hold  them,  840 ;  the  attempt  to  ex- 
tend slavery  is  in  violation  of  the  clause  guaranteeing 
a  republican  form  of  government,  840 ;  first  clause  of 
the  second  section  of  the  fourth  article  of  the  constitu- 
tion examined,  840 ;  it  is  said  the  amendment  abridges 
the  rights  of  the  slaveholding  States  to  transport  their 
slaves  to  new  States  for  sale  or  otherwise,  840 ;  the  ex- 
pediency of  the  measure  is  very  apparent,  841 ;  it  is 
said,  we  are  bound  by  treaty  to  admit  the  Territory 
as  soon  as  possible,  841. 

Effect  of  the  proposed  amendment  is  to  prohibit  the 
further  introduction  of  slaves  into  the  new  State  of  Mis- 
souri, and  to  emancipate  at  the  age  of  twenty-five  the 
children  of  all  those  slaves  now  within  its  limits,  841 ; 
no  constitutional  right  to  enact  this  provision,  841 ;  Mis- 
souri would  labor  under  a  disadvantage  with  respect  to 
the  other  States,  if  this  prohibition  is  adopted,  842  ;  if 
we  have  a  right  to  go  one  step  in  relation  to  a  new  State 
beyond  the  footing  upon  which  the  original  States 
stand,  we  have  the  same  fight  to  take  any  other  attri- 
bute from  them,  842 ;  the  force  of  legislative  precedent 
protested  against,  842 ;  these  precedents  examined,  842 ; 
If  it  were  within  our  power,  we  were  forbidden  from 
exercising  it  by  every  consideration  of  justice,  human- 
ity, and  sound  policy,  848;  the  justice  of  the  measure, 
843 ;  the  policy  of  the  measure  examined,  343 ;  affect 
the  value  of  countless  millions  of  public  lands,  344. 

The  amendment  accords  with  the  dictates  of  reason 
and  the  best  feelings  of  the  human  heart,  345;  what  is 
slavery  ?  845 ;  it  is  not  established  by  our  constitution, 
845;  until  the  ceded  territory  sh.aU  have  been  made  into 
States,  and  the  new  States  admitted  into  the  Union,  we 


can  do  what  we  please  with  it,  845;  an  opportunity  is 
now  presented  to  diminish,  at  least  to  prevent,  the 
growth  of  a  sin  which  sits  heavy  on  the  soul  of  every 
one  of  us,  846 ;  resolution  passed  in  committee,  846. 

Bill  reported  to  the  House  and  amendments  agreed  to, 
except  the  prohibition  of  slavery,  846;  protest  against 
the  introduction,  under  the  insidious  form  of  an  amend- 
ment, of  any  principle,  the  obvious  tendency  of  which 
wouH  be  to  sow  the  seeds  of  discord,  846;  Congress  has 
not  the  power  to  impose  this  or  any  condition,  under  the 
constitution,  as  a  prerequisite  of  admission,  346;  remarks 
of  Madison,  347 ;  constitutional  point  further  examined 
847 ;  the  practice  under  the  constitution  has  been  differ- 
ent from  that  now  contended  for,  848 ;  the  restrictions 
unwarrantable  from  the  provisions  of  the  treaty  of  ces- 
sion, 848 ;  the  admission  of  Louisiana  an  example,  848 ; 
the  people  of  Missouri  were,  if  admitted  into  the  Union, 
to  come  in  on  an  equal  footing  with  the  original  states, 
849 ;  it  is  admitted  that  a  constitution  formed  on  this 
provision  can  be  altered  immediately  on  admission,  why 
then  legislate  for  what  can  produce  no  practical  effect? 
849. 

All  reasons  for  acquiescing  In  slavery  cease  when  you 
cross  the  Mississippi,  850 ;  we  are  warned  to  beware  of 
the  Ides  of  March,  851 ;  if  a  dissolution  of  the  Union 
must  take  place,  let  it  be  so,  851;  violent  expressions  in 
debate,  851 ;  has  slavery  become  a  subject  of  such  dell- 
cacy  that  it  cannot  be  discussed?  851 ;  look  at  the  coun- 
try west  of  the  Mississippi,  in  the  future  peopled  by 
planters  with  their  slaves  or  without  them,  852 ;  it  is 
said  we  have  no  right  to  annex  conditions  to  a  State  on 
its  admission,  852 ;  the  constitution  is  silent  as  to  the 
terms  of  admission  of  new  States,  852 ;  Congress  has  a 
right  to  prescribe  the  time  and  condition  of  admission, 
852 ;  it  is  said  this  is  a  new  principle  for  which  we  con- 
tend, 858 ;  see  the  law  for  the  admission  of  Louisiana, 
853;  it  is  said  the  amendment  is  contrary  to  the  treaty 
and  cession  of  Louisiana,  353;  the  treaty-making  power 
has  no  right  to  stipulate  the  terms  upon  which  a  people 
shall  be  admitted  into  the  Union,  853;  the  argument  of 
bettering  the  condition  of  slaves  by  spreading  them  over 
the  country,  854;  it  is  said,  long  habit  has  rendered 
slaves  necessary  to  the  southern  and  western  people, 
.  854.;  upon  this  subject  the  eyes  of  Europe  are  turned 
upon  you,  854;  sectional  contrasts  drawn,  355;  it  is  said, 
any  attempt  to  control  this  subject  by  legislation  is  a 
violation  of  that  faith  and  mutual  confidence  upon  which 
the  constitution  was  adopted,  855 ;  amendment  agreed 
to,  856 ;  bill  ordered  to  a  third  reading,  856. 

Amendments  of  the  Senate  considered,  870 ;  indefinite 
postponement  moved.and  lost,  370;  question  on  concur- 
rence with  the  Senate  lost,  870 ;  message  from  the  Sen- 
ate announcing  their  adherence,  871;  moved  that  tho 
House  adhere,  871 ;  debate,  371 ;  adherence  carried  in 
the  House,  872;  bill  lost,  872;  note,  872. 

In  the  Senate. — Memorial  from  the  Legislative  Coun- 
cil of  Missouri,  praying  admission  into  the  Union,  881. 

•Maine  and  Missouri.— Bill  from  the  House  for  the 
admission  of  the  State  of  Maine,  with  amendments  au- 
thorizing the  people  of  Missouri  to  form  a  convention 
preparatory  to  admission,  882 ;  moved  to  refer  the  bill 
separate  from  the  amendment  embracing  Missouri,  382; 
the  question  of  the  admission  of  Maine  was  one  ques- 
tion, that  of  the  admission  of  Missouri  another,  882; 
that  of  uniting  the  two  in  one  bill  was  a  distinct  ques- 
tion now  submitted,  382;  proceedings  in  Maine,  883; 
proceedings  relative  to  the  two  bills,  383 ;  is  it  regu- 
lar or  even  justifiable  to  connect  two  subjects  in  ono 
bill  ?  383 ;  no  good  reason  why  they  should  be  sepa- 
rated, 883 ;  if  any  difference  existed,  the  preference  was 
in  favor  of  Missouri,  383 ;  the  bill  in  relation  to  Maine 


INDEX. 


725 


passed  the  House  of  Representatives  in  the  simplest 
form,  884;  impropriety  of  this  junction  in  two  bills,  884; 
two  subjects  are  not  different  in  their  nature,  884;  shall 
Maine  and  Missouri  be  admitted  into  the  Union  on  an 
equal  footing?  884;  only  one  course  under  the  power 
granted  In  the  constitution,  884 ;  if  the  Senate  have  a 
right  to  impose  restrictions  on  Missouri,  they  have  also 
on  Maine,  385 ;  it  is  conformable  to  the  rules  and  prac- 
tice of  the  Senate,  to  separate  the  two  subjects,  885; 
case?  distinct  in  their  nature,  885 ;  no  necessity  to  re- 
commit the  bill,  885 ;  nothing  more  common  than  for 
Congress  to  pass  bills  for  particular  objects  and  "for 
other  purposes,"  886 ;  the  Senate  had,  in  more  instances 
than  one,  tacked  one  bill  to  another  of  a  different  nature, 
886;  instance,  886;  history  of  the  progress  of  this  sub- 
ject, 386;  objections  urged  to  uniting  the  bills,  386;  ob- 
jects of  referring  a  bill  to  a  committee,  887;  further 
debate,  887 ;  motion  to  recommit  lost,  888. 

Restriction  moved.— Moved  to  add  the  restriction  of 
slavery  to  the  amendment  whereby  Missouri  is  admitted 
to  form  a  State  constitution,  3S9 ;  manner  in  which  this 
Government  was  established,  339 ;  the  occasion  which 
offered,  in  1787,  to  apply  the  just,  social  principles  recog- 
nized in  1776,  3S9 ;  the  ordinance  of  '87,  and  the  articles 
of  compact  it  contains,  890;  the  great  men  who  execu- 
ted this  trust  looked  not  at  the  bearings  of  interest,  or 
to  the  gratification  of  an  unworthy  ambition,  890 ;  tho 
framing  of  the  constitution,  390 ;  the  cession  by  North 
Carolina,  391;  after  this  long-settled  construction,  can  it 
be  contended  that  Congress,  in  the  admission  of  Missouri, 
can  propose  no  check  on  the  evils  of  slavery  ?  891 ;  act 
of  Louisiana  relative  to  the  migration  of  slaves,  891. 

"What  is  the  question  we  are  called  upon  to  decide  1 
892 ;  claims  of  the  people  of  Missouri  to  admission :  1st, 
under  the  constitution ;  2d,  from  the  obligations  volun- 
tarily assumed  by  the  United  States,  in  the  treaty  of 
1803;  8d,  from  the  suggestions  of  sound  policy,  392; 
sections  of  the  constitution  examined,  393;  migrate, 
393 ;  if  Congress,  under  the  constitution,  may  refuse  ad- 
mission to  new  States,  she  is  pledged,  under  the  treaty, 
in  this  case,  394 

Necessity  that  our  Government  be  wisely  adminis- 
tered, 894 ;  the  uncontrolled  extension  of  involuntary 
servitude  will  tend  to  impair  all  those  virtuous  qualities 
which  compose  stamina,  nerve,  muscle,  and  hope  of  the 
nation,  895 ;  Congress  have  the  right  and  power  to-pro- 
hibit  slavery  in  every  territory  within  their  dominion, 
and  in  every  State,  formed  of  territory  acquired  without 
the  limits  of  the  original  States,  895;  this  position  ex- 
amined and  enforced,  896. 

The  sectional  feeling  indicated  by  the  sentiments  ex- 
pressed in  this  debate  to  be  regretted,  398;  powers 
granted  to  Congress,  398;  the  words  "migration  and 
importation,"  899;  note,  899;  shall  we  take  upon  our- 
selves to  judge  for  the  people  of  Missouri  what  is  most 
for  their  advantage,  if  they  think  different  from  us  ?  400 ; 
the  people  are  either  capable  of  self-government,  or  they 
are  not ;  if  the  former,  permit  them  to  frame  a  constitu- 
tion for  themselves,  400;  it  is  said  an  alarming  degree  of 
excitement  exists  in  the  public  mind,  401;  in  what  does 
this  excitement  consist,  401;  there  is  a  difference  of 
opinion,  but  no  excitement  except  in  the  imagination  of 
gentlemen,  401 ;  it  is  said,  sectional  jealousies  and  ani- 
mosities will  be  the  Immediate  consequence.of  the  suc- 
cess of  this  amendment,  401. 

Neither  the  slaveholding  States,  nor  those  who  oppose 
the  restriction,  are  influenced  by  a  desire  to  increase 
slavery  in  the  United  States,  402;  neither  is  the  pro- 
posed  restriction  necessary  to  prevent,  nor  its  omission 
calculated  to  augment  the  importation  of  fresh  slaves, 
402 ;  interest  of  every  State  at  the  West,  that  fair  and 


equal  inducement  to  emigration  thither  should  be  af- 
forded to  the  citizens  of  every  section,  402;  the  only 
point  of  difference  relates  to  the  slaves  that  are  now 
among  us,  408 ;  the  present  subject  does  not  furnish  any 
adequate  motives  for  the  present  attempts  at  excite- 
ment, 408;  on  what  ground  are  the  jealousies  of  our 
slaveholding  brethren  predicated,  408;  take  the  case  of 
Virginia,  408 ;  can  the  slaveholding  States  oppose  this 
restriction  from  any  other  motives  than  those  which  are 
truly  national?  404;  their  principles  calculated  to  di- 
minish their  own  power  and  to  abolish  slavery,  404; 
source  whence  the  power  to  impose  the  restriction  is 
derived,  404;  what  fs  a  State,  within  the  meaning  of 
the  constitution?  404;  meaning  of  the  word  territory, 
405. 

First  principles,  405;  have  Congress  the  right  to  pro- 
pose to  the  State  of  Missouri  the  restriction  contained 
in  the  amendment,  405;  State  sovereignty,  405 ;  migra- 
tion, importation,  authority  of  Madison  and  Judge  Wil- 
son, 406;  construction  of  the  clause  relating  to  territo- 
ries, 406;  practice  of  the  government,  406;  Congress 
possesses  all  the  rights  of  France  over  this  territory, 
406;  France  could  have  imposed  this  condition,  407: 
cases  supposed,  407;  history  of  the  new  States,  407  r 
the  obligation  imposed  upon  this  government  by  the 
treaty  of  cession,  407 ;  it  is  said,  the  treaty  guarantees 
their  property  to  all  the  inhabitants  of  Missouri,  407 ; 
a  case  in  point,  408 ;  ordinance  of  1787,  407 ;  the  policy 
of  adopting  the  proposed  restriction,  408 ;  it  cannot  be 
pretended  that  the  toleration  of  slavery  is  necessary 
for  the  self-preservation  of  the  people  of  Missouri,  408 ; 
it  is  said,  humanity  to  the  slaves  requires  the  rejection 
of  the  amendment,  408;  it  is  said,  nothing  is  done  to 
spread  slavery  by  opening  the  extensive  regions  of  the 
West,  408;  go  to  Africa  and  see  if  you  can  discover 
the  gap  where  the  negroes  have  come  who  have  black- 
ened half  of  America,  408 ;  it  is  said,  the  constitution 
gives  us  no  power  to  impose  the  restriction,  409;  is 
not  the  burden  of  proof  thrown  on  those  who  make  the 
assertion  ?  409 ;  our  Federal  Government  the  result  of 
compromise,  409 ;  how  far  this  compromise  went,  409 ; 
the  limitation  of  the  otherwise  unlimited  power  of  Con- 
gress over  this  subject,  was  confined  to  the  States  then 
existing,  410 ;  the  clause  is  not  a  grant  but  a  limitation 
of  power,  which  relates  to  the  importation  of  slaves, 
410 ;  migration,  the  term  examined,  410 ;  the  terms  ap- 
plied as  they  were  intended,  410 ;  Orleans  territory,  re- 
strictions relating  to,  410 ;  a  continual  reference  to  and 
acknowledgment  of  the  ordinance  of  1787  in  all  the  acts 
of  cession  and  for  admitting  new  States,  411 ;  it  is  said, 
the  adoption  of  this  amendment  would  place  the  State* 
on  a  footing  of  inequality,  411. 

The  time  of  the  adoption  of  the  constitution,  411 ;  the 
amendment  is  calculated  to  produce  geographical  par- 
ties, or  why  admonish  us  to  discuss  it  with  moderation 
and  good  temper  ?  412  ;  all  the  States  now  have  equal 
rights,  and  all  are  content,  412 ;  all  the  country  west  of 
the  Mississippi  was  acquired  by  the  same  treaty,  and  on 
the  same  terms,  and  the  people  In  every  part  have  the 
same  rights,  but  if  the  amendment  be  adopted  Missouri 
will  not  have  the  same  rights  as  Louisiana,  412;  its  ope- 
ration is  unjust  as  regards  the  people  who  have  moved 
there  from  the  other  States,  418;  the  object  now  avowed 
is  to  pen  up  the  slaves  and  their  owners,  and  not  allow 
them  to  cross  the  Mississippi  to  better  their  condition, 
418;  a  wise  Legislature  will  always  consider  the  charac- 
ter, condition,  and  feeling  of  those  to  b«  legislated  for, 
418;  let  the  United  States  abandon  this  new  scheme,  let 
their  magnanimity  and  not  their  power  be  felt  by  the 
people  of  Missouri,  418 ;  Great  Britain  lost  the  Tinted 
States  by  attempting  to  govern  too  much,  413 ;  can  you 


726 


INDEX. 


expect  to  persuade  Missouri  to  yield  to  our  opinion  on  I 
any  better  reasons  than  Great  Britain  had  to  persuade  j 
the  United  States  f  418;  the  character  of  those  who  set- 
tle our  frontiers,  414;  experience  of  Pennsylvania  with 
the  "Wyoming  settlers,  414;  why  depart  from  the  good 
old  way  which  has  kept  us  in  quiet,  peace,  and  harmo- 
ny? 414;  opinions  have  changed  in  the  slavcholding 
States  within  a  few  years,  415 ;  treatment  of  slaves  at 
the  South,  415;  the  view  of  Virginia  friends  of  freedom, 
415. 

If  the  bill  for  admitting  Missouri  would  be  accompa- 
nied by  such  grounds  and  provisions  as  would  forever 
preclude  the  spread  of  this  moral  pestilence,  it  might 
be  supported  by  some  who  now  oppose  it,  416;  no  such 
disposition  yet  manifested  by  the  friends  of  the  bill,  416; 
it  is  said,  a  more  grave  and  portentous  question  never 
entered  these  walls,  416;  if  the  obligations  imposed 
upon  us  by  the  constitution  were  rigorous  to  the  extent 
which  gentlemen  seem  to  insist,  our  condition  is  deplo- 
rable, 417;  without  this  power  of  annexing  conditions, 
the  United  States  would  be  a  strange  anomaly  in  the 
society  of  nations,  417;  a  State  formed  of  people  called 
Shakers,  418;  other  instances,  418 ;  it  is  said,  Congress 
has  not  the  constitutional  power  to  establish,  so  neither 
is  it  competent  to  abolish  slavery,  418. 

First  clause  of  the  ninth  section  of  the  first  article  of 
the  constitution  examined,  419 ;  in  looking  to  the  rea- 
sons, you  must  employ  all  the  ground  necessary  to  as- 
certain for  what  purpose  a  particular  principle  was 
adopted,  419 ;  view  taken  of  "  migration,"  by  those  who 
press  the  restriction,  419 ;  do.  by  those  who  oppose  the 
restriction,  419;  morality  of  the  slaveholding  States 
compared  with  the  non-slaveholding  States,  420 ;  rebel- 
lion in  Massachusetts,  420 ;  Pennsylvania  on  the  excise 
laws,  420 ;  conduct  of  the  slaves  at  Pittsburg,  421 ;  New 
York  has  given  as  hopeful  signs  of  a  turbulent  temper  as 
Pennsylvania  or  Massachusetts,  421 ;  a  question  involv- 
ing the  construction  of  the  great  charter  of  our  liberties, 
421 ;  was  the  Declaration  of  Independence  designed  to 
dissolve  the  bonds  of  social  order  throughout  the 
United  States,  to  reduce  all  men  to  a  state  of  nature, 
and  set  at  large  a  host  of  slaves?  422;  wherever  eman- 
cipation has  been  effected  it  has  been  by  the  authority 
of  State  laws,  422;  the  treaty  of  Ghent  contains  a  stip- 
ulation for  the  restoration  of  slaves,  422 ;  Congress  have 
enacted  laws  regarding  slaves  as  property,  422 ;  the  con- 
stitutional question  examined,  423 ;  it  is  a  written  com- 
pact thus  created,  thus  adopted,  whose  powers  we  ex- 
amine, 423 ;  to  the  advocates  of  power  in  any  instance 
the  people  may  with  propriety  say,  show  the  grant  of 
the  power  in  the  constitution,  428 ;  it  must  bo  admitted 
by  every  statesman  that  this  constitution  never  was  de- 
signed to  have  jurisdiction  over  the  domestic  concerns 
of  the  people  in  the  several  States,  428;  to  accomplish 
the  proposed  object  Congress  must  invent  a  new  mode 
of  legislation — a  legislation  in  perpetuity,  424;  you  im- 
pose by  statute  a  restriction  to  be  and  remain  irrevoca- 
ble, 424 ;  this  bill  is  not  simply  a  law,  but  a  law  to  make 
in  part  a  constitution  for  the  State  of  Missouri,  424 ; 
Missouri  would  thus  enter  the  Union  shorn  of  some  of 
those  beams  of  sovereignty  which  surround  her  sister 
States,  424 ;  it  is  said,  similar  terms  were  prescribed  to 
the  States  of  Ohio,  Indiana  and  Illinois,  424 ;  these  States 
furnish  not  even  the  frail  authority  of  precedent,  424 ; 
course  pursued  in  the  debate,  425 ;  have  not  the  South- 
ern members  invariably  supported  with  unanimity, 
every  proposition  which  had  for  its  object  the  suppres- 
sion of  the  slave  trade  ?  425 ;  the  real  question  is,  shall 
we  violate  the  constitution  by  imposing  restrictions 
upon  Missouri  ?  425 ;  while  exercising  the  great  privilege 
of  forming  their  government,  shall  we  disregard  the 


solemn  obligations  Imposed  by  treaty  ?  425 ;  the  terms 
u  migration  "  and  "  importation  "  examined,  426 ;  migra- 
tion was  intended  to  refer  to  free  foreigners  coming  to 
this  country,  while  importation  was  intended  to  apply 
to  slaves  from  abroad,  426;  exposition  of  the  clause 
given  at  a  period  near  the  adoption  of  the  constitution, 
426 ;  if  your  discretion  even  as  to  admission  is  limited, 
and  in  the  present  case  all  the  constituent  qualifications 
exist  on  the  part  of  the  people  of  Missouri  for  self-gov- 
ernment, you  are  bound  to  admit  them  as  a  State,  426; 
it  is  said,  the  uniform  course  of  the  Government  since 
the  ordinance  of  1787,  amounts  to  a  precedent,  427 ;  the 
ordinance  was  founded  in  usurpation,  427 ;  the  course  of 
the  Government  under  it  is  not  entitled  to  the  least 
weight  as  a  precedent,  427;  it  is  said,- we  have  greater 
power  with  the  States  to  be  formed  out  of  acquired  ter- 
ritory, than  in  that  originally  a  part  of  the  United  States, 
427 ;  it  is  asked,  shall  we  suffer  Missouri  to  come  into 
the  Union  with  this  savage  mask  on  her  countenance? 
428;  how  has  it  happened  that  these  doctrines  have 
slept  until  this  moment?  428;  the  principal  feature  in  a 
legislative  act  is  that  it  is  in  the  power  of  our  successors 
to  change  it,  428 ;  the  immeasurable  injustice  of  this 
proposition,  428 ;  it  is  said,  the  political  influence  result- 
ing from  the  slaves  is  the  principal  objection  to  Missouri 
coming  in  without  restriction,  429;  what  sophistry  is 
this  ?  429 ;  much  said  of  the  moral  and  political  effects 
of  slavery,  480 ;  it  is  said,  we  are  legislating  for  ages, 
430 ;  who  can  pretend  to  predict  that  the  present  order 
of  things  will  ride  out  the  storm  ?  480 ;  however  dark 
and  inscrutable  may  be  the  ways  of  heaven,  who  is  he 
that  arrogantly  presumes  to  arraign  them  ?  431. 

The  question  has  fairly  met  us,  whether  freedom  or 
slavery  is  to  be  the  lot  of  the  regions  west  of  the  Mis- 
sissippi, 431 ;  it  is  said,  the  people  of  the  South  are  to  be 
put  by  this  proposition  under  the  ban  of  the  empire,  as 
from  its  operation  they  cannot  settle  in  the  new  State, 
481 ;  it  is  asked  why  we  did  not  propose  this  restriction 
earlier?  431;  it  is  a  question  whether  slavery  shall  be 
extended  and  slaves  increased ;  no  art  nor  subtlety  can 
successfully  be  applied  to  make  it  appear  otherwise, 
482;  it  is  said,  the  ordinance  of  1787  was  a  fraud,  482; 
was  an  act  of  usurpation,  488 ;  in  depicting  the  effects 
of  the  very  limited  proposition,  gentlemen  have  in- 
dulged in  the  most  extravagant  language,  438;  much  of- 
fence taken  at  the  pamphlets  published  relative  to  the 
extension  of  slavery,  438 ;  it  is  said,  slaves  are  the  hap- 
piest poor  people  in  the  world,  434 ;  question  on  the  re- 
strictive amendment  taken  and  lost,  434. 

An  additional  section  as  an  amendment  proposed  pro- 
posing 86°  80'  as  a  line,  435. 

The  Maine  bill  and  the  amendment  reported  by  the 
Judiciary  Committee,  considered,  485;  the  constitu- 
tional question  is  a  mere  question  of  interpretation,  436 ; 
distinction  that  is  to  be  made  between  Maine  and  Mis- 
souri, 436 ;  it  is  said,  we  have  the  power,  and  reference 
is  made  to  the  parts  of  the  constitution  where  it  exists, 
437;  if  such  a  power  be  any  thing  but  nominal,  it  is 
much  more  than  adequate  to  the  present  object;  it  is  a 
power  of  vast  expansion,  to  which  human  nature  can 
assign  no  limits,  437 ;  slavery,  we  are  told,  is  a  foul  blot 
on  our  otherwise  immaculate  reputation,  43S ;  as  a  dis- 
cretionary power  it  is  every  thing  or  nothing,  438 ;  this 
provision  is  but  a  pioneer  to  others  of  a  more  desolating 
aspect,  488;  it  is  not  necessary  to  prove  that  this  discre- 
tion will  be  abused,  439;  the  free  spirit  of  our  constitu- 
tion and  of  our  people  is  no  assurance  against  the  prop- 
osition of  unbridled  power  to  abuse,  when  it  acts  upon 
colonial  dependants  rather  than  ourselves,  439;  time 
produces  great  vicissitudes  in  modes  of  thinking  aad 
feeling,  439  ;  what  is  that  Union  into  which  a  new 


INDEX. 


727 


State  may  be  admitted  ?  439 ;  is  the  right  to  hold 
slaves  a  right  which  Massachusetts  enjoys?  then  Massa- 
chusetts is  under  this  Union  in  a  different  character 
from  Missouri,  440.;  what  is  a  State?  440;  the  whole 
amount  of  the  argument  on  the  other  Bide  is  that  you 
may  refuse  to  admit  a  new  State,  but  if  you  admit  you 
may  prescribe  the  terms,  440 ;  if  admitted,  a  State  must 
be  admitted  in  the  sense  of  the  constitution,  440;  a  ter- 
ritory cannot  surrender  to  Congress  by  anticipation  the 
whole-  or  a  part  of  the  sovereign  power  which,  by  the 
constitution  of  the  Union,  will  belong  to  it,  when  it  be- 
comes a  State,  441 ;  an  error  to  consider  the  proposed 
restriction  as  levelled  at  the  introduction  or  establish- 
ment of  slavery,  441 ;  if  we  look  too  closely  at  the  rise 
and  progress  of  long-sanctioned  establishments,  we  may 
discover  other  subjects  than  that  of  slavery  with  which 
fraud  and  violence  may  claim  a  fearful  connection,  442 ; 
grounds  upon  which  the  broad  denial  of  the  sovereign 
right  of  Missouri,  if  she  shall  become  a  State,  to  recog- 
nize slavery  by  its  laws  is  rested,  examined,  442 ;  tne 
doctrine  advanced  by  gentlemen,  directly  in  conflict 
•\vitii  their  restriction,  442 ;  how  do  they  support  their 
doctrine  ?  443;  it  is  said,  the  nations  of  antiquity  as  well 
as  of  modern  times  have  concurred  in  laying  down  the 
position  that  man  cannot  enslave  his  fellow-man,  448 ; 
Eoman  law,  Magna  Charta,  Bill  of  Eights  of  1688,  Dec- 
laration of  Independence,  Articles  of  Confederation, 
443, 444 ;  idle  to  make  the  rightfulness  of  an  act  the  meas- 
ure of  sovereign  power,  444 ;  distinction  between  fed* 
eral  rights  and  local  rights  is  an  idle  distinction,  445 ;  the 
compact  of  the  Union,  445 ;  will  it  be  said,  that  it  is  the 
quantity  of  Agrees,  not  the  quality  of  slavery,  which 
takes  from  a  Government  the  republican  form  ?  446 ;  the 
form  of  a  State  Government,  446;  reasons  which  have 
been  assigned  for  the  notion  that  involuntary  servitude 
and  a  republican  form  of  Government  are  perfect  antip- 
athies, 446;  definition  Sparta,  Borne,  Athens,  446;  ex- 
perience at  home,  447  ;  consequence  to  which  such  ar- 
guments lead,  447;  they  have  no  disposition  to  meddle 
with  slavery  in  the  old  States— perhaps  not— but  who 
will  answer  for  their  successors  ?  447 ;  if  a  republican 
form  of  Government  is  that  in  which  all  men  have  a 
share  in  the  public  power,  the  slave-holding  States  will 
not  alone  retire  fiom  the  Union,  447;  if  all  men,  why 
not  all  women  ?  448 ;  the  clause  of  the  constitution  re- 
lating to  migration  or  importation,  443 ;  examined,  449 ; 
note,  450. 

Concurrence  with  the  amendment  reported  by  the 
Judiciary  Committee  carried,  450 ;  bills  united,  450. 

Compromise. — Moved  to  amend  by  prohibiting  slave- 
ry north  of  86°  30',  450;  moved  to  amend  the  amend- 
ment by  substituting  40°,  450 ;  lost,  450 ;  other  motions 
made  and  lost,  451;  a  substitute  offered,  451;  amend- 
ment to  the  substitute  moved  and  lost,  451 ;  amendment 
carried,  451 ;  amendment  altering  the  North  line  of  the 
State,  carried,  452 ;  House  disagree,  452 ;  motions  to  re- 
cede, lost,  452 ;  conference  with  the  House  requested, 
452 ;  amendment  to  the  bill  moved  in  the  Senate,  452 ; 
carried,  458 ;  other  amendments  made  and  bill  passed, 
458;  note,  453. 

In  the  House.— A.  motion  to  postpone  the  bill  author- 
izing a  convention  of  the  people  of  Missouri  to  form  a 
State  Constitution,  &c.,  469 ;  the  question  whether  any 
compromise  can  be  effected  may  be  decided  in  much 
less  time,  469 ;  Importance  to  the  people  of  early  action, 
469 ;  motion  carried,  469 ;  motion  to  postpone  again  and 
await  the  action  of  the  other  House,  made,  476 ;  lost, 
477. 

Compromise.— Motion  to  amend  the  bill  by  Insert- 
ing a  section  to  prohibit  slavery  north  of  88°,  477;  un- 
derstanding of  the  proposition,  477;  power  of  Congress 


over  the  territories  supreme  and  unlimited  before  ad- 
mission, 477 ;  the  parallel  of  39  degrees  almost  precisely 
makes  the  division  between  the  reason  and  argument 
of  the  North  and  the  South,  478 ;  an  increasing  spirit  of 
local  and  sectional  envy  and  dislike  between  North  and 
South,  noticed  for  the  last  twenty  years,  478 ;  reason  di- 
vided by  parallels  of  latitude,  478 ;  motion  lost,  479. 

Restriction.— Moved  to  amend  by  imposing  a  restric- 
tion on  slavery,  479 ;  no  attribute  of  sovereignty  more 
important  than  that  exercised  in  the  admission  of  new 
States,  479 ;  additional  importance  acquired  by  the  fact 
that  the  territory  is  no  part  of  our  ancient  domain,  479 ; 
a  map  of  the  territory  shows  the  magnitude  of  the  ques- 
tion, 479 ;  the  unparalleled  excitement  produced  by  th« 
bill  shows  its  importance,  480;  the  admission  of  Mis- 
souri without  restriction  is  opposed  by  a  majority  of  the 
States,  480 ;  the  adoption  of  the  amendment  is  neces- 
sary to  retard  the  growth  of  the  slaveholding  spirit, 
480 ;  the  power  of  Congress  in  relation  to  the  admission 
of  new  States,  480;  the  only  limitation  to  our  sover- 
eignty over  the  territory  acquired  from  France  must  b« 
found  in  the  constitution,  481 ;  the  first  truth  pro- 
nounced by  the  Declaration  of  Independence  is  that  all 
men  are  born  free  and  equal,  4S1 ;  shall  we  pronounc* 
this  a  falsehood  ?  481 ;  terms  of  the  purchase  of  the  ter- 
ritory, 482 ;  the  inhabitants  have  no  right  to  calculate 
on  a  power  of  holding  slaves,  482 ;  the  act  of  1802  shows 
the  solicitude  of  Congress  to  prohibit  the  extension  of 
slavery,  482 ;  their  subsequent  acts,  483. 

The  proposition  is  to  abolish  slavery  in  Missouri  as 
a  condition  of  her  admission  into  the  Union,  483 ;  I  am 
sworn  to  support  the  constitution  as  I  understand  it, 
not  as  private  interest  or  public  zeal  may  urge,  483;  no 
such  power  exists  in  it,  483 ;  confusion  in  the  ranks  of 
the  advocates  of  restriction  on  this  subject,  483;  they 
present  six  sources  of  power,  483 ;  opinion  relative  to 
migration  and  importation,  484;  the  constitutionality 
of  the  measure  examined,  4S4;  shall  the  old  States  pre- 
serve rights  of  which  the  new  shall  be  deprived?  484; 
you  have  n»t  the  power  to  appoint  militia  officers  in  a 
new  State,  484;  hence  the  danger  that  might  arise  to 
freedom  by  forming  a  new  class  of  States,  over  which 
Congress  shall  possess  different  powers  than  over  ths 
old  States,  485;  has  the  power  to  legislate  over  slavery 
been  delegated  to  Congress?  485;  the  only  condition 
that  may  be  required  of  a  new  State  is  that  it  shall  be 
republican,  485 ;  the  constitution  recognizes  the  right 
of  slave  property,  and  it  thereby  appears  that  it  was 
intended  by  the  convention  and  by  the  people  that 
property  should  be  secure,  485;  resolutions  of  Virginia 
and  New  York  on  adopting  the  constitution,  486 ;  thia 
prohibition  violates  the  provision  that  "  no  person  shall 
be  deprived  of  property  without  due  process  of  law," 
486 ;  by  adopting  this  proposition  you  will  have  proved 
that  the  clauses  of  the  constitution  deemed  most  sacred 
by  the  people  are  not  sacred  with  yon,  486;  you  cannot 
limit  the  new  States  in  the  exercise  of  their  retained 
powers,  486;  it  will  be  not  your  act,  but  the  act  of  Mis- 
souri, that  will  become  a  law,  486;  it  is  said,  the  consti- 
tution vests  in  Congress  power  to  make  all  needful  regu- 
lations respecting  the  territory,  Ac.,  486;  it  relates  to 
territories  belonging  to  the  United  States  as  property 
only,  487;  note,  467;  it  speaks  not  of  the  jurisdiction, 
487 ;  by  treaty  we  are  bound  to  admit  Missouri,  487 ;  you 
have  no  right  to  Missouri  but  what  the  treaty  gives  yon, 
487 ;  the  effect  of  the  proposed  measure  on  the  safety  of 
the  community,  483;  dispersion  is  the  true  policy  to 
pursue,  4S3 ;  the  tendency  of  the  proposition  is  to  create 
jealousies  between  the  States,  488;  we  are  about  to 
prove  to  the  Southern  and  Western  people  that  their 


728 


INDEX. 


property  and  lives  are  unsafe  under  onr  Government, 
488;  every  State  is  interested  that  every  State  shall 
preserve  Its  rights,  488 ;  the  slaves  of  the  South  are  held 
to  a  service  which  is  certain  and  moderate,  489 ;  but  it 
is  argued  that  Congress  has  ever  imposed  restrictions 
upon  now  States,  and  no  objection  has  been  urged  until 
this  time,  490 ;  upon  the  basis  of  precedent  you  cannot 
extend  this  restriction  to  Missouri,  490;  the  power  is  not 
to  be  found  in  the  constitution  or  derived  from  prece- 
dent, 490 ;  the  expediency  of  this  amendment,  490 ;  fur- 
ther debate,.  491,  492;  motives  which  actuate  the  oppo- 
site sides  on  this  question,  499;  the  mass  of  memorials 
and  petitions  to  operate  on  the  House,  500 ;  what  kind 
of  property  has  a  man  in  his  slaves  ?  500 ;  time  that  this 
plea  of  necessity  for  the  extension  of  power  should  be 
disregarded,  500;  the  amendment  is  fraught  with  the 
greatest  injustice  to  the  people  of  Missouri,  500;  what 
is  tin-  result  of  its  adoption?  501 ;  what  is  to  be  the  con- 
sequence if  this  question  is  not  settled  in  some  way  this 
session  ?  501 ;  suppose  they  set  up  for  themselves,  are 
we  to  drive  them  to  submission  at' the  point  of  the  bay- 
one'-,?  502. 

The  present  amendment  does  not  interfere  with  the 
slaves  BOW  held  by  the  inhabitants,  502 ;  all  the  powers 
of  Congress  may  be  abused,  503 ;  is  there  any  cause  of 
alarm  in  regard  to  the  power  in  question  ?  503 ;  it  is 
said,  even  this  condition  in  restraint  of  slavery  would 
manacle  a  limb  of  the  sovereignty  of  the  proposed 
State,  503 ;  the  peculiar  kind  of  sovereignty  that  is  to 
bo  withheld  from  Missouri,  503 ;  does  Congr-ess  possess 
the  power  to  admit  the  inhabitants  of  Missouri  to  com- 
pose a  State,  and  at  the  same  time  annex  'a  condition 
restraining  slavery,  504 ;  instances  of  the  recognition  of 
tho  ordinance  of  1787,  504;  note,  504;  meaning  of  the 
words  migration  and  importation,  504, 505 ;  it  is  repre- 
sented as  a  violation  of  every  principle  of  justice  to  pre- 
vont  slaveholders  from  carrying  their  slaves  with  them 
to  this  State  if  they  should  be  so  inclined,  506;  it  has 
been  intimated  that  this  is  a  measure  of  high  excite- 
ment, 506;  impossible  under  the  circumstances  to  com- 
promise a  question  of  this  character,  5oV;  it  is  said,  if 
the  restriction  is  carried  the  Union  will  be  dissolved, 
607. 

Influence  to  be  given  to  the  will  of  the  people  when 
fairly  ascertained,  608 ;  manner  of  action  on  constitu- 
tional questions  by  a  Representative,  508 ;  what  the 
amendment  does  not  propose,  508 ;  the  great  question  is 
whether  Congress  can  interfere  with  the  people  of  Mis- 
souri, in  the  formation  of  their  constitution,  to  compel 
them  to  introduce  into  it  any  provision  touching  their 
municipal  rights,  against  their  consent,  and  to  give  up 
their  right  to  change  it,  whatever  may  be  their  future 
condition,  509;  the  people  of  Missouri  come  here  with 
the  treaty  of  1803,  and  demand  admission  as  a  matter  of 
right,  and  to  refuse  is  to  violate  plighted  faith,  509 ;  the 
various  powers  of  the  Government,  509 ;  articles  of  the 
treaty,  510 ;  Missouri  can  be  incorporated  only  as  a  State 
exercising  a  State  government,  510 ;  one  principal  point 
of  difference  between  the  two  great  parties  into  which 
the  people  were  originally  divided,  was  in  regard  to  the 
force  and  effect  of  the  treaty-making  power,  511 ;  con- 
struction of  tho  treaty  of  1S03,  511 ;  the  reference  which 
has  been  made  to  the  Declaration  of  Independence,  as 
declaratory  of  the  principles  of  the  constitution,  noticed, 
511 ;  the  clause  respecting  "  needful  rules  and  regula- 
tions," 512 ;  examined,  512  ;  the  right  to  govern  a  terri- 
tory is  clearly  incident  to  the  right  to  acquire  it,  512, 
note,  512 ;  interpretation  of  the  words  migration  and 
importation,  518;  the  clause  has  no  reference  to  the 
power  to  remove  slaves  from  State  to  State,  514 ;  is  not 
tho  whole  object  hazarded  by  persisting  in  a  measure  so 


repugnant  to  the  ardent  feelings  of  a  moiety  of  this 
Empire  ?  514 

The  principle  contended  for  concerns  ages  to  como 
and  millions  to  be  born,  516 ;  nature  of  tho  proposition 
contained  in  the  amendment,  516 ;  important  to  consider 
the  ordinance  of  1787,  and  the  history  of  the  States 
formed  under  it,  616 ;  charge  of  usurpation  made  against 
it,  517 ;  it  was  a  solemn  compact  between  the  existing 
States,  517 ;  the  question  of  expediency,  517 ;  the  evil 
of  slavery,  517 ;  this  is  said  not  to  be  an  extension,  but 
only  a  diffusion  of  it,  517;  is  diffusion  a  reasonable  de- 
sire ?  518 ;  the  idea  of  diffusion  is  altogether  founded  in 
error,  518;  by  enlarging  the  limits  of  slavery,  you  are 
thus  preparing  the  means  for  its  indefinite  increase  and 
extension,  518;  where  is  this  diffusion  to  end?  518:  it 
is  asked— will  you  not  suffer  a  man  to  migrate  with  his 
family?  519;  it  is  impossible  to  admit  the  introduction 
of  slaves  at  all,  without  giving  up  the  whole  matter. 
619 ;  this  is  the  first  step  beyond  the  Mississippi,  519 ; 
by  increasing  the  market  for  slaves,  you  postpone  and 
destroy  the  hope  of  extinguishing  slavery  by  emancipa- 
tion, 519 ;  the  political  aspect  of  the  subject  is  not  less 
alarming,  520 ;  no  fear  that  this  question  will  produce  a 
fatal  division,  or  even  generate  a  new  organization  of 
parties,  520. 

The  picture  of  the  sufferings  incident  to  slavery  is  too 
strongly  drawn,  521 ;  have  we  the  power  to  impose  the 
condition  which  the  amendment  proposes  ?  521 ;  the  af- 
firmative should  prove  this  power,  521 ;  character  of  the 
ordinance  of  1787  examined,  522 ;  the  Federalist  quoted 
to  show  its  character  of  usurpation,  522,  note,  522 ;  if 
done  without  constitutional  authority,  the  act  must  be 
void,  522 ;  two  parties  for  the  contract  were  not  compe- 
tent, 522 ;  the  assent  of  Virginia  was  necessary  in  that 
case,  and  so  the  assent  of  France  must  be  necessary  in 
this  case,  522 ;  the  effect  of  the  proposed  amendment  is 
to  diminish  the  rights  and  powers  of  tho  citizens  of  Mis- 
souri, 522 ;  let  us  leave  all  the  citizens  of  the  United 
States  at  liberty,  by  their  own  legislation,  either  to  re- 
tain or  abolish  slavery,  and  then  they  are  all  upon  an 
equal  footing  in  point  of  right,  523 ;  does  not  the  proposed 
amendment  diminish  the  powers  of  Missouri  as  a  State  ? 
528 ;  it  is  said,  no  State  but  those  parties  to  the  original, 
can  claim  the  benefit  of  it,  523;  it  is  said,  the  powers 
which  the  constitution  does  not  give  us,  we  can  get  from 
the  States  by  compact,  524 ;  if  the  amendment  prevail, 
will  Missouri  govern  herself  by  her  own  authority  and 
laws  in  relation  to  the  subject  of  slavery  ?  524 ;  it  has 
been  said  that  the  States  had  the  right  to  admit  new 
States  upon  conditions  to  be  prescribed  by  them,  524 ; 
the  conclusion  of  the  whole  matter,  525 ;  the  clause  giv- 
ing power  to  make  needful  rules  and  regulations,  525 ; 
examined,  525 ;  the  clause  relating  to  migration  and  im- 
portation, <fcc.,  525 ;  have  you  the  power  to  emancipate 
children  of  acknowledged  slaves  ?  526 ;  the  proposed  re- 
striction a  violation  of  the  constitution,  526 ;  the  ques- 
tion is,  whether  there  is  in  this  country  a  tribunal  or 
legislative  council  having  a  discretion  superior  to  the 
power  of  the  people,  527 ;  that  portion  of  the  State 
constitution  you  now  propose  to  make  for  the  people  of 
Missouri,  has  not  and  probably  would  not  have  their 
consent,  527 :  the  Federal  Convention  is  a  national,  or 
rather  an  international  compact,  in  which  the  relations 
of  sovereignty  between  the  respective  States,  and  be- 
tween those  States  and  the  General  Government,  arc 
prescribed  and  adjusted,  627 ;  error  to  say  that  Congress 
may  prescribe  a  condition,  because  it  has  power  to  re- 
fuse admission,  528 ;  some  conditions  allowable,  528;  the 
compact  between  Virginia  and  Kentucky,  528;  power 
inferred  from  the  capacity  of  Congress  to  carry  it  into 
execution,  523 ;  if  Congress  has  power  to  impose  the  re- 


INDEX. 


729 


striction,  it  must  first  be  derived  from  the  legislative 
powers  of  the  constitution,  or  acquired  by  tlie  capacity 
to  make  a  compact  for  that  object,  529 ;  a  view  of  the 
migration  and  importation  clause,  529 ;  propose  to  nego- 
tiate a  compact  or  treaty  with  Missouri,  making  the 
House  partake  of  the  treaty-making  power,  580 ;  conces- 
sions asserted  to  have  been  made  by  the  North  and 
East  to  the  South  in  the  formation  of  the  constitution, 
531 ;  an  unpardonable  error  relative  to  the*  inequality  of 
representation,  582 ;  the  concession  was  from  the  South- 
ern and  Western  States,  532;  and  exposition  of  this  will 
show  the  true  motives  which  have  given  rise  to  this 
measure,  532;  historical  sketch,  582;  the  pretensions 
and  claims  of  the  North  and^ast  unfounded,  583;  who 
supports  this  Government  ?  588;  the  migration  and  im- 
portation clause  examined,  534 ;  what  was  the  intention 
of  the  convention  that  formed  the  constitution,  In  this 
article  ?  584 ;  reasons  for  restraining  the  power  to  prevent 
migration  hither  for  twenty  years,  584;  in  proportion 
to  the  increase  of  the  State  Governments,  the  strength 
and  solidity  of  the  Federal  Government  are  augmented, 
585 ;  the  case  of  Louisiana,  536 ;  the  rights  of  Missouri 
rest  on  the  constitution  so  strongly  as  not  to  require  the 
aid  of  the  treaty,  536 ;  the  treaty  of  itself  is  sufficient, 
if  there  was  no  right  under  the  constitution,  536;  forbid 
to  adopt  this  inhibition  by  both  the  constitution  and  the 
treaty,  536;  the  ordinance  of  178T  noticed,  586;  recol- 
lect the  circumstances  the  Old  Congress  were  in  when 
they  passed  the  ordinance,  537 ;  they  had  dwindled  to 
almost  nothing,  53T,  note,  587;  from  opinions  expressed, 
it  is  most  clear  that  the  members  on  the  opposite  side 
know  nothing  of  the  Southern  States,  their  lands,  pro- 
ducts, or  slaves,  538;  if  the  arguments  of  gentlemen  are 
correct,  Congress  possesses  sovereign  power,  and  the 
people  are  their  servants,  538;  the  language  of  the  con- 
stitution is  sufficiently  explicit  as  to  what  we  may  do, 
638 ;  different  clauses  and  sections  of  the  constitution 
examined,  which  are  supposed  to  enable  us  constitution- 
ally to  impose  this  restriction,  589,  540;  objections  of 
Luther  Martin  to  the  constitution,  540. 

The  history  of  the  North-west  Territory  is  connected 
•with  the  earliest  and  proudest  days  of  the  Eepublic, 
541 ;  the  amendment  speaks  to  the  people  of  Missouri 
Territory,  and  not  to  the  State  of  Missouri,  541 ;  condi- 
tions imposed  on  the  territory,  not  on  the  State,  541 ; 
the  treaty  places  the  inhabitants  in  the  same  position 
they  would  have  been  in  on  tho  Treaty  of  Peace,  had 
they  been  in  the  original  limits,  542 ;  the  treaty  does  not 
stand  in  the  way  of  the  free  operation  of  the  constitu- 
tion, 542;  the  positive  language  of  the  constitution, 
542 ;  the  constitution  recognizes  the  slave  of  the  South 
as  the  property  of  his  master,  548 ;  willing  to  rest  on  the 
•wisdom  of  those  who  have  gone  before,  543 ;  the  act 
relative  to  the  territory  of  Orleans,  643. 

By  whom  has  this  excitement  been  produced?  544; 
the  clauses  of  the  constitution  relied  upon  by  the  friends 
of  restriction,  544 ;  th«  amendments  to  the  constitution, 
545;  the  doctrines  of  humanity  and  religion  have  not 
been  much  pressed  into  service  by  the  restrictionists 
latterly,  546 ;  with  what  propriety  can  those,  who  during 
the  Revolution  embarked  with  us  their  fortunes  and 
their  hopes,  now  that  all  is  peace  and  sunshine,  turn 
upon  us  and  upbraid  us  with  tho  stains  of  slavery  ?  546. 

It  is  said  there  are  political  jugglers  behind  the  scenes 
who  are  making  use  of  tho  proposition  and  its  advocates 
as  the  forlorn  hope  and  last  desperate  effort  of  an  ex- 
piring party,  547 ;  the  sparse  population  now  In  Missouri 
may  not  yet  perceive  the  evils  of  slavery,  and  may 
therefore  be  willing  to  indulge  in  the  dangerous  grati- 
fication, 548 ;  it  Is  said  all  citizens  of  the  United  States 
have  a  right  to  this  territory  west  of  the  Mississippi,  548. 


Much  heard  of  the  excitement  and  Irritation,  549;  the 
attempts  to  show  the  constitutional  right  to  impose  tho 
restriction,  549 ;  what  will  be  the  consequence  if  yon 
persist  in  this  measure?  550. 

Attempt  to  show  that  slavery  does  not  proceed  from 
the  exercise  of  a  legitimate  attribute  of  sovereignty, 
and  that  hence,  admitting  all  for  which  gentlemen  con- 
tend, as  to  a  waht  of  power  in  Congress  to  interfere  with 
State  rights,  their  constitutional  objections  must  fail, 
551,  552.— (See  Maine,  pp.  553.) 

It  is  erroneously  stated  that  Missouri  demanded  that 
which  she  ought  more  modestly  to  sue  for,  as  a  matter 
of  special  grace  and  favor,  557 ;  it  is  not  a  question 
whether  slavery  should  be  permitted  to  exist — merely 
where  should  the  slaves  now  in  America  be  permitted 
to  reside,  558 ;  it  threatens  not  only  the  peace  and  wel- 
fare of  Virginia,  in  common  with  all  the  slaveholding 
States,  but  their  very  political  existence,  559 ;  the  re- 
striction agreed  to,  559 ;  moved  to  amend  by  inserting 
the  compromise,  560 ;  motion  lost,  561 ;  moved  to  insert 
the  word  white  in  the  part  of  the  bill  designating  tho 
kind  of  persons  who  shall  vote  for  delegates  to  the  con- 
vention, 561 ;  various  amendments  moved  and  lost,  562 ; 
note,  562 ;  bill  reported  to  the  House,  562 ;  moved  to 
concur  in  the  restrictive  amendment,  562 ;  moved  to 
substitute  a  section  to  refer  to  the  Territorial  Conven- 
tion, 562;  further  debate,  563;  motion  lost,  564;  re- 
strictive amendments  concurred  in,  564;  bill  ordered 
to  be  engrossed,  565 ;  bill  passed,  567. 

Message  from  the  Senate  announcing  they  had  passed 
the  Missouri  bill  without  the  restrictive  clause,  but 
with  the  compromise  section,  567 ;  report  from  the  Com- 
mittee of  Conference,  567 ;  moved  to  print,  568 ;  further 
debate,  568;  motion  withdrawn,  568;  further  debate, 
569 ;  note,  569 ;  questiom  to  concur  with  the  Senate  on 
striking  out  the  slavery  restriction,  carried,  570 ;  do.  in 
inserting  the  compromise  section,  carried,  570;  title 
amended,  571 ;  bill  passed  by  both  Houses,  571. 

Moved  to  reconsider,  571 ;  declared  out  of  order,  571 ; 
moved  to  retain  posession  of  the  bill  until  reconsider- 
ation shall  be  in  order,  571 ;  out  of  order,  571 ;  moved 
to  reconsider,  571 ;  bill  reported  to  be  in  the  hands  of 
the  Senate,  571 ;  resolution  relative  thereto  offered,  571 ; 
lost,  571. 

Admission. — In  the  Senate,  resolution  for  the  admis- 
sion read  second  time,  654 ;  the  resolution  conformable 
to  those  adopted  on  similar  occasions,  659 ;  moved  to 
postpone  to  a  future  day,  659 ;  controverted  points  in 
the  constitution  of  the  new  State,  and  time  desired  to 
examine  if  it  was  in  all  respects  conformable  to  the 
Constitution  of  tho  United  States,  659 ;  tho  other  Houso 
acting  upon  it  at  the  same  time,  and  more  desirable  that 
such  should  not  be  the  case,  659 ;  no  reason  why  the 
Senate  should  wait  for  the  other  House,  659 ;  tho  ques- 
tion should  be  decided  without  further  delay,  659;  post- 
poned, 660. 

Resolution  offered  providing  that  nothing  in  tho  con- 
stitution shall  contravene  the  clause  of  the  constitution 
providing  that  the  citizens  of  one  State  shall  enjoy 
privileges,  Ac.,  661 ;  this  amendment  should  not  be  de- 
cided without  reflection,  660 ;  postponement  asked,  661 ; 
doubts  as  to  the  constitutionality  of  the  constitution  of 
Missouri  existed  in  some  minds,  661 ;  postponed,  662 ; 
taken  up,  662;  no  good  in  the  proviso,  662;  substitute 
offered  relating  to  preventing  free  negroes  and  mulattoes 
settling  in  tho  State,  662;  amendment  lost,  662;  resolu- 
tion lost,  662. 

OitUeniihip  of  Free  Negroes  and  Mulattos.— Ques- 
tion on  tho  third  reading  of  tho  original  resolution,  663 ; 
contrary  to  the  Constitution  of  the  United  States  to  ac- 
cept this  constitution,  663;  Congress  should  ascertain 


730 


INDEX. 


this  point,  663 ;  objection  to  the  clause  providing  that 
such  laws  shall  bo  passed  as  ma/  be  necessary  to  prevent 
free  negroes  or  mulattocs  from  coming  to  settle  in  the 
State  under  any  pretext  whatever,  664 ;  repugnant  to 
the  Constitution  of  the  United  States,  664;  what  con- 
stituted citizens  of  the  United  States  ?  664 ;  has  Missouri 
a  right  to  prevent  a  large  class  of  citizens  of  Massachu- 
setts from  entering  the  State  f  664 ;  admit  the  legality  of 
the  clause  and  Missouri  can  go  further,  and  prohibit 
citizens  born  in  certain  districts  or  portions  of  the 
United  States,  664;  all  distinctions  among  citizens  rest- 
ing on  color  arise  from  State  laws  alone — nothing  In  the 
constitution  recognizes  it,  664;  Congress  must  decide 
the  question,  664 ;  dangers  apprehended  from  rejecting 
the  constitution  of  Missouri,  665. 

Proceedings  on  the  admission  of  new  States  hereto- 
toforo,  665,  666;  case  of  Indiana,  667;  why  not  require 
each  State,  when  it  alters  or  remodels  its  constitution,  to 
submit  it  to  Congress,  667 ;  Rhode  Island  never  has  had 
a  constitution,  667;  why  does  not  Congress  issue  jte 
writ  of  quo  warranto  J  667 ;  there  should  be  a  uniformity 
in  the  course  of  Congress,  if  it  has  the  power  to  guar- 
antee a  republican  form  of  government,  668 ;  the  con- 
vention that  formed  our  constitution  has  not  been  as 
explicit  as  we  could  wish  in  telling  us  what  is  a  repub- 
lican form  of  government,  668 ;  this  being  the  first  time 
this  question  has  occurred  relative  to  free  negroes,  it 
must  be  ascertained  by  such  evidence  as  from  the  nature 
of  the  case  we  are  compelled  to  give  the  highest  cre- 
dence to,  668 ;  if  the  Declaration  of  Independence  was 
for  blacks  as  well  as  whites,  why  did  you  not  all  emanci- 
pate your  slaves  at  once  ?  669 ;  examination  of  the  con- 
stitutions of  States  that  have  been  admitted  into  the 
Union,  669 ;  by  universal  assent  throughout  the  Union, 
free  negroes  and  mulattoes  are  not  known  In  your  po- 
litical institutions,  670 ;  law  of  Indiana  relative  to  free 
negroes,  670 ;  act  incorporating  the  city  of  Washington, 
670;  proceedings  on  it,  670;  other  instances  of  laws, 
671,  672,  678,  674;  the  law  and  constitution  of  New 
York,  675. 

The  prohibition  upon  free  negres  and  mulattoes  is 
said  to  infringe  our  constitution,  678  ;  all  free  blacks  are 
not  to  be  prohibited,  678 ;  purchasers  of  land  in  Missouri 
previous  to  the  law  are  provided  for,  678 ;  extent  and 
meaning  of  the  clause,  678 ;  the  part  of  the  Constitution 
of  the  United  States  said  to  be  infringed,  678 ,  incon- 
veniences which  would  result  from  denying  this  power 
to  a  State,  679 ;  if  a  State  does  not  possess  this  power, 
the  condition  of  the  non-slaveholding  States  is  most 
alarming,  679;  no  suitable  place  has  yet  been  found, 
•which  afforded  a  safe  and  comfortable  retreat  to  the 
emancipated  slave,  679  ;  definitions  of  a  citizen  exam- 
ined, 679,  680 ;  a  meaning  for  the  word  which  will  com- 
port with  the  constitution,  the  practice,  and  the  con- 
venience, 680;  how  determined  by  the  naturalization 
laws,  660 ;  definition  of  European  writers,  680 ;  rights  of 
an  American  citizen,  681 ;  Missouri  has  a  right  to  ex- 
clude free  blacks,  and  a  contrary  decision  would  be 
against  all  precedent  and  the  constant  practice  of  most 
of  the  States  of  the  Union,  681 ;  this  question  may  be 
safely  trusted  to  the  judiciary,  681 ;  suppose  Missouri 
rejected  by  disagreement  between  the  two  Houses,  682. 

When  the  dictates  of  conscience,  and  the  obligation 
of  oaths,  and  language  of  the  constitution  left  no  alter- 
native, it  was  the  part  of  those  who  had  duties  to  per- 
form  to  discharge  them  with  firmness,  after  due  deliber- 
ation, and  to  trust  to  the  consequences  and  effects,  682 ; 
we  are  asked,  if  Missouri  is  not  a  State,  what  is  she  ? 
682 ;  it  is  said  several  States  have  been  admitted  with- 
out any  evidence  to  be  found  on  record  of  an  exami- 
nation of  their  constitutions,  683 ;  we  are  called  upon  to 


show  what  constitutes  a  citizen,  684;  citizens  of  Massa- 
chusetts, 6S4 ;  incidents  arising  from  the  relationship  of 
a  free  citizen  to  his  State,  684;  it  is  objected  t: 
men  are  not  citizens  in  every  State,  because  in  nearly 
all,  they  are  or  have  been  made  liable  to  certain  disa- 
bilities not  common  to  the  free  white  citizens,  G>1;  thu 
soundness  of  this  position  examined,  684;  womon  and 
minors  are  subject  to  disqualifications,  but  not  disfran- 
chised, 684;  further  examined,  685;  by  the  constitution 
or  laws  of  several  States  the  political  rights  of  white 
citizens  are  abridged,  6S5 ;  disqualification  <«f  clergymen, 
685 ;  law  relating  to  intermarriage  of  blacks  and  whites, 
685;  further  debate,  686. 

Rejected  amendment  re-offered,  687;  objected  to  as 
exhibiting  the  Senate,  in  passing  the  act  of  adiui^ion, 
as  omitting  to  consider  and  allow  its  due  weight  to  the 
only  provision  in  that  constitution  upon  which  the  ob- 
ligation to  admit  or  not  to  admit  Missouri  depends,  687; 
further  debate,  687 ;  amendment  agreed  to,  CS7. 

Objects  of  the  confederation,  688 ;  oath  to  support  the 
constitution,  688 ;  does  any  paragraph  in  the  constitution 
of  Missouri  contravene  that  of  the  United  States,  C>!> ; 
this  point  examined,  689 ;  color  has  no  share  in  charac- 
terizing an  inhabitant  or  a  citizen,  689 ;  provisions  of  th* 
constitution  relative  to  the  powers  of  the  several  States, 
689 ;  persons  of  color  are  citizens  in  some  States,  6S9 ; 
they  cannot  enjoy  the  privileges  in  Missouri,  her  con- 
stitution is  therefore  not  compatible  with  that  of  the 
United  States,  690;  the  formality  observed  in  admitting 
new  States  icto  the  Union,  690 ;  the  consequences  of  this 
provision,  691 ;  examples  of  citizens  of  color  in  some  of 
the  States,  691 ;  can  we  suffer  one,  even  the  meanest  of 
our  citizens,  to  be  deprived  of  his  privileges,  692 ;  in- 
stances of  intemperance  in  behalf  of  citizens,  692 ;  if 
Missouri  can  do  this,  why  not  keep  a  standing  army,  en- 
ter into  a  treaty,  coin  money,  and  grant  titles  of  nobility, 
692 ;  color  no  more  comes  in  to  decide  who  is  a  citizen 
than  size  or  profession, — you  may  as  well  say  a  tall  citi- 
zen shall  not  settle  in  Missouri  as  a  yellow  citizen  shall 
not,  692 ;  objections  examined,  693,  694 ;  motion  to  re- 
commit the  resolution,  lost,  695 ;  resolution  as  amended 
ordered  to  be  engrossed,  695;  passed,  696. 

Electoral  Vote. — Resolutions  relative  to  counting  the, 
of  Missouri,  offered,  705 ;  views  of  the  committee  on  the 
points,  705 ;  not  competent  in  the  Senate  to  decide  this 
question  in  anticipation,  705 ;  better  be  adjusted  now  to 
prevent  difficulty  in  the  joint  meeting,  705 ;  resolution 
agreed  to,  705. 

Admission.— Permission  asked  to  offer  a  resolution 
declaring  the  admission  of  Missouri,  706 ;  previous  reso- 
lution rejected  by  the  House  of  Representatives,  and  no 
intimation  given  of  their  views,  706 ;  no  departure  from 
dignity  to  receive  the  resolution,  707 ;  a  kind  of  peace- 
offering,  707 ;  the  question  should  be  settled  at  the  pres- 
ent session,  707;  a  most  important  measure,  and  should 
be  decided  without  further  delay,  708 ;  further  debate, 
708 ;  leave  granted,  709 ;  indefinite  postponement, 
moved,  709 ;  lost,  709 ;  various  amendments  offered  and 
lost,  709 ;  resolution  rejected,  710. 

Message  from  the  House  relative  to  a  Committee  of 
Conference,  710 ;  no  good  reason  for  the  appointment  of 
such  a  committee  on  the  part  of  the  Senate,  710 ;  the 
increase  was  not  a  novi-lty,  and  the  Senate  should  ac- 
cede, 710;  further  debate,  710;  Senate  concur,  710; 
joint  resolution  reported  from  the  committee,  711 ;  mes- 
sage from  the  House  that  they  had  passed  the  joint  res- 
olution, 711 ;    resolution  ordered  to  be  read  a  third 
time,  711 ;  passed,  711 ;  note,  711. 
Missouri,  vote  for  President  in  1820,  706. 
Missouri  Territory.— See  Index,  vols.  4,  5. 
MOXELL,  ROBEBT,  Representative  from  New  York,  464 


INDEX. 


731 


MONEOE,  JAMES,  message  to  1st  session  of  15th  Congress,  4; 
message  at  2d  session  of  15th  Congress,  179 ;  message  at 
1st  session  of  16th  Congress,  8T5 ;  message  at  2d  session 
of  16th  Congress,  655 ;  votes  for,  as  President,  706.  See 
Index,  vols.  1,  2,  4,  5. 

MOORE,  ROBERT,  Representative  from  Pennsylvania,  59,200, 
464. 

MOOBE,  SAMUEL,  Representative  from  Pennsylvania,  200, 
464. 

MOEKILL,  DAVID  8.,  Senator  from  New  Hampshire,  8, 179, 
874,654;  on  the  African  slave-trade,  16 ;  on  providing 
for  the  officers  and  soldiers  of  the  Revolution,  25 ;  on 
the  Fugitive  Slave  bill,  89;  on  the  petition  of  Matthew 
Lyon,  187 ;  on  the  pension  to  General  Stark,  189 ;  on  the 
motion  relative  to  duelling,  192, 194  ;  on  the  restriction 
of  slavery  in  Missouri,  894 ;  oil  duelling,  459 ;  on  the 
Missouri  constitution,  707. 

MORROW,  JEBEMIAH,  Senator  from  Ohio,  7,179;  reports  a 
bill  relative  to  Virginia  land  warrants,  11.  See  Index, 
vols.  8,  4,  5. 

MORTON,  MABCUS,  Representative  from  Massachusetts,  58, 
200,468. 

MOSELY,  JONATHAN  O.,  Representative  from  Connecticut, 
53,  200,  468.  See  Index,  vols.  4,  5. 

Mounted.  Troops.— See  Index,  vol.  4. 

MUJWOED,  GEORGE,  Representative  from  North  Carolina,  59, 
200 ;  report  on  the  case  of,  114 ;  decease  of,  224. 

MCBBAY,  JOHN,  Representative  from  Pennsylvania,  59,  200, 
464. 


National  Observatory.— See  Index,  vols.  2,  5. 

Naturalization  Laws.— See  Index,  vols.  1,  2, 4 

Navy,  appropriations  for,  in  the  year  1819,  223. 

Naval  Establishment,  increase  of,  resolution  relative  to,  18; 
bill  to  authorize  the  building  seven  small  vessels,  459. 
See  Index,  vols.  1,  2,  8,  4,  5. 

Naval  Exploits.— See  Index,  vol.  5. 

Navigation  Laws. — See  Index,  vol.  4. 

NEALE,  RAPHAEL,  Representative  from  Maryland,  464 

Needful  Rule*  and  Regulations,  meaning  of,  discussed,  487. 

Negroes,  kidnapping. — See  Index,  vol.  2. 

NELBOS.  HUGH,  Representative  from  Virginia,  59,  201, 464. 
See  Index,  vols.  4,  5. 

NELSON,  JEREMIAH,  Representative  from  Massachusetts,  58, 
201,  468.  See  Index,  vol.  5. 

NELSON,  THOMAS  M.,  Representative  from  Virginia,  60,  200 ; 
on  Amelia  Island  and  Spanish  patriots,  63 ;  on  the  Semi- 
nole  war,  234  See  Index,  vol.  5. 

NKSBITT,  WILLIAM,  Representative  from  South  Carolina,  60. 

Neutral  Relations.— See  Index,  vols.  8,  4,  5. 

Neutrality  Law.— In.  the  House,  a  bill  for  the  punishment 
of  certain  crimes  against  the  United  States,  considered, 
128 ;  various  amendments  reported  by  the  committee  in 
order  to  combine  in  one  all  previous  acts,  and  give  tho 
Executive  sufficient  power  to  enforce  it,  123 ;  ought  to 
be  entitled  an  act  for  the  benefit  of  Spain,  128 ;  moved 
to  strike  out  so  much  of  the  second  section  as  makes  it 
penal  to  go  abroad  with  the  intent  to  enlist  in  any  fA- 
eign  service,  128;  the  committee  found  the  easiest 
course  to  amend  and  bring  into  one  bill  all  the  acts,  123; 
motion  agreed  to,  124 ;  motion  to  reduce  the  fine  nega- 
tived, 124 ;  other  amendments  proposed,  124 ;  moved  to 
Strike  out  all  except  so  much  as  retains  tho  act  of  1794, 
and  repeals  the  acts  of  1797  and  1817, 124 ;  only  neces- 
sary to  show  that  the  act  of  last  session  ought  to  be  re- 
pealed, and  that  it  goes  beyond  any  neutral  duty  w,-  can 
owe,  124;  the  act  was  predicated  on  the  ground  that  ex- 
isting provisions  did  not  reach  tho  caso  of  the  war  be- 


tween Spain  and  her  South  American  Provinces,  124 ; 
unprecedented  in  compelling  citizens  of  the  United 
States  to  give  bonds  not  to  commit  acts  without  the* 
jurisdiction  of  the  United  States,  124;  does  the  act  of 
1794  embrace  the  case  of  the  Spanish  patriots  ?  124 

Public  sentiment  has  not  condemned  the  act  of  1817, 
125 ;  no  political  sentiment  expressed  on  the  passage  of 
the  bill,  125 ;  the  act  of  1817  was  passed  in  consequence 
of  the  recommendation  of  the  President,  126;  it  cor- 
rected defects  of  existing  laws,  126 ;  the  objectionable 
provision  examined,  126 ;  was  our  situation  more  criti- 
cal in  1817  than  in  1794?  126;  it  does  not  appear  that 
this  act  was  passed  so  much  to  do  what  was  just  to  our- 
selves as  to  accommodate  the  views  of  foreign  nations, 
127 ;  the  cases  that  induced  the  passage  of  the  act  of 
1817  were  provided  for  in  the  act  of  1792, 127 ;  the  act  of 
1817  authorized  the  collector  of  a  port  to  stop  any  vessel 
built  for  warlike  purposes,  127 ;  what  breach  of  neu- 
trality is  it  to  suffer  such  vessels  to  depart  1 127 ;  the  act 
of  1817  was  the  deliberate  j  udgment  of  both  Houses,  127 ; 
the  only  difference  between  us  is  in  the  remedy  proposed 
for  these  unlawful  acts,  127 ;  the  opinion  of  the  House  and 
the  country  must  be  that  so  long  as  we  profess  neutral- 
ity, we  ought  to  observe  it,  127 ;  it  was  perfectly  fair 
that  those  who  left  our  country  with  the  means  of  mis- 
chief on  board,  should  give  security  against  involving 
the  interests  and  the  peace  of  the  country,  127 ;  we  are 
responsible  for  injuries  done  by  vessels  of  the  United 
States  after  they  leave  our  ports  before  they  arrive  at 
foreign  ports,  128 ;  further  debate,  128, 129 ;  objection  to 
the  power  given  to  a  collector,  129. 

In  the  Senate,  the  biU  read  the  third  time  and  passed, 
•  194.  See  Index,  voL  5. 

NEW,  ANTHONY,  Representative  from  Kentucky,  59,  200. 
See  Index,  vols.  1,  2, 8, 4, 5. 

New  Hampshire,  vote  for  President  in  1820,  706.  See  In- 
deaj,  vols.  1,2,  8,  4,5. 

New  Jersey,  resolutions  relative  to  the  admission  of  Mis- 
souri presented,  416;  vote  for  President  in  1820,  706. 
See  Index,  vols.  1,  2,  8,  4,  5. 

New  Orleans,  defence  of.— See  Index,  voL  5. 

NEWTON,  THOMAS,  Representative  from  Virginia,  59, 200 ;  on 
the  decease  of  Peterson  Goodwyn,  115 ;  relative  to  for- 
eign merchant  seamen,  216,  217 ;  on  the  bill  to  regulate 
passenger  ships,  222.  Set  Index,  vols.  2,  3, 4,  5. 

New  York  Society's  memorial  for  the  manumission  of  slaves, 
presented,  190 ;  resolutions  relative  to  slavery  in  new 
States,  424 ;  resolutions  on  the  restriction  of  slavery, 
658. 

New  York,  vote  for  President  in  1820, 706.  See  Index,  Tola. 
1,2,8,45. 

Niagara  frontier  sufferers. — See  Index,  vol.  5. 

NOBLE,  JAMES,  Senator  from  Indiana,  8, 179,  874, 654 ;  on  the 
sale  of  the  public  lands,  457.  See  Index,  voL  6. 

Non-Exportation  in  foreign  bottoms. — Set  Index,  voL  4 

Non-Importation.— See  Index,  vols.  8,  4 

Non- Intercourse. — See  Intercourte. 

North  Carolina,  vote  for  President  in  1820, 706.  See  Ind«x, 
vols,  1,2,  8, 4,  5. 


Oaths.— See  Index,-\ol  1. 

Officers  of  the  Revolution,  report  on  petition,  relative  to, 

214 

Officers,  removal  of.— See  Index,  voL  1. 
Offices,  plurality  of.— See  Index,  vol.  a 
Office,  a  certain  inquiry  respecting  constitutionality  ot.—Se« 

Index,  vol.  6. 

OGDEN,  DAVID  A.,  Representative  from  New  York,  84,  201. 
OGLE,  ALEXANDER  Representative  from  Pennsylvania,  68, 


732 


INDEX. 


200;  on  presenting  medals  to  certain  officers,  172; 
against  a  compromise  line,  on  slavery,  86T. 

Ohio,  resolutions  relative  to  the  extension  of  slavery,  434; 
vote  for  President  in  1820,  706,  Set  Index,  vols.  4,  6. 

OMo  State  Government.— See  Indent,  voL  2. 

Ordinance,  of  178T,  recognitions  of,  604 ;  note  o^  687.  See 
Index,  vols.  8,  4,  and  Index  vol.  6,  Missouri. 

Orleans  Territory.— See  Index,  vol.  4,  Territories. 

OBB  BENJAMIN,  Representative  from  Massachusetts, 68,  200; 
relative  to  pensions  to  Revolutionary  soldiers,  68. 

Ons,  HARRISON  G.,  Senator  from  Massachusetts,  4, 188,  874, 
653  ;  on  the  petition  of  Matthew  Lyon,  185, 188  ;  on  the 
admission  of  Maine  separately  from  Missouri,  887 ;  on 
the  restriction  of  slavery  in  Missouri,  416 ;  on  postpone- 
ment of  bill  relative  to  the  sale  of  the  public  lands,  455 ; 
on  the  constitution  of  Missouri,  682 ;  on  the  bill  relative 
to  Commodore  Tucker,  704. 

OVERSTREET,  JAMES,  Representative  from  SouthCarolina,  464. 

OWEN,  JAMES,  Representative  from  North  Carolina,  59,  201. 


Painting*  of  the  principal  events  of  the  Revolution.— See 

Index,  vol.  5. 

PALMER,  JOHN,  Representative  from  New  York,  69,  200. 
PALMER,  WILLIAM  A.,  Senator  from  Vermont,  179, 674,  654. 
PARKER,  JAMES,  Representative  from  Massachusetts,  468. 

See  Index,  vol.  5. 
PARRIS,  ALBION  K,  Representative  from  Massachusetts,  58. 

See  Index,  vol.  5. 
PARROTT,  JOHN  F.,  Representative  from  New  Hampshire, 

58,  200 ;  Senator  from  New  Hampshire,  874,  654. 
PATTERSON,  THOMAS,  Representative  from  Pennsylvania, 

59,  200,  464 

PAWLING,  LEVL,  Representative  from  Pennsylvania,  59, 214, 

Fay  of  Members. — In  the  House,  a  bill  for  fixing  the  com- 
pensation of  members  at  nine  dollars  per  day  during  at- 
tendance, and  nine  dollars  per  every  twenty  miles 
considered  in  committee,  82 ;  moved  to  strike  out  nine 
and  insert  fix,  82;  mortifying  to  observe  the  anxiety 
manifested  on  this  occasion,  88;  because  the  House  is 
interested,  must  this  business  be  urged  forward  to  the 
exclusion  of  all  other  ?  83 ;  nine  dollars  per  day  is  about 
three  dollars  per  hour,  83 ;  moved  to  insert  eight,  83 ; 
carried,  88.  See  Index,  vol.  5. 

PECK,  HARMANTS,  Representative  from  New  York,  464. 

PEGBAM,  JOHN,  Representative  from  Virginia,  200. 

Pennsylvania  Insurgents.— See  Index,  vol.  1. 

Pennsylvania,  resolutions  against  slavery  in  new  States, 
882;  vote  for  President  in  1820, 706.  See  Index,  vols.  1, 
2,3,4,5. 

Pensions  to  wounded  officers  of  the  War  of  1812.— In  the 
House,  a  resolution  relative  to  granting  pensions  to 
wounded  officers  of  the  War  of  1812,  considered  in  com- 
rnittoe.  76 ;  motives  in  offering  the  resolution  explained 
at  length,  76,  77. 

PETER,  GEOBGE,  Representative  from  Maryland,  59, 200.  See 
Index,  voL  6. 

Petitions,  reception  of. — See  Index,  voL  2,  and  Slavery, 
vol.  1. 

PHELPS,  ELISHA,  Representative  from  Connecticut,  468. 

PHILSON,  ROBERT,  Representative  from  Pennsylvania,  469. 

PINCKNEY,  CHARLES,  Representative  from  South  Carolina, 
464;  on  the  restriction  of  slavery  in  Missouri,  485 ;  on 
printing  the  Journal  of  the  Old  Congress,  493,  494,  495, 
672 ;  on  restricting  slavery  in  Missouri,  531.  See  Index, 
vol.  2. 

PINKNEY,  WILLIAM,  Senator  from  Maryland,  882,  659 ;  on 
the  proviso  relative  to  the  constitution  of  Missouri,  662. 
See  Index,  vols.  1,  5. 


PINDALL,  JAMES,  Representative  from  Virginia,  59,  200 ;  on 
fugitives  from  justice,  108, 109;  on  tho  petition  of  J. 
J.  Dnfour,  228 ;  on  the  restriction  of  slavery  in  Missouri, 
627. 

Piracy,  report  relative  to  the  punishment  of,  704 

PITCHER,  NATHANIEL,  Representative  from  New  York,  464. 

PITKIN,  TIMOTHY,  Representative  from  Connecticut,  58, 200 ; 
on  the  case  of  John  Anderson,  87,  99, 101 ;  on  admitting 
the  Representatives  from  Illinois,  2M  ;  on  the  claim  of 
Beaumarchais,  209 ;  on  the  bill  for  the  benefit  of  tho 
Connecticut  Asylum,  369.  See  Index,  vols.  3,  4,  5. 

PLBASANTS,  JAMES,  Representative  from  Virginia,  59,  200, 
464;  Senator  from  Virginia,  879,  654;  on  tho  bill  rela- 
tive to  Commodore  Tucker,  704.  See  Index.,  vols.  4,  5. 

PLFMEB,  WILLIAM,  Jr.,  Representative  from  New  Hamp- 
shire, 463. 

POIHDEXTEB,  GEOEGE,  Representative  from  Mississippi,  65, 
200 ;  on  the  case  of  John  Anderson,  100 ;  on  presenting 
a  sword  to  Col.  R.  M.  Johnson,  171 ;  on  presenting  med- 
als to  certain  officers,  178;  on  admitting  the  Repre- 
sentatives from  Illinois,  201 ;  on  slavery  in  Illinois,  205 ; 
on  the  migration  of  slaves,  213 ;  on  the  report  relative 
to  the  Seminole  war,  226 ;  on  the  Seminole  war,  808. 

POPE,  NATHANIEL,  Delegate  from  Illinois,  63 ;  on  the  boun- 
daries of  Illinois,  178.  See  Index,  vol.  5. 

POETER,  JAMES,  Representative  from  New  York,  59,  201. 

Postage  of  Newspapers. — See  Index,  voL  8. 

Post  Office.— See  Index,  voL  1. 

Post  Office  patronage. — See  Index,  vol.  6. 

Potomac  River  Bridge. — See  Index,  voL  8. 

Protective  Duties,  see  Index,  voL  1.,  and  Duties  on  Im- 
ports, voL  5. 

Presents  to  Ministers.— See  Index,  voL  2. 

Presidency,  vacancy  in. — See  Index,  vol.  1. 

Previous  Question.— See  Index,  vols.  1,  4,  5. 

Private  Losses  in  Service. — See  Index,  voL  5. 

Privateers. — See  Index,  vols.  4,  5. 

Public  Buildings.— See  Index,  voL  5. 

Public  Lands.— In  the  Senate,  report  on  the  sale  of,  191 ;  a 
bill  making  further  provision  for  the  sale  of  the  public 
lands,  with  amendments,  considered,  454;  motion  to 
postpone,  lost,  455;  amendment  providing  reversion, 
lost,  455;  the  bill  will  operate  with  peculiar  hardship 
npon  those  who  have  not  the  good  fortune  to  have  the 
present  command  of  money,  and  retard  settlement,  455 ; 
the  present  system  has  been  successful,  455 ;  can  it  be 
wise  to  select  the  moment  for  abolishing  all  credit  on 
the  sales,  when  money  is  scarcer  than  it  has  ever  been  ? 
455;  amendment  offered,  456;  the  change  of  system 
highly  favorable  to  poor  men,  456  ;  eighty  acre  lots  can 
be  bought  by  almost  any  man,  456 ;  further  debate,  457 ; 
amendment  lost,  457 ;  moved  to  strike  out  the  provision 
for  cash  sales,  457 ;  bill  passed,  458 ;  subject  further  con- 
sidered, 601 ;  bill  passed,  601.  See  Index,  vols.  1,  2,  8. 


Quakers,  memorial  of.— See  Index,  vols.  1,  2,  8. 
QUARLES,  TUNSTALL,  Jr.,  Representative  from  Kentucky, 
%   59,200,464 
Quartermaster's  Department.— See  Index,  vol.  4 


RANDOLPH,  JOHN,  Representative  from  Virginia,  404;  01 
restricting  slavery  in  Missouri,  493 ;  on  printing  the  Se 
cret  Journal  of  the  Old  Congress,  496 ;  on  accountability 
for  public  money,  498;  on  provision  for  the  family  of 
Commodore  Perry,  556 ;  on  tho  Senate's  amendment* 
to  the  Maine  bill,  656,  561 ;  offers  an  amendment  to  the 


INDEX. 


733 


Missouri  bill,  561 ;  on  the  decease  of  David  Walker,  666  ; 
against  the  Missouri  bill,  56T  ;  moves  to  reconsider  the 
vote  on  the  Missouri  bill,  by  which  the  restriction  was 
struck  out,  571 ;  appeals  to  the  House,  571 ;  offers  reso- 
lutions relative  to  the  transfer  of  the  House  Missouri 
bill  to  the  Senate,  571 :  notices  the  death  of  Commodore 
Decatur,  572.  See  Index,  vols.  2,  8, 4,  5. 

EASKIX,  CHRISTOPHER,  Kepresentative  from  Mississippi, 
464 ;  on  restricting  slavery  in  Missouri,  638. 

Ransom,  prohibition  of.— See  Index,  vol.  5. 

Seal  Estate  and  Slaves,  valuation  of.— See  Index,  voL  5. 

E£ED,  PHILIP,  Representative  from  Maryland,  59,  200 ;  on  a 
monument  to  De  Kalb,  262. 

REID,  EGBERT  W.,  Representative  from  Georgia,  464;  on 
restricting  slavery  in  Missouri,  489. 

Re/port  on  the  case  of  R.  W.  Meade,  44 ;  relative  to  pur- 
chasing certain  works  on  the  statistics  of  the  United 
States,  56 ;  on  the  case  of  George  Mnmford,  114 ;  on  salt 
duties,  119 ;  relative  to  surviving  Revolutionary  officers, 
214 ;  on  the  Bank  of  the  United  States,  227 ;  on  the  regu- 
lation of  coins,  272 ;  on  the  petition  of  the  Connecticut 
Deaf  and  Dumb  Asylum,  8d7 ;  of  Committee  of  Con- 
ference on  admission  of  Maine,  454 ;  on  the  civilization 
of  the  Indians,  476 ;  relative  to  the  punishment  of  piracy, 
T04. 

Representation,  ratio  of.— See  Index,  vols.  1,  2,  4. 

Representatives,  qualifications  of. — In  the  House,  a  resolu- 
tion of  inquiry  as  to  members"  of  the  House  who  have 
accepted  office  since  1817,  64 ;  a  novel  proceeding,  64 ; 
imposing  extraordinary  duties  on  the  committee,  64 ; 
It  imputes  impurity  to  the  House,  64 ;  time  enough  to 
Inquire  when  any  specific  allegations  were  made,  64 ; 
the  object  was  to  inquire  whether  persons  in  certain 
situations  had  a  right  to  a  seat  or  not,  a  doubtful  point 
which  should  be  settled,  64 ;  ten  or  eleven  members, 
whose  right  to  a  seat  depended  on  the  question,  64 ;  mo- 
tion adopted,  64 ;  message  from  the  President  in  answer, 
72;  list  of  members,  72. 

Resignation,  does  it  cause  a  vacancy  ? — See  Index,  voL  1. 

Resolution,  relative  to  information  respecting  the  salt  duty 
and  fishing  bounty,  11 ;  relative  to  an  increase  of  the 
Navy,  13 ;  relative  to  the  petition  of  the  Society  of 
Friends,  13 ;  relative  to  the  gallantry  of  Generals  Har- 
rison and  Selby,  44 ;  relative  to  reference  of  President's 
Message,  60 ;  relative  to  Spanish  American  Provinces, 
61 ;  on  Amelia  Island  and  Spanish  Patriots,  63 ;  on  rep- 
resentative qualifications,  64;  on  exportation,  65;  on 
pensions  to  sufferers  in  war,  66;  on  the  National  Flag, 
67;  calling  for  information  in  the  case  of  R.  W.  Meade, 
TO ;  relative  to  titles  of  nobility,  76 ;  on  pensions  to 
wounded  officers,  76 ;  to  arrest  John  Anderson,  83 ;  rela- 
tive to  the  case  of  John  Anderson,  90, 101 ;  to  manifest 
respect  to  General  Koscinsko,  104 ;  withdrawn,  106 ;  on 
the  decease  of  Peterson  Goodwyn,  115;  relative  to 
Baron  De  Kalb,  117;  on  Internal  Improvement,  120; 
relative  to  the  batture  at  St.  Louis,  132 ;  of  honor  to  the 
brave,  171;  on  the  case  of  R.  W.  Meade,  174;  relative 
to  the  first  article  of  the  treaty  with  Great  Britain,  188 ; 
respecting  a  monument  to  General  Washington,  184; 
relative  to  the  exportation  of  gold  and  silver  coin,  184 ; 
relative  to  the  memorial  of  Matthew  Lyon,  184;  relative 
to  the  illegal  transportation  of  slaves,  189 ;  relative  to 
duelling,  194 ;  in  Senate,  on  decease  of  George  Mumford, 
190 ;  relative  to  the  Seminole  war,  195 ;  of  thanks  by 
Senate  to  its  presiding  officer,  199 ;  relative  to  the  Bank 
of  the  United  States,  207, 212 ;  relative  to  the  migration 
of  slaves,  218 ;  report  relative  to  surviving  officers  of, 
214;  relative  to  the  decease  of  George  Mumford,  214; 
respecting  Arkansas  Territorial  Governmcn: 
the  slave  trade,  225 ;  on  the  trial  and  execution  of  Ar- 
buthnot  and  Ambrister,  226;  relative  to  the  Govern- 


ment of  Florida,  228;  respecting  a  monument  to  De 
Kalb,  262 ;  of  honor  to  Joseph  Lancaster,  272 ;  relative 
•to  the  Bank  of  the  United  States,  868 ;  relative  to  the 
Military  Academy,  869 ;  of  thanks  to  the  Speaker,  872 ; 
relative  to  duelling,  459;  relative  to  appointing  a^pin- 
mittee  to  report  on  prohibition  of  slavery  in  the  Terri- 
tories, 468 ;  to  publish  the  Journal  of  the  Old  Congress, 
492 ;  to  provide  a  remedy  for  slavery,  602 ;  relative  to 
slavery  in  Territories,  515 ;  to  provide  for  the  family  of 
Commodore  Perry,  555 ;  for  a  conference  with  Senate 
on  the  Maine  bill,  562 ;  on  the  decease  of  David  Walk- 
er, 566 ;  relative  to  the  transfer  of  the  House  Missouri 
bill  to  the  Senate,  671 ;  relative  to  the  Spanish  treaty, 
574 ;  relative  to  fugitive  slaves,  574 ;  relative  to  a  mauso- 
leum to  General  Washington,  597 ;  of  thanks  to  Speaker 
Clay,  652 ;  relative  to  the  Act  of  July,  1798,  661 ;  rela- 
tive to  counting  the  Electoral  vote,  695 ;  relative  to  tho 
decease  of  Nathaniel  Hazard,  696 ;  relative  to  the  de- 
cease of  James  Burrill,  696 ;  relative  to  the  decease  of 
John  Linn,  697 ;  relative  to  counting  the  Electoral  vote, 
704;  admitting  Missouri,  706;  relative  to  the  decease  of 
W.  A.  Bnrwell,  709. 

Revenue,  collection  of  the. — See  Index,  voL  6. 

Revenue  Cutters.— See  Index,  voL  4 

RHEA,  JOHH,  Representative  from  Tennessee,  59,  200,  464 ; 
relative  to  Amelia  Island  and  Spanish  Patriots,  63 ;  on  the 
case  of  John  Anderson,  101 ;  on  fugitives  from  justice 
and  service,  109, 110 ;  on  presenting  medals  to  certain 
officers,  173 ;  on  the  Seminole  war,  285 ;  against  fixing  a 
line  for  the  limitation  of  slavery,  366 ;  on  appointing  a 
committee  to  report  a  bill  restricting  slavery,  470.  Se« 
Index,  vols.  8,  4,  5. 

Rhode  Island,  admission  of. — See  Index,  vol.  1. 

Rhode  Island,  resolutions  relative  to  pay  of  members  of 
Congress,  654 ;  vote  for  President  in  1820,  706.  See  In- 
dex, vols.  1,  2,  3,  4,  5. 

RICE,  THOMAS,  Representative  from  Massachusetts,  68, 105, 
200.  See  Index,  vol.  5. 

RICH,  CHABLES,  Representative  from  Vermont,  59,  200,  464 ; 
on  the  case  of  John  Anderson,  101 ;  on  the  bill  relating 
to  fugitives  from  justice,  107 ;  on  fugitives  from  justice 
and  service,  109 ;  on  restricting  slavery  in  Missouri,  551. 
See  Index,  voL  6. 

RICHARDS,  MAKE,  Representative  from  Vermont,  59,  200, 
464. 

RICHMOND,  JONATHAN,  Representative  from  New  York,  464. 

RINGGOLD,  SAMUEL,  Representative  from  Maryland,  59,  214, 
464.  See  Index,  vol.  5. 

Rio  de  la  Plata,  manifesto  of  United  Provinces  of,  141. 

RoaQ  Post.— See  Index,  vol.  3. 

ROBERTS,  JONATHAN,  Senator  from  Pennsylvania,  8,  179, 
874,  654;  on  the  pension  to  General  Stark,  168;  on  the 
admission  of  Maine  and  Missouri,  382 ;  on  the  restriction 
of  slavery  in  Missouri,  389,  481 ;  against  incorporating  a 
National  Vaccine  Institution,  697,  702;  on  the  bill  rela- 
tive to  Commodore  Tucker,  708 ;  offers  a  resolution  for 
the  admission  of  Missouri,  706 ;  on  the  Missouri  consti- 
tution, 707.  See  Index,  vols.  4,  5. 

ROBERTSON,  GEORGE,  Representative  from  Kentucky,  59, 
200,  464 ;  on  Arkansas  Territorial  Government,  222. 

ROBERTSON,  THOMAS  B.,  Representative  from  Louisiana,  59 ; 
on  the  Spanish  American  Provinces,  61 ;  on  expatriation, 
65-68 ;  on  commutation  cf  bounty  lands,  72 ;  on  the 
neutrality  bill,  124-126 ;  on  the  Spanish  American  Prov  • 
inees,  155;  reports  on  the  history  of,  169.  Set  Index, 
vols.  4,  5. 

RODGKRS,  THOMAS  J.,  Representative  from  Pennsylvania, 
182,200,464 

RODNEY,  DANIEL,  votes  for  as  Vice  President  in  1820,  706. 

Ross,  JOHN,  Representative  from  Pennsylvania,  65 ;  on  the 
compensation  of  members,  82.  See  Index,  vols.  4,  5. 


734 


INDEX. 


Ross,  f  HOMAB  E.,  Representative  from  Ohio,  464. 

RUGOLES,  BENJAMIN,  Senator  from  Ohio,  8,  179,  874,654; 
relative  to  the  sale  of  the  public  lands,  457;  relative  to 
the  Virginia  Military  Lands,  708.  Se»  Index,  vol.  5. 

RUBBLES,  NATHANIEL,  Representative  from  Massachusetts, 
68,200.  See  Index,  voL  5. 

RUSH,  RICHARD,  votes  for,  as  Vice  President  In  1820,  706. 

Russ,  JOHN,  Representative  from  Connecticut,  463. 


Salt  Duty  and  fishing  Bounty,  resolution  relative  to,  11 ; 
report  relative  to  duties  on,  119.  See  Index,  vol.  6,  Du- 
ties on  Imports. 

SAMPSON,  GABRIEL,  Representative  from  Massachusetts,  68, 
200,468. 

BANFORD,  NATHAN,  Senator  from  New  York,  8, 179, 874, 654 ; 
on  ad  valorem,  duties,  7 ;  presents  the  memorial  of  the 
Irish  Emigrant  Association,  82.  See  Index,  vol.  5. 

SAVAGE,  JOHN,  Representative  from  New  York,  59,  200. 
See  Index,  voL  5. 

Savannah,  relief  of.— See  Index,  vol.  2. 

SAWYER,  LEMUEL,  Representative  from  North  Carolina,  59, 
200 ;  on  the  Seminole  war,  270.  See  Index,  vols.  8,  4. 

ScntiYLER,  PHILIP  J.,  Representative  from  New  York,  59, 200. 

SCOTT,  JOHN,  Delegate  from  Missouri,  68,  200,  464 ;  on  Ar- 
kansas Territorial  Government,  222 ;  on  the  prohibition 
of  slavery  in  Missouri,  846 ;  on  the  bill  for  the  Missouri 
Convention,  469 ;  on  the  restriction  of  slavery  In  Mis- 
souri, 557.  See  Index,  vol.  5. 

SCUDDER,  TREDWELL,  Representative  from  New  York,  59, 
200. 

Seamen,  foreign  merchant. — In  the  House,  a  bill  to  author- 
ize the  apprehension  of,  when  deserting,  considered, 
216 ;  effects  of  desertion  on  the  voyage,  216 ;  such  regu- 
lations exist  in  all  other  countries,  216 ;  letter  of  Secre- 
tary of  State  on  the  subject,  216;  objected  that  the  bill 
provides  for  the  surrender  of  the  seaman  to  the  captain 
without  inquiry  into  the  case  or  trial,  216 ;  other  details 
objectionable,  217;  under  the  bill  only  tw«  parts  au- 
thorize the  surrender — the  part  of  a  contract  and  that 
of  desertion,  217 ;  is  it  not  possible  a  seaman  may  be  jus- 
tified in  quitting  the  merchant  service  f  217 ;  on  what 
grounds  is  the  passage  of  this  bill  asked  for  ?  217 ;  the 
bill  introduces  no  new  principle,  217;  the  same  provi- 
sions have  been  in  operation  for  twenty-eight  years,  218; 
a  treaty,  as  reported,  can  have  no  bearing  on  this  sub- 
ject, 218  ;  there  can  be  no  difficulty  with  respect  to  nat- 
uralized foreigners,  218.  A 

Seamen,  protection  of. — See  Index,  vols.  8,  4. 

Seat  of  Government.— See  Index,  vols.  1,  2,  8,  5. 

Secret  Proceedings,  publication  of.— See  Index,  vol.  4. 

Sedition  Law  of  1798,  memorial.— In  the  Senate,  a  reso- 
lution offered  in  consequence  of  the  petition  of  Matthew 
Lyon,  to  reimburse  all  persons  fined  under  the  Sedition 
Law  of  1798,  considered,  184;  the  act  was  unconsti- 
tutional, not  only  from  a  defect  of  power  in  Congress  to 
pass  such  a  law,  but  because  its  passage  was  forbidden 
by  the  constitution,  184 ;  the  sense  of  the  nation  had 
pronounced  it  so,  184 ;  a  revision  of  the  proceedings  im- 
portant, so  far  as  relates  to  the  individuals  subject  to 
prosecution  under  it,  184 ;  the  constitution  guarantees 
certain  rights,  and  under  this  guarantee  individuals  are 
entitled  to  Indemnity,  184 ;  relief  is  asked  from  Con- 
gress on  the  ground  of  not  having  a  fair  trial,  185 ;  this 
should  be  proved,  and  not  merely  asserted,  185;  un- 
necessary to  discuss  the  constitutionality  of  the  act,  185 ; 
the  facts  alleged  cannot  be  proved,  185 ;  the  course  pro- 
posed in  the  amendment  is  daily  practice,  185 ;  the  con- 
stitutional question  now  presented  should  not  rest  upon 


an  Individual  claim,  185 ;  the  question  is :  Did  the  Gov- 
ernment violate  the  constitution  by  this  act,  and  oppress 
Individuals  f  185 ;  gentlemen  mistaken  when  they  pro- 
nounced the  act  unconstitutional,  186;  if  the  President 
-and  Congress  were  convinced  there  was  a  necessity  for 
such  a  law,  they  had  a  right  to  enact  it,  186 ;  note,  186; 
it  was  passed  at  a  period  of  great  danger  and  alarm,  186 ; 
the  second  section  of  the  law,  186 ;  public  opinion  re- 
volted against  Its  principles  and  provisions,  because  of 
the  temper  manifested  in  enacting  it,  186;  no  evidence 
of  the  truth  of  the  applicant's  allegations  in  this  case, 
187;  the  Sedition  Law  was  an  amelioration  of  the  com- 
mon law,  187;  the  true  question  is:  Will  you  review 
the  proceedings  under  the  Sedition  Law  now  that  party 
spirit  is  hushed?  187;  its  constitutionality,  187;  the  law 
only  punished  false,  licentious,  and  malicious  writings, 
188 ;  not  intended  to  abridge  the  liberty  of  the  Press, 
but  its  licentiousness — resolution  lost,  188. 

In  the  House. — The  petition  of  Matthew  Lyon  re- 
ceived and  referred  to  the  Judiciary  Committee,  201. 

In  the  Senate.— Report  of  the  Select  Committee,  697 ; 
moved  to  postpone  Indefinitely,  697 ;  merits  and  demer- 
its of  Matthew  Lyon,  697 ;  it  is  said  the  Treasury  is 
empty,  698 ;  the  present  case  comes  before  us  In  a  way 
that  demands  and  must  receive  serious  consideration, 
69S ;  how  far  Was  this  act  an  abridgment  of  the  liberty 
of  the  Press  ?  699 ;  what  was  said  at  the  time  ?  699 ;  cases 
of  attainder  in  England,  700, 701 ;  resolutions  indefinite- 
ly postponed,  702.  See  Index,  vol.  4,  and  Index,  vol.  2, 
Defensive  Measures  and  Seditious  Practices. 
Seminole  War.— In  the  Senate,  a  message  from  the  Presi- 
dent with  documents,  moved  to  refer  to  a  select  com- 
mittee, 190 ;  moved  to  confer  authority  to  send  for  per- 
sons and  papers,  &c.,  agreed  to,  190 ;  moved  that  an- 
other member  be  added  to  the  committee,  195 ;  moved 
to  postpone,  195 ;  postponement  lost,  195  ;  debate  on  the 
motion,  196 ;  carried,  196 ;  report  of  the  committee,  197. 

In  the  House. — A  resolution  presented  by  the  Com- 
mittee on  Military  Affairs,  with  a  report  that  the  House 
disapproves  of  the  execution  of  Alexander  Arbuthnot 
and  Robert  C.  Ambrister,  226;  a  resolution  also  submit- 
ted by  a  member  of  the  committee,  that  General  Jack- 
son and  his  officers  and  men  were  entitled  to  the  thanks 
of  the  country  in  terminating  the  Seminole  war.  226 ; 
moved  to  refer  to  the  Committee  of  the  Whole  on  the 
state  of  the  Union,  226 ;  these  papers  involve  principles 
of  great  consequence,  on  which,  to  some  extent,  depends 
the  character  of  the  nation,  226 ;  important  questions  as 
to  the  laws  of  nations  also  involved,  and  as  to  the  con- 
stitution of  the  country,  226 ;  papers  should  be  referred, 
as  in  ordinary  cases,  to  the  Committee  of  the  Whole, 
226;  reasons  therefor,  226;  debate  on  the  reference, 
226;  motion  carried,  227. 

Report  of  the  committee  considered,  228 ;  report  does 
not  go  far  enough,  other  matters  of  infinitely  greater 
importance,  228;  the  charges  exhibited  against  these 
two  Englishmen,  229 ;  what  law  was  violated  ?  229 ;  the 
evidence  under  which  one  or  both  of  them  was  con- 
victed, 229 ;  the  sentence  under  which  Ambrister  was 
executed,  229 ;  is  this  committee  prepared  to  brand  these 
men  with  the  titles  of  outlaws  and  pirates  ?  280 ;  did 
the  commanding  general  of  the  American  Army  possess 
the  power  to  exercise  the  right  of  retaliation  ?  230. 

Necessary  to  show  that  the  Indians  commenced  the 
war,  231 ;  the  President  has  power  to  repel  the  enemy, 
and  the  question  arises,  on  what  ground  he  may  meet 
them,  282 ;  state  of  affairs  over  the  Florida  line,  232 ; 
admit  the  Spaniards  and  Indians  had  concurrent  juris- 
diction, 282;  what  reason  is  there  why  Gen.  Jackson 
should  not  cross  into  Florida,  which  would  not  equally 
prohibit  him  to  cross  the  Indian  line  ?  233 ;  having  en- 


INDEX. 


735 


tered  Florida,  what  were  his  duties  to  those  professing 
allegiance  to  Spain  ?  233 ;  the  right  of  discrimination 
between  neutrals  and  enemies  devolved  on  him,  283 ; 
whafhas  been  said  relative  to  the  conduct  of  the  Exec- 
utive in  engaging  in  this  war?  233. 

That  part  of  the  subject  to  which  the  report  is  con- 
fined, is  the  only  one  on  which  a  majority  of  the  com- 
mittee could  be  united,  234;  an  effort  has  been  made  to 
show  that  Spain  has  given  no  just  cause  for  war,  and 
therefore  Gen.  Jackson  had  a  right  to  take  possession  of 
the  Spanish  garrisons  in  West  Florida,  234;  what  au- 
thority had  he  to  establish  a  Government,  and  appoint 
officers,  and  put  in  force  the  revenue  laws  of  the  United 
States?  235;  had  Gen.  Jackson  aright  to  capture  Pensa- 
cola  and  the  Barancas  ?  235 ;  principles  of  Vattel's  Law 
of  Nations  in  relation  to  the  course  he  pursued,  286; 
did  the  necessity  exist?  236;  inquiry  into  the  facts,  286; 
the  propriety  of  the  course  pursued  in  the  trial  and  ex- 
ecution of  Arbuthnot  and  Ambrister,  examined,  236; 
the  subject  presents  two  aspects— one  its  foreign,  the 
other  its  domestic  aspect,  238 ;  four  propositions  before 
the  committee,  238;  no  censnre  upon  Gen.  Jackson 
proposed,  except  what  may  be  merely  consequential, 
288 ;  origin  of  the  war  in  the  treaty  of  Fort  Jackson, 
238 ;  contrast  between  the  scenes  of  Ghent  and  Fort 
Jackson,  239;  the  execution  of  the  Indian  chiefs,  240; 
you  have  no  right  to  practise  enormities  on  the  Indians 
tinder  the  color  of  retaliation,  240 ;  why  have  we  not 
practised  retaliation  on  the  Indian  tribes?  241;  not  ne- 
cessary to  insist  on  the  innocence  of  either  Arbnthnot 
or  Ambrister,  in  judging  of  the  trial,  &c,,  241 ;  principle 
assumed  by  Gen.  Jackson  in  this  case,  241 ;  the  ntmost 
•we  could  do  was  to  apply  to  them  the  rules  we  had  a 
right  to  enforce  against  the  Indians,  242;  topics  em- 
ployed by  the  minions  of  legitimacy  in  Europe  against 
our  Government,  242 ;  the  mode  of  trial  and  sentencing 
these  men  was  equally  objectionable  with  the  principles 
on  which  it  had  been  attempted  to  show  a  forfeiture  of 
their  lives,  243 ;  Ambrister  was  executed  in  defiance  of 
all  law,  244;  no  power  is  more  expressly  and  exclusively 
granted  in  the  constitution,  than  that  is  to  Congress  of 
declaring  war,  244 ;  message  of  the  President  to  Congress 
in  relation  to  the  Seminole  war,  045 ;  actions  of  Gen. 
Jackson,  245 :  proceeding  of  the  Governor  of  Florida 
examined,  245 ;  where  are  the  free  nations  which  have 
gone  before  us  ?  245 ;  we  are  fighting  a  great  moral  bat- 
tle for  the  ,beneflt  not  only  of  our  country  but  of  all 
mankind,  246 ;  how  different  the  treatment  of  Gen.  Jack- 
Bon  and  of  Commodore  Perry,  246. 

The  conduct  of  Gen.  Jackson  has  been  a  subject  of 
censure  in  regard  to  this  trial  and  execution,  from  a 
misconception  of  the  law  and  the  facts  in  the  case,  247 ; 
every  ground  taken  by  him  will  be  found  tenable  on 
principles  which  have  prevailed  from  the  commence- 
ment of  civilization  to  the  present  day,  247 ;  examples 
of  military  execution  by  the  Commanding  General,  248; 
it  is  denied  that  the  crimes  for  which  these  men'  were 
executed,  were  offences  not  recognized  by  the  laws  of 
tho  United  States,  248 ;  execution  of  the  Indian  war- 
riors, 243;  the  treaty  of  Fort  Jackson,  248;  tho  consti- 
tutionality of  the  war,  249;  power  of  the  President  to 
prosecute  this  war,  249 ;  it  is  said,  these  incendiaries 
were  put  to  death  without  necessity,  249 ;  the  case  of 
volunteers  entering  foreign  service,  250;  difference  of 
our  situation  in  this  House  and  that  of  the  General  in 
the  field,  250 ;  the  right  of  the  President  to  make  war 
on  the  savages,  considered,  251 ;  hav«  the  rights  of  the 
United  States  been  transcended  by  the  proceedings  of 
the  armed  force  in  Florida  ?  251 ;  writers  on  the  law  of 
nations  quoted,  251, 252 ;  have  the  constitutional  powers 
of  the  President  been  exceeded  ?  253;  has  Gen.  Jackson 


transcended  his  orders,  or  violated  the  law  of  nations  ? 
254;  his  instructions,  254 ;  objections  made  to  his  pro- 
ceedings, 254 ;  orders  of  Gen.  Washington  to  Gen.  Sul- 
livan, 256 ;  why  Is  nothing  said  by  the  committee  re- 
specting the  execution  of  two  Indian  chiefs?  257 ;  what 
were  the  charges  against  Arbuthnot  and  Ambrister? 
258 ;  rules  of  the  law  of  nations,  258 ;  it  is  said,  the  exe- 
cution was  unnecessary,  259 ;  that  the  court-martial  has 
no  jurisdiction  over  the  offence,  259;  power  of  the 
House  to  discuss  and  express  its  opinion  on  the  present 
subject,  260 ;  an  act  of  legislation  should  not  be  coupled 
with  resolutions  of  censure,  .261 ;  further  debate,  261, 
262. 

Burst  of  indignation  in  this  House  at  the  trials  of  Ar- 
bnthnot and  Ambrister,  268;  great  as  the  services  of 
Gen.  Jackson  have  been  they  afford  no  sanctuary  against 
our  inquiry,  or  furnish  any  exculpation  for  the  violation 
of  the  constitution,  263 ;  much  to  warn  us,  in  the  pasty 
against  receiving  the  services  of  public  men  as  an  apol- 
ogy for  their  usurpations,  264 ;  the  immediate  restora- 
tion of  Pensacola  amounts  to  a  disavowal  of  its  seizure 
on  the  part  of  our  Government,  264;  the  defence  at 
these  trials,  264;  the  capture  of  St  Marks  equally  unau- 
thorized, 265 ;  proceedings  attempted  to  be  justified  on 
the  ground  of  self-defence,  arising  out  of  extreme  neces- 
sity, 265 ;  desirable  to  blot  out  this  stain  on  our  national 
character,  265. 

Had  we  a  right  to  march  our  armies  across  the  Flor- 
ida line?  266;  the  propriety  of  the  occupation  of  the 
^panish  posts,  267;  the  trial  and  execution  ,.f  Arbuth- 
"not  and  Ambrister,  268 ;  it  Is  said,  that  whatever  our 
rights  may  have  been,  it  was  not  competent  to  the  Com- 
manding General  to  execute  them,  270 ;  the  jurisdiction 
of  the  Court,  270;  it  Is  a  new  principle  that  Congress 
has  no  power  to  pass  any  resolution  of  condemnation  or 
removal,  nor  of  censure,  of  any  military  oflicer,  270 ; 
what  is  the  true  state  of  the  case?  270;  if  the  conduct 
of  the  General  was  not  strictly  legal,  what  would  gen- 
tlemen have  ?  271 ;  the  General's  own  words,  271 ;  there 
would  have  been  no  end  to  the  war,  if  he  had  permitted 
the  enemy  to  retreat  to  the  Spanish  forts  without  pur- 
suing them,  272. 

Object  of  the  resolutions  neither  censnre  of  Gen.  Jack- 
eon  nor  the  Executive,  278;  it  is  said,  the  Indians  cannot 
make  war,  274;  history  of  our  transactions  with  them, 
274;  the  necessity  of  seizing  those  fortresses,  275;  the 
character  rather  than  the  constitution  of  our  Govern- 
ment, 276;  jrere  the  rules  of  judicial  proceedings  in  tho 
trial  of  military  officers  disregarded  in  these  trials?  276; 
the  order  for  their  execution  is  a  stain  on  the  judicial 
proceedings  of  this  nation,  277;  who  were  the  other 
captives  condemned  ?  277 ;  different  view  that  would 
have  been  taken  of  these  proceedings  if  they  had  been 
done  by  an  ordinary  man,  278 ;  where  is  the  sovereign 
power  lodged  ?  273 ;  did  the  acts  in  the  progress  of  this 
war  proceed  from  the  President,  or  were  they  acts  of 
Gen.  Jackson  ?  279. 

The  advocates  of  these  resolutions  claim  to  be  the  ex- 
clusive guardians  of  the  constitution,  279  ;  Congress  has 
not  power  to  proceed  in  this  manner,  280;  each  party  is 
right  when  contending  for  the  negative,  280 ;  the  people 
have  not  constituted  us  their  agents,  to  confer  their 
thanks,  or  to  select  objects  of  benevolence,  280;  admit- 
ting the  House  has  the  power  to  censure,  the  transac- 
tions of  this  war  do  not  justify  its  exercise,  281 ;  the  treaty 
is  said  to  have  violated  the  religion  of  the  Indians,  231 ; 
this  being  a  defensive  war,  resulting  from  the  necessity 
of  repelling  invasion,  military  movement  was  the  bonn- 
<U  n  duty  of  the  Executive,  282;  the  right  of  the  Ameri- 
cans to  pursue  the  enemy,  282 ;  the  provision  of  the  con- 
stitution violated  by  these  executions  has  not  been 


736 


INDEX. 


pointed  out,  283;  justification  of  the  executions,  283; 
the  war  was  authorized  by  the  constitution  and  laws  of 
the  country,  284;  commencement  of  the  war,  284;  the 
course  then  pursued,  284;  treaties  with  various  tribes 
referred  to,  285 ;  reason  of  the  reference,  2S6 ;  conspira- 
cies against  the  United  States  during  the  war  of  1812, 
287,  288 ;  orders  to  Gen.  Jackson,  289. 

Connection  of  the  matters  in  controversy  with  the 
character  of  the  country,  290;  dangers  which  the  coun- 
try may  apprdiend  from  the  encouragement  of  a  mili- 
tary spirit,  290;  the  crossing  of  the  Spanish  line,  291 ; 
the  fate  of  the  Indians,  291 ;  proceedings  and  orders  of 
the  Government  at  the  outset  of  the  war,  292 ;  grounds 
upon  which  we  defend  crossing  the  Spanish  line,  and 
reasons  Spain  may  urge  against  it,  293 ;  the  occupation 
of  St.  Marks,  considered,  298 ;  three  grounds  taken  by 
the  General,  294;  what  is  the  principle  of  national  law 
that  should  govern  it?  295;  the  case  of  Pcnsacola  con- 
sidered, 295;  the  true  motive  of  the  captur«  of  Penaa- 
cola,  296;  further  debate,  297 ;  the  treaty  of  Fort  Jack- 
eon,  298 ;  points  not  embraced  in  the  resolutions,  299 ; 
deliberations  relative  to  the  seizure  of  Florida,  299 ;  the 
power  of  declaring  war  is  given  only 'to  Congress,  299 ; 
the  President  had  no  right  to  authorize  the  capture  of 
St.  Marks  and  Pensacola,  299;  the  President's  orders 
fairly  forbade  their  occupation,  800 ;  the  case  of  Ambris- 
ter,  801 ;  the  case  of  Arbuthnot,  801 ;  the  services  of 
Gen.  Jackson  should  not  be  weighed  against  the  consti- 
tution of  the  land,  301 ;  what  are  the  points  of  differ- 
ence arising  out  of  this  case  ?  802 ;  the  seizure  of  St. 
Marks  and  Pensacola,  302 ;  the  executions  indispe'nsa- 
ble,  808. 

Called  upon  by  these  resolutions  to  disrobe  a  veteran 
soldier  of  his  well-earned  laurels,  803;  they  are  calculated 
to  enfeeble  the  arm  of  the  Government  in  its  pending 
negotiations  with  Spain,  808;  the  peculiar  and  delicate 
posture  of  our  relations  with  Spain,  804 ;  the  expression 
of  the  opinions  embraced  in  these  resolutions  must  cast 
a  shade  over  the  American  name,  304 ;  investigation  of 
the  resolutions  levelled  at  the  fame  and  honor  of  Gen. 
Jackson,  and  through  him  at  the  President,  805;  has 
the  House  of  Eepresentatives  constitutional  power  to 
Institute  an  inquiry  into  the  conduct  of  a  military  offi- 
cer, and  to  sentence  him  to  be  cashiered,  &c.?  305; 
views  of  Madison,  806 ;  look  at  the  provisions  of  the 
constitution,  and  forbear  to  adopt  a  measure  in  violation 
of  it,  806 ;  are  the  officers  of  the  army  and  navy  ren- 
dered subservient  to  us  as  a  censorial,  inquisitorial  body  ? 
808 ;  the  unavoidable  consequences  which  will  flow  from 
this  premature  and  unauthorized  proceeding,  808;  our 
total  inability  to  enforce  the  will  of  the  majority  de- 
monstrates the  absence  of  the  right  to  express  that  will, 
808 ;  who  among  us  would  be  willing  to  stake  his  pros- 
pects and  hopes  on  the  issue  of  an  investigation,  which, 
disregarding  all  respect  for  the  purity  of  motive,  should 
only  tend  to  discover  an  inadvertent  error?  809;  on  all 
occasions  the  United  States  have  acted  only  on  the  defen- 
sive in  the  commencement  of  every  war  with  the  In- 
dians, 810;  the  finger  of  British  intrigue  and  Spanish 
deception  and  connivance  are  visible  from  the  very  in- 
ception of  these  hostilities  to  their  final  termination, 
810,  811 ;  the  murders  and  robberies  that  preceded  of- 
fensive operations,  812 ;  Florida  is  a  country  "  open  to 
all  comers,"  812 ;  the  prominent  points  in  the  evidence 
showing  that  Gen.  Jackson  has  not  snatched  from  Con- 
gress the  power  to  declare  war,  813,  814 ;  sympathetic 
effusions  of  honorable  members  on  the  trial  and  execu- 
tion of  the  instigators  of  the  Seminole  war  are  mortify- 
ing, 815;  proceedings  of  the  Court,  815;  the  participation 
of  Arbuthnot  in  providing  means  for  the  prosecution  of 
the  Seminole  war,  316 ;  voice  of  the  country  on  the 


merits  of  Jackson,  817;  points  of  the  debate,  818; 
sources  of  fear  for  our  liberties,  819 ;  to  see  us  sacrifice 
our  General  who  shamefully  defeated  old  England's 
chosen  glorious  bands,  would  make  the  Prince  Regent's 
ministers  rejoice,  820;  a  word  to  Virginia,  820;  who 
were  Arbuthnot  and  Ambrister,  and  what  was  their 
business  and  employment  in  Florida?  321 ;  the  runaway 
negroes,  822;  the  guilt  of  those  executed  is  established, 
823;  the  report  of  the  committee,  824;  transactions  of 
the  Government  with  the  Indians  referred  to,  324 ;  re- 
lations between  the  United  States  and  the  Indian  tribes, 
825 ;  have  w-e  not  sanctioned  this  war  to  as  great  and 
full  extent  as  Congress  ever  sanctioned  any  Indian  war  ? 
825 ;  after  these  acts  was  a  report  of  this  nature  to  be 
expected  of  this  House,  as  a  reward  of  fidelity  ?  826 ; 
If  there  Is  censure  anywhere,  it  is  due  to  Congress  for 
not  having  performed  its  duty,  326 ;  was  it  right  to  pase 
the  Florida  line?  326;  the  executions,  827;  further  de- 
bate, 828,  829,  880,  881;  resolution  lost,  882;  the  other 
resolutions  lost,  832 ;  proceedings  of  committee  reported 
to  the  House,  882;  question  divided,  832;  trial  and  exe- 
cution of  Arbuthnot  and  Ainbrister  disapproved,  832 ; 
resolution  that  the  seizure  of  the  Spanish  forts  was 
contrary  to  the  constitution,  lost,  833. 

Senate.— Motion  to  suspend  third  rule  of,  55;  adjourns  at 
close  of  1st  session  of  15th  Congress,  57 ;  commences 
2d  session  of  15th  Congress,  179 ;  adjourns  at  close  of  2d 
session  of  15th  Congress,  199;  convenes  on  1st  session 
of  16th  Congress,  874;  adjourns  at  close  of  1st  session  of 
16th  Congress,  462 ;  meets  at  second  session  of  16th 
Congress,  654;  Committee  of  Conference  relative  to 
Missouri,  711;  adjourns  at  2d  session  of  16th  Congress, 
712.. 

SBBGEANT,  JOHN,  Representative  from  Pennsylvania,  60, 
200,  464 ;  on  reference  of  the  President's  Message,  61 ; 
on  the  case  of  John  Anderson,  88 ;  on  fugitives  from 
justice  and  service,  107;  on  restriction  of  slavery  in  Mis- 
souri, 515 ;  on  the  Senate's  amendments  to  the  Maine 
bill,  554.  See  Index,  vol.  5. 

SBTTLB,  THOMAS,  Representative  from  North  Carolina,  59, 
200,464 

SHTBEKT,  ADAM,  Representative  from  Pennsylvania,  59, 
200.  See  Index,  vols.  4,  5. 

SHAW,  HENBY,  Representative  from  Massachusetts  58,  200, 
468. 

SHEBWOOD,  SAMUEL  B.,  Representative  from  Connecticut, 
68.  See  Index,  vol.  5. 

SILBBEE,  NATHANIEL,  Representative  from  Massachusetts, 
58,  200,  463 ;  on  a  revision  of  the  Tariff,  622. 

SMKINS,  ELDKED,  Representatives  from  South  Carolina, 
114,  202,  464 ;  on  the  Senate's  amendments  to  the  Maine 
bill,  554. 

Slave  Trade,  African.— In  the  Senate,  a  resolution  to  in- 
struct the  committee  to  whom  was  referred  the  petition 
of  the  Society  of  Friends  of  Baltimore,  considered,  11 ; 
the  last  clause  of  the  resolution  contemplates  a  concert 
with  foreign  nations,  11 ;  a  most  extraordinary  proposi- 
tion, 11 ;  no  measure  could  be  adopted  more  replete  with 
danger  to  the  existence  of  the  country,  than  a  formal 
coalition  for  any  purpose  with  foreign  nations,  11 ;  can- 
not separate  from  foreign  alliances  the  idea  of  foreign 
politics,  11 ;  no  diversity  of  opinion  with  regard  to  put- 
ting  a  stop  to  the  African  slave  trade,  12 ;  it  is  only  by 
concert  and  co-operation  that  it  can  be  abolished,  12; 
the  objection  to  foreign  alliances  does  not  apply  to  this 
proposition,  12;  the  principle  is  no  novelty,  12;  a  pro- 
vision inserted  in  the  treaty  of  Ghent,  12 ;  this  country 
the  first  to  set  the  example  of  suppressing  the  trade,  12; 
all  but  two  nations  have  come  into  the  measure  for  its 
abolition,  12;  the  traffic  cannot  be  suppressed  until  all 
unite,  12 ;  impossible  for  such  a  measure  to  lead  to  an 


INDEX. 


737 


entangling  alliance,  12;  what  is  proposed  is  an  honest 
and  moral  concert  to  put  an  end  to  this  trade,  12 ;  It  is  a 
measure  demanded  by  a  regard  for  the  morals  of  the 
country,  12. 

No  propriety  in  adopting  a  resolution  from  which  no 
good  can  result,  12;  the  Executive  is  the  proper  branch 
to  form  such  an  arrangement,  12 ;  if  it  was  necessary 
the  Executive  would  have  formed  it,  12 ;  propriety  of 
expressing  an  opinion,  12;  how  can  we  control  the  con- 
duct of  Spain  and  Portugal  on  this  subject?  18;  con- 
struction given  to  the  article  of  the  treaty  of  Ghent,  18; 
the  question  is  merely  whether  it  shall  be  referred  to  a 
committee  to  inquire  into  the  expediency  of  taking 
measures  in  concert  with  other  nations,  for  this  great 
and  benevolent  purpose,  13 ;  if  this  inquiry  is  refused 
we  may  be  subject  to  the  imputation  of  disregarding  the 
implied  obligations  of  the  treaty  of  Ghent,  14;  sub- 
stance of  the  tenth  article,  14 ;  this  article  as  well  as  the 
rest  of  the  treaty  met  with  uniTereal  approbation,  14; 
what  danger  or  inconvenience  can  arise  from  referring 
the  subject  for  an  investigation  ?  14;  no  such  danger  to 
be  apprehended  as  some  gentlemen  imagined,  14 ;  Vir- 
ginia was  the  first  to  prohibit  the  traffic,  14;  progress  of 
sentiment  on  the  subject,  14;  nothing  to  be  feared  from 
an  alliance  with  any  nation  whose  only  object  was  hu- 
manity, 14 ;  the  proposed  concert  is  of  a  moral  charac- 
ter, 14;  the  principal  project  is  a  good  one,  but  it  is  ob- 
jectionable in  proposing  that  Congress  should  unite  with 
other  nations  to  produce  the  object,  15;  Congress  can 
act  only  in  its  legislative  capacity,  and  can  enter  into  no 
concert  with  foreign  nations,  15;  this  belongs  to  the 
Executive,  15;  leave  the  subject,  therefore,  where  the 
constitution  has  placed  it,  15 ;  this  is  not  one  of  the  cases 
which  would  justify  our  advising  the  Executive,  15;  ob- 
ject of  the  article  in  the  treaty  of  Ghent,  15;  can  the 
President  and  Senate  pledge  the  arms  and  resources  of 
the  country,  in  a  concert  with  foreign  powers,  for  any 
object  whatever?  15;  very  different  significations  of  the 
term  concert,  entertained,  15 ;  what  is  it  but  a  term  of 
common  councils  and  common  efforts?  15;  common  ef- 
forts between  nations  mean  war,  if  war  be  necessary, 
15;  if  negotiations  fail  with  nations  who  assert  the  right 
to  carry  on  the  slave  trade,  war  must  be  resorted  to,  15 ; 
Spain  and  Portugal  would  care  nothing  about  your  ad- 
vice, when  you  told  them  yon  meant  nothing  more,  15 ; 
this  word  concert  means  entangling  alliance,  15. 

This  is  a  subject  co-extensive  with  the  world,  16;  sen- 
timent of  New  England,  16 ;  impossible  to  conceive  why 
any  objection  is  made  to  the  resolution,  16 ;  we  express 
thereby  a  willingness  to  instruct  a  committee  to  exam- 
ine this  subject,  16 ;  the  Senate  may  then  approve  or 
disapprove,  16;  the  resolution  is  founded  in  part  on  the 
treaty  of  Ghent,  16;  the  abolition  of  slavery  was  con- 
templated by  the  framers  of  our  constitution,  16;  its 
object  comports  with  the  dictates  of  reason  and  human- 
ity, 16;  carry  the  great  design  into  effect,  and  yon  place 
those  forlorn  objects  within  the  reach  of  political  and 
moral  instruction,  16;  the  fate  of  Babylon,  IT;  the  ad- 
vantages and  disadvantages  of  alliances,  offensive  and 
defensive,  are  of  weighty  importance,  and  not  involved 
in  the  present  question,  17;  the  concert  intended  by  the 
motion,  IT;  the  bearings  of  the  treaty  of  Ghent,  IT;  this 
business  is  said  to  belong  to  the  President,  bnt  this  ob- 
jection goes  to  restrain  and  limit  what  is  deemed  to  be 
the  constitutional  power  of  the  Senate,  IT;  the  Senate 
are  the  constitutional  and  only  responsible  advisers  of 
the  President  in  all  foreign  matters,  except  the  recep- 
tion of  ambassadors,  18;  the  constitution  is  jealous  of 
the  power  which  shall  manage  foreign  affairs,  18;  to 
make  a  treaty  Includes  all  the  proceedings  by  which  it 
la  made,  IS;  the  power  to  make  a  treaty  considered,  18 ; 

You  VH.— 47 


the  resolution  contains  two  separate  and  distinct  propo- 
sitions—the first  was  the  amendment  of  the  laws  that 
prohibit  the  introduction  of  slaves— the  other  proposes 
to  inquire  into  the  best  manner  of  executing  an  article 
of  the  treaty  of  Ghent.  18 ;  can  the  Senate  act  on  this 
subject?  IS;  unfair  to  presume  the  President  has  neg- 
lected his  duty,  18;  motion  to  strike  ont  the  latter 
clause,  carried,  19 ;  original  motion  as  amended,  passed, 
19. 

Slavery.— Pennsylvania  resolutions  against  in  new  States, 
882 ;  resolutions  of  New  Jersey  relative  to,  in  Missouri, 
presented,  416 ;  resolutions  of  Delaware  relative  to,  in 
new  States,  421 ;  resolutions  of  New  York  relative  to. 
in  new  States,  424;  resolutions  of  Ohio  relative  to  the 
•  extension  of,  484 ;  notice  of  a  bill  relative  to  the  further 
extension  of,  465;  preamble  and  resolutions  relative  to, 
in  the  House,  502 ;  resolutions  on  the  restriction  of,  by 
New  York,  658;  by  Vermont,  6T6. 

Slavery  in  Territories.— In  the  House,  a  resolution 
to  inquire  into  the  expediency  of  prohibiting,  offered. 
468;  if  a  compromise  was  effected  this  subject  should 
be  inquired  into  and  reported  upon,  469;  resolution 
agreed  to,  469  ;  motion  that  the  committee  be  dis- 
charged as  nnable  to  agree,  470;  agreed  to,  470;  reso- 
lution to  appoint  a  committee  to  report  a  bill,  &c.,  470 : 
House  cannot  reach  the  question  except  by  a  bill,  470 ; 
none  doubt  the  constitutionality,  the  only  question  is  one 
of  expediency,  470 ;  note,  470 ;  not  a  fair  way  of  coming 
at  the  question,  470;  further  debate,  470;  postponed, 
471;  offered,  515;  laid  on  the  table,  515,  See  Index, 
vol.  2,  Territories,  and  Index,  voL  8. 

Slavery  in  a  Territory,  Prohibition  of.— See  Territories. 

Slaves  Deported,  article  relative  to  in  the  Ghent  Treaty,  11 ; 


Slates,  fugitive.— In  the  Senate,  bill  in  relation  to, 
considered,  34 ;  amendment  moved  and  carried,  85;  it 
is  said  the  privilege  of  the  writ  of  habeas  corpus  secured 
by  the  ninth  section  of  the  first  article  of  the  constitu- 
tion will  be  infringed  by  this  bill,  85 ;  the  habeas  corpus 
was  never  intended  to  give  a  right  of  trial,  85;  it  would 
give  the  judge  the  sole  power  of  deciding  the  right  of 
property  of  the '  master,  instead  of  trying  that  right  as 
prescribed  by  the  constitution,  85;  kidnappers,  man- 
stealers,  soul-drivers,  is  this  the  language  we  are  to  meet 
when  suing  for  our  constitutional  rights?  85;  the  prac- 
tice of  discrediting  lawyers,  86;  our  northern  brethren 
obtain  the  labor  of  free  blacks  upon  better  terms  than 
masters  do,  86;  with  all  this  boast  about  freedom  only 
four  States  have  no  slaves,  86 ;  whilst  it  was  the  interest 
of  the  northern  States  to  hold  slaves  they  kept  them, 
86;  none  remonstrate  against  the  sin  of  slavery  loader 
than  those  who  have  sold  off  their  stock  of  negroes,  and 
vested  the  price  in  bank  stock,  86 ;  the  States  that 
have  taken  measures  to  abolish  slavery  have  become 
bank-mad,  86;  the  article  in  the  treaty  of  Ghent  worthy 
of  notice,  87 ;  the  colonizing  scheme  will  pave  the  way, 
it  is  said,  to  general  emancipation,  3T;  a  general  eman- 
cipation intended  by  the  northern  and  eastern  States, 
87;  the  misrepresentation  by  catchpenny  prints  and 
pamphlets,  87 ;  the  "  Horrors  of  Slavery  In  two  Parts," 
8T;  its  character,  88;  bat  It  is  said,  slavery  is  a  viola- 
tion of  Divine  Law,  83;  opinions  on  the  subject,  88;  ex- 
tracts from  the  Old  Testament,  89. 

There  are  provisions  in  the  constitution  which  recog- 
nize shivery,  89 ;  the  law  now  in  force,  89 ;  every  pro- 
vision is  here  made  for  the  speedy  recovery  of  fugitive 
slaves,  40 ;  the  provisions  and  details  of  the  present  bill 
are  very  imperfect,  deficient,  and  improper,  40;  the 
character  of  the  oflicors  to  be  employed  to  take  cogni- 
zance of  a  crime  and  aid  in  carrying  into  effect  the  pro- 
visions oft  he  bill,  40 ;  validity  given  to  the  certificate  of 


738 


INDEX. 


a  justice  of  the  peace,  40;  duty  required  of  a  constable, 
41 ;  further  facts  as  they  arise  under  the  bill  examined, 
41 ;  the  laws  of  the  United  States  are  to  be  explained 
and  enforced  only  by  officers  created  by  the  constituted 
authorities  of  the  United  States,  41 ;  the  extent  of  the 
several  powers  and  duties  of  respective  branches  of  the 
Government  are  distinctly  prescribed  by  the  constitu- 
tion, 41 ;  from  what  source  does  the  county  justice  re- 
ceive authority  to  arrest  B  person  under  a  law  of  the 
United  States  ;  42 ;  Congress  has  no  constitutional  pow- 
.  er  to  authorize  an  officer  under  a  State  Government  to 
perform  a  judicial  act,  42;  the  certificate  under  this  bill 
has  the  nature  of  a  warrant,  42 ;  judicial  power  is  also 
exercised  in  determining  on  the  competency  of  the  tes- 
timony, and  the  legality  of  the  duty  performed,  42 ;  it  is 
not  expedient  for  the  United  States  to  call  upon  any  of- 
ficers under  State  Governments  to  perform  any  duty 
under  the  criminal  laws  of  Congress,  42;  motion  to 
postpone  lost,  48 ;  motion  to  strike  out  the  sixth  section 
lost,  43;  other  amendments  offered  and  lost,  48;  bill 
passed,  48. 

In  tfte  House.— A.  bill  relative  to,  considered,  107 ; 
amendment  proposed,  10T ;  substitute  offered  and  adopt- 
ed, imposing  penalties  for  procuring  certificate  or  war- 
rant against  a  person  not  held  to  labor  or  service,  107  ; 
no  reason  for  the  passage  of  the  bill,  107 ;  provisions 
of  the  present  law,  107;  this  bill  if  passed  will  vir- 
tually suspend  the  privileges  of  the  writ  of  habeas  cor- 
pus, 108 ;  the  right  of  Congress  to  impose  duties  on 
State  officers,  108 ;  the  duty  of  delivering  up  the  slave 
is  imposed  on  the  State  to  which  he  escapes,  103 ;  the 
bill  transcends  the  constitutional  provisions  on  the  sub- 
ject, 109 ;  the  present  act  goes  far  enough,  109 ;  freemen 
may  be  apprehended  under  this  bill  without  redress, 
109 ;  the  bill  can  be  moulded  so  as  to  be  unobjection- 
able, 109 ;  motion  to  strike  out  first  section  lost,  and  the 
bill  reported  to  the  House,  109  ;  moved  to  recommit  the 
bill  to  Committee  on  the  Baltimore  memorial,  109  ;  fur- 
ther debate,  109;  motion  lost,  109;  various  amendments 
offered  and  lost,  110;  question  on  engrossing  the  bill 
carried,  110;  the  constitution  in  guaranteeing  slave 
property  to  those  States  holding  it,  did  not  authorize  or 
require  the  General  Government  to  go  as  far  as  this  bill 
proposed,  110 ;  the  bill  contains  no  sufficient  guard  to 
the  safety  of  those  colored  people  who  resided  in  States 
where  slavery  is  unknown,  110 ;  the  constitution  guar- 
antees this  kind  of  property  to  the  Southern  States,  and 
the  proposed  bill  is  necessary  to  secure  this  right,  110 ; 
so  long  as  this  property  is  authorized  there  can  be  no 
doubt  of  the  right  of  the  holder  to  pursue  it  and  take  it 
back,  111;  objected  that  the  bill  makes  it  penal  in  a 
State  officer  to  refuse  his  assistance,  111 ;  objections  fur- 
ther urged,  111 ;  bill  passed,  111 ;  call  for  information 
relative  to  the  act  of  Pennsylvania,  574.  See  Index, 
vol.  5. 

Slaves,  Importation  of.— In  the  House,  petition  for 
remission  of  forfeiture  incurred  by  importation  of  cer- 
tain slaves,  578 ;  opposed,  573 ;  bill  reported,  573;  passed, 
674. 

Slaves,  Indemnity  for.— Report  on,  70 ;  letter  from 
Secretary  of  State  relative  to,  70. 

Slaves,  Migration  of.— In  the  House,  a  resolution  to 
inquire  into  the  expediency  of  prohibiting  in  certain 
cases,  considered,  213 ;  the  right  of  any  man  to  remove 
from  one  State  to  another  with  his  property,  213;  Unit- 
ed States  have  no  right  to  interfere  with  State  laws  on 
the  subject,  218 ;  States  can  better  execute  their  own 
laws,  213 ;  resolution  lost,  213.  See  Missouri. 
Slaves.— Action  of  Indiana,  see  Index,  vol.  4.  Do.,  im- 
portation of,  see  Index,  vols.  1,  8.  Duties  on  Imports. 
Do.,  Petitions,  see  Index,  vols.  1,  8,  4,  5.  Do.,  Trade,  to 


prohibit,  see  Index,  vol.  2.  Do.,  Traffic  In  Vt,e  District 
of  Columbia,  see  Index,  vol.  ?>. 

SLOAN,  Jons,  Representative  from  Ohio,  464. 

SLOCUMB,  JESSE,  Representative  from  North  Carolina,  59, 
200,  464. 

Small  Armed  Vessels. — See  Index,  vol.  5. 

SMITH,  BALLABD,  Representative  from  Virginia,  61,  201,  464. 
— See  Index,  vol.  5. 

SMITH,  BEBNABD,  Representative  from  New  Jersey,  464. 

SMITH,  JAMES  S.,  Representative  from  North  Carolina,  59, 
200,  464 ;  on  printing  the  journal  of  the  Old  Congress, 
498;  Senate's  amendments  to  the  Maine  bill,  555. 

SMITH,  SAMUEL,  Representative  from  Maryland,  59, 200, 464 ; 
on  appointing  a  committee  to  report  a  bill  to  restrict 
slavery,  470;  on  the  Missouri  Compromise,  478;  on  the 
Senate's  amendment  to  the  Maine  bill,  555 ;  on  fugitives 
from  justice  and  service,  109 ;  relative  to  foreign  mer- 
'  chant  seamen,  216;  on  the  admission  of  cadets  at  West 
Point,  221.  See  Index,  vols.  2,  3,  4,  5. 

SMITH,  WILLIAM,  Senator  from  South  Carolina,  3, 179,  374, 
654 ;  on  providing  for  the  officers  and  soldiers  of  the 
Revolution,  20;  on  the  fugitive  slave  bill,  85;  on  its  pas- 
sage, 85;  on  the  petition  of  Matthew  Lyon,  186 ;  on  the 
pension  to  Gen.  Stark,  189 ;  presents  the  memorial  of 
the  Missouri  Legislative  Council,  381 ;  on  the  admission 
of  Maine  separately  from  Missouri,  883 ;  on  the  restric- 
tion of  slavery  in  Missouri,  419;  on  the  admission  of 
Missouri,  659;  on  the  constitution  of  Missouri,  665;  on 
the  bill  for  the  relief  of  Com.  Tucker,  703 ;  makes  a  re- 
port relative  to  the  punishment  of  piracy,  704 ;  on  a 
Committee  of  Conference  relative  to  Missouri,  710.  See 
Index,  vol.  5. 

SMITH,  JOHN,  the  case  of. — See  Index,  vol.  3. 

SMYTH,  ALEXANDER,  Representative  from  Virginia,  59,  200, 
464 ;  on  the  Spanish  American  Provinces,  162 ;  on  the 
report  relative  to  the  Seminole  war,  226 ;  on  the  Semi- 
nole  war,  251 ;  on  restricting  slavery  in  Missouri,  484. 

Soldiers  of  the  devolution. — In  the  Senate,  a  bill  to  pro- 
vide for  certain  officers  and  soldiers  of  the  Revolutionary 
army,  considered,  20;  moved  to  commit  the  bill,  to 
amend  it  and  confine  its  provisions  to  officers  and  sol- 
diers who  served  for  three  years,  &c.,  20;  moved  to 
postpone  indefinitely,  20;  contention  between  Massa- 
chusetts and  Virginia  for  the  first  honors  of  the  Revo- 
lution, 20;  first  honors  due  to  the  men  who  threw  the 
tea  overboard,  20;  the  amendment  inadmissible,  20;  bill 
from  the  House  provides  for  the  soldiers  as  well  as  the 
officers,  20 ;  it  is  said,  the  seamen  and  marines  of  the 
Revolution  are  provided  for,  20 ;  it  is  said,  we  cannot 
provide  for  all,  20;  what  is  the  object  of  this  provision  ? 
20;  if  the  principle  is  correct,  and  the  claim  just,  why 
not  provide  for  both  officers  and  soldiers?  21 ;  it  is  said, 
this  is  a  just  debt,  21;  proceeding  of  the  Old  Congress, 
21;  action  pf  the  Government  on  this  subject  after  the 
adoption  of  the  constitution,  21 ;  the  bill  and  amend- 
ment are  both  objectionable,  because  no  particular  merit 
can  be  ascribed  to  any  particular  portion  of  the  people 
for  services  during  the  war,  21 ;  the  peculiar  character 
of  the  war,  21;  efforts  of  the  people  equal  to  those  of 
the  army,  22 ;  it  is  said  that  we  are  indebted  exclusively 
to  the  Continental  army,  22  ;  they  have  done  no  more 
than  fell  to  the  lot  of  every  American  devoted  to  his 
country,  22 ;  impossible  to  know  the  character  of  that 
war  in  the  South,  unless  one  had  been  there  to  witness 
it,  22;  all  the  Continental  troops  sent  southward  were 
defeated  previous  to  1781,  22 ;  state  of  things  there  dur- 
ing the  war,  23;  the  origin  of  the  force  that  gave  the 
first  check  to  British  arms  in  the  southern  States,  23 ; 
do  those  men  owe  their  independence  to  the  Continental 
army,  for  whom  it  is  now  proposed  to  provide?  28 ;  im- 
portance of  the  militia  service  during  the  war,  28;  who 


INDEX. 


739 


defended  Charleston  in  1775?  28:  the  men  who  fought 
the  battles  of  Guilford  and  Eutaw  Springs,  24;  the  prin- 
ciple of  gratitude  has  been  strongly  pressed,  24 ;  pay 
given  to  the  officer  and  soldier  at  the  close  of  the  war, 
24 ;  all  the  despotisms  of  Europe  have  had  their  foun- 
dation in  a  claim  to  military  merit,  24. 

The  object  of  the  bill  is  to  afford  relief,  by  pecuniary 
assistance,  to  surviving  officers  and  soldiers  of  the  Rev- 
olution, who  are  now  in  indigent  circumstances,  25; 
what  was  our  situation  antecedent  to  the  bold  assertion 
of  our  independence  ?  25;  what  were  the  sacrifices  of 
those  who  fought  our  battles,  and  achieved  the  numer- 
ous blessings  we  enjoy?  25;  are  you  willing  to  see  these 
war-worn  soldiers  hovering  around  the  Capitol  asking 
for  a  pittance  !  26 ;  hardly  proper  to  legislate  on  feeling 
alone,  however  honorable  that  feeling  may  be,  26 ;  it  is 
not  manifest  that  any  discrimination  can  with  propriety 
or  justice  bo  made,  26;  every  whig  in  the  country  had 
as  much  as  he  conld  do  to  maintain  the  independence 
that  Congress  had  declared,  26;  now  no  matter  what 
services  may  have  been  rendered,  unless  they  were  ren- 
dered in  the  regular  army,  the  person  is  not  to  receive 
any  pay,  26;  the  bill  does  not  provide  for  one-half  who 
may  have  equal  merit,  26 ;  the  men  of  Sumter,  Marion, 
Jackson,  26;  the  case  of  Gen.  Clark,  26;  the  character 
of  the  war,  2T;  many  gallant  acts  will  never  be  record- 
ed, and  the  names  of  the  actors  are  almost  forgotten, 
27 ;  it  is  said,  some  of  the  officers  and  soldiers  of  the 
Continental  army  were  poor,  27 ;  this  will  be  the  case 
with  every  class  of  men,  27 ;  to  undertake  to  provide 
for  those  who  will  not  provide  for  themselves  will  be  an 
endless  task,  27 ;  it  has  been  said,  the  officers  of  the  Re  v- 
olutionary  army  would  have  been  severely  punished  if 
the  United  States  had  been  conquered,  28;  doubtful  if 
they  would  have  been  punished  more  severely  than 
others,  23 ;  pensions  at  first  in  all  countries  began  on  a 
small  scale,  and  for  proper  considerations,  and  finally 
are  granted  as  often  for  whim  and  caprica  as  proper 
considerations,  28 ;  the  bill  is  an  entire  departure  from 
any  principle  heretofore  established  in  this  country,  28 ; 
the  decision  of  the  Old  Congress  should  have  great 
weight,  29 ;  what  was  done  by  the  Old  Congress  ?  29 ;  if 
justice  requires  the  bill  to  pass,  neither  the  condition  of 
the  treasury  nor  the  number  to  be  provided  for  should 
have  any  weight,  29. 

A  high  and  solemn  duty  to  make  some  remuneration  to 
these  worthy  and  indigent  men,  80 ;  if  any  class  of  men 
are  meritorious  it  is  these  officers  and  soldiers,  80 ;  it  is 
said,  they  have  no  claim  against  the  Government,  80 ; 
origin  of  the  commutation,  80 ;  the  certificates  were  sold 
to  remorseless  speculators  from  necessity,  30 ;  profits  of 
the  Government,  81 ;  state  of  finances  at  that  time,  31 ; 
objections  to  the  bill  arising  from  the  various  classes  of 
men  who  served  and  suffered  in  the  Revolution,  81 ;  the 
supposed  exorbitancy  of  the  sum  is  the  great  objection, 
82 ;  motion  to  postpone  lost,  82 ;  amendments  ordered  to 
be  engrossed,  and  the  bill  to  be  read  a  third  time,  84. 

In  the  llouae.— Bill  concerning  the  surviving  officers 
and  soldiers  of  the  Revolution,  considered,  68 ;  proba- 
ble number  of  applicants  if  the  bill  should  pass,  68 ;  es- 
timate for  the  Jersey  brigade,  68;  battalions  of  the  ar- 
my how  diminished,  68 ;  amount  necessary  for  a  month- 
ly pension,  68;  qualification  of  indigence  required  by 
the  bill  is  objectionable,  63;  its  incorporation  in  the  bill 
is  degrading  to  the  House,  68;  the  amendment  pro- 
posed would  embrace  every  one  who  shouldered  a  mus- 
ket even  for  an  hour,  63;  is  it  just,  or  politic,  to  discrim- 
inate between  the  Continental  line,  and  tho  State 
troops,  and  the  militia?  69;  object  of  the  bill  to  provide 
for  the  indigent  soldiers  of  the  Revolution,  69 ;  is  grati- 
tude the  feeling  that  prompts  the  bill  ?  69 ;  comparison 


of  the  services  of  the  militia,  69 ;  noble  feelings  require 
the  rejection  of  the  amendment,  69 ;  amendment  re- 
jected, 72 ;  other  amendments  proposed,  72 ;  officers  and 
mariners  of  the  navy  included  in  the  bill  before  com- 
mittee, 72 ;  other  amendments  proposed,  72 ;  bill  passed, 
72.  See  /«<**,  voL  8. 

Smith  Carolina,  vote  for  President  in  1320,  706.  See  In- 
dex, vols.  1,  2,  8,  4,  5. 

SOCTUARD,  HEX  BY,  Representative  from  New  Jersey,  59, 
200,  464 ;  reports  on  Indian  affairs,  106.  See  Indent,  vola. 
2,  8,  4,  5. 

Spain,  message  on  relations  with,  122 ;  message  on  our  re- 
lations with,  453 ;  interposition  of  European  Powers, 
458. 

Spanish  American  Colonies.— In  the  House,  message  at 
1st  session  of  15th  Congress,  60. 

Its  reference  moved,  60;  this  early  attention  caused 
by  cases  that  have  arisen  in  courts,  60 ;  cases  stated, 
60 ;  what  is  the  neutral  obligation  owed  by  one  nation 
to  another  ?  60 ;  if  the  present  law  justifies  the  pro- 
ceedings which  have  taken  place  under  it,  it  should 
be  altered,  60;  other  cases  of  vessels,  61;  the  Spanish 
revolted  colonies,  61. 

Communication  relative  to  the  independence  of  the 
Spanish  American  Provinces  called  for,  61 ;  attention 
of  the  House  and  the  nation  directed  in  a  general 
way,  by  the  message,  to  this  subject,  62 ;  the  in- 
terest and  sympathy  felt  in  the  affairs  of  our  Southern 
neighbors,  62 ;  a  subject  of  regret  that  our  acquaintance 
with  them  is  not  more  particularly  intimate,  62 ;  reso- 
lution modified  so  as  to  call  for  such  information  only  as 
was  proper  to  be  communicated,  62. 

On  the  appropriation  bill,  the  clause  appropriating 
$30,000  for  compensation  to  the  commissioners  sent  to 
South  America,  considered  in  committee,  134 ;  manner 
of  appointment  of  the  commissioners,  134 ;  their  com- 
missions, 134 ;  protest  against  this  kind  of  appropriation 
by  Congress,  134 ;  the  object  of  the  commission  of  very 
little  use,  184;  the  constitutional  point  involved  makes 
the  commission  obnoxious,  185;  these  commissioner* 
should  have  been  nominated  to  the  Senate,  185;  those 
appointments  have  been  made  without  the  authority  of 
the  constitution,  or  of  any  law  recognizing  them,  but  in 
derogation  from  a  positive  act  of  Congress,  185 ;  the 
President  has  authority  to  appoint  in  the  recess  of  the 
Senate,  185 ;  was  it  not  necessary  and  proper  for  the 
Government  to  have  information  of  the  state  of  the 
South  American  Provinces  ?  185 ;  only  two  ways  to  ac- 
quire it — by  newspapers  and  by  agents,  185 ;  no  impro- 
priety in  voting  this  appropriation,  185 ;  the  nature  of 
the  appointment  and  the  object  of  the  mission,  186;  tho 
appointment  of  the  commissioners  was  of  a  kind  to  re- 
quire the  approbation  and  assent  of  the  Senate,  186. 

Moved  to  appropriate  a  year's  salary  and  outfit  to  the 
Provinces  of  Rio  Plata,  186 ;  report  of  the  Secretary  of 
State,  with  certain  documents,  186 ;  no  cause  of  war 
should  be  given  to  any  power,  not  even  to  Spain  herself, 
188;  Spain  had  undoubtedly  given  us  abundant  and  just 
cause  of  war,  189;  contemplating  the  South  American 
struggle,  attention  is  first  fixed  upon  the  immensity  of 
the  country  Spain  seeks  to  subjugate,  139 ;  three  hun- 
dred years  ago,  upon  the  ruins  of  the  thrones  of  the 
Montczumas  and  Incas  of  Pern,  Spain  erected  the  most 
stupendous  system  of  colonial  despotism  the  world  has 
ever  seen,  189 ;  occurrence  of  the  famous  transactions 
of  Bayonne,  140;  if  an  oppressed  people  establishes 
their  freedom,  we  had  a  right,  as  a  sovereign  power  to 
notice  the  fact,  and  act  as  our  interest  might  require, 
140 ;  if  Spanish  America  was  entitled  to  success  from 
the  justness  of  her  cause,  we  had  no  less  reason  to  wish 
that  success  from  the  horrible  character  which  the  royal 


740 


INDEX. 


arms  had  given  to  the  war,  140;  particulars  stated,  141 ; 
the  United  States  have  a  deep  interest  in  tho  establish- 
ment of  the  independence  of  Spanish  America,  1 12;  it 
is  said,  they  are  too  ignorant  and  too  superstitious  to 
admit  ol  a  free  government,  142;  with  regard  to  their 
superstition  they  worship  tKb  same  God  as  wo  do,  143; 
what  course  of  policy  does  it  hecome  us  to  adopt?  143; 
the  case  of  the  United  Provinces,  148;  of  our  own  Rev- 
olution, 143 ;  our  uniform  practice,  143 ;  the  case  of  the 
French  Republic,  144;  If  then  there  be  an  established 
Government  in  Spanish  America,  deserving  to  rank 
among  the  nations,  we  are  morally  and  politically  bound 
to  acknowledge  it,  unless  we  renounce^all  the  principles 
which  ought  to,  and  which  had  hitherto  guided  our 
councils,  144;  are  we  not  bound  upon  our  own 'princi- 
ples to  acknowledge  this  new  Republic  of  the  United 
Provinces?  144;  the  part  of  neutrality  requires  us  to  re- 
ceive their  Minister,  145 ;  we  might  safely  acknowledge 
their  independence  without  danger  of  a  war  with  Spain, 
145. 

If  the  importance  of  the  amendment  was  to  be  esti- 
mated by  the  interest  in  it,  and  the  extraordinary  man- 
ner in  which  it  had  been  presented,  few  subjects  of 
equal  magnitude  had  ever  been  submitted  to  the  Na- 
tional Legislature,  146;  its  character  examined,  146;  the 
amendment  is  advocated  as  a  recognition  of  the  inde- 
pendence of  La  Plata,  147 ;  the  most  powerful  recom- 
mendations of  the  amendment  are  that  it  is  unmeaning 
and  harmless,  143;  the  present  state  of  the  contest  will 
discover  how  far  the  people  of  Spanish  America  had 
improved  in  the  knowledge  of  their  personal  rights,  and 
their  determination  to  maintain  them,  149 ;  sympathy 
for  the  people  of  the  South  was  universally  felt,  but 
when  it  was  made  the  foundation  of  an  attempt  to  pre- 
cipitate the  adoption  of  a  favorite  measure,  it  was  ne- 
cessary to  examine  how  far  it  was  justly  inspired,  150; 
splendid  political  consequences  were  anticipated  from 
the  expected  change,  150 ;  men  do  not  change  their  na- 
ture with  their  government,  151 ;  it  was  desirable  by 
bringing  other  objects  into  view,  to  save  the  committee 
from  the  enthusiasm  of  the  Speaker,  151 ;  we  have  pro- 
claimed a  strict  neutrality;  regulated  our  conduct  by 
the  rule  of  the  national  law,  152;  this  recognition  will 
be  made  at  the  hazard  of  a  war  with  Spain,  152;  was 
there  a  free  Government  in  La  Plata,  for  whose  exist- 
ence we  ought  to  encounter  any  hazard?  152-  fate  of  the 
first  constitution,  153;  what  unanimity,  energy,  and  vir- 
tue shall  we  find  in  La  Plata  ?  153 ;  in  the  armies  of  La 
Plata,  English  and  French  officers  are  employed  with- 
out scruple,  Americans  seldom,  if  ever,  154 

This  proposition  involves  in  its  decision,  the  views  of 
the  House,  in  respect  to  the  [independence  of  La  Plata, 
154 ;  it  is  contended  that  it  is  the  exclusive  right  of  the 
Executive  to  manage  our  foreign  relations,  155 ;  it  is  the 
duty  of  Congress  to  express  its  opinion  freely  upon  all 
questions  which  concern  our  domestic  or  foreign  affairs, 
155 ;  the  fact  of  the  independence  of  the  Government 
of,  La  Plata,  155;  it  is  contended  that  we  have  no  inter- 
est, commercial  or  political,  in  their  independence,  157 ; 
an  appropriation  of  this  kind  would  comport  with  the 
dignity  and  true  policy  of  the  United  States,  158;  the 
spectacle  presented  to  our  view  is  sublime  and  wonder- 
ful, 158 ;  the  civil  dissensions  of  the  Spanish  monarchy 
have  become  the  efforts  of  contending  Governments, 
158 ;  the  recognition,  it  is  said,  will  interfere  with  our 
dispute  with  Spain,  158 ;  in  this  fear  of  giving  offence, 
and  zeal  to  convince  tho  nations  of  Europe  of  the  recti- 
tude of  our  intentions,  are  we  not  bound  to  take  care 
of  the  interests  of  America?  159;  it  is  said,  the  sympa- 
thy is  all  on  our  side,  160;  state  of  the  people,  160;  the 
noble  spirits  who  direct  the  revolution  cannot  be  im- 


plicated in  the  many  bloody  and  revengeful  acta  com- 
mitted, 161;  when  a  contest  becomes  doubtful,  the 
world  at  large  has  a  right  to  consider  the  parties  equal, 
and  decide  between  them,  161 ;  it  !s  said,  it  would  be 
no  benefit  to  the  trade  of  this  country,  161 ; -the  grand 
advantage  would  be  in  systematizing  a  policy  for  Amer- 
ica that  wo  might  bo  disenthralled  from  that  political 
"  plexus  which  has  so  entangled  the  nations  of  Europe. 
162. 

The  measure  proposed  is  an  act  of  usurpation,  an  in- 
vasion of  Executive  authority,  162;  the  President  is 
responsible  for  the  proper  execution  of  his  constitu- 
tional powers,  162 ;  by  adopting  the  proposition,  you 
pronounce  to  the  world  that  the  President  would  not 
do  his  duty,  163 ;  the  President  has  his  agents  in  those 
countries  to  learn  their  situation,  and  it  is  proposed  that 
we  should  prematurely  interfere,  163;  the  conduct  of 
the  Executive,  as  relates  to  Spain  and  her  Provinces, 
has  been  impartial,  honorable,  and  such  as  comports 
with  our  true  interests,  163 ;  his  acts  examined,  164;  the 
measure  proposed  is  pregnant  with  evil,  and  jeopardize* 
the  safety  of  this  country,  165. 

The  nation  should  not  be  involved  in  war  unless  a 
great  and  important  occasion  requires  it,  165 ;  this  meas- 
ure can  be  adopted  under  a  course  of  strict  neutrality, 
166 ;  sufficient  allowance  is  not  made  for  the  situation 
of  these  unhappy  people  for  many  centuries,  166 ;  it  is 
said,  this  proposition  implies  a  censure  on  the  Execu- 
tive, 167 ;  what  is  the  character  of  the  proposition  ?  167 ; 
it  is  thought  to  be  an  interference  with  the  constitution- 
al powers  of  the  Executive,  168;  the  necessity  of  an  in- 
terference at  this  time,  by  expressing  our  opinion,  con- 
sidered, 168;  further  debate,  169;  proposition  decided 
in  the  negative,  169;  proposition  renewed,  170;  lost, 
170. 

SPANGLES,  JACOB,  Representative  from  Pennsylvania,  59. 

Specie  Payments— See  Index,  vol.  5. 

SPEED,  THOMAS,  Representative  from  Kentucky,  59,  200. 

SPENCEB,  JOHN  C.,  Representative  from  New  York,  59,  201 ; 
on  the  case  of  John  Anderson,  90,  99 ;  on  the  admission 
of  Illinois,  202 ;  on  the  Bank  of  the  United  States,  207, 
209 ;  makes  a  report  on  the  United  States  Bank,  227. 

STABK,  GENERAL  JOHN. — In  the  Senate,  a  bill  for  the  relief 
of,  considered,  188 ;  objection  to  a  system  of  pensions, 
when  not  justified  by  disability  incurred  in  the  public 
service,  189 ;  the  same  argument  as  in  this  case  would 
justify  pensions  in  numerous  cases,  189 ;  the  silence  of 
General  Stark  was  his  most  eloquent  appeal,  189 ;  ex- 
traordinary services  of  General  Stark,  189 ;  if  General 
Stark  is  so  near  his  end,  there  is  less  necessity  for  the 
bill,  189;  letters  of  Jefferson  and  Madison  compliment- 
ary of  Stark,  189;  bill  ordered  to  a  third  reading,  189; 
reason  of  the  pension  explained,  213 ;  bill  passed,  214. 

State  Balances.— See  Index,  yoL  2. 

Statistics  of  the  United  States,  report  relative  to  purchiis- 
ing  certain  works  on,  56. 

ST.  CLAIE,  GENBEAL.— In  the  House,  a  bill  for  the  relief  of, 
considered,  112;  tho  integrity  of  the  petitioner  has  been 
questioned,  and  his  account  denounced  as  inaccurate, 
112;  the  claim  of  General  St.  Clair,  112;  the  acts  of 
limitation  considered,  113 ;  action  of  former  Congress- 
es, 118 ;  committee  rose,  114 

St.  Domingo.— See  Index,  vol.  a 

STEVENS,  JAMES,  Representative  from  Connecticut,  463. 

STEVENSON,  AECHEE,  Representative  from  Maryland,  464 

STEWART,  JAMES,  Representative  from  North  Carolina,  107. 
200. 

STOCKTON,  R.,  votes  for,  as  Vice  President  in  1820,  706. 

STOKES,  MONTFOET,  Senator  from  North  Carolina,  7, 184, 379, 
696.  See  Index,  voL  5, 

STOKEB,  CLEMENT,  Senator  from  New  Hampshire,  8, 188. 


INDEX. 


741 


STORKS,  HENRY  K.,  Representative  from  New  York,  69,  300, 
464;  on  fugitives  from  justice  and  service,  111;  on  the 
Seminole  war,  262  ;  on  the  admission  of  Maine,  478, 
475 ;  moves  amendments  to  the  bill  for  the  admission  of 
Maine,  475;  moves  the  Missouri  Compromise,  477 ;  on 
printing  the  Secret  Journal  of  the  Old  Congress,  495 ;  on 
the  Senate's  amendments  to  the  Maine  bill,  554 ;  moves 
an  amendment  to  the  Missouri  bill,  560,  562. 

STREET,  RANDALL  A.,  Representative  from  Now  York,  4Ci. 

STRONG,  JAMES,  Representative  from  New  York,  464 

STRONG,  SOLOMON,  Representative  from  Massachusetts,  58, 
228;  on  fugitives  from  justice  and  service,  109. 

STRONG,  WILLIAM,  Representative  from  Vermont,  464. 

STROTHER,  GEORGE  F.,  Representative  from  Virginia,  69, 
207,  464;  on  providing  for  Revolutionary  soldiers,  69; 
on  the  admission  of  cadets  at  West  Point,  221 ;  on  the 
resolutions  relative  to  the  slave  trade,  225 ;  on  the  re- 
port relative  to  the  Seminole  war,  226 ;  on  the  Govern- 
ment of  Florida,  228 ;  on  the  Seminole  war,  279 ;  on  a 
compromise  line  on  slavery,  867 ;  moves  to  publish  the 
Journal  of  the  Old  Congress,  492 ;  remarks,  493 ;  on  the 
Senate's  amendments  to  the  Maine  bill,  553 ;  on  publish- 
ing the  Secret  Jonmal  of  the  Old  Congress,  571. 

STUART,  PHILIP,  Representative  from  Maryland,  59,  200. 
See  Index,  vols.  4,  5. 

Suability  of  States.— See  Index,  vol.  2. 

Sufferers  in  War.— In  the  House,  motion  relative  to  con- 
tinuing the  pensions  to  the  widows  and  orphans  of  offi- 
cers and  soldiers  of  the  late  war,  considered,  66 ;  many 
of  them  about  to  expire,  66;  case  of  the  widow  of  Brig- 
adier-General Pike,  66 ;  cases  of  others,  67 ;  motion  to 
inquire,  carried,  67. 

Sugar.— See  Index.,  vol.  5,  Duties  on  Import*. 

Sunday  Mail*.— See  Index,  voL  5. 


TAIT,  CHARLES,  Senator  from  Georgia,  3,  188.  See  Indent, 
vols.  4,  5. 

TALBOT,  ISHAM,  Senator  from  Kentucky,  7, 184,  658 ;  against 
incorporating  a  National  Vaccine  Institution,  697.  See 
Index,  vol.  5. 

TALLMADGE,  JAMES,  Jr.,  Representative  from  New  York,  59, 
200;  on  slavery  in  Illinois,  204,  206;  on  the  claim  of 
Beaumarchais,  214 ;  on  the  Seminole  war,  259 ;  moves 
to  limit  the  existence  of  slavery  in  Missouri,  888 ;  on 
the  prohibition  of  slavery  in  Missouri,  850. 

Tariff,  revision  of.— See  Duties  on  Imports, 

TABR,  CHRISTIAN,  Representative  from  Pennsylvania,  59, 
200,  464 

Taxes,  direct.— In  the  House,  a  bill  to  repeal,  considered, 
64 ;  expectation  of  total  repeal,  such  as  to  render  any 
modification  impossible,  64 ;  matter  of  rejoicing  that  the 
taxes  were  to  bo  repealed,  64 ;  no  necessity  for  internal 
duties  has  existed  for  more  than  a  year  past,  65 ;  bill  or- 
dered to  bo  engrossed,  65.  See  Index,  vola.  2,  5;  do. 
War,  See  Index,  vol.  4. 

TAYLOR,  JOHN  W.,  Representative  from  Now  York,  59,  200, 
464  See  Index,  vol.  6, 

TAYLOR,  WALLER,  Senator  from  Indiana,  8,  179,  874,654; 
reports  on  the  Ohio  contested  election,  78 ;  reports  on 
the  case  of  George  Mumford,  114 ;  on  the  admission  of 
cadets  at  West  Point,  221 ;  on  the  Missouri  State  Gov- 
ernment, 834 ;  on  the  prohibition  of  slavery  In  Arkan- 
sas Territory,  857 ;  moves  to  fix  a  line  for  the  limitation 
of  slavery,  866;  on  appointing  a  committee  relative  to 
the  prohibition  of  slavery  in  the  Territories,  468 ;  on  the 
bill  for  the  Missouri  Convention,  469;  moves  to  dis- 
charge the  committee  on  the  prohibition  of  slavery,  469 ; 
moves  to  appoint,  a  committee  to  report  a  bill  prohibit- 


ing slavery,  470 ;  moves  to  postpone  the  bill  to  authorize 
a  State  Constitution  to  be  formed  for  Missouri,  476 ; 
moves  to  restrict  slavery  in  Missouri,  479 ;  moves  that 
the  House  insist  on  its  disagreement  to  the  Senate's 
amendments  to  the  Maine  bill,  560 ;  offers  an  amend- 
ment to  the  Missouri  bill,  561 ;  opposes  wearing  crape  in 
respect  for  Commodore  Decatur,  672.  See  Index, 
vol.  6. 

Tennessee,  vote  for  President  in  1820, 708.  See  Index,  vola. 
1,  2,  8,  4,  0. 

Tennessee,  admission  of.— See  Index,  vol.  1. 

Territorial  Governments.— See  Index,  voL  4. 

Territories. — In  the  House,  a  resolution  to  inquire  into  the 
expediency  of  organizing  the  Territory  of  Arkansas, 
considered,  222 ;  object  of  the  resolution,  222 ;  necessity 
of  the  organization,  222. 

Bill  considered,  856 ;  note,  856 ;  moved  to  amend  by 
inserting  a  clause  to  prohibit  slavery  in  the  Territory, 
356 ;  should  not  one  small  portion  of  our  country  be 
left  open  to  the  free  labor  of  the  North  ?  857 ;  it  is  asked 
why  the  people  of  the  South  are  to  be  proscribed,  857 ; 
amendment  both  reasonable  and  necessary,  857 ;  we  arc 
charged  with  being  under  the  influence  of  negrophobia, 
857 ;  it  ia  asked  if  we  wish  to  coop  up  our  brethren  in 
the  slaveholding  States,  353 ;  we  are  charged  with  fight- 
ing behind  a  masked  battery,  858 ;  author  of  the  ordi- 
nance of  1787,  358. 

This  amendment  completely  shuts  out  the  people  of 
the  Southern  States  from  the  Territory  west  of  the  Mis- 
sissippi, 859 ;  we-have  no  legitimate  power  to  legislate  on 
the  property  of  the  citizens  only  to  levy  taxes,  859 ;  it 
takes  away  from  the  people  of  the  Territory  the  natural 
and  constitutional  right  of  legislating  for  themselves, 
859;  the  discussion  of  this  subject  regretted,  359;  tha 
question  has  been  treated  as  one  of  liberty  and  slavery, 
859 ;  the  fixing  a  line  a  favorite  policy,  859 ;  note,  359 ; 
the  question  now  before  the  committee,  860 ;  the  restric- 
tions now  proposed,  860;  proceed  from  humane  and 
philanthropic  motives,  860;  no  more  right  to  provide 
for  the  liberation  of  slaves  than  to  invade  any  other 
species  of  property,  360 ;  could  it  be  pretended  that  tho 
Legislature  of  Delaware  had  a  right  to  declare  all  slaves 
free  within  their  limits  ?  860 ;  Congress  has  no  power  to 
impose  any  condition  upon  the  admission  of  a  State  im- 
pairing its  sovereignty,  861 ;  not  at  liberty,  as  respects 
this  Territory,  to  consult  our  power  if  we  possessed  it, 
862;  we  cannot  attach  too  much  importance  to  tho 
treaty,  and  the  rights  secured  by  it,  362 ;  the  principles 
and  our  own  solemn  compact  prevent  ns  from  impos- 
ing this  restriction,  862 ;  condition  of  the  slaves  im- 
proved by  dispersion  over  a  wider  field,  863;  if  we  had 
the  right,  the  restriction  would  be  useless  and  unavail- 
ing, 863;  amendment  lost,  363;  amendment  that  all 
children  born  of  slaves  shall  be  free,  carried,  864;  bill 
laid  on  the  table,  865 ;  motion  to  recommit  the  bill  to 
•  btriko  ont  tho  last  amendment,  865 ;  carried,  365 ;  amend- 
ment struck  out,  865 ;  moved  to  prohibit  the  introduc- 
tion of  slaves  into  tho  Territory,  866 ;  lost,  866 ;  moved 
that  slavery  shall  not  be  introduced  north  of  86°  SO', 
866;  note,  866;  debated,  867;  amendment  withdrawn, 
867 ;  bill  ordered  to  the  third  reading,  867 ;  note,  867 ; 
See  Index,  vols.  1,  2, 8, 4 

Territory  north  and  icest  of  Missouri,  bill  to  prohibit  sla 

very  in,  reported,  405. 
TERRELL,  WILLIAM,  Representative  from  Georgia,  69,  200, 

464 

TERRY,  NATHANIEL,  Representative  from  Connecticut,  58, 
200;  on  the  arrest  of  John  Anderson,  84,  89 ;  on  the  bill 
for  tho  benefit  of  tho  Connecticut  Asylum,  869. 
THOMAS,  JESSE  B.,  Senator  from  Illinois,  184,  874,  654;  re- 
ports a  bill  to  prohibit  slavery  in  Territories  north  and 


742 


INDEX. 


west  of  Missouri,  397;  proposes  a  compromise  of  the 
slavery  question,  485. 

TICHENOR,  ISAAC,  Senator  from  Vermont,  8,  179,  874,  654. 
See  Index,  vol.  5. 

Title  of  President.— See  Index,  rol.  1. 

TOMLIKSON,  GIDEON,  Representative  from  Connecticut,  463. 
'  TOMPKINS,  CALEB,  Representative  from  New  York,  59,  202, 
464. 

TOMPKISS,  DAXIEL  D.,  presides  as  Vice  President  in  the 
Senate,  84;  do.  190;  do.  880;  votes  for  as  Vice  Presi- 
dent in  18JO,  106.  See  Indeas,  voL  6. 

Torpedo  Experiments.— See  Index,  voL  4. 

TOWNSEND,  GEOBGE,  Representative  from  New  York,  59, 
200.  See  Indent,  vol.  5. 

TBACY,  ALBERT  H.,  Representative  from  New  York,  464. 

Treason,  punishment  of. — See  Index,  vol.  5. 

Treason  and  Sedition  defined.— See  Index,  voL  2.  ' 

Treasury  Notes. — See  Index,  vol.  5. 

Treasury,  report  and  estimates  for  1819,  203 ;  report  of  Sec- 
retary of,  465;  Department,  bill  for  the  better  organi- 
zation of,  652.  See  Index,  vol.  1. 

Treaty  with  Spain.— In  the  House,  message  from  the 
President,  573 ;  resolution  relative  to  the  alienation  of 
territory  of  the  United  States,  considered,  574 ;  in  re- 
spect to  the  foreign  action  of  the  Government  there 
should  be  a  perfect  coincidence  of  opinion  in  the  co- 
ordinate branches,  575;  two  systems  of  policy,  of  which 
our  Government  has  had  the  choice,  575 ;  the  first  has 
BO  far  failed,  575 ;  reasons  assigned  by  the  President  for 
postponement  of  the  bill  of  the  Committee  on  Foreign 
Relations,  575 ;  our  course  of  policy  recommended  to  be 
abandoned  upon  the  avowed  ground  of  the  interposition 
of  foreign  powers,  575;  what  is  the  nature  of  this  inter- 
position ?  575 ;  the  allowance  of  interference  by  foreign 
powers  in  the  affairs  of  our  Government,  not  pertain- 
ing to  themselves,  is  against  the  counsels  of  our  -wisest 
politicians,  576;  the  present  distressed  condition  of 
Spain  is  recommended  as  another  ground  for  forbear- 
ance, 576 ;  what  is  the  actual  posture  of  our  relations 
with  Spain  ?  577 ;  object  of  the  first  resolution,  577 ;  the 
treaty-making  power,  577;  the  House  has  uniformly 
maintained  its  right  to  deliberate  upon  those  treaties  in 
which  their  co-operation  was  asked  by  the  Executive, 
578 ;  supposing  that  no  treaty  which  undertakes  to  dis- 
pose of  the  territory  of  the  United  States  is  valid  with- 
out the  concurrence  of  Congress,  it  may  be  contended 
that  such  treaty  may  constitutionally  fix  the  limits  of 
the  territories  of  the  United  States  where  they  are  dis- 
puted, without  the  co-operation  of  Congress,  578 ;  the 
equivalent  granted  by  Spain  to  the  United  States  for 
the  province  of  Texas,  was  inadequate,  578;  our  claim 
to  Texas,  578 ;  Texas  is  represented  to  be  extremely 
valuable,  579 ;  we  do  not  want  any  one  else  to  possess 
Florida,  579 ;  the  consideration  given  for  Florida,  580 ; 
it  is  inexpedient  to  cede  Texas  to  any  foreign  power, 
580 ;  it  is  inexpedient  to  renew  the  treaty,  580. 

The  cause  of  the  message,  581 ;  the  only  ground  on 
which  a  delay  of  coercive  measures  was  recommended, 
was,  that  there  was  reason  to  believe  that  the  object  of 
the  United  States  might  be  attained  without  resorting 
to  them,  581 ;  no  possible  benefit  can  arise  from  a  dis- 
cussion of  the  resolutions  of  the  treaty-making  power, 
582 ;  a  resulting  power  which  does  not  belong  to  the 
treaty-making  power,  582 ;  the  discussion  of  1795,  682 ; 
not  sufficient  time  to  discuss  the  first  resolution,  682 ;  no 
discussion  of  the  second  resolution  can  take  place  with- 
out endangering  the  important  interests  of  the  country, 
583 ;  inconvenience  of  a  public  discussion  here  of  what 
in  amicable  negotiation  we  mean  to  insist  on,  and  what 
we  mean  to  give  up,  588 ;  second  resolve  contrary  to  the 
spirit  of  the  constitution,  584 ;  unnecessary  to  enter 


upon  the  general  questions  of  policy  growing  out  of  the 
resolution,  584;  what  motive  can  Spain  have  for  de- 
siring Texas,  if  her  connections  with  Mexien  are  tiiv 
uolved?  584;  the  place  which  the  subject  of  the 
relations  had  occupied  in  public  attention,  and  the  uni- 
versal expectation  that  some  measure  expressive  of  the 
sense  of  Congress  would,  before  tkis  period.  ],a\<-  IP. -en 
adopted,  585;  the  question  relates  to  the  propriety  of 
the  transfer  of  the  common  territorial  property  of  the 
Union  to  the  exclusive  benefit  of  the  population  of  one 
portion  of  it,  685;  in  contemplating  this  question,  the 
attention  could  not  fail  to  be  attracted  to  the  extrav- 
agance of  the  pretensions  of  the  treaty-making  power, 
585 ;  further  evidence  to  be  found  in  the  discrepancy 
which  the  power  in  the  extension  claimed  for  it  pre- 
sented to  the  character  of  the  general  grant  of  power 
contained  in  the  constitution,  586 ;  the  power  of  the 
President  and  Senate  to  alienate  territory  might  per- 
haps be  inferred,  as  a  consequence  of  their  power  to  ac- 
quire it,  586 ;  where  is  the  ground  of  distinction  to  be 
found  between  the  subjects  over  which  the  treaty -mak- 
ing power  has  exclusive  control  ?  587 ;  the 
propositions  asserted  in  the  resolutions,  588 ;  importance 
of  Florida  in  a  military  and  political  point  of  view  not 
sufficient  to  render  its  acquisition  for  a  disproportionate 
equivalent  a  matter  of  solicitude  on  our  part,  588 ;  was 
Texas  of  no  consideration  in  this  view  ?  589 ;  the  friends 
of  the  treaty  have  sought  occasion  to  proclaim  its 
merits,  589 ;  our  relations  with  Spain  require  the  dis- 
play of  some  energy,  589 ;  the  ratification  was  pressed 
upon  Spain  with  more  zeal  than  judgment,  589 ;  the 
Louisiana  treaty  amalgamated  the  inhabitants  of  that 
country  with  the  people  of  the  United  States,  590 ;  where 
does  the  treaty-making  power  find  authority  to  expunge 
the  claims  of  our  citizens  ?  590  ;  ought  this  nation  to  ac- 
cept the  limits  created  by  the  treaty,  and  surrender 
Texas,  591 ;  the  boundary  is  the  main  question,^! ;  this 
is  a  treaty  of  Limits,  591 ;  what  ought  to  be  the  con- 
fines of  our  Union  ?  591 ;'  points  of  inquiry  of  first  mag- 
nitude, 591 ;  further  debate,  592,  593 ;  the  acquisition  of 
Florida,  it  was  thought,  was  emin«ntly  desirable,  594 ; 
during  the  long  and  tedious  negotiations  preceding  the 
treaty  of  1819,  this  general  belief  had  been  cherished 
and  augmented,  594 ;  unfortunate  that  gentlemen  should 
depreciate  what  we  had  gotten,  594 ;  no  difliculty  on  th« 
subject  of  our  power  to  interfere  in  the  way  proposed, 
595 ;  the  course  of  this  negotiation  has  gained  us  honor 
in  the  eyes  of  the  world,  595 ;  if  we  pass  these  resolu- 
tions, we  suddenly  relinquish  this  high  ground,  and  as- 
sume the  station  of  our  adversary,  595;  nothing  which 
calls  on  us  for  interference,  596 ;  the  resolution  contains 
a  denial  of  the  right  of  the  treaty-making  power  to  de- 
clare the  Sabine  as  the  western  limit  of  Louisiana,  596 ; 
questions  involved,  596 ;  further  debate,  597 ;  message 
announcing  the  ratification  of  the  treaty,  710;  bill  to 
authorize  the  President  to  take  possession,  711;  note, 
711. 

Treaty-making  Power— See  Index,  vols.  1,  5. 

TBIMBLE,  DAVID,  Representative  from-  Kentucky,  59,  200, 
464 ;  on  the  case  of  R.  W.  Meade,  174 ;  on  the  Spanish 
Treaty,  589. 

TBIMBLE,  WILLIAM  A.,  Senator  from  Ohio,  374,  654;  oflfcrs 
amendments  to  the  Missouri  Compromise,  451,  453 ;  on 
the  admission  of  Missouri,  696. 

TBOTJP,  GEORGE  M.,  Senator  from  Georgia,  7 ;  on  the  African 
slave  trade,  11-15.  See  Index,  vols.  4,  5. 

TUCKEB,  COMMODOBE.— In  the  Senate,  a  bill  to  grant  a  pen- 
sion to,  considered,  703 ;  already  provision  made  for  the 
case,  703 ;  on  the  footing  of  the  case  of  General  Stark, 
703;  further  debate,  703;  bill  passed,  704, 

TUCKER,  HENBY  ST.  GEOBGB,  Representative  from  Virginia, 


INDEX. 


743 


59,  200,  464;  on  the  case  of  John  Anderson,  85,  95  ;  on 
the  Spanish  American  Provinces,  165;  on  the  restriction 
of  slavery  in  Mi.»souri,  559.  See  Index,  vol.  5. 

TCCKER,  STEIILISG,  Representative  from  South  Carolina,  59, 
200,  464. 

Two-thirds  rote.— See  Index,  vol.  8. 

TYLER,  JOHN,  Representative  from  Virginia,  59,  207,  464;  on 
the  Seminole  war,  801 ;  on  restricting  slavery  in  Mis- 
souri, 549;  on  a  revision  of  the  Tariff,  616. 


Union,  dissolution  of—See  Index,  vol.  4. 
Unsettled.  Balance*. — See  Index,  vol.  5. 
UPHAM,  NATHANIEL.  Representative  from  New  Hampshire, 
58,  200,  468. 


VAN  DYKE,  NICHOLAS,  Senator  from  Delaware,  11, 188,  874, 
654 ;  on  the  restriction  of  slavery  In  Missouri,  421 ;  on 
the  admission  of  Missouri,  706 ;  on  the  Missouri  Consti- 
tution, 708. 

VAX  RENSSELAER,  SOLOMON,  Representative  from  New 
York,  464. 

VAN  SWEARINGEN,  THOMAS,  Representative  from  Virginia, 
464.  . 

Vermont,  resolutions  relative  to  the  restriction  of,  676 ;  vote 
for  President  in  1820,  706.  See  Index,  vols.  1,  2,  8, 4,  5. 

Vessels  Registering  and  Clearing. — See  Index,  voL  1. 

Vice  and  Rear  Admirals.— See  Index,  voL  5. 

VIENNE,  MARQUIS  DR,  petition  of,  218. 

Virginia,  Military  Lands,  debate  on,  702. 

Virginia  Military  Land  Claim.— See  Index,  vols.  4,  5. 

Virginia,  vote  for  President  in  1820,  706.  See  Index,  vols. 
1.  2,  8,  4,  5. 

VoU  of  Approbation.— See  Index,  voL  4 


WALKEE,  DAVID,  Representative  from  Kentucky,  59,  200, 
464;  on  the  Seminole  war,  818. 

WALKER,  FELIX,  Representative  from  North  Carolina,  59, 
200,  464 ;  on  the  Seminole  war,  283  ;  on  the  prohibition 
of  slavery  in  Arkansas  Territory,  858. 

WALKER,  FREEMAN,  Senator  from  Georgia,  879,  658  ;  on  the 
restriction  of  slavery  in  Missouri,  897 ;  offers  amend- 
ment to  the  bill  for  the  sale  of  the  public  lands,  454;  on 
the  Missouri  Constitution,  707. 

WALKJSR,  JOHN  W.,  Senator  from  Alabama,  879,  654 ;  on  the 
Missouri  Constitution,  708. 

WALLACE,  JAMES  M.,  Representative  from  Pennsylvania, 
59,200,464.  See  Index,  voL  5. 

War,  declaration  of,  against  Great  Britain.— See  Index, 
voL4 

Far,  conduct  of  the.— See  Index,  vol.  5. 

WABFIKLD,  HENRY  R.,  Representative  from  Maryland,  464; 
on  printing  the  Secret  Journal  oi  the  Old  Congress,  497 ; 
moves  a  vote  of  thanks  to  the  Speaker,  652. 

Washington  Monument,  bill  to  erect,  considered,  190 ;  de- 
bate in  the  Senate,  194. 

In  the  Home.— Resolutions  relative  to  obtaining  the 
1"  »ty  of  Washington,  and  erecting  over  it  a  mausoleum, 
597;  general  remarks,  598;  enlightened  nations  of  an- 
tiquity considered  it  a  duty  not  only  to  commemorate 
the  virtuous  deeds,  but  to  perpetuate  to  their  posterity 
the  very  form  and  appearance  of  their  dead,  598 ;  do  we 
fear  the  amount  of  the  expenditure  ?  598 ;  then  authorize 
a  national  subscription,  599 ;  was  not  the  liberty  of  this 
country  acquired  as  much  by  his  skill  as  by  the  force  of 


numbers?  599;  further  remarks,  600;  House  refuse  to 
consider,  601.    See  Index,  vols.  5, 
Washington  City,  capture  of.— See  Index,  vol.  5. 

WENDOVER,  PETER  II.,  Representative  from  New  York,  59, 
.202,  464;  on,  an  alteration  of  the  national  flag,  67;  re- 
ports on  the  alteration  of  the  flag  of  the  United  States, 
81, 182.  See  Index,  vol.  5. 

WESTERLO,  RENSSELAER,  Representative  from  New  York, 

59,200. 

West  Point  Cadets.— In  the  House,  a  bill  to  regulate  the  ad- 
mission of,  considered,  221 ;  moved  to  strike  out  the 
provision  to  select  "those  least  able  to  educate  them- 
selves," 221;  no  reason  for  its  insertion,  221;  In  con- 
formity with  the  object  of  the  institution,  221 ;  effect  is 
certainly  to  create  a  privileged  order  in  the  country, 
221 ;  bill  reported  to  the  House  laid  on  the  table,  221. 

WHITE,  WILLIAM,  message  relative  to,  468. 

WHITJSSIDE,  JOHN,  Representative  from  Pennsylvania,  200. 
See  Index,  vol.  5. 

WHITMAN,  EZEKIEL,  Representative  from  Massachusetts,  58, 
200, 4C3;  on  fugitives  from  justice  and  service,  111 ;  rel- 
ative to  foreign  merchant  seamen,  218;  on  the  admis- 
sion of  Maine,  478 ;  on  the  Senate's  amendments  to  the 
Maine  bill,  554;  on  a  revision  of  the  Tariff,  62C. 

Whitney's  Patent  RigM.—See  Index,  vol.  4 

Widows  and  Orphans,  pensions  to.— In  the  House,  a  bill  to 
allow  half-pay  for  five  years  to  widows  and  orphans  in 
certain  cases,  considered,  218;  humanity  and  justice  to 
the  objects  to  be  relieved  require  it,  218 ;  Government 
has  already  gone  far  enough,  218 ;  two  kinds  of  suffering 
in  the  public  service  are  recognized  by  our  laws  giving  a 
claim  to  the  public  bounty,  219 ;  the  case  illustrated, 
219 ;  pass  this  law,  and  you  take  from  the  citizen  in  the 
field,  in  the  service  of  his  country,  every  motive  that 
might  prevent  him  from  doing  his  duty,  220 ;  injustice 
and  inequality  of  existing  laws  relative  to  pensions,  220 ; 
practice  of  the  Athenians,  220;  bill  ordered  to  a  third 
reading,  221. 

WILKIN,  JAMES  W.,  Representative  from  New  York,  59, 
200.  See  Index,  voL  5. 

WILKINSON,  GENERAL,  conduct  of.— See  Index,  vol.  8. 

WILLIAMS,  ISAAC,  Representative  from  New  York,  59,  200. 
See  Index,  voL  5. 

WILLIAMS,  JARED,  Representative  from  Virginia,  464. 

WILLIAMS,  JOHN,  Senator  from  Tennessee,  8, 179, 874,  654 
See  Index,  vol.  5. 

WILLIAMS,  Louis,  Representative,  from  North  Carolina,  59, 
200,  464 ;  on  the  repeal  of  internal  duties,  64  ;  presents 
a  case  of  contempt,  82 ;  his  statement,  88.  See  Index, 
vol.5. 

WILLIAMS,  THOMAS  II.,  Senator  from  Mississippi,  7, 179,  874, 
654 

WILLIAMS,  THOMAS  S.,  Representative  from  Connecticut,  58, 
200. 

WILSON,  JAMES  J.,  Senator  from  New  Jersey,  8,  179,  874, 
654 ;  on  the  illegal  transportation  of  slaves,  189 ;  offers 
an  amendment  to  the  proviso  relative  to  the  constitution 
of  Missouri,  662.  See  Index,  vol.  5. 

WILSON,  JOHN,  Representative  from  Massachusetts,  107,201. 
See  Index,  vol.  5. 

WILSON,  WILLIAM,  Representative  from  Pennsylvania,  59, 
200.  See  Index,  voL  5. 

Witnesses,  payment  of,  In  impeachment  cases.    See  Index, 

voLa 

WOOD,  SILAS,  Representative  from  New  York,  464 
WOODBBIDOE,  WILLIAM  W.,  Delegate  from  Michigan,  465. 


Yaeoo  Claim  f. — See  Index,  vol.  5. 


744 


INDEX. 


Yeas  and  Nays. — In  the  Senate,  on  the  resolution  relative 
to  the  African  slave  trade,  19 ;  an  act  to  provide  for  the 
officers  and  soldiers  of  the  Revolution,  84 ;  on  motion  to 
postpone  indefinitely  the  act  to  provide  for  officers  and 
soldiers  of  the  Revolution,  84 ;  on  amendments  to  the 
bill  relative  to  fugitive  slaves,  85  ;  to  postpone  the  bill, 
43 ;  on  the  bill  relative  to  the  West  India  trade,  65;  on 
petition  of  Matthew  Lyon,  188 ;  on  the  pension  to  Gen- 
eral Stark,  189;  relative  to  recommitting  the  bill  re- 
^IH-cting  the  erection  of  a  monument  to  Washington, 
190 ;  on  the  erection  of  a  statue  to  Washington,  195 ; 
relative  to  the  committee  on  the  Seminole  War,  195 ;  on 
the  Missouri  State  bill,  19S;  on  the  Arkansas  Territory 
bill,  199 ;  on  the  separation  of  Maine  and  Missouri  on 
admission  into  the  Union,  8S8 ;  on  the  restriction  of  sla- 
very in  Missouri,  484 ;  on  receding  from  amendments  to 
the  bill  for  the  admission  of  Missouri,  452 ;  do.  on  the 
bill  for  the  admission  of  Maine,  452 ;  on  the  motion  to 
strike  out  the  restriction  in  the  Missouri  bill,  453 ;  on  an 
amendment  to  the  bill  for  the  sale  of  the  Public  Lands, 
455,  457,  458 ;  on  postponement  of  the  bill  to  authorize  a 
State  Constitution  to  be  formed  for  Missouri,  477 ;  on 
uniting  the  bills  for  the  admission  of  Maine  and  Missou- 
ri, 450 ;  on  the  Compromise  and  amendments,  451 ;  on 
the  proviso  relative  to  the  constitution  of  Missouri,  662 ; 
relative  to  the  resolution  for  the  admission  of  Missouri, 
895;  on  postponing  the  resolutions  relative  to  the  Sedi- 
tion Law,  and  the  case  of  Matthew  Lyon,  702;  relative 


to  amendment  of  the  Missouri  Constitution  respecting 
citizenship  of  free  colored  persons,  709,  710 ;  on  a  Com- 
mittee of  Conference  relative  to  Missouri,  710;  on  the 
admission  of  Missouri,  711. 

In  the,  HovM.—On  third  reading  of  bill  relating  to  fu- 
gitives from  justice  and  service,  110,  111 ;  on  striking  out 
first  section  of  the  expatriation  bill,  119 ;  on  resolutions 
relative  to  Internal  Improvements,  121, 122 ;  on  the  Ohio 
contested  election,  181 ;  on  the  outfit  for  a  Minister  to 
the  Spanish  American  Provinces,  170 ;  on  the  bill  respect- 
Ing  fugitives  from  service,  177;  on  the  admission  of 
Illinois,  207;  on  the  seizure  of  the  Spanish  post  in 
Florida,  833 ;  on  the  prohibition  of  slavery  in  Missouri, 
856;  relative  to  the  prohibition  of  slavery  in  Arkansas, 
864,  865 ;  on  the  issue  of  a  sdrejaeia«  against  the  Bank 
of  the  United  States,  368;  on  the  indefinite  postpone- 
ment of  the  Missouri  State  Government  bill,  870 ;  on 
concurrence  with  the  Senate  in  striking  out  the  restric- 
tion of  slavery  in  the  Missouri  State  Government  bill, 
870 ;  on  the  adherence  of  the  House,  872  ;  on  a  new  land 
office  in  Illinois,  872;  on  disagreeing  to  the  Senate's 
amendments  to  the  Maine  bill,  557 ;  on  insisting  on  dis- 
agreement to  Senate's  amendments  to  the  Maine  bill,  560, 
561 ;  on  the  restrictive  amendment  to  the  Missouri  bill, 
564 ;  on  ordering  the  bill  to  be  engrossed,  565 ;  on  con- 
curring in  the  Senate's  amendments  to  the  Missouri  bill, 
570 ;  on  a  reduced  price  and  cash  sale  of  the  Public 
land.«,  601 ;  on  the  Tariff  bill,  651. 


END  OF  VOL.  YI. 


ft? 


' 


V* 


5    3 


I  * 


\a 


S  i 


1  s 


QQ 

i    3 

5?         ^ 


*VIE-UNIVER% 

rK        t^ 

£        5 


^E-UBRARYQf         -^ 

I 


^\\\E-UNIVER%        ^-IOS  ANGELA 


S     3 


^OJi 


t    s 

°  I 


^* 


I  § 


i  I 


1 1 


^HONYSOV^       ^ 


II 


a    I 

S     i 


JJtfUNIVfBftj. 


s   § 

l! 


S  g 

^     15. 


^        * 


£        s 
«        S 


i  i 


t  # 

s      I 
a       i 


-    3 


i  ?r= 

I  §v 

?  \u 


9    ! 

c""> 

i  i,_~ 


I  I 

* 


. 


g    * 
^     v 

fc 


s  § 

g  > 


A\^E-UNIVER%        ^-105 

^  is 

i  iG 


so        ^3 


s 

i  3 


IK 


%ojnv3jo^     ^oj 


^    ^ 


I    6 


<*?*       sir1 


^         = 


£       I 


*"      ii 

^     I 

I     1 


5       § 

i     > 


i  i 


i  1 


s       < 

^          22 


I  S^siS    I 

<^    5^^     ? 

W^JAINil  W> 


